Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
Old September 6th 08, 11:52 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 239
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals


"JB" wrote in message news:g5Dwk.762

That's why they have to learn to seperate their hobby from the pecuniary
interests of others. So they don't become a target for commercial
interests.

If some one or group should be buying or renting radios or systems because
their entity has regular need for radio dispatch or communications of a
non-hobby nature, they should seek professional help while it exists
rather
than exploiting the ham.

Of course if we all join the Communist Party and the government volunteers
to provide us with free food, housing, clothing, medical and other basic
subsistence needs, we should do whatever they want after we finish our
compulsory rice picking for the day.


It was the same in broadcasting. There was always a person
willing to DJ for free, just for the fun of it, at the smaller
stations. Folks who were trying to make a meager living
behind the mikes were at the mercy of hobbyists.



  #22   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 12:38 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 242
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

On Sep 4, 9:11 pm, raypsi wrote:
On Sep 3, 2:54 pm, Michael Black wrote:



On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, raypsi wrote:
Hey Gary,


Rocks aren't cheap hehttp://www.icmfg.com/thruhole_crystals.html
Maybe in 9 land they pave the streets with gold.
Personally I'd go with a programmable divider or PLL.


Maybe you like retro, then I'd get some old rocks the ones
you can take apart and grind them down to git's the freq's you need.


And you can't grind them unless they are quite close to the desired
frequency. Grinding by hand will be too uneven, so the crystal will
stop working if you try to grind it more than a tiny bit.


It also relies on a big stock of crystals spread around so you can
find one sufficiently close enough, something that did seem possible
in the years after WWII, but after all this time attrition may have
reduced the stock considerably.


And realistically, they also have to be bulky FT-243 holders, since
those you can open by removing screws, and the blank is held in place
with pressure. More recent holder types require desoldering the case,
and figuring out how to remove the blank and then get it back in place
when it's soldered in place (or something like that I can't remember how
the blank is connected).


One of the odd things is that if one has to buy new crystals, a
synthesizer will likely be far cheaper. In the early seventies,
synthesizers made a big splash because everyone wanted lots of channels
on 2m FM, and the need to have them ground to frequency (and to equipment)
made it all very costly, so synthesizers despite their cost and bulk
became the norm.


Almost forty years later, a synthesizer for a handful of crystals would
still be comparatively bulky, but would be even cheaper than in the early
seventies.


Michael VE2BVW


Believe it or not I was making a living sell rocks HI HI back forty
years ago.
It was like there was a freaking crystal company on every corner.
There was so
much competition back then the prices was chump change. The crystal
companies
could have put the big hurt on PLL or programmable dividers. I know
the real
reason crystals took a back seat, and it;s not what anybody thinks
happened.

73 OM

n8zu


You don't see any newbies on here making any rock controlled hets..
It's like vinyl records or CD's
they is all gone. They don't want you to know about crystals there is
to much
power in that knowledge. They want everyone dumbed down so they can be
controlled,
that's why they did away with code, nobody will ever know it ever
existed in 5 years time.

73
n8zu
  #23   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 01:31 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

On Sep 2, 4:12�pm, Gary@ removenospamandputkf9cm.com wrote:
I am looking for some Heterodyne conversion crystals for a receiver I am
making.
The frequencies a 5 MHz, 7 MHz, 10.5 MHz, 13.5 MHz, �17.5 MHz and 21.5
MHz.
The variable mixing frequency will be from 3 to 3.5 MHz. I would prefer all
the same type holder.


Once source of crystals is eBay. Another is AF4K (google his call), he
has quite a stock in various holders.

But be prepared to pay more than a few dollars per crystal!

Actually, when you adjust for inflation, crystals cost about as much
now as they did 30-40 years ago. Three dollars back in 1965 is the
equivalent of about twenty dollars today.

You can also do things like use harmonics and overtones of the
crystals to get the higher frequencies.

--

But before you start building, I suggest you reconsider that mixing
scheme.

As I understand it, the receiver will consist of a tunable section
that covers 3 to 3.5 MHz, and a converter section which converts the
various ham bands to that tuning range.

