Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
mm0fmf wrote:
snip

Of course none of us would **** on Burt if he were on fire. Apart from
Dicky 'Rimjob' Brown. But that's because he's trying to hide the fact
he
lied about his licence level.

You say "none of us" - there are only three of you! Most group users
don't particularly love Reay and his acolytes much more than Spike, I
would think.

I'd **** on Burt if he weren't on fire. Does that make you feel better,
Rog? I'd also put a dog dirt through his letterbox.

Quite so. But there are still only three of you.


If I were you, Rog, I wouldn't take a straw poll on how many of the group's
regulars would put a dog dirt through your letterbox.

I wouldn't do that to anybody......

Thanks for the re****, Jim.

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 15 Oct 2018 19:36:42 GMT
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Geoff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 16:46:06 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 11:57, Geoff wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:55:13 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 11:44, Geoff wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:39:58 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 11:04, Geoff wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 08:50:13 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 01:32, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

wrote:

Gareth once complained about a mobile CB set-up he
installed in a 4x4 couldn’t reach further
than a quarter mile. That’s all you need
to know about Gareth and radio.

He probably didn't need any antenna at 1/4 mile (400
meters).

snip interesting detection story

Stephen Thomas Cole, the PP, just after gaining his UK Full
licence by 'acing' all three exams, appeared on a UK Amateur
group asking which sideband he should use on 40m. That's all
you need to know about him and and his ability with
radio.

That sounds interesting - can you provide a link to that
post?

No. For some reason it's been deleted.

Then we only have your word that it ever exsisted. I choose not
to believe a word of it.

'It's been deleted' means it did exsist. You can't delete was was
never posted. You might ask yourself why it was deleted. That's
all you need to know about his ego and and his ability with
radio.

We only have your word for any of that. I choose not to believe a
word of it.

JFTR the offending message was posted in the group
free.uk.amateur-radio, on the 1st of December 2013. Some news
servers will carry messages this far back, the one used for this
exercise has messages back to 27 June 2003. Downloading all
available messages from that group shows that the offending
message has 'disappeared'.

We only have your word for that. I choose not to believe you.

A
response to the offending message remains and quotes in full the
original message. The OP's answer to that response has also
'disappeared'. The full text of the offending message was reposted
by the responder.

It's been reposted here too:

"Was pottering at my radio last night, heard the scream of data
being sent and was triggered to revisit a long parked project;
getting going on RTTY!

Here's the hardware I'm using:

Yaesu FT757-GXii Serial/USB cable interface thing PowerMac G4
running CocoaModem

I've got everything hooked up, have CocoaModem configured and
displaying a waterfall but when set to RTTY mode it's just decoding
gibberish...

Other than a couple of short spells at club days, this is my first
go at this and I have no idea what I'm doing... Any tips?


It confirms the confusion in the OP's mind concerning
which sideband to use on 40m, just as was stated.

No, it doesn't.

Even his followup: "Will do. I was doing this on 40m, so had the
rig on LSB. Would people use

USB for RTTY? Just Googled and I see LSB is customary for RTTY,
which I was

vaguely aware of... I need to do more reading!"


Confirms that he knew which sideband to use on 40. It's RTTY that he
has the doubt about.

.
It is left to others
to speculate on why two such embarrassing messages should have
'disappeared' out of the 530+ from the OP that remain. The original
message can be found on Google Groups:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!or...A/_ityI76x0IMJ


Feel free to choose to believe what you will.


I believe that you are a bitter, spiteful old man who will say
whatever suits his ends.

I think Burt’s gotten to.


Steve, Burt's up to his neck in ****ed-up-juice, Steve.


Steve, all he can do is spit, Steve.


Steve, Thanks, Steve.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"Gareth's Downstairs Computer"
wrote in message
news
On 14/10/2018 23:14, Ralph Mowery wrote:

I think the tests have gotten away from the technical part of ham radio
and are now geared more to the operating practices.

