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.

From my past reading of this newsgroup, you've tabled this suggestion
to the various newsgroups before, and despite many viable suggestions
and offers of support, have done little with the responses.

(This is actually a copy and paste of the past posting isn't it old bean!)

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.

Apart from wanting DSP, I can offer you the ideal radios all ready built
for the job - either the KW2000, the FT101 or the FT102! Why re-invent
the wheel?

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.

Oh dear - a lot of us have already lost interest now due to this post
Masquerading-As-Leigitimate-But-Really-Is-Just-An-Excuse-To-Provoke-More-Comments.

If you want 5w with DSP - go for the Elecraft K2 which you can construct
in stages!!!

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.

Yes - an ideal road to go down but sadly somewhat restricted by the UK
Foundation Licence that only allows the use of type-approved equipment -
unless you propose you can gain type-approval for your design and
eventual product that will probably cost a lot more than a purchased radio?!

(I note you use the term 'rig' rather than 'radio' which is the more
_Gentlemanly_ way of traditionally talking about your equipment - surely
the word 'rig' is a term used by a CB'er that you detest so much?)

Just my thoughts....nothing even like a provoke!

David.

"David Edmonds" wrote in message
...

Yes - an ideal road to go down but sadly somewhat restricted by the UK
Foundation Licence that only allows the use of type-approved equipment -
unless you propose you can gain type-approval for your design and
eventual product that will probably cost a lot more than a purchased
radio?!




The restriction isn't "type approved" transmitters- they can use commercial
equipment designed for the amateur market (eg Yaesu et al) and those made
from commercial kits. The words "type approved" etc do not feature.

Plus, of course, as the newcomers progress there is the option of totally
home brew designs (ie not from kits). As a group, we should be encouraging
M3s to progress so let us not get bogged down with this.


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

More bull****ting, side-stepping and downright lying.

If the rigs are home designed and constructed then they are of
a type that is not approved.

Mr.Reay proves to be a silly-billy once again.

As a group, we should definitely _NOT_ be encouraging those who
have a licence issued under the gangrenous degeneration that
is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme one iota! Such people
are not Radio Hams by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps uk.rec.radio.cb, as a group, would be more appropriate?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"David Edmonds" wrote in message
...
Yes - an ideal road to go down but sadly somewhat restricted by the UK
Foundation Licence that only allows the use of type-approved equipment -
unless you propose you can gain type-approval for your design and
eventual product that will probably cost a lot more than a purchased
radio?!

The restriction isn't "type approved" transmitters- they can use
commercial
equipment designed for the amateur market (eg Yaesu et al) and those made
from commercial kits. The words "type approved" etc do not feature.
Plus, of course, as the newcomers progress there is the option of totally
home brew designs (ie not from kits). As a group, we should be
encouraging
M3s to progress so let us not get bogged down with this.

Airy R. Bean wrote:

(I see that the spikeful Old Mother-Hen Nugatory RVMJ-Binary Era
is still demonstrating her paranoid obsessive ways.)

As to Mr.Reay's rather silly and snide comments, I always behave
in a respectable manner in this NG. It is Mr.Reay, with his obsession
of sheep-shagging who regularly resorts to rather silly and childish
outbursts; witness his two sneering contributions to this thread already!

Mr.Reay does have one useful redeeming feature; he does illustrate
to a "T" why anybody who holds, or who has ever held, a licence
issued under the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools'
Licence scheme will never make it into the ranks of _REAL_ Radio
hams and thus may yet serve to put off newcomers from making the
mistake of taking up such a licence.

Perhaps even Mr.Reay may learn something from this thread - how to
behave in a respectable manner more suited to an international
public forum than the infantile boastful manner that is his wont?

............and on reading this typically 'gangrenous degenerationed'
follow-up, members of two newsgroups yawn and quietly close their design
books.

Well done old bean - another fine plan falls flat on its arse!

43 minutes to kill off one of your own 'almost credible' postings must
be a record for you.

David.

Brian Reay wrote:

The restriction isn't "type approved" transmitters- they can use commercial
equipment designed for the amateur market (eg Yaesu et al) and those made
from commercial kits. The words "type approved" etc do not feature.

Plus, of course, as the newcomers progress there is the option of totally
home brew designs (ie not from kits). As a group, we should be encouraging
M3s to progress so let us not get bogged down with this.

Thanks for clearing this up Brian.

I for one support the M3 licence scheme and the progress up the licence
classes to gain more skills and aid self-development.

David.

"David Edmonds" wrote in message
...
Brian Reay wrote:

The restriction isn't "type approved" transmitters- they can use
commercial
equipment designed for the amateur market (eg Yaesu et al) and those
made
from commercial kits. The words "type approved" etc do not feature.

Plus, of course, as the newcomers progress there is the option of
totally
home brew designs (ie not from kits). As a group, we should be
encouraging
M3s to progress so let us not get bogged down with this.

Thanks for clearing this up Brian.

I for one support the M3 licence scheme and the progress up the licence
classes to gain more skills and aid self-development.


I never doubted you supported the scheme, I just want to 'kill' a common red
herring.

Good article on STELAR in the TES, by the way.

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

Brian Reay wrote:

Good article on STELAR in the TES, by the way.

A publication, out of choice, I rarely read now but will no doubt be
giving the clipping due to the Amateur Radio content!

David.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:56:59 -0000, "Brian Reay"
wrote:

Aero spike wrote:

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.

Treat it as another challenge- something we can teach him.

The problem is that he's appears to be such a slow learner - it takes
a lot of repetition before anything seemingly gets accepted, and even
then one isn't sure that it's just being regurgitated parrot-fashion.

I'm almost tempted to let him out of the killfile but I think I'll just
watch the follow ups for now. With a recalcitrant people it does no good to
give them too much rope early on.

Well, it's one of the downsides of usenet, we mustn't let it blind us
to its good qualities!
--
from
Aero Spike

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:56:59 -0000, "Brian Reay"
wrote:

Aero spike wrote:

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.

Treat it as another challenge- something we can teach him.

The problem is that he's appears to be such a slow learner - it takes
a lot of repetition before anything seemingly gets accepted, and even
then one isn't sure that it's just being regurgitated parrot-fashion.

A definite case of SEN, I fancy.
--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:19:44 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

As a group, we should definitely _NOT_

This is a collection of individuals...so cut the 'we should...' stuff.
--
from
Aero Spike