I've had a copy since it was first published in 1982. It's intended to
be more of an engineering textbook than the more cookbook-like
_Experimental Methods. . _ and its predecessor _Solid State Design for
the Radio Amateur_. (Although those books are much more than
cookbooks.) Now published in a second edition by the ARRL, it's an
excellent reference. It also contains insights into the fundamental
workings of circuits that you'll find in few other texts. As just one of
many examples, the discussion of oscillators presents some unique
insights into the similarities between oscillator types and an
understanding of the fundamentals requirements of oscillators.

I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding electronic
circuits on a more basic level. It nicely complements his other books,
and it's a bargain at the price.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Paul Burridge wrote:
Hi guys,

Many time here we've heard plaudits for "Experimental Methods in RF
Design" and no one to my recollection has derided it. But Hayward also
wrote "Introduction to Radio Frequency Design" which never seems to
get a mention. Does anyone have a copy of this other book and/or an
opinion on it? I've been offered a copy and would value the Panel's
view on it.

p.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:39:27 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I've had a copy since it was first published in 1982. It's intended to
be more of an engineering textbook than the more cookbook-like
_Experimental Methods. . _ and its predecessor _Solid State Design for
the Radio Amateur_. (Although those books are much more than
cookbooks.) Now published in a second edition by the ARRL, it's an
excellent reference. It also contains insights into the fundamental
workings of circuits that you'll find in few other texts. As just one of
many examples, the discussion of oscillators presents some unique
insights into the similarities between oscillator types and an
understanding of the fundamentals requirements of oscillators.

I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding electronic
circuits on a more basic level. It nicely complements his other books,
and it's a bargain at the price.

Oh, blast! You were doing so well there for a while, Roy. Now you've
gone and spoilt it all by using that word "basic." I was hoping for
something at least "intermediate" and I don't really see how "basic"
and "RF design" sit easily together in a single description. Please
tell me it's useful for more advanced stuff too!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

"Paul Burridge" a écrit dans le message de
...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:39:27 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I've had a copy since it was first published in 1982. It's intended to
be more of an engineering textbook than the more cookbook-like
_Experimental Methods. . _ and its predecessor _Solid State Design for
the Radio Amateur_. (Although those books are much more than
cookbooks.) Now published in a second edition by the ARRL, it's an
excellent reference. It also contains insights into the fundamental
workings of circuits that you'll find in few other texts. As just one of
many examples, the discussion of oscillators presents some unique
insights into the similarities between oscillator types and an
understanding of the fundamentals requirements of oscillators.

I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding electronic
circuits on a more basic level. It nicely complements his other books,
and it's a bargain at the price.

Oh, blast! You were doing so well there for a while, Roy. Now you've
gone and spoilt it all by using that word "basic." I was hoping for
something at least "intermediate" and I don't really see how "basic"
and "RF design" sit easily together in a single description. Please
tell me it's useful for more advanced stuff too!

Maybe is it that someone's basic level is someone else' intermediate level ?
;-)


--
Thanks,
Fred.

"Paul Burridge" wrote in message
...

Oh, blast! You were doing so well there for a while, Roy. Now you've
gone and spoilt it all by using that word "basic." I was hoping for

You guys must be reading a different IRFD than me, or maybe I'm just dumber
than I thought. That book has more math in it than my college EE text. OK,
admittedly the math isn't as weird, but I wouldn't call it "basic".

...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:31:40 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:39:27 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I've had a copy since it was first published in 1982. It's intended to
be more of an engineering textbook than the more cookbook-like
_Experimental Methods. . _ and its predecessor _Solid State Design for
the Radio Amateur_. (Although those books are much more than
cookbooks.) Now published in a second edition by the ARRL, it's an
excellent reference. It also contains insights into the fundamental
workings of circuits that you'll find in few other texts. As just one of
many examples, the discussion of oscillators presents some unique
insights into the similarities between oscillator types and an
understanding of the fundamentals requirements of oscillators.

I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding electronic
circuits on a more basic level. It nicely complements his other books,
and it's a bargain at the price.

Oh, blast! You were doing so well there for a while, Roy. Now you've
gone and spoilt it all by using that word "basic." I was hoping for
something at least "intermediate" and I don't really see how "basic"
and "RF design" sit easily together in a single description. Please
tell me it's useful for more advanced stuff too!

Paul, maybe you should stay away from it because apparently you can't
read.

At the beginning, Roy said, "It's intended to be more of an engineering
textbook than the more cookbook-like _Experimental Methods. . _"

At the end he said, "I highly recommend it for anyone interested in
understanding electronic circuits on a more basic level." This is
apparently where you got confused. Oh, and he never specifically
mentioned "RF design".

