rickman wrote:
On 2/24/2015 6:35 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/2015 12:37 PM, gareth wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
Get a CW signal peaked on the 20 c/s nose of the HRO crystal filter,
with
the phasing notching out any nearby signal, and you realise that DSP
just
isn't necessary due to the quality of the 80-year-old technology
employed.

WHS.

The Eddystone EA12 does not have a phasing control as that part of the
cct
is fixed-tuned, but it does have a tunable notch in the 100kHz IF to
achieve the same effect.

Mind you, there seems to be a diminishing band of people who know how to
do this, so the simplistic approach of using someone else's
ever-upgraded
software to do something less effective is about as far as the tick-box
Amateur seems to go. Heavens - they even buy ready-made wire aerials!

And going from previous threads, there are even fewer who understand that
setting up for single-signal reception means that the notional carrier
frequency has
to lie half-way between the peak of the Xtal and the notch of the phasing
control.

We should not forget that he who sneers loud and long about others' grasp
of
the mathematics of DSP maintains that changing the direction of a
rotating
vector
(A Phasor, and not related to the weapons of Star Trek!) causes it to
decrease in sixe.

What is "sixe"???

Typo - adjacent key - size

I thought it might be that, but it still makes no sense to me. Who or
how does changing the direction of rotation of a rotating vector change
its "size". Are you defining size as the rotation so that going from a +
to a - is like reversing the direction of a vector? I think most people
would consider the "size" of a vector to be the magnitude which is
independent of phase angle and so rotation, no?

Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Sadly, Gareth absolutely cannot explain it. He doesn't remotely understand
anything he's talking about, as per.

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

On 25/02/15 08:53, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:


Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Sadly, Gareth absolutely cannot explain it. He doesn't remotely understand
anything he's talking about, as per.


That is a major part of his problem. He just isn't up to the level of
technical stuff he aspires to, in fact he has glaring gaps in even the
basics.

Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even
that is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme
steps.



As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

That is a major part of his problem. He just isn't up to the level of
technical stuff he aspires to, in fact he has glaring gaps in even the
basics.
Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even that
is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme steps.
As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories have
given me a good laugh from time to time.

Well, Brian, it is actually you above who is resorting to abuse as your
contribution
to what was a technical discussion.

What is it that makes you want to come across as a complete fool by
blurting out silly infantile remarks in an international forum?

Shame on you.

As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.




laughing at others would appear to be your speciality.......

"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...

As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.

laughing at others would appear to be your speciality.......

Another illustration of, "Empty vessels make the most noise"?

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...

As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.

laughing at others would appear to be your speciality.......

Another illustration of, "Empty vessels make the most noise"?



no ....

"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...
As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.
laughing at others would appear to be your speciality.......
Another illustration of, "Empty vessels make the most noise"?

no ....

Oh. Well, what about, "Vessels full of **** create the biggest stinks"?

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Jim GM4DHJ..." wrote in message
...
As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.
laughing at others would appear to be your speciality.......
Another illustration of, "Empty vessels make the most noise"?

no ....

Oh. Well, what about, "Vessels full of **** create the biggest stinks"?


closer .....

On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 25/02/15 08:53, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:


Perhaps you can explain this with a little math?

Sadly, Gareth absolutely cannot explain it. He doesn't remotely
understand
anything he's talking about, as per.


That is a major part of his problem. He just isn't up to the level of
technical stuff he aspires to, in fact he has glaring gaps in even the
basics.

I don't see that as a fault. I often tackle difficult issues I don't
understand in the hope of learning more.


Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even
that is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme
steps.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many are
so happy to pile on and give the guy grief.


As you say, he is best ignored, although some of his whacky theories
have given me a good laugh from time to time.

It's good to eat your vegetables too, but how many actually do it?

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2015 4:43 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Rather than try and learn, he tries to bluff that he knows far more than
he does. When he is shown to be a charlatan, he turns to abuse. Even
that is predictable in the path it will take, including his most extreme
steps.

Yeah, well, that isn't so good. But it is interesting that so many are so
happy to pile on and give the guy grief.

The reason that it isn't so good is that it is untrue.