There is no national magazine for Radio Hams in Britland,
unless you mean Practical Wireless.

No other magazine is widely available to all who wish to
purchase it.

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:iCyEd.84797$k25.40602@attbi_s53...
In truth, if you only read your own National magazine
that you profess so much dislike for, you would find that they recently
carried for some 20 months a construction article having every feature you
have supposedly considered.

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
I wonder why Mr.Reay pours scorn on a proposal
which perhaps he himself ought to have come up
with bearing in mind his regular _BOASTING_ about how
important he perceives himself to be in the training
of newcomers?


Actually, Dr Reay said it was a good idea. He did point out a few flaws in
your concept. As we have all done in the past.

You always react like this Gareth when one of your great ideas proves to be
less than great. At least this failure isn't going to cost you your job.

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:37:38 -0000, "Brian Reay"
wrote:


"Spike" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

Bean apears to be operating in 'Rehabilitation Mode' - all his old
chestnuts are coming out.....:-(

I've little doubt that is his ploy. However, I lean toward being of an
overly forgiving nature and, if he can behave, maybe some good will come
of
it and he will learn something.

Hmm...perhaps it's just another turn of the ever-repeating cycle?

At worst we can go back though Google and refer him to previous answers.

Afraid not - he doesn't follow urls. I don't know if this is from
unfamiliarity with usenet, or that he can't read a reference and
understand which parts were relevant to the discussion. And anyway, if
you start quoting him back at himself, he killfiles you. Allegedly.

Gareth has always been full of 'good ideas'. They just never seem to have
actually been implemented- be they radio, railway signalling, home made
hacksaws, or telecoms systems. He has always been so- way back to TMC days.

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
I'm not proposing anything like that. I don't know
anything about the K2.


Something else you know nothing about. That list keeps growing Gareth. Have
you thought of studying at all?

You have plenty of time on your hands. (Your posting times suggest you are
not working at the moment.)

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:04:58 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

I don't follow URL's from Usenet - it is a bad debating style
to send your correspondents off to do reading. if you have
something of value to say, then please say it yourself.

groan

But if it's someone else's work, it is only correct to point to it.
After all, you might have a different interpretation of it....sheesh!

Standard practice for Gareth, has been so for years. Way back to the TMC
days. If he avoids research he can pretend it wasn't his fault when it goes
belly up.

"Airy R.Bean" (aka Gareth G4SDW) wrote in message
...
That Dr.Reay rejoices at insults but not at
technical proposals

But yoy have to admit Gareth, the insult was a good one and your technical
proposal was pretty crap. As we have come to expect of you.

Airy R.Bean wrote:

Whatever you say about your K2, it is a proprietary design,
and thus no different from the YaesKenIcom products, and
therefore is off-the-shelf

Yes - but it isn't a propreitary design - it's simply been put together
by a group of radio amateurs and there is scope within the kits to do
your own modifications - making it way way different from the commercial
far-eastern models.

The essence of Ham Radio is that we produce and maintain
our own designs and are not beholden to any commercial
operation that has its sights set on the shekels.

Whatever you say.

I'm not interested in a comparison with commercial gear. The
idea is to design a transceiver that is easily reproducible by
beginners, and which is future-proofed by having the
interface between stages well-specified so that you could,
for example, substitute your own mixing stages.

But, why not move with the times and include an element of computer
control and computer based audio filtering rather then re-inventing the
wheel.

As I've said before, apart from the DSP, I and other radio amateurs have
radios here that match your criteria, so why should we bother?

David.

Harold E. Johnson wrote:

The alternate conclusion of course, might well be simply that your fame
preceeds you Airhead. In truth, if you only read your own National magazine
that you profess so much dislike for, you would find that they recently
carried for some 20 months a construction article having every feature you
have supposedly considered.

He refuses to read anything 'official' or that represents the public at
large for fear of having to catch up or having his views challenged.

You can bet his workshop drill is still treadle powered with wooden
drill bits.

David.

Airy R.Bean wrote:

A rather silly and childish broadcast (CB) from you.

Grow up, Harold.

Stupid boy.

Nice, once more old Bean, to see you classing someone of Harold's
vintage as a 'CBer'.

Typical Bean style - if all else fails - cry CBer and run!

Muppet.

David.

Airy R.Bean wrote:

A rather silly and childish broadcast (CB) from you.

Grow up, Harold.

Stupid boy.

Actually, if you care to look at Harold's website - www.W4ZCB.com,
you'll see he is more than qualified to critise you old Bean - as he
seems to have much more design and construction skills than you've
dreamt of.

Then again, any common sense you have is often released against the
porcelain I bet!

David.

Airy R.Bean wrote:

There is no national magazine for Radio Hams in Britland,
unless you mean Practical Wireless.

No other magazine is widely available to all who wish to
purchase it.

The muppet demonstrates his silly attitude when challenged once more.