So for 160, you would take the 2 to 1.5 MHz range, subtract it from 5
MHz, and get 3 to 3.5 MHz

For 80, you would take the 4 to 3.5 MHz range, subtract it from 7
MHz, and get 3 to 3.5 MHz

For 40, you would take the 7.5 to 7 MHz range, subtract it from 10.5
MHz, and get 3 to 3.5 MHz

For 30, you would take the 10.5 to 10.0 MHz range, subtract it from
13.5 MHz, and get 3 to 3.5 MHz

For 20, you would take the 14.5 to 14 MHz range, subtract it from 17.5
MHz, and get 3 to 3.5 MHz

For 17, you would take the 18.5 to 18 MHz range, subtract it from 21.5
MHz, and get 3 to 3.5 MHz

I guess you don't plan on 15, 12 or 10 meters.

The main problem I see with this design is on 80 meters. On that band,
the tunable frequency is too close to the band being covered, and
you'll likely have troubles with feedthrough. For example, when you
are trying to listen to a signal on, say, 3.6 MHz, the tunable section
will be on 3.4 MHz, and the front-end selectivity probably won't be
able to stop strong signals from leaking through.

I suggest you look at other heterodyne schemes, because 80 meter
operation will be compromised using the scheme you describe.

Here's one to consider, from G2DAF:

Tunable range is 5 to 5.5 MHz

For 160, you would take the 2 to 1.5 MHz range, subtract it from 7
MHz, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz

For 80, you would take the 4 to 3.5 MHz range, subtract it from 9
MHz, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz

For 40, you would take the 7.5 to 7 MHz range, subtract it from 12.5
MHz, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz

For 30, you would take the 10.5 to 10.0 MHz range, subtract it from
15.5 MHz, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz

For 20, you would take the 14 to 14.5 MHz range, subtract 9 MHz from
it, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz (Note that the 9 MHz xtal works on two bands)

For 17, you would take the 18 to 18.5 MHz range, subtract 13 MHz from
it, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz

For 15, you would take the 21 to 21.5 MHz range, subtract 16 MHz from
it, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz

For 12, you would take the 24.5 to 25 MHz range, subtract 19.5 MHz
from it, and get 5 to 5.5 MHz

So you cover 8 ranges below 25 MHz with 7 xtals

Ten meters is left as an exercise for the reader.

For the higher frequencies, harmonics of the can be used. For example,
an 8 MHz xtal could be used for 15 meters by doubling.

Here's another one:

Tunable range is 3.5 to 4.1 MHz

For 160, you would take the 2 to 1.4 MHz range, subtract it from 5.5
MHz, and get 3.5 to 4.1 MHz

For 80, the conversion section is bypassed and you use the basic
tuning range

For 40, you would take the 7.5 to 6.9 MHz range, subtract it from 11
MHz, and get 3.5 to 4.1 MHz (Note that the second harmonic of the 5.5
MHz xtal used for 160 is 11 MHz)

For 30, you would take the 10.6 to 10.0 MHz range, subtract it from
14.1 MHz, and get 3.5 to 4.1 MHz

For 20, you would take the 14 to 14.6 MHz range, subtract 10.5 MHz
from it, and get 3.5 to 4.1 MHz

For 17, you would take the 17.6 to 18.2 MHz range, subtract 14.1 MHz
from it, and get 3.5 to 4.1 MHz (Note that the same xtal that gives
you 30 meters also works on 17 meters)

For 15, you would take the 21 to 21.6 MHz range, subtract 17.5 MHz
from it, and get 3.5 to 4.1 MHz

For 12, you would take the 24.5 to 25.1 MHz range, subtract 21 MHz
from it, and get 3.5 to 4.1 MHz (Note that the second harmonic of the
10.5 MHz xtal used for 20 is 21 MHz)

So you cover cover 8 ranges below 25.1 MHz with 6 xtals. If you use
harmonics of certain xtals, those 8 ranges can be covered with just 4
xtals.

Ten meters is left as an exercise for the reader.

There are lots of other schemes.

73 de Jim, N2EY
  #24   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 01:50 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

The real reason for the popularity of synthesizers is cost. When you
need a new rock for every band they get costly, but a synthesizer
doesn't. This wasn't practical until chips that could do most of the
work became cheap.

The main reason for eliminating the commercial operator licenses was
cost too. Here's what happened:

There was a time, not so long ago, when there were a large number of
tasks that could only be performed (legally, anyway) by a person with
an FCC Commercial Operator license. No others need apply, regardless
of experience, education or background. Either you were a Radio
Operator of a certain class, or you weren't.

Those licenses meant that a person with a high-school education and
some smarts could have a good middle-class income if they had the
license. Not that all the jobs were easy, or that you didn't need a
certain amount of knowledge to do them, but that the Commercial
license became the equivalent of a union card, and the jobs were, in a
way, protected by FCC regulations.