It is never too late to correct such an egregious mistake, for
operating as such is CB Radio whereas Amateur / Ham Radio is a
whole-life technical pursuit.


I have been persuing an HRO500 since the 60's ..........



I once saw a Galaxy R-530, a somewhat similar general coverage receiver,
but from later in the sixties. All I'd ever seen was the ads, it was
actually bigger than I expected. I have no idea how that landed in a
local's hands, but I sort of knew the guy who bought it, and he seemed
ahppy. This was about 20 years ago.

Michael

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Ralph Mowery wrote:

In article ,
says...

Consider a 2 tone signal at the 9MHz USB IF, comprising 900Hz and
1300Hz tones.

The components will be 9.0009 and 9.0013

Subtract the VFO at 5.5MHz:

9.0009 - 5.5 = 3.50009
9.0013 - 5.5 = 3.50013

Nothing has been inverted. The 80m signal is still upper sideband.

GB3BERNIE

Ralph is posting from rec.radio.amateur.antenna and google groups
strips the crosspost - without a repeater, he's not going to answer you.





Try it the other way around and use a ssb generated at 5 mhz and the vfo
at 9 mhz. It is difficult for me to remember which was used for the vfo
and ssb generator.

I think the origins are with a 5MHz IF. This has come up before, the same
explanation given, yet if I wasn't sick and did the figuring, I think it's
that the 9Mhz one wasn't it, but a 5MHz IF does do the inversion.

But I can't remember what rig had a 5MHz IF. THey existed, but the ones I
can think of came later. So maybe it was a phasing rig, but which did
conversion rather than generate the SSB signal on the signal frequency.
The Central Electronics 10 transmitter maybe, reinforced by their later
20, but I havent' checked.

There was a popular rig in QST that worked out the figures so the low IF
was converted up to an intermediate frequency with one crystal, one caused
no inversion, but if you multiplied the crystal frequency by three, it was
high side and inverted the sideband. But since it did both sidebands, it
wouldn't have been a standard for LSB below a certain frequency, There
were early ssb rigs that didn't have selectable sideband, they just picked
conversion frequency properly so below 10MHz, it was LSB, and above was
USB. Since nobody used the opposite sideband, no need for a switch.

Michael

Stephen Thomas Troll wrote:
On 15 Oct 2018 19:36:42 GMT
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Geoff wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 16:46:06 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 11:57, Geoff wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:55:13 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 11:44, Geoff wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:39:58 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 11:04, Geoff wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 08:50:13 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 14/10/2018 01:32, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

wrote:

Gareth once complained about a mobile CB set-up he
installed in a 4x4 couldn’t reach further
than a quarter mile. That’s all you need
to know about Gareth and radio.

He probably didn't need any antenna at 1/4 mile (400
meters).

snip interesting detection story

Stephen Thomas Cole, the PP, just after gaining his UK Full
licence by 'acing' all three exams, appeared on a UK Amateur
group asking which sideband he should use on 40m. That's all
you need to know about him and and his ability with
radio.

That sounds interesting - can you provide a link to that
post?

No. For some reason it's been deleted.

Then we only have your word that it ever exsisted. I choose not
to believe a word of it.

'It's been deleted' means it did exsist. You can't delete was was
never posted. You might ask yourself why it was deleted. That's
all you need to know about his ego and and his ability with
radio.

We only have your word for any of that. I choose not to believe a
word of it.

JFTR the offending message was posted in the group
free.uk.amateur-radio, on the 1st of December 2013. Some news
servers will carry messages this far back, the one used for this
exercise has messages back to 27 June 2003. Downloading all
available messages from that group shows that the offending
message has 'disappeared'.

We only have your word for that. I choose not to believe you.

A
response to the offending message remains and quotes in full the
original message. The OP's answer to that response has also
'disappeared'. The full text of the offending message was reposted
by the responder.

