On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:45:57 -0800, Jim wrote:

I think that you need to ask the author.

Hi Jim,

There are too many indifferent scribblers to merit reading them, much
less entering into a dialog when they already demonstrate a lack of
communication skill. I tried that for years with Art.

Having said that, your suggested link did reveal someone who looked at
the problem carefully and laid out the steps taken to achieve a
result. What was missing was motivation, and a connection to reality
(not being smart-assed, just wondering about the extra components
decorating the schematic is all).

I would say that he used some ideal values as a place to start with.
Kind of a 'what if.'

The "What if" is demonstrated, and it certainly gives scope. However,
ideal circuit values are far from apparent. It is just as easy to use
values any Xtal set owner might find exhibited by his window screen,
as contrasted starting with a full size BCB antenna with an odd
reactive component tossed in for spice (excuse the pun, but it works
at all levels). In other words, it takes absolutely no more effort to
model what one can reasonably expect to find at home, than to go to a
broadcast station and borrow their sky hook (and then antagonize the
Field Engineer by tossing in a haphazard capacitor).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:45:57 -0800, Jim wrote:

I think that you need to ask the author.

Hi Jim,

There are too many indifferent scribblers to merit reading them, much
less entering into a dialog when they already demonstrate a lack of
communication skill. I tried that for years with Art.

How do you know this author would not be interested in your comments? He has
presented much more than Art has in the past 10 years.


Having said that, your suggested link did reveal someone who looked at
the problem carefully and laid out the steps taken to achieve a
result. What was missing was motivation, and a connection to reality
(not being smart-assed, just wondering about the extra components
decorating the schematic is all).

Which components did you determine to be 'extra' and why?



I would say that he used some ideal values as a place to start with.
Kind of a 'what if.'

The "What if" is demonstrated, and it certainly gives scope. However,
ideal circuit values are far from apparent. It is just as easy to use
values any Xtal set owner might find exhibited by his window screen,
as contrasted starting with a full size BCB antenna with an odd
reactive component tossed in for spice (excuse the pun, but it works
at all levels).

So, what values would you suggest?

In other words, it takes absolutely no more effort to
model what one can reasonably expect to find at home, than to go to a
broadcast station and borrow their sky hook (and then antagonize the
Field Engineer by tossing in a haphazard capacitor).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You talk like the pdf had significant faults, but your reply is so vague
that you don't really add anything. Please share you understanding so that
others may learn.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:43:35 -0600, joe wrote:

Which components did you determine to be 'extra' and why?

Hi Joe,

To enumerate:
Ra, 50 Ohms
Ca, 40pF
R1, 308 KOhms
D1, a selection criteria of 200nA Ir
Co, 200pF
and
Ro, 154 KOhms

The question why? you apply to me is as easily asked of the author
because he says nothing on their choice, which give every appearance
of being capricious.

Let's look at the last first, in the audio output we have a high
frequency cutoff knee of 32 KHz, why? I can think of nothing to
justify that selection that is 10 times outside of the passband.

We have an audio load of 154 KOhms, why? I can well imagine this
being a piezo headset, but is it an optimal load (it would appear that
the diode needs a heavier current draw than that). It is not a
standard resistor value, so there must be some motivation for this
value - but that is left to our imagination.

D1, a selection criteria of 200nA Ir, why? Is this a good selection,
or a bad one? Again, lacking the information of motivation....

R1 appears to be inserted on the basis of an anticipated Q, a topic
that is wholly absent from the computations and discussion! Why? This
is the component I thought of as being "extra."

Ca and Ra have already been decried, and the Ca placement looks
suspiciously on the wrong side of Ra.

So, what values would you suggest?

I cannot imagine trying to figure out the agenda for the author. The
piece is wholly unmotivated beyond being an etude of computation.

The values for Ra and XCa are infinite in possibilities. For the
average BCBer with limited antenna options, Ra would typically be low,
maybe an Ohm at the very highest (and probably much less). XCa would
be high, maybe a KOhm (but not suspiciously high like the current 7
KOhms). As you can see, the differences from the original are
considerable.