You know which magazine he means old Bean - except it's the official
organ of an organisation you despise so much.

Such pathetic and childish behaviour for a man in his 50s!

David.

"David Edmonds" wrote in message
...
Airy R.Bean wrote:


As I've said before, apart from the DSP, I and other radio amateurs have
radios here that match your criteria, so why should we bother?


Funny you should mention DSP, David, Airys theory on this subject is
legendary.

Google DSP and Airy, within this forum and the results will keep you amused
for hours!

Regards
tox

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:00:12 -0000, "Nimrod" wrote:


"Spike" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:04:58 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

I don't follow URL's from Usenet - it is a bad debating style
to send your correspondents off to do reading. if you have
something of value to say, then please say it yourself.

groan

But if it's someone else's work, it is only correct to point to it.
After all, you might have a different interpretation of it....sheesh!

Standard practice for Gareth, has been so for years. Way back to the TMC
days. If he avoids research he can pretend it wasn't his fault when it goes
belly up.


Yes....When he was a student at his avant-garde university in the
turbulent sixties, I'll bet he never said to his lecturers "it is a
bad debating style to send your students off to do reading, if you
have something of value to say".
--
from
Aero Spike

Here in New York -- we say Foo Get Bout It

This is 2005 not 1927


--
Caveat Lector

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
Whatever you say about your K2, it is a proprietary design,
and thus no different from the YaesKenIcom products, and
therefore is off-the-shelf

The essence of Ham Radio is that we produce and maintain
our own designs and are not beholden to any commercial
operation that has its sights set on the shekels.

I'm not interested in a comparison with commercial gear. The
idea is to design a transceiver that is easily reproducible by
beginners, and which is future-proofed by having the
interface between stages well-specified so that you could,
for example, substitute your own mixing stages.

Please list all projects you have designed and completed, radio or
otherwise.

Have they even been published? Surely a man of you 'expertise' could put
them on the internet.

"Caveat Lector" wrote in message
news:HBCEd.50513$8e5.34594@fed1read07...
Here in New York -- we say Foo Get Bout It

This is 2005 not 1927


Not in bits of Chippenham.

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:00:12 -0000, "Nimrod" wrote:


"Spike" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:04:58 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

I don't follow URL's from Usenet - it is a bad debating style
to send your correspondents off to do reading. if you have
something of value to say, then please say it yourself.

groan

But if it's someone else's work, it is only correct to point to it.
After all, you might have a different interpretation of it....sheesh!

Standard practice for Gareth, has been so for years. Way back to the TMC
days. If he avoids research he can pretend it wasn't his fault when it
goes
belly up.


Yes....When he was a student at his avant-garde university in the
turbulent sixties, I'll bet he never said to his lecturers "it is a
bad debating style to send your students off to do reading, if you
have something of value to say".


Maybe he never graduated? That could explain lots of things. Especially his
degree envy.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

Excellent idea. Let's make it a high-quality job, though;
uncompromising on sensitivity/selectivity/noise etc. And use
ubiquitous, easily-available components that will be around for the
foreseeable future to come to permit serviceability over the long
term!
--

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

Yep 6 replies - obviously the other 4 users of this newsgroup have
killfiled you Bean (or are on Hoilday with Slim).

Therein lies a problem; I had considered the use of 270MHz
SAW filters as used in GSM phones as RX roofing filters, but
with the deign of GSM phones moving en masse to direct
conversion, that's not possible.

One area in which we can assure some degree of future proofing
is to define the interfaces between the sections so that any
section could be replaced by circuitry of your own making
and/or of your own repair.

"Paul Burridge" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

Excellent idea. Let's make it a high-quality job, though;
uncompromising on sensitivity/selectivity/noise etc. And use
ubiquitous, easily-available components that will be around for the
foreseeable future to come to permit serviceability over the long
term!
--

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

Dear Airy,

I can't resist the temptation to read most of what you write. It's habit
forming.

It's because there appears to be an unexpected element of truth in many of
your thought-out if unruly statements.

But try not to be so offensive in your, chip-on-the-shoulder, mode of
expression. You could be even more effective.
----
Reg.

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Dear Airy,

I can't resist the temptation to read most of what you write. It's habit
forming.

It's because there appears to be an unexpected element of truth in many of
your thought-out if unruly statements.

But try not to be so offensive in your, chip-on-the-shoulder, mode of
expression. You could be even more effective.

Reg, break the habit.

You won't miss much.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

Dear Reg,

Thank-you for your few kind words.

I, in my turn, read with interest your contributions to the
various NG. From what you profess, I have much to
learn about the common sense of what really happens
in antennae and feeders and I am an avid pupil of yours.
(That is part of parcel of Ham Radio, not only to
improve one's own knowledge, but also to encourage
others in what is essentially a technical pursuit.)