It's been reposted here too:

"Was pottering at my radio last night, heard the scream of data
being sent and was triggered to revisit a long parked project;
getting going on RTTY!

Here's the hardware I'm using:

Yaesu FT757-GXii Serial/USB cable interface thing PowerMac G4
running CocoaModem

I've got everything hooked up, have CocoaModem configured and
displaying a waterfall but when set to RTTY mode it's just decoding
gibberish...

Other than a couple of short spells at club days, this is my first
go at this and I have no idea what I'm doing... Any tips?


It confirms the confusion in the OP's mind concerning
which sideband to use on 40m, just as was stated.

No, it doesn't.

Even his followup: "Will do. I was doing this on 40m, so had the
rig on LSB. Would people use

USB for RTTY? Just Googled and I see LSB is customary for RTTY,
which I was

vaguely aware of... I need to do more reading!"


Confirms that he knew which sideband to use on 40. It's RTTY that he
has the doubt about.

.
It is left to others
to speculate on why two such embarrassing messages should have
'disappeared' out of the 530+ from the OP that remain. The original
message can be found on Google Groups:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!or...A/_ityI76x0IMJ



Feel free to choose to believe what you will.


I believe that you are a bitter, spiteful old man who will say
whatever suits his ends.

I think Burt’s gotten to.


Steve, Burt's up to his neck in ****ed-up-juice, Steve.


Steve, all he can do is spit, Steve.


Steve, Thanks, Steve.

I suppose, when you think about it, Burt’s the usual suspect that my
presence here has caused most trouble for. I mean, it was in the middle of
his obsessed grandstanding against me I unn.config that he dropped that
Burton Bradstock bollock and my continual referencing of that starting from
a couple of months later has permanently involuntarily renamed him.
Additionally, it’s also down to me that whenever a ukra regular hears the
term “car aerial� they see in their mind’s eye Burt crying in his living
room as two small children throw stones at his windows. Poor Old Burt, the
scrotum-necked feeble ****. Years of show ponying and smuggery he’d
invested in building up his ukra profile, and it’s all gone down the drain.
He’s very bitter about it.

The only other poster I’ve possibly derailed near as much as Burt is Rich,
which I sometimes feel a bit (intermediately?) bad about as he’s just a
dozy bugger rather than a Full arsehole, but it can’t be helped.

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.20.1810152215530.24529@thrush...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"Gareth's Downstairs Computer"
wrote in message
news
On 14/10/2018 23:14, Ralph Mowery wrote:

I think the tests have gotten away from the technical part of ham radio
and are now geared more to the operating practices.

It is never too late to correct such an egregious mistake, for
operating as such is CB Radio whereas Amateur / Ham Radio is a
whole-life technical pursuit.


I have been persuing an HRO500 since the 60's ..........



I once saw a Galaxy R-530, a somewhat similar general coverage receiver,
but from later in the sixties. All I'd ever seen was the ads, it was
actually bigger than I expected. I have no idea how that landed in a
local's hands, but I sort of knew the guy who bought it, and he seemed
ahppy. This was about 20 years ago.

Michael


never seen any galaxy gear......still want an SX101A but they are too big my
HRO500 is big enough...running out of space...have to sell some stuff.....

On 15/10/2018 16:45, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:16:14 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 15/10/2018 01:20, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:12:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Since you prefer a minimalist approach to test equipment, as an
alternative to your light bulb, may I suggest a return loss bridge:
https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge&tbm=isch
Note that there are several basic designs and configurations but all
are fairly simple and easy to construct. Note that these are NOT the
same as directional couplers.

To use it, you need a minimum of an RF signal generator and a
voltmeter or oscilloscope. I prefer to sweep the frequency range of
interest, so I use an RF sweep generator, and display the result on an
oscilloscope. With this arrangement, you can tune your antenna
without requiring a light bulb.