In other words, the Commercial licenses protected a craft known as
Radio Operators, with a set of skills and knowledge specific to them,
and jobs only they could do.

The masters of industry didn't like that, so they prevailed on the FCC
to reduce the requirements and eliminate most of the licenses and the
requirements for tasks to be done only by Radio Operators. The jobs
went with them.

This is also why the maritime services went to satellite-based comms
rather than HF and MF radio and Morse Code - it eliminated the need
for ships to carry licensed Radio Operators.

Oddly enough, FCC still issues Commercial RadioTelegraph licenses,
both First and Second Class, though I don't know where in the USA you
can get the required experience for a First Class.

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #25   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 02:03 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

On Sep 6, 7:38�pm, raypsi wrote:

They want everyone dumbed down so they can be
controlled,
that's why they did away with code, nobody will ever know it ever
existed in 5 years time.


They didn't do away with Morse Code. They did away with the test for
it. It was done a little at a time over the past 30 years.

My personal theory on why it was eliminated is this:

Since the early 1980s, the FCC has been required to do more and more
stuff with less and less resources. So they have constantly sought out
ways to reduce their workload, particularly for radio services that
don't bring in $$, like ham radio.

That's why they turned over the job of amateur license testing to the
QPC and VECs back in 1983 or so. Instead of paid FCC employees making
up and conducting amateur license tests, unpaid volunteers do almost
all the work. It's also why they doubled the license term to 10 years
about that same time - reduces the number of renewals by half.

Reducing the number of license classes reduces the number of tests and
the number of upgrade applications to process. In the old days when
there were six license classes, a ham who went from Novice or Tech to
Extra could upgrade as many as four times. Now there are only two
steps.

Eliminating the Morse Code test means one less license test. Less
work.

But even though the last remnants of the Morse Code test were removed
back in February 2007, there are still plenty of hams using it on the
air. This past Field Day, for example, the group I went with had one
Morse Code station and three voice stations, all similarly equipped.
There were three Morse Code operators and far more voice ops, yet the
Morse Code station made more QSOs than all the voice stations
combined. This wasn't a surprise, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY



  #26   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 05:51 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 242
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

On Sep 6, 9:03*pm, wrote:
They didn't do away with Morse Code. They did away with the test

for
it. It was done a little at a time over the past 30 years.

hey jim:
Sorry I wasn't talking Morse code, .
Real Morse code nobody knows. That is lost already gone kaput history.
Vail invented the code you so aptly call Morse, So it's not real Morse
code
it's Vail code. What is really lost: everybody still calls it Morse
code.

I think I could make some money fire up the ole solar powered kiln and
start growing quartz.
I break out that old ARRL handbook that tells you exactly how to cut
the crystals
for the desired frequencies and sell them for 50 cent apiece.
I'd make so much money in volume sales.

73 OM
n8zu
  #27   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 06:43 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 242
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

On Sep 6, 8:31*pm, wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:12 pm, Gary@ removenospamandputkf9cm.com wrote:

I am looking for some Heterodyne conversion crystals for a receiver I am
making.
The frequencies a 5 MHz, 7 MHz, 10.5 MHz, 13.5 MHz, 17.5 MHz and 21.5
MHz.
The variable mixing frequency will be from 3 to 3.5 MHz. I would prefer all
the same type holder.

.

73 de Jim, N2EY


What you ain't got no IF?
All those fine numbers and no IF
You know what the image frequency is with no IF?

I think he can get's 12 and 15 meters.
21.5+3.39=24.89 the bottom of the 12 meter band.
21.5+3.49=24.99 the top of the 12 meter band
17.5+3.5=21.0 the bottom of 15 meters for an extra
squeeze the tuning range to 3.95 and
17.5+3,95 =21.45 the top of the 15 meter band.

Back in the day the reason for Heterodyne was simple
to get a lower frequency at which you could amplify the signal
more readily getting you more SN ratio and selectivity.


73 OM

n8zu

  #28   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 07:43 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 618
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, raypsi wrote:

On Sep 6, 9:03*pm, wrote:
They didn't do away with Morse Code. They did away with the test

for
it. It was done a little at a time over the past 30 years.

hey jim:
Sorry I wasn't talking Morse code, .
Real Morse code nobody knows. That is lost already gone kaput history.
Vail invented the code you so aptly call Morse, So it's not real Morse
code
it's Vail code. What is really lost: everybody still calls it Morse
code.

