|
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
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 |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth"
wrote: 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 The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is applied to the output of the filter. peter |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, gareth wrote:
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. When I had an SP-600, I don't remember using the phasing control much. I'd leave it somewhere, I'd set the BFO and all was generally fine. When that type of filter came along, it didn't replace anything, it added something (so there was a wave of commercial receivers where you could get two models, one without the filter, the other with the filter). The single signal was because it suddenly did get rid of the audio image. Tghe phasing control doesn't really change that, it allows some level of control and you also get a notch at the same time. DOn't forget the crystal gave really quite high selectivity, the phasing was simply to balance out the capacitance of the crystal holder. Since this added some control, you'd see the phasing control on the front panel. Most of those filters had a selectivity switch, which would vary the amount of loading of the output of the crystal filter, which allowed for varying selectivity (though since it was only one crystal, the skirt selectivity wasn't that great). The wider the filter was, the less effect the phasing control would have on it. Which is likely why I never saw much use in the phasing control on that SP-600, I'd generally keep it at 3KHz MIchael VE2BVW 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 |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Peter" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth" wrote: 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 The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is applied to the output of the filter. Thanks, but I think that you may have missed the point. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1308241914010.27526@darkstar. example.org... On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, gareth wrote: 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. When I had an SP-600, I don't remember using the phasing control much. I'd leave it somewhere, I'd set the BFO and all was generally fine. When that type of filter came along, it didn't replace anything, it added something (so there was a wave of commercial receivers where you could get two models, one without the filter, the other with the filter). The single signal was because it suddenly did get rid of the audio image. I think that it can only do that if the CIO / BFO is half way between the peak and the notch? Tghe phasing control doesn't really change that, it allows some level of control and you also get a notch at the same time. If the notch is variable, then it will be some other audio frequency which would be notched out (clearly you'd go for the most troublesome interference, but that would not necessarily be the audio image) TNX FER contribution OM |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"gareth" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth" wrote: 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 The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is applied to the output of the filter. Thanks, but I think that you may have missed the point. IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you elaborated the point that you think he is missing. PA |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message
o.uk... "gareth" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth" wrote: 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 The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is applied to the output of the filter. Thanks, but I think that you may have missed the point. IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you elaborated the point that you think he is missing. Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
gareth wrote:
"Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you elaborated the point that you think he is missing. Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head. Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the filter somewhat (but not really all that much). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
In message , Scott Dorsey
writes gareth wrote: "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you elaborated the point that you think he is missing. Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head. Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the filter somewhat (but not really all that much). --scott The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side). -- Ian |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... gareth wrote: "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you elaborated the point that you think he is missing. Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head. Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the filter somewhat (but not really all that much). A single crystal-plus-phasing-control is NOT a bandpass filter. It is a SINGLE crystal that has a series-resonant peak and a parallel-resonant notch, and it is most certainly not a symmetrical response curve. The phasing control affects the frequency of the parallel-resonant notch. The reason for my query is that googling threw up the instructions for a Hallicrafters (SX42, I think) that suggested that the BFO could be adjusted AFTER the setting of the phasing control, when it seemed to me that such action would move the position of the notch AWAY from the audio image and thus lost the single-signal facility. But thanks for your contribution. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
... In message , Scott Dorsey writes gareth wrote: "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you elaborated the point that you think he is missing. Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head. Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the filter somewhat (but not really all that much). --scott The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side). Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of single-signal reception in which I am interested. Have you any clues about that, please? |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/24/2013 03:06 PM, gareth wrote:
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 Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc. Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue. Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who have attempted to answer your ill-formed query. I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase. Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during the zeroth +1 day of April. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/25/2013 09:13 AM, gareth wrote:
/plonk/ |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message ... Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc. Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue. Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who have attempted to answer your ill-formed query. I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase. Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during the zeroth +1 day of April. If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you presented a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness above would seem to be Freudian Projection. I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and corrected those who misunderstood the issues. Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU did not explain yourself properly. There is nothing lacking in my original query for those who would be knowledgeable about single crystals together with their phasing controls. That you muddy the water with talk of Tchebychev etc suggests that you are not amongst their number. There is a tremendous amount lacking from your original query. That you don't know how Tchebychev, Butterworth and other filter types are pertinent to your question shows your lack of knowledge. Yet you try to claim everyone else is ignorant - when you are asking the question. The BFO is entirely relevant to be sat 1/2 way between the peak and the notch so that the audio image would be removed. Nevertheless, thank-you for your (immature) contribution. The BFO is not relevant to the crystal filter. The relationship between the filter's bandpass and the BFO frequency can be relevant. And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be "enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967, (in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or provided non-pertinent information. Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"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 Thanks to all those who have attempted to reply. As to rudeness, you might find it interesting to look at the thread as it appears in uk.radio.amateur, where a couple of children are trying to ensure that their infantile remarks do not reach a wider audience by removing the cross-posts. Once again, thanks to all those who have attempted to reply, but I have now found the answers by reference to my collection of old electircal engineering texts, specifically the 11th, 1947, edition of "Radio Handbook" published by Editors and Engineers Ltd of Sanata Barbara, California. Perhaps it should have been the first place to look, a book published at the time the technique was extant? :-) |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
... On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote: "philo " wrote in message ... Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc. Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue. Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who have attempted to answer your ill-formed query. I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase. Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during the zeroth +1 day of April. If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you presented a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness above would seem to be Freudian Projection. I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and corrected those who misunderstood the issues. Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU did not explain yourself properly. Grow up. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
In message , gareth
writes "Ian Jackson" wrote in message ... In message , Scott Dorsey writes gareth wrote: "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you elaborated the point that you think he is missing. Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head. Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the filter somewhat (but not really all that much). --scott The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side). Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of single-signal reception in which I am interested. Have you any clues about that, please? The only clue I can offer is that 'single-signal reception' is vague - but presumably self-explanatory, ie the filtering is very narrow, enabling you to receive only one signal (unless you have more than one on or very close to the same frequency). It's a term that I recall being around when I were a lad, but I can't say I've heard it much since. I guess it's been replaced by more scientific descriptions of how good the filtering is. -- Ian |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 8/25/2013 10:26 AM, gareth wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote: "philo " wrote in message ... Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc. Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue. Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who have attempted to answer your ill-formed query. I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase. Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during the zeroth +1 day of April. If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you presented a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness above would seem to be Freudian Projection. I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and corrected those who misunderstood the issues. Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU did not explain yourself properly. Grow up. Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this is pretty normal operation for you. But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED people ask questions. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. ================== |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
... Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of single-signal reception in which I am interested. Have you any clues about that, please? The only clue I can offer is that 'single-signal reception' is vague - but presumably self-explanatory, ie the filtering is very narrow, enabling you to receive only one signal (unless you have more than one on or very close to the same frequency). It's a term that I recall being around when I were a lad, but I can't say I've heard it much since. I guess it's been replaced by more scientific descriptions of how good the filtering is. Thank you, Ian. I have a vague memory of something in BadCon from about 40 years ago which related to setting up for single signal reception, which involved no further adjustments to phasing or BFO once it had been set. I am fairly sure, hence my enquiry that it involved phasing out the audio image as well as involving the peaking that comes from a single series resonant crystal. Hence my assumption that the BFO frequency must lie half way between the peak and the notch. I've no experience of such things. The HRO I had in my possession 20 years ago did not posses the crystal filter, but in an effort to speed up development of my RX project, it seemed to me that a single crystal filter would be an easier starting point than a ladder filter. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/25/2013 09:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
X snip And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be "enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967, (in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or provided non-pertinent information. Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed. In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize they are just trolling and no longer view their posts. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 25/08/2013 15:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. Those of us who have attempted to help this character in the past have the sense to avoid him. This thread has developed exactly as I expected, with his insulting those attempting to assist him. Needless to say, he will never share his supposed new found knowledge from the book he has 'found'. Big K and 1/T all over again! |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 8/25/2013 10:46 AM, philo wrote:
On 08/25/2013 09:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: X snip And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be "enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967, (in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or provided non-pertinent information. Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed. In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize they are just trolling and no longer view their posts. Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the confirmation. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. ================== |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/25/2013 09:48 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 25/08/2013 15:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. Those of us who have attempted to help this character in the past have the sense to avoid him. This thread has developed exactly as I expected, with his insulting those attempting to assist him. Needless to say, he will never share his supposed new found knowledge from the book he has 'found'. Big K and 1/T all over again! Well, even though the guy is a troll, I always try to make to best of everything. Though I had known about the "homebrew" group I had never before known of the existence of the "boatanchor" group. I can now relive the good old days. Through the years I have gotten rid of most of my "boatanchors" but happily still have my HQ-140-X |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/25/2013 10:26 AM, gareth wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote: "philo " wrote in message ... Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc. Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue. Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who have attempted to answer your ill-formed query. I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase. Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during the zeroth +1 day of April. If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you presented a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness above would seem to be Freudian Projection. I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and corrected those who misunderstood the issues. Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU did not explain yourself properly. Grow up. Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this is pretty normal operation for you. But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED people ask questions. Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head. -- If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff, it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking. Apologies! |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/25/2013 09:50 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/25/2013 10:46 AM, philo wrote: On 08/25/2013 09:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: X snip And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be "enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967, (in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or provided non-pertinent information. Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed. In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize they are just trolling and no longer view their posts. Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the confirmation. Well, I never let trolls bother me too much...but I suppose I should really check my own kill-filter to determine whether or not it's a Butterworth : ) |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 8/25/2013 10:52 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 8/25/2013 10:26 AM, gareth wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote: "philo " wrote in message ... Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc. Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue. Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who have attempted to answer your ill-formed query. I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase. Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during the zeroth +1 day of April. If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you presented a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness above would seem to be Freudian Projection. I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and corrected those who misunderstood the issues. Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU did not explain yourself properly. Grow up. Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this is pretty normal operation for you. But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED people ask questions. Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head. ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 8/25/2013 10:54 AM, philo wrote:
On 08/25/2013 09:50 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 8/25/2013 10:46 AM, philo wrote: On 08/25/2013 09:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: X snip And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be "enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967, (in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or provided non-pertinent information. Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed. In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize they are just trolling and no longer view their posts. Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the confirmation. Well, I never let trolls bother me too much...but I suppose I should really check my own kill-filter to determine whether or not it's a Butterworth : ) Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his ignorance). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/25/2013 09:52 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
snipped for brevity It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head. Even though I completely understood your statement, my brain always likes to see things in a humorous manner and often twists things around. I imagined , rather than a police officer subduing the troll who posted here... the officer in an inverted position. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Scott Dorsey writes: Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the filter somewhat (but not really all that much). The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side). Yes, and that notch is useful for eliminating a single interfering CW signal. But it's not useful for multiple interfering signals or much at all for SSB. "Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/25/2013 09:59 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/25/2013 10:54 AM, philo wrote: On 08/25/2013 09:50 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 8/25/2013 10:46 AM, philo wrote: On 08/25/2013 09:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: X snip And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be "enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967, (in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or provided non-pertinent information. Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly drive people away from trying to help you. Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed. In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize they are just trolling and no longer view their posts. Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the confirmation. Well, I never let trolls bother me too much...but I suppose I should really check my own kill-filter to determine whether or not it's a Butterworth : ) Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his ignorance). I just stuck that in their to give him a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.,,,but I should have just ignored the guy in the first place. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
... Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his ignorance). Grow up, OM, that you may disagree with a technical matter is nojustification for you to sling abusive remarks, perhaps in an attempt to make yourself feel better? A single crystal filter together with its phasing control both fed differentially from either side of a transformer secondary cannot be Butterworth, Tchebychev, Elliptical, Cohn or any other multi pole filter that you would care to posit, simply because there are only two poles As to not knowing the difference, it does appear that once again you exhibit Freudian projection. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Scott Dorsey writes: Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the filter somewhat (but not really all that much). The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side). Yes, and that notch is useful for eliminating a single interfering CW signal. But it's not useful for multiple interfering signals or much at all for SSB. "Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering. Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"gareth" wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his ignorance). Grow up, OM, that you may disagree with a technical matter is nojustification for you to sling abusive remarks, perhaps in an attempt to make yourself feel better? A single crystal filter together with its phasing control both fed differentially from either side of a transformer secondary cannot be Butterworth, Tchebychev, Elliptical, Cohn or any other multi pole filter that you would care to posit, simply because there are only two poles As to not knowing the difference, it does appear that once again you exhibit Freudian projection. That's it Gareth, when in over your head, keep swinging wildly! Ah, that indefatigable Welsh spirit! -- If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff, it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking. Apologies! |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?philo=A0?= wrote:
Well, even though the guy is a troll, I always try to make to best of everything. Though I had known about the "homebrew" group I had never before known of the existence of the "boatanchor" group. Welcome! It is a good place! Traffic is much lower than it used to be, but there are still plenty of interesting people hanging out here. I can now relive the good old days. Through the years I have gotten rid of most of my "boatanchors" but happily still have my HQ-140-X I had one of those when I was a novice and eventually did a horse-trade for an R-388 that made me a lot happier, but you can't really complain about any of those old rigs. You turn on the receiver and there are people talking and after a few decades that's still pretty cool. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
gareth wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message "Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering. Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... Needless to say, he will never share his supposed new found knowledge from the book he has 'found'. I will be quite happy to share the information with you, or, indeed any genuine enquirer who emails me, OM. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... gareth wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message "Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering. Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique from the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the norm today? Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it? No, it isn't. I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I do not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will will be likely to bin the lot. I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow progress in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now considering the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X. One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it is that single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the moment. |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 14:52:27 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head. IIRC that incident was unrelated to Gareth's behaviour and was in fact a result of the deranged imagination of your chubby chum. HTH |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
Anton Deque wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 14:52:27 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote: Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head. IIRC that incident was unrelated to Gareth's behaviour and was in fact a result of the deranged imagination of your chubby chum. HTH Nope, it stemmed directly from his behaviour online. Here's some clippings from the web: Radio ham Gareth Evans, G4SDW, was reported to have been arrested in connection with the harassment of an Internet chat room user. Now Mr Evans, 54, of Hardens Close, Chippenham SN15 3AA, has made a complaint to police that he was roughly treated during the arrest. But police say they are confident they acted within the law when arresting him. Mr Evans, who has been bailed pending further police inquiries, was arrested by six officers at his home on Monday 7th March 2005. He claims he was pinned to the floor by three police officers, while another put a boot on the side of his face and forced his head into the ground. He said: "They carried me out by the strap of the handcuffs which were biting against the bone." But Sergeant Matt Armstrong said officers had made a video recording of the arrest, "We are confident we acted within the law and if Mr Evans made a complaint then it will be fully investigated by the Police Professional Standards Department and could be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. "He was released on bail pending further inquiries." Mr Evans was kept in custody overnight at Melksham Police Station and subsequently made a complaint to Chief Superintendent Amanda Eveley. /// POLICE sergeant Richard Fullers name has been cleared after he was found not guilty of using unreasonable force to arrest a man. Radio ham Gareth Evans, 55, had complained Sgt Fuller, who lives near Devizes, had unnecessarily used his foot to force his head to the ground while he was being arrested at his home, in Hardens Close, Chippenham, in March. Magistrates in Chippenham found Sgt Fuller, a member of the force's armed response unit based in Devizes who has an unblemished career record, not guilty on the second day of his trial on Thursday, February 9. They said he had not intended to harm Mr Evans, who suffered superficial facial injuries, and had not used excessive or unreasonable force. He was alleged to have forced Mr Evans' head to the ground with his foot. Magistrates in Chippenham heard Mr Evans was arrested at his home in Hardens Close in connection with the harassment of an Internet chat room user a case which has since been dropped. The court was shown a video of the arrest and photographs of Mr Evans' facial injuries taken after the incident. Mr Evans, 55, spoke of his terror at the arrest, which used what he described as "agonising force". Giving evidence, he said: "I was upstairs in my office when I saw a number of police coming up the road. "I came down to the front door where they told me they were going to arrest me. "I was in a panic and extremely frightened by so many people. "I had been at the door for several minutes when I was suddenly thrown to the floor. It was completely uncalled for. "A handcuff had been put on to my left wrist with huge force. Eleven months later and the mark is still visible. I was in a panic that the same thing was going to happen to my right wrist and I was flailing around on the floor. "Mr Fuller was swearing at me continuously and I remember him saying to me I know what to do about this'. A boot was applied for my face and ground down hard and I gave a cry of distress. "I was lying on the floor pinned down by a number of officers. There was a feeling of despair as the handcuff was placed tightly around my other wrist." Peter Coombe, prosecuting, said the question wasn't whether the incident happened, but if it amounted to reasonable force. He said: "It was clear that Sgt Fuller lost his temper and used excessive force. "It was clearly motivated by anger and that is reflected by the remarks he made at the time. Mr Evans posed no risk of immediate violence. "The state entrusts police officers with the right and power to use force when necessary and must be guarded against using it in excess." Mr Evans was examined by a forensic pathologist who found the injury on his face consistent with contact of the boot of the type worn by Sgt Fuller. Nick Fridd, defending, said by last June Mr Evans had made 59 complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission about Wiltshire Constabulary. He said Mr Evans aired his views of the police force on the Internet, calling them the "we'll s***e all over you constabulary". He also said former police officer Roy Clarke, who was stabbed to death in his Melksham home in December 2004, "deserved what he got". When asked by Mr Fridd if he shouted and screamed during the arrest to draw the attention of his neighbours, Mr Evans replied: "No. I was in absolute agony. I've never known such pain." -- If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff, it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking. Apologies! |
Crystal phasing & single signal reception
On 08/25/2013 10:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?philo=A0?= wrote: Well, even though the guy is a troll, I always try to make to best of everything. Though I had known about the "homebrew" group I had never before known of the existence of the "boatanchor" group. Welcome! It is a good place! Traffic is much lower than it used to be, but there are still plenty of interesting people hanging out here. I can now relive the good old days. Through the years I have gotten rid of most of my "boatanchors" but happily still have my HQ-140-X I had one of those when I was a novice and eventually did a horse-trade for an R-388 that made me a lot happier, but you can't really complain about any of those old rigs. You turn on the receiver and there are people talking and after a few decades that's still pretty cool. --scott I actually purchased the HQ-140-X at a rummage sale near my house about 25 years ago. My original novice receiver was an HQ-110-C which I later used to trade-up to a Drake 2A which I probably never should have sold. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com