So, let me get this right. By employing a return-loss bridge, an RF
signal generator, and either a voltmeter or an oscilloscope, you can get
results that a distant station can't distinguish from those obtained by
using a torch bulb?

No. Per my previous rant, if your intent is "to be able to transmit
signals intended to be received by another station", then a light bulb
will suffice at producing the desired result. If your intent is to
design the best possible antenna, then you'll need something better.
If you just want to talk to someone, almost any kind of RF metering
device is sufficient.

There have been plenty of accounts of comparing various types of
antennas. For example, PSK Reporter is a good way to perform such a
test, where one can actually see the effects of antenna changes.
https://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html
What I've found is that such side by side comparisons do not account
for variations in propagation, path, interference, local noise, time
of day, position of the moon, and other factors beyond the operators
control. A given antenna might be far superior under one set of
condition, and rather disgusting under another. Most signal reports
also tend to be very subjective, inaccurate, and not repeatable.

If you are using a light built to tune a commercial antenna, which has
already been optimized in extensive lab and field tests, I suspect
that it is likely that a light bulb will give a similar result a
proper VSWR measuring device. (Actually, that's not quite correct
because I don't tune my antennas for minimum VSWR). However, that's
not why someone purchases and uses a VNA or swept return loss bridge.
They use these because they're building their own antenna, or
optimizing a commercial antenna. Once the antenna has been properly
tuned and tweaked, the VNA and return loss bridge are no longer needed
unless something changes.

Incidentally, I use a remote field strength meter to compare antennas.
It has it's limitations, but it's better than using VSWR or maximum
antenna current as in your light bulb method.

Given your ability to estimate the performance of an antenna by looking
at it rather than employ modelling methods, I would have though you
would be sympathetic to the merits of the torch bulb approach.

Since you seem impressed with my powers of observation, it might be
useful to know that to the best of my limited knowledge, light bulbs
went out of fashion in the 1930's, to be replaced by thermocouple
antenna current meters.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermocouple+rf+ammeter&tbm=isch
It is much easier to see changes in a meter deflection than changes in
light bulb intensity, unless you also use a light meter. If you
select different light bulbs for different power levels, you might be
able to keep the losses to a minimum.

In any case, a VNA or even a return loss bridge is not for you. There
are plenty of things one can do with ham radio including "to be able
to transmit signals intended to be received by another station". You
seem intent on using the oldest and most crude methods of
accomplishing this. That's fine as there is room for retro-radio,
antique radio techniques, and preserving historical technology. I
would guess(tm) that your radios all use tube (thermionic valves) and
that you tune the transmitter for maximum cherry red glow in the
finals. Best of luck, but that's not for me.

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him an internet group to manage"

Spike wrote:
On 15/10/2018 16:45, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:16:14 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 15/10/2018 01:20, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:12:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Since you prefer a minimalist approach to test equipment, as an
alternative to your light bulb, may I suggest a return loss bridge:
https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge&tbm=isch
Note that there are several basic designs and configurations but all
are fairly simple and easy to construct. Note that these are NOT the
same as directional couplers.

To use it, you need a minimum of an RF signal generator and a
voltmeter or oscilloscope. I prefer to sweep the frequency range of
interest, so I use an RF sweep generator, and display the result on an
oscilloscope. With this arrangement, you can tune your antenna
without requiring a light bulb.

So, let me get this right. By employing a return-loss bridge, an RF
signal generator, and either a voltmeter or an oscilloscope, you can get
results that a distant station can't distinguish from those obtained by
using a torch bulb?

No. Per my previous rant, if your intent is "to be able to transmit
signals intended to be received by another station", then a light bulb
will suffice at producing the desired result. If your intent is to
design the best possible antenna, then you'll need something better.
If you just want to talk to someone, almost any kind of RF metering
device is sufficient.