I think I could make some money fire up the ole solar powered kiln and
start growing quartz.
I break out that old ARRL handbook that tells you exactly how to cut
the crystals
for the desired frequencies and sell them for 50 cent apiece.
I'd make so much money in volume sales.

Nobody has ground their crystals from scratch since about the 1930's,
if even then. I've been licensed since 1972 and in all the time since
then I've never seen anything about it, not in magazines and books
going back to the late 1940's and not in more recent material. I do
recall the 1964 article in QST about a buy in SOuth America who made
his own tubes.

Go back far enough, and hams just needed crystals within the band.
They had relatively little need for exact frequencies.

I suspect even if the Handbook did give such details at one time,
little bits may be lost since when something is current, "everyone
knows" things that may not be obvious to someone who comes later.

Now, they need them on exact frequencies, and they want them in
nice small packages, none of those FT-243 ones that were held together
with pressure.

Even if you can so easily grind a piece of quartz to frequency, packaging
them will be problematic, since a sealed metal case is going to be a lot
more trouble than an FT-243 package.


Michael VE2BVW

  #29   Report Post  
Old September 7th 08, 08:35 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 239
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals


"Michael Black" wrote in message
ample.org...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, raypsi wrote:

On Go back far enough, and hams just needed crystals within the band.

They had relatively little need for exact frequencies.

And Novice regulations required the use of Xtal control, a ready
market...

I suspect even if the Handbook did give such details at one time,
little bits may be lost since when something is current, "everyone
knows" things that may not be obvious to someone who comes later.

Tools, techiques, sources for raw or processed materials. WWII
end provided what seemed to be an endless supply of radio
related parts and equipment. Tons of FT-243 xtals, ready to
use or to regrind, etc. I remember when one could find surplus
455kc xtals to make SSB filters; they are unobtanium now.

Pete, k1zjh

Michael VE2BVW


  #30   Report Post  
Old September 8th 08, 01:46 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Heterodyne conversion crystals

On Sep 7, 2:43�pm, Michael Black wrote:

Nobody has ground their crystals from scratch
since about the 1930's,
if even then. �I've been licensed since 1972 and in all the time
since
then I've never seen anything about it, not in magazines and books
going back to the late 1940's and not in more recent material.


There were articles in QST in the 1920s about cutting and grinding
your own crystals from the raw quartz, making holders, etc. A lot of
work and specialized equipment. The market was such that the
specialists quickly took over in the early 1930s.

After WW2 the enormous amount of surplus dominated the amateur market
for decades. Many of the "new" FT-243 crystals we bought were actually
surplus holders with new crystal inside.

�I do
recall the 1964 article in QST about a buy in SOuth America who
made his own tubes.


There's a guy in France doing it today. Has a movie on his website.
But again, lots of work and specialized equipment.

Go back far enough, and hams just needed crystals within
the band.
They had relatively little need for exact frequencies.


Well, yes and no.

Some xtal frequencies were more prized than others, because the
harmonics fell in higher bands.

I suspect even if the Handbook did give such details at one time,
little bits may be lost since when something is current, "everyone
knows" things that may not be obvious to someone who comes
later.


That's true of many things. Reading older radio books and magazines
can require knowledge of a lot of the jargon and methods of the day.

Now, they need them on exact frequencies, and they want them in
nice small packages, none of those FT-243 ones that were held
together with pressure.


The big difference is plated electrodes vs. pressure electrodes.
FT-243s are capable of quite good accuracy; .005% was common, which
works out to 200 Hz at 4 MHz.

Pre-WW2 xtals were big and rugged, but used a lot of quartz. Radio-
grade natural quartz came almost exclusively from Brazil, and the
difficulty of supply caused US xtal makers to develop xtal designs
that used less quartz. The FT-243 was ultra-miniature in its time!

73 de Jim, N2EY
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ringing Heterodyne Sound on 9765 kHz @ 8:20 UTC RHF Shortwave 2 July 30th 07 04:34 AM
Slightly OT -- Why do heterodyne cause an eerie emotional feeling Radium Shortwave 10 September 14th 06 01:59 PM
Heterodyne Mixer for FFT Spectrum Analyzer Ted Homebrew 2 March 30th 06 01:19 AM
What is a heterodyne..... coustanis Shortwave 30 December 5th 05 11:42 PM
heterodyne 455 spurious signal on AM Alexander Kozik Shortwave 17 August 22nd 05 12:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017