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.

David Edmonds wrote:
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.


(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.

Whilst some so called *Radio Hams* Waffle, suggest and propose the
*Radio Amateurs* just get on and do it! See-

http://www.qrpeter.de/UK/Speaky2.htm

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?

Absolutely and many other models available 2nd hand.

(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?)

Liking Airy to CB'ers is an insult to CB'ers!

Micky

--
E&OE (C) 2005 Micky Taker
Micky Taker accepts no responsibility for any personal injury or
emotional distress that may occur as a result of reading the contents of
this message.

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
.....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!


.... and your thoughts on the existing Elecraft K2 (which meetings you power
output criteria), which has almost 5,000 kits of this model now sold
worldwide?
http://www.elecraft.com/

Do you desire to build upon this kit and building experience (referred to as
"K3" designs among Elecraft builders) by adding additional features you have
mentioned?

gb

I'm not proposing anything like that. I don't know
anything about the K2.

You seem to have missed the point somewhat, if your
thoughts go straight to what you can buy off the shelf.

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.

"gb" wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
.....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!


... and your thoughts on the existing Elecraft K2 (which meetings you
power
output criteria), which has almost 5,000 kits of this model now sold
worldwide?
http://www.elecraft.com/

Do you desire to build upon this kit and building experience (referred to
as
"K3" designs among Elecraft builders) by adding additional features you
have
mentioned?

gb

Airy dearest,

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

Well - the K2 is an American produced radio that is exactly what you are
proposing. It is a QRP radio that is very small and compact that can be
constructed in stages then tested and used. You then add to it as you go
along - this teaching yourself construction and study the design idea.

You seem to have missed the point somewhat, if your
thoughts go straight to what you can buy off the shelf.

Yes - but this is a kit not obtainable off the shelf.

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.

But - search do search for the Elekraft K2 - you'll be pleased, I hope,
that is teaches everything you stand for - self training, construction
and the development of _REAL_ skills.

David.

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

You seem to have missed the point somewhat, if your
thoughts go straight to what you can buy off the shelf.

Not "off the shelf" product. I am very surprised that you are unaware of Elecraft (founded in 1998) by Wayne Burdick (N6KR) and Eric Swartz (WA6HHQ).
They are the design team dedicated to "hands-on" ham radio transceivers and accessories that can easily be built by amateurs.
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.
I guess you do not read hobby print magazine or had a contact with an Elecraft user.
Elecraft (and its concept) of building and reparing your won equipment has been widely covered in amateur print magazines in Europe, Far East and US.

Debating is not the point and usenet is not the forum for true debate.
Compare your stated specifications and criteria to the Elecraft K2 design team's criteria and specs --- you shoudl discover that it meets the majority of your stated criteria.

gb
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
.....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!


... and your thoughts on the existing Elecraft K2 (which meetings you
power
output criteria), which has almost 5,000 kits of this model now sold
worldwide?
http://www.elecraft.com/

Do you desire to build upon this kit and building experience (referred to
as
"K3" designs among Elecraft builders) by adding additional features you
have
mentioned?

gb

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.

"gb" wrote in message
...
"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
I'm not proposing anything like that. I don't know
anything about the K2.
You seem to have missed the point somewhat, if your
thoughts go straight to what you can buy off the shelf.

Not "off the shelf" product. I am very surprised that you are unaware of
Elecraft (founded in 1998) by Wayne Burdick (N6KR) and Eric Swartz (WA6HHQ).
They are the design team dedicated to "hands-on" ham radio transceivers and
accessories that can easily be built by amateurs.

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.
I guess you do not read hobby print magazine or had a contact with an
Elecraft user.
Elecraft (and its concept) of building and reparing your won equipment has
been widely covered in amateur print magazines in Europe, Far East and US.

Debating is not the point and usenet is not the forum for true debate.
Compare your stated specifications and criteria to the Elecraft K2 design
team's criteria and specs --- you shoudl discover that it meets the majority
of your stated criteria.

gb
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
.....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!


... and your thoughts on the existing Elecraft K2 (which meetings you
power
output criteria), which has almost 5,000 kits of this model now sold
worldwide?
http://www.elecraft.com/

Do you desire to build upon this kit and building experience (referred to
as
"K3" designs among Elecraft builders) by adding additional features you
have
mentioned?

gb

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.