As to offensiveness, none is intended. If it was your
intention to refer to my stance against the gangrenous
degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme,
then I regret that I can offer you no apology. We Radio
Hams must take a stand now, and that stand must be to
refuse to have anything to do with what are essentially
second-class citizens in the radio context.

In other matters, if you do indeed refer to other matters, I speak
my mind and I speak the truth as I see it. Do not be so
surprised at candidness and openness. (If there are those
who take the liberty of taking offence at ideas expressed
that are not their own ideas, then they would be well advised
not to read an international forum such as this NG.

Caveat Lector.

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Dear Airy,
I can't resist the temptation to read most of what you write. It's habit
forming.
It's because there appears to be an unexpected element of truth in many of
your thought-out if unruly statements.
But try not to be so offensive in your, chip-on-the-shoulder, mode of
expression. You could be even more effective.

"Brian Reay" wrote:

: Brilliant Harold, no one can dress an insult up like an American. I love
: it!
:
: ROTFLMAO !

said m3osn who objected to the morse test but sat a morse assessment to
get his m3 callsign !!

"G1LVN" wrote:

: Yep 6 replies - obviously the other 4 users of this newsgroup have
: killfiled you Bean (or are on Hoilday with Slim).

i thought you left ?

"Brian Reay" wrote:

: Reg, break the habit.
:
: You won't miss much.

said m3osn

Please don't post your rudeness into groups to which
you do not subscribe.

"J M Noeding" wrote in message
...
please keep your rubbish to the English cb group, don't spread the
noise into the amateur radio newsgroup "rec.radio.amateur.homebrew"
(I wouldn't see any replies since I don't subscribe to the cb group)

The Mongolian Hordes of CBers are present in Britland,
particularly in the shape of the gangrenous degeneration that
is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme.

If we stand aside and let them take over, then who will
speak out for the excellent technical pursuit that is Ham Radio?

Yes - the NG uk.radio.amateur has become largely a CB
group, not the least reason being the sometimes-vicious
and always-infantile abusive tirades from those who
are CBers in one guise or another, as overt CBers,
as M3/CBers and as CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams.

Do we let them sweep away all that is excellent about Ham Radio,
or do we take a stand against them by staying in, and continuing to
demonstrate our own standards in, the NG uk.radio.amateur?

"J M Noeding" wrote in message
...
please keep your rubbish to the English cb group, don't spread the
noise into the amateur radio newsgroup "rec.radio.amateur.homebrew"
(I wouldn't see any replies since I don't subscribe to the cb group)

Airy R.Bean wrote:
The Mongolian Hordes of CBers are present in Britland,
particularly in the shape of the gangrenous degeneration that
is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme.

If we stand aside and let them take over, then who will
speak out for the excellent technical pursuit that is Ham Radio?

Yes - the NG uk.radio.amateur has become largely a CB
group, not the least reason being the sometimes-vicious
and always-infantile abusive tirades from those who
are CBers in one guise or another, as overt CBers,
as M3/CBers and as CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams.

Do we let them sweep away all that is excellent about Ham Radio,
or do we take a stand against them by staying in, and continuing to
demonstrate our own standards in, the NG uk.radio.amateur?

"J M Noeding" wrote in message
...

Oh, so sometimes-vicious and always-infantile abusive tirades are a sign
of a CB'er?

Well, 10-4 good buddy, and you can 10-3 for as long as you want.

I hope that helps, you don't seem to understand English on this point.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Mr.Westcott continues with his rather silly and infantile
tirades, his Children's Broadcast (CB) below seeming
to classify him.....


"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
Oh, so sometimes-vicious and always-infantile abusive tirades are a sign
of a CB'er?
Well, 10-4 good buddy, and you can 10-3 for as long as you want.
I hope that helps, you don't seem to understand English on this point.

Tim Wescott wrote:

: Oh, so sometimes-vicious and always-infantile abusive tirades are a sign
: of a CB'er?
yes they are.

two who fit the desription were mughurtz and dipstik.
both have displayed their cb roots on this+uk.cb.radio.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago (apart from greater than
200 kHz coverage on each band!)

None of the CBer's facilities such as scanners, memories,
CAT interfaces, CTCSS and the like are necessary.

I suggest that we consider a DSP approach for all the
baseband mod and demod, and then phasing techniques
for translating into the various bands.

A power output of 5W will be more than sufficient for
any self-respecting _REAL_ Radio Hams - it is only
CBers and CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams who
need to work with BBC levels of signal strength.

Such a project could be what we need to capture the
interest of newcomers who would not then be sidetracked
into the CB-like purchasing of brand-new rigs from the
shelves of emporia, and, having, constructed their own
rigs, would feel competent to maintain those rigs, unlike
those who send them back to the emporia and thus show
themselves as closet CBers.

We _COULD_ take a lead in this NG!

For starters, you might check out Mike's work at www.qsl.net/g3tso.
He's already done it.