There have been plenty of accounts of comparing various types of
antennas. For example, PSK Reporter is a good way to perform such a
test, where one can actually see the effects of antenna changes.
https://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html
What I've found is that such side by side comparisons do not account
for variations in propagation, path, interference, local noise, time
of day, position of the moon, and other factors beyond the operators
control. A given antenna might be far superior under one set of
condition, and rather disgusting under another. Most signal reports
also tend to be very subjective, inaccurate, and not repeatable.

If you are using a light built to tune a commercial antenna, which has
already been optimized in extensive lab and field tests, I suspect
that it is likely that a light bulb will give a similar result a
proper VSWR measuring device. (Actually, that's not quite correct
because I don't tune my antennas for minimum VSWR). However, that's
not why someone purchases and uses a VNA or swept return loss bridge.
They use these because they're building their own antenna, or
optimizing a commercial antenna. Once the antenna has been properly
tuned and tweaked, the VNA and return loss bridge are no longer needed
unless something changes.

Incidentally, I use a remote field strength meter to compare antennas.
It has it's limitations, but it's better than using VSWR or maximum
antenna current as in your light bulb method.

Given your ability to estimate the performance of an antenna by looking
at it rather than employ modelling methods, I would have though you
would be sympathetic to the merits of the torch bulb approach.

Since you seem impressed with my powers of observation, it might be
useful to know that to the best of my limited knowledge, light bulbs
went out of fashion in the 1930's, to be replaced by thermocouple
antenna current meters.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thermocouple+rf+ammeter&tbm=isch
It is much easier to see changes in a meter deflection than changes in
light bulb intensity, unless you also use a light meter. If you
select different light bulbs for different power levels, you might be
able to keep the losses to a minimum.

In any case, a VNA or even a return loss bridge is not for you. There
are plenty of things one can do with ham radio including "to be able
to transmit signals intended to be received by another station". You
seem intent on using the oldest and most crude methods of
accomplishing this. That's fine as there is room for retro-radio,
antique radio techniques, and preserving historical technology. I
would guess(tm) that your radios all use tube (thermionic valves) and
that you tune the transmitter for maximum cherry red glow in the
finals. Best of luck, but that's not for me.

Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes
my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the
one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the
received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a
20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the
system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side
comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path,
interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other
factors beyond the operators control".


#Waves

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 16/10/2018 08:08, Jeff wrote:

I'm fairly sure the SSB was generated at 9MHz. Googling for a
reminder, I find a large number of 9MHz sideband crystal filters
available, while nothing for 5MHz. Presumably, the 9MHz sideband
crystal filter is use for both the receiver IF filter and in the
exciter SSB generator to strip off the unwanted sideband.

You are correct 9MHzwas a common IF for both tx & rx.

A common way of generating both usb and lsb was to have 2 switched
crystals with frequencies just above and below 9MHz in the oscillator,
feeding a balanced mixer, before the xtal filter, and switch depending
on which sideband you required.

Is there a mathematician on here that can explain the maths of sideband
inversion/retention?


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him an internet group to manage"

On 16/10/2018 09:14, Jeff wrote:

A common way of generating both usb and lsb was to have 2 switched
crystals with frequencies just above and below 9MHz in the oscillator,
feeding a balanced mixer, before the xtal filter, and switch depending
on which sideband you required.

Is there a mathematician on here that can explain the maths of sideband
inversion/retention?

No inversion is required with this method.

If you feed a ~9MHz signal and audio into a balanced mixer the output
will be both sidebands plus a suppressed carrier.

Your xtal filter is ~2.4kHz wide centred on 9MHz, so if you move the
frequency of the ~9Mhz signal (switch a crystal) going into the balanced
mixer either above or below 9MHz you can select which side band goes
through your filter.

Simples.

Wasn't a similar system used in the Yaesu FT-200 (9MHz IF, 5 MHz VFO)?

IIRC the set had a NORM/INV sideband switch.


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity,
but if you want to test a man's character,
give him an internet group to manage"