You talk like the pdf had significant faults, but your reply is so vague
that you don't really add anything. Please share you understanding so that
others may learn.

Please reread my comments for praise where praise was due. If the
rest sounded vague, it was entirely due to the vague material offered.
Consider that also.

Further, asking me why don't I do ______ (fill in the blank), I have
no interest in pushing that rock up the hill - but thanx for asking.

I am far more interested in the detector side of this, but the Xtal
radio brotherhood approach this like Penitentes continuously flogging
themselves in order to attain a religious high.

I would choose a quasi-digital solution with a shift ring register
commutation style of detection. But that means I need a battery
(ANATHEMA!!! I hear the cowled acolytes sputtering). If I use a
battery I could as easily, sinfully listen to a transistor radio - and
my MP3 player already suits my needs with its built in radio function.

40 years ago I worked on BaseBand sets and designed with synchronous
detectors. This is all very interesting to me from my former
devotion, but this XTAL splinter is rather provincial.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

@amdx: thank you! Will peruse.

@Richard: praise!

maaaybe we could adjourn to alt.techno-shamanism

"FCC per Anna Scarpetta" wrote in message
...
@amdx: thank you! Will peruse.

@Richard: praise!

maaaybe we could adjourn to alt.techno-shamanism

Not yet,
I still want Richard to act like he understands that
the diode characteristics are important and the diode must be
selected to match the circuit and received station signal strength.
BTW, what is the name of the teaching method where the teacher
questions every statement made? Wasn't it named after some famous
teacher/philosopher?
MikeK

On Nov 23, 7:43*am, "amdx" wrote:
"FCC per Anna Scarpetta" wrote in ...

@amdx: thank you! Will peruse.

@Richard: praise!

maaaybe we could adjourn to alt.techno-shamanism

* Not yet,
I still want Richard to act like he understands that
the diode characteristics are important and the diode must be
selected to match the circuit and received station signal strength.
* BTW, what is the name of the teaching method where the teacher
questions every statement made? Wasn't it named after some famous
teacher/philosopher?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MikeK

But what is the practicality of getting this type of match when the
impedance of the circuit changes every time you change frequency or
any other parameter. Search for such an optimum match is truly a
"fools errand". Just one of the reason most people dont listen to the
ballgame on a crystal set anymore.


Jimmie

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 7:43 am, "amdx" wrote:
"FCC per Anna Scarpetta" wrote in
...

@amdx: thank you! Will peruse.

@Richard: praise!

maaaybe we could adjourn to alt.techno-shamanism

Not yet,
I still want Richard to act like he understands that
the diode characteristics are important and the diode must be
selected to match the circuit and received station signal strength.
BTW, what is the name of the teaching method where the teacher
questions every statement made? Wasn't it named after some famous
teacher/philosopher?
MikeK

But what is the practicality of getting this type of match when the
impedance of the circuit changes every time you change frequency or
any other parameter. Search for such an optimum match is truly a
"fools errand". Just one of the reason most people dont listen to the
ballgame on a crystal set anymore.
Jimmie

Just call this the equivalent of collecting beanie babies. Any help
you give is like saying, Hey there's one at the yard sale down the road.
Suum cuique.
MikeK

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:43:22 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

I still want Richard to act like he understands that
the diode characteristics are important

Hi Mike,

This expectation is somewhat disconnected from your earlier acceptance
of my ordering of priorities through a figure of merit methodology.
This always works, or it reveals that the designer has a poor grasp on
what is valuable to him/her. There is absolutely nothing that anyone
can do about how assessed values shift in the mind of that designer.

and the diode must be
selected to match the circuit and received station signal strength.

That doesn't seem to be a solution for you. If you reread my posting
that ennumerated the priorities, one of which I incompletely quote
he
The detector is the variable of concern, it is defined by the current
necessary to drive the headset, everything surrounding the detector
has to conform to its choice.
then you will find it is the inverse statement you have just offered.

Focus on any other variable will present a greater dissappointment.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC