"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Mr.Reay's insecurity that he projects onto everybody else
becomes more apparent as days go by.....


"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Actually, he seems to have owned a range of commercial kit over the
years-
TS830, FT221, FT227, FT707 have all featured in his posts.
He seems to have sold most of them- maybe to buy his law books and
castings
he can throw in the bin.
Maybe that is why he doesn't go out at night for fear of the local
police.



I think you will find that Brian is merely commenting about what you
yourself have admitted to in the past..

SHAME ON YOU!

WRONG!

I do hope the Chippenham hordes do not head south!

STRAW MAN!

"RVMJ" wrote in message
...
Airy R. Bean wrote:


"Thierry" wrote:

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver from a pure
technical side ?


The one that you design and build for yourself.

Only CBers buy off-the-shelf rigs which they are unable
to modify or repair.

But not through an attack of 'nerves', apparently.


Our if they are 'too heavy' (eg RA17)

--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio

"RVMJ" wrote in message
...
Airy R. Bean wrote:


"Thierry" wrote:

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver from a pure
technical side ?


The one that you design and build for yourself.

Only CBers buy off-the-shelf rigs which they are unable
to modify or repair.

But not through an attack of 'nerves', apparently.


Our if they are 'too heavy' (eg RA17)

--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in
:

Mr.Reay's insecurity that he projects onto everybody else
becomes more apparent as days go by.....

Nothing insecure about what he's written lately.

I see you still suffer from the "I want the last word" syndrome.

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in
:

Mr.Reay's insecurity that he projects onto everybody else
becomes more apparent as days go by.....

Nothing insecure about what he's written lately.

I see you still suffer from the "I want the last word" syndrome.

"Thierry" To answer me in private use
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/post.htm wrote in message
...
Hi,

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver from a pure
technical side ?

I don't need that you answer me, "the RTX that suites your need, guy". I
'd
like a more technical opinion, taking in account the worst traffic
conditions.

If you like, can you give me your opinion, some clues, or even links
developing this question (NB. I haven't got QEX that could probably help).

IMHO, and very shortened, after the TX module, the RX is the most
important
module of un transCV (obvious). The TX module of a transCV is quite easy
to
build with few component and it has even not to be powerful (QRP). But the
receive module is by far more complex. If a TX helps you to send your
signal
to the antenna, you need also an excellent RX to be able to listen to your
contact whatever the conditions.
Without speaking of the sensitivity (that I haven't discussed, looks
obvious
too), an excellent receive module should thus offer a great selectivity to
remove or reduce noise and RFI and be active before the signal reaches the
detection with the less amplification as possible (using filters like
high/low cut, attn, rf gain, dsp slope, etc), excellent DSP filtering on
IF
stages, and all parameters accessible in "direct access" on the front
panel
instead of having to set these hundreds of values in sub-menus.
Of course you pay for it, but my question is purely technique.

Your answer will help me to complete an article I wrote about it, in which
the selectivity has still to be developed (see later at
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-transceiver.htm)

Thanks for your comments.


That is really easy.
The one that I use every day.
Why would I use less than the best?

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

"Thierry" To answer me in private use
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/post.htm wrote in message
...
Hi,

Survey : what do you consider as an excellent transceiver from a pure
technical side ?

I don't need that you answer me, "the RTX that suites your need, guy". I
'd
like a more technical opinion, taking in account the worst traffic
conditions.

If you like, can you give me your opinion, some clues, or even links
developing this question (NB. I haven't got QEX that could probably help).

IMHO, and very shortened, after the TX module, the RX is the most
important
module of un transCV (obvious). The TX module of a transCV is quite easy
to
build with few component and it has even not to be powerful (QRP). But the
receive module is by far more complex. If a TX helps you to send your
signal
to the antenna, you need also an excellent RX to be able to listen to your
contact whatever the conditions.
Without speaking of the sensitivity (that I haven't discussed, looks
obvious
too), an excellent receive module should thus offer a great selectivity to
remove or reduce noise and RFI and be active before the signal reaches the
detection with the less amplification as possible (using filters like
high/low cut, attn, rf gain, dsp slope, etc), excellent DSP filtering on
IF
stages, and all parameters accessible in "direct access" on the front
panel
instead of having to set these hundreds of values in sub-menus.
Of course you pay for it, but my question is purely technique.

Your answer will help me to complete an article I wrote about it, in which
the selectivity has still to be developed (see later at
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-transceiver.htm)

Thanks for your comments.


That is really easy.
The one that I use every day.
Why would I use less than the best?

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

I wonder what was Mr.Reay's purpose in publishing
his rather silly and somewhat infantile attention
seeking outburst that is quoted from him below?

Was it to demonstrate that not only is he a _LOSER_,
but that he is well aware of the fact?

Was it to demonstrate that anybody who holds, or who
has ever held, an M3/CB Fools' Licence can never be
a _REAL_ Radio Ham because of the associated
gentlemanly traditions?

Was it to demonstrate the really big mistake that was made
when the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools'
Licence was introduced?

Was it a further Freudian Slip on his part showing that
the insecurity that he holds to be in every _REAL_ Radio
Ham is a part of every fibre of his being and that he is
trying to make himself feel better by blurting out some
playground-style insults?

Was it to demonstrate that his sneering 'n' jeering in
the company and style of so many of the toilet-mouthed
gutter-denizens of this NG makes him a CBer fair and square?

Was it to demonstrate that the RSCB, of whose politbureaux
he is a significant member, has degenerated into a
cesspit of CBers and is no longer relevant to Ham Radio?

Was it to make a fool of himself in front of Victoria,
Rebecca and Michaela when the time comes that he is no longer
able to censor their Usenet access, and they get to see
what a hypcrite he is by comparing his behaviour against
the standards that he imposes on them as they grow up?

Was it to demonstrate that despite his _BOASTS_ of being in
possession of a number of degrees that he is incapable of
stringing two or more words together in a civil and rational
discussion?

Was it to demonstrate that once again, having sneered 'n'
jeered in the CB fashion he is going to run away when
challenged?

Was it because he was annoyed that his gaffe in stating
that e^(-jwt) was a function that decreased with increasing time
was so well publicised, and he wanted to stamp his tiny little
foot in a pique of anger?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Our if they are 'too heavy' (eg RA17)

I wonder what was Mr.Reay's purpose in publishing
his rather silly and somewhat infantile attention
seeking outburst that is quoted from him below?

Was it to demonstrate that not only is he a _LOSER_,
but that he is well aware of the fact?

Was it to demonstrate that anybody who holds, or who
has ever held, an M3/CB Fools' Licence can never be
a _REAL_ Radio Ham because of the associated
gentlemanly traditions?

Was it to demonstrate the really big mistake that was made
when the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools'
Licence was introduced?

Was it a further Freudian Slip on his part showing that
the insecurity that he holds to be in every _REAL_ Radio
Ham is a part of every fibre of his being and that he is
trying to make himself feel better by blurting out some
playground-style insults?

Was it to demonstrate that his sneering 'n' jeering in
the company and style of so many of the toilet-mouthed
gutter-denizens of this NG makes him a CBer fair and square?

Was it to demonstrate that the RSCB, of whose politbureaux
he is a significant member, has degenerated into a
cesspit of CBers and is no longer relevant to Ham Radio?

Was it to make a fool of himself in front of Victoria,
Rebecca and Michaela when the time comes that he is no longer
able to censor their Usenet access, and they get to see
what a hypcrite he is by comparing his behaviour against
the standards that he imposes on them as they grow up?

Was it to demonstrate that despite his _BOASTS_ of being in
possession of a number of degrees that he is incapable of
stringing two or more words together in a civil and rational
discussion?

Was it to demonstrate that once again, having sneered 'n'
jeered in the CB fashion he is going to run away when
challenged?

Was it because he was annoyed that his gaffe in stating
that e^(-jwt) was a function that decreased with increasing time
was so well publicised, and he wanted to stamp his tiny little
foot in a pique of anger?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Our if they are 'too heavy' (eg RA17)