"gareth" wrote in message
...
I wonder if some more experienced and senior (in the literal sense) amateur
could explain to me one difficulty that I have in understanding single
signal
reception with the crystal phasing control?
AIUI, the phasing control is adjusted so that the frequency that would
give
the audio image is phased out by being in the notch.
If that is true, how is it then possible to adjust the BFO to a
pleasant-for-you tone,
because such adjustment will alter the CIO frequency?
Surely the BFO has to be set in advance to be halfway between the serial
resonant
frequency and the notchable parallel resonant frequency?
This is a query stimulated by my current project which is to build a
boatanchor style
RX, with a flywheel-loaded slide rule dial like that of the Eddystone EA12



This subject matter illustrates a saying of Mrs.Nugatory, "For those who
know the
subject matter, no explanation is necessary, but for those who don't, no
explanation
is possible".

And what a pity that Mrs.Nugatory has not blessed us with her opinion, for I
feel
sure that she is the one person who would have the answer at her fingertips,
resulting
from her experiences with the HRO series of receivers.

But what I don't understand is the allegation of abuse laid at my door (in
many cases
by people who used it as an excuse to heap abuse in my direction;
particularly the Baying
Mob from ura most of whom have joined the thread, not to contribute to it,
but merely
as a vehicle to express their own infantile habituation) because I have
informed those who
have gone off at a tangent, but otherwise thanked them for their
contributions.

How is that abusive? Would it not have been ruder to ignore irrelevant
contributions without
acknowledging them?

But the fact remains that for those who understand the use of a crystal
phasing control in pre-1950
receivers that the questions as posed above are as completely informative as
is necessary.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2013 7:09 PM, gareth wrote:
"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gareth" wrote:
snip
You're still missing the point that in addition to the peak response,
there
is
also a deep null.
No I'm not! It can be adjusted with the 'phase' control to null a signal
*at IF* near to the wanted one. Adjusting the position of the null has
no affect on beat frequency with the wanted signal, or the beat
frequency of the unwanted signal (it gives the BFO a less strong IF
interfering signal to beat with but it does not affect the frequency of
the beat note, just the loudness). Tuning the BFO has no effect on the
null. The two controls do not interact, though they both have an affect
on readability.
Straw Man
To call you an idiot would be an insult to idiots everywhere.

Infantile

PLONK!

"Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message
o.uk...

You asked for input from "experienced and senior" folk and yet you've been
rude and dismissive of such input. Why do you act down to Mr. Reay's
earlier characterisation of yourself? I'd like to see him proved wrong -
but that is a matter entirely in your hands, Gareth.

Infantile

PLONK!

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:14:17 +0100, gareth wrote:


Infantile

PLONK!

Fixed it for you.

"gareth" wrote in message
...

Infantile

PLONKER!



We know you are.

In article ,
"gareth" wrote:



But the fact remains that for those who understand the use of a crystal
phasing control in pre-1950
receivers that the questions as posed above are as completely informative as
is necessary.

And you have had your answer - the tuning of the BFO has no effect on
the phasing control and vice versa. Do you not believe the answer?

--

Percy Picacity

On 26/08/13 18:47, Fred Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:59:07 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole
wrote:

I'm tempted to write to OFCOM and point out this loophole, truth be told.
This is a backdoor that needs to be locked shut, quick.

Quick Brian! Someone is trying to steal your blue flashing light! ROFL
- what a tool..

He'll have to close the HAREC loophole too.

I can imagine Ofcom's response to that, but he's probably already got a
more polite version from his backscratching supporters.

oops... that should be 'backchannel supporters'


--
Spike

On 27/08/13 09:47, Fred Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:04:01 +0100, Spike wrote:

He'll have to close the HAREC loophole too.

I can imagine Ofcom's response to that, but he's probably already got a
more polite version from his backscratching supporters.

He's drafting the first RFD in Ofcoms history as we speak ;-)

oops... that should be 'backchannel supporters'

I prefer "backend" or "arse end" myself..

Very approporiate!

I see RFD3 has hit the stands, and is generating much apathy.


--
Spike

On 27/08/13 09:50, Spike wrote:

I see RFD3 has hit the stands, and is generating much apathy.

This (in part) from Pedt in unnm;

"It a nutshell, you are making it 11 votes easier to litter the
hierarchy with little or never used groups and you are making it 6 votes
easier to forcibly delete a group in the face of opposition from the
users of the group. Neither has any benefit to the hierarchy. "

Agenda rumbled.

--
Spike

"Percy Picacity" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"gareth" wrote:

But the fact remains that for those who understand the use of a crystal
phasing control in pre-1950
receivers that the questions as posed above are as completely informative
as
is necessary.
And you have had your answer - the tuning of the BFO has no effect on
the phasing control and vice versa. Do you not believe the answer?

Stating the bleeding obvious which we all knew any way is about as useful
and as relevant as quoting Newton's laws of motion; for neither are an
appropriate
response to the query as originally put.

I refer you page 79 of the previously mentioned book.