If you can wrestle with the knots of its
complexity, you can step up to more sophisticated issues.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

You need to chill out.

I've expressed this befo I don't need your imprimatur to post here.
This is an amateur group. As such, speculation on these matters need to
be welcomed, not derided.

I gladly defer to your expertise. However, I'll not defer to you in
speculative matters in an amateur venue.

You know, I really hate the term "outside the box", however, naive
perspectives, as you seem to deem mine, can be fruitful. Mutual respect
is the order of the day. If not, please refrain from responding.

"73's"
John
AB8WH

jawod wrote:
If you can wrestle with the knots of its

complexity, you can step up to more sophisticated issues.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Richard,

You need to chill out.

I've expressed this befo I don't need your imprimatur to post here.
This is an amateur group. As such, speculation on these matters need to
be welcomed, not derided.

I gladly defer to your expertise. However, I'll not defer to you in
speculative matters in an amateur venue.

You know, I really hate the term "outside the box", however, naive
perspectives, as you seem to deem mine, can be fruitful. Mutual respect
is the order of the day. If not, please refrain from responding.

"73's"
John
AB8WH

Obviously, maybe I'M the one that needs to chill out.

A good design process starts with brainstorming unfettered by
practicality. The next step is to take those ideas and start applying
filters to the set of ideas you came up with in the first place, and to
turn a more pragmatic eye toward the realities of those ideas.

In a thread like this, I think that people chime in on different steps
of this process. With something like adaptive beamforming, which is
not a new idea, a lot of the practicalities have been hashed out and a
lot of people already know about them.

I think it's worth avoiding the interpretation of responses as
reflecting on one's abilities or character or intelligence. Richard is
good at pointing out in some detail why a very hard problem is very
hard.

73,
Dan

wrote:
A good design process starts with brainstorming unfettered by
practicality. The next step is to take those ideas and start applying
filters to the set of ideas you came up with in the first place, and to
turn a more pragmatic eye toward the realities of those ideas.

In a thread like this, I think that people chime in on different steps
of this process. With something like adaptive beamforming, which is
not a new idea, a lot of the practicalities have been hashed out and a
lot of people already know about them.

I think it's worth avoiding the interpretation of responses as
reflecting on one's abilities or character or intelligence. Richard is
good at pointing out in some detail why a very hard problem is very
hard.

73,
Dan

Besides if it was so simple, MFJ would have had a product for sale by now!

Pat