English can be tricky. In the context of the rest of the message, I take
Roy's, "understanding electronic circuits on a more basic level," to
mean at the level of the basic principles that define the circuit's
functions, not less than advanced. As Roy and others have said it is
MORE rigorous and mathematical than the other books.

If you were trying to make a joke, you should have ended with a happy
face.

Rex ) writes:

At the beginning, Roy said, "It's intended to be more of an engineering
textbook than the more cookbook-like _Experimental Methods. . _"

And of course, it was published as a text book. It came out in 1982 from
a text book publisher, Prentice Hall. I seem to recall it carrying a
text book price. I think the only reason many of us took note of it
was because it was by Wes Hayward. I seem to recall it getting coverage
in the ham magazines at the time. I'm not so sure ARRL would have published
a second printing but for the fact that Wes Hayward is well known to hams,
and has had a book or two published by the ARRL.

It covers what it does well, and yes it is a much more involved explanation
than ham books. But it's field is quite limited. It's not so practical,
You can get very detailed explanation of the Colpitts oscillator, but
little about oscillators beyond that.

It's not cutting edge. It wasn't back in 1982, it was supposed to give
a grounding so one could take up other books and get the latest, and it's not
now; I gather there was very minimal changes in the ARRL printing.

This book came up in the other newsgroup in the context of someone wanting
to design a wideband VHF amplifier for his tv set. And no, he was not
advanced in his technical knowledge. It was indeed a lousy suggestion for
his purpose, because not only would he be better off with a cookbook type
book, but Intro to RF Design isn't about a lot of specifics.

On the other hand, the ARRL priting came with a flopppy disk of some basic
programs for designing circuits. I've really only glanced at them, but they
are a bonus for those buying the book.

Michael VE2BVW

That was a poor choice of word on my part -- I apologize. I meant
"fundamental". Wes explains how things work on a fundamental level. But
it isn't a textbook of pure basic theory. It relates working circuits to
their fundamental roots.

I took an expensive advanced microwave design short course some years
ago. The instructor was a person who'd worked in the field for many
years. With disturbing frequency, he would come out with statements I
knew to be false and, after some questioning, I discovered that he
didn't have any idea of the fundamental (or basic) criteria for
oscillation. He'd been designing oscillators for years without really
knowing what made them oscillate. This might have been a case of someone
who read the "intermediate" texts without ever reading the "fundamental"
ones.

This isn't to say that people can't design useful things without fully
understanding what they're doing -- I'm convinced that a majority of
useful things are created this way. But you can do an awfully lot more
if you have a real fundamental understanding of how things work. The
most truly creative and innovative engineers I've known have this
understanding -- and an intense curiosity about things they don't know.

I guarantee there's plenty of "intermediate" and "advanced" level
information in that book, and even without knowing anything of your
background, I also guarantee there's plenty of "fundamental" knowledge
you missed somewhere along the line and will pick up from this book. If
I'm wrong, let me know and I'll buy the book from you. I can always use
another copy.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:39:27 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:
. . .
I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding electronic
circuits on a more basic level. It nicely complements his other books,
and it's a bargain at the price.


Oh, blast! You were doing so well there for a while, Roy. Now you've
gone and spoilt it all by using that word "basic." I was hoping for
something at least "intermediate" and I don't really see how "basic"
and "RF design" sit easily together in a single description. Please
tell me it's useful for more advanced stuff too!

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:36:59 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:


I took an expensive advanced microwave design short course some years
ago. The instructor was a person who'd worked in the field for many
years. With disturbing frequency, he would come out with statements I
knew to be false and, after some questioning, I discovered that he
didn't have any idea of the fundamental (or basic) criteria for
oscillation. He'd been designing oscillators for years without really
knowing what made them oscillate. This might have been a case of someone
who read the "intermediate" texts without ever reading the "fundamental"
ones.

This isn't to say that people can't design useful things without fully
understanding what they're doing -- I'm convinced that a majority of
useful things are created this way. But you can do an awfully lot more
if you have a real fundamental understanding of how things work. The
most truly creative and innovative engineers I've known have this
understanding -- and an intense curiosity about things they don't know.

well, said! But isn't this the very frequent feeling one gets from
reading amateur radio magazines? The constructors (I wouldn't use the
word "designer") should have constructed and tested at least 10 equal
constructions, or have similar experience before publishing an idea,
which may later turn out that might not be repeatable

Too often constructions are published when it is a hope rather than
experience that it is a good idea. For somebody it is more important
to use wellknown devices than trying to propose something else

73, Jan-Martin

---
J. M. Noeding, LA8AK, N-4623 Kristiansand
http://home.online.no/~la8ak/c.htm

Few people appreciate the vast difference between making something that
sort of works, once, and a design that can be produced by the thousands
with nearly every one working, fully meeting specifications, and being
reliable under a wide range of operating conditions. Those of us who
have made a living by developing quality products such as test equipment
have a full appreciation for this, and go about the design process in a
very different manner than a person accustomed to making a one-off
circuit for home use.

Many, or most, of the books oriented toward amateurs are written by
people who haven't developed the background or discipline to produce
reliable, repeatable circuits. Magazine articles are even more in this
category. Some circuits found in handbooks have perhaps never been
actually built or tested by the author, even in a quantity of one.
That's not a condemnation -- after all, this is amateur radio, most
offerings are free, and the designs are adequate for a lot of users.
Hopefully -- although I'm afraid a bit wishfully -- some builders at
least have enough technical know-how to take care of minor design flaws.
Nonetheless, it's really a treat when we're given a circuit or an
explanation by a truly professional engineer whose approach to circuit
design is one of making reliable, repeatable circuits. The chances of a
copy of the circuit working the first time, as predicted and claimed,
are much higher than for a design built once with little understanding
of how it works or what its limitations and weak points are. And the
deeper the designer's understanding of the fundamental principles
involved, the greater the chance that he's accounted for and designed
around potential problems in repeatability and operating environment.

That's one of the reasons I like and heartily recommend Wes' books and
other writings. I've known him as a friend and as an engineering
colleague for 30 years now. He's one of the very best, and we're lucky
to have access to a fraction of what he's learned.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

J M Noeding wrote:

well, said! But isn't this the very frequent feeling one gets from
reading amateur radio magazines? The constructors (I wouldn't use the
word "designer") should have constructed and tested at least 10 equal
constructions, or have similar experience before publishing an idea,
which may later turn out that might not be repeatable

Too often constructions are published when it is a hope rather than
experience that it is a good idea. For somebody it is more important
to use wellknown devices than trying to propose something else

73, Jan-Martin

---
J. M. Noeding, LA8AK, N-4623 Kristiansand
http://home.online.no/~la8ak/c.htm

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:17:47 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:



Many, or most, of the books oriented toward amateurs are written by
people who haven't developed the background or discipline to produce
reliable, repeatable circuits. Magazine articles are even more in this
category. Some circuits found in handbooks have perhaps never been
actually built or tested by the author, even in a quantity of one.
That's not a condemnation -- after all, this is amateur radio, most
offerings are free, and the designs are adequate for a lot of users.
Hopefully -- although I'm afraid a bit wishfully -- some builders at
least have enough technical know-how to take care of minor design flaws.
Nonetheless, it's really a treat when we're given a circuit or an
explanation by a truly professional engineer whose approach to circuit
design is one of making reliable, repeatable circuits. The chances of a
copy of the circuit working the first time, as predicted and claimed,
are much higher than for a design built once with little understanding
of how it works or what its limitations and weak points are. And the
deeper the designer's understanding of the fundamental principles
involved, the greater the chance that he's accounted for and designed
around potential problems in repeatability and operating environment.

That's one of the reasons I like and heartily recommend Wes' books and
other writings. I've known him as a friend and as an engineering
colleague for 30 years now. He's one of the very best, and we're lucky
to have access to a fraction of what he's learned.

When amateur constructors are mentioned, it is not only those who do
strange things. While many large telecommunication and instrument
factories like HP, Tektronic, Siemens, Wandel&Goltermann,
Rohde&Schwartz, LME, Philips, Telettra seem to have certain rules to
follow and you may even see certain ways the different factory solves
the problems, it is some very large companies in Norway, Great
Brittain and elsewhere who make rather strange solutions.

One Italian company forgot to put transient protection over a relay,
and the driver transistor was damaged ever so often. I've maintained
many different transmitters which were almost impossible to tune up
after replacing parts because the impedances changed a lot, adding a
resistor in the base circuit improved on this. A wellknown Norwegian
radiolink manufacturer designed local oscillators in 6-8GHz using
2N3866 with over 1.5W power consumption, a buffer with the same and
operated in class C, the next doubler to 200MHz in class C and a
2N3866 as well, and a 2N3375 in class C. The first and third
transistors were critical and had to be replaced every two years, and
the signal on 6cm was so noisy that SM6ESG couldn't find any beat
note. He modified the stages to class A, reduced the drive level on
all stages and the heat was considerable lower, and at least the
oscillator noise very much improved

So, one shouldn't only blame the amateurs for bad constructors, but
sometime the manufacturers may even be worse

73,
Jan-Martin
---
J. M. Noeding, LA8AK, N-4623 Kristiansand
http://home.online.no/~la8ak/c.htm