A proposal for the body of Hams that make up this NG......
 

......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!

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

is that we club together and conceive of a design snip

We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago snip

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

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.snip

Adress the contradictions and I may consider this as a sensible
suggestion....

"mexico_zero" wrote in message
...

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

is that we club together and conceive of a design snip

We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago snip

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

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.snip

Adress the contradictions and I may consider this as a sensible
suggestion....


Indeed, not a bad idea at all.

However, what is to be gained by re-inventing a (in radio terms) stone age
design?

Thinks like computer control provide added challenge and attraction to the
idea, why dismiss them? They could always be add-ons. DSP. Oh dear. I
assume this phasing technique relies on Big K.


Or maybe he just meant mixing, an existing technique not needing DSP.

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

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' - old his old
chestnuts are coming out.....:-(
--
from
Aero Spike

"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' - old 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.

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

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

M3OSN continues to exhibit a negative and destructive
maladjusted personality and demonstrates well 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.

What is to be gained by designing a radio that is, or should
be, reproducible with ease by newcomers? Nothing if you're
a defeatist SFB Jonah such as Mr.Reay presents below, but everything if
you have the makings of being a _REAL_ Radio Ham!

Stone-age design? What a silly-billy is Mr.Reay! No doubt
by that childish sneer he reveals himself to be one of the
CB types who buys his radios off-the-shelf! What a bad
example he presents to any prospective newcomers!

Once again Mr.Reay demonstrates why he will always be
no more than an SFB CBer and never a _REAL_ Radio Ham!
(Newcomers! Do you wish to be a sneering failure such as
Mr.Reay presents, or do you wish to join the Radio Hams?)

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"mexico_zero" wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message .....
is that we club together and conceive of a design snip
We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago snip
None of the CBer's facilities such as scanners, memories,
CAT interfaces, CTCSS and the like are necessary snip
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.snip
Adress the contradictions and I may consider this as a sensible
suggestion....
Indeed, not a bad idea at all.
However, what is to be gained by re-inventing a (in radio terms) stone age
design?
Thinks like computer control provide added challenge and attraction to the
idea, why dismiss them? They could always be add-ons. DSP. Oh dear. I
assume this phasing technique relies on Big K.
Or maybe he just meant mixing, an existing technique not needing DSP.

(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?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"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' - old 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.
At worst we can go back though Google and refer him to previous answers.

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.
--
from
Aero Spike

Brian Reay (spamstopper) wrote:

However, what is to be gained by re-inventing a (in radio terms)
stone age
design?

Beanie can just copy something out of SPRAT and claim it as being new.
There's nothing innovative in yet another DC RX on 40m ;-)
Regards,

Mr Wibble

"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?

Well some people are slow learners. In fact, I seem to recall one student of
DSP admitting he was just such a slow learner.

If he learns just one new thing every cycle, have we not a duty as radio
amateurs to try and assist him? OK, it maybe painful for us, he will be
ungrateful, it may seem like we are banging out heads against a brick wall,
but think of the challenge. We could succeed where Essex University failed!


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.

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

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.

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

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

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

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Try not to wind Professor Bean up too much Brian, if he's still on Dial Up,
it must be costing him a fortune replying to your postings ;-)

Keep up the good work...

Regards
tox

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

"tox" wrote in message
...

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Try not to wind Professor Bean up too much Brian, if he's still on Dial
Up,
it must be costing him a fortune replying to your postings ;-)

Keep up the good work...


Is he getting wound up? Oh dear, the ultimate failure. He tries to troll
(and thus wind up others) and ends up getting wound up himself.

What a pity ;-)

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

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
...
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.



Yes, and I'm sure soon that if you don't get them CE marked and EMC tested
they will soon be banned..

Airy R. Bean wrote:

-- the usual crap --

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

--

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

"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

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!
--
from
Aero Spike

Suggest you look at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/....amateur/about

There you will se that there are less than 100 users of this NG of
which only 10 are regular posters (of which you are one). The other
nine all hate you, so I'd say your chances are slim to none (and Slim's
on holiday).

Greteings, one and all!


Airy R.Bean wrote:

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

Thereby showing the massive extent of his ignorance. Anyone propounding
to know anything about developments in amateur (not 'HAM') radio during
the past decade who doesn't know anything about the K2 is of course not
worth the space he takes up: and most certainly not the air that he
breaths.

To paraphrase poor Airy - the Ignorant Prat reveals his true nature
every time he opens his mouth.

Regards,

Mr Wibble

Mr.Westcott once again demonstrates his infantile personality.

Grow up, Mr.Westcott!

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
Airy R. Bean wrote:

-- the usual crap --

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

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?

Is it because he is tetchy (to use his own phrase) that he
didn't think of the idea first?

Perhaps, bearing in mind his recent boasts about share dealings,
he has shares in Waters And Stanton?

Either way, his rather silly and infantile sneering below does seem
to suggest that he is irrelevant to the future of _REAL_ Ham Radio;
and of no value to any scheme for beginners.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"mexico_zero" wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message .....
is that we club together and conceive of a design snip
We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago snip
None of the CBer's facilities such as scanners, memories,
CAT interfaces, CTCSS and the like are necessary snip
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.snip
Indeed, not a bad idea at all.
However, what is to be gained by re-inventing a (in radio terms) stone age
design?
Thinks like computer control provide added challenge and attraction to the
idea, why dismiss them? They could always be add-ons. DSP. Oh dear. I
assume this phasing technique relies on Big K.
Or maybe he just meant mixing, an existing technique not needing DSP.

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

Hmm..... only 6 replies and only one in anything that
might be construed as a positive response, and that
one was pretty defeatist.

Perhaps Ham Radio has degenerated in to becoming an offshoot
of CB Radio in Yankland as well as in Britland?

"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!)

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
Hmm..... only 6 replies and only one in anything that
might be construed as a positive response, and that
one was pretty defeatist.

Perhaps Ham Radio has degenerated in to becoming an offshoot
of CB Radio in Yankland as well as in Britland?

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. Done by amateurs for amateurs and surpassing in
most features, anything offered commercially at any price.

You're very good Airhead, you are the only one on any newsgroup that I
subscribe to that can raise my blood pressure just by reading your byline.
Fortunately, I am blessed with low blood pressure and can stand it, but to
absolutely preclude any possible ill side effects, you are now entering my
kill file zone. Too bad God made so many more horses asses than he did
horses.

W4ZCB

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:iCyEd.84797$k25.40602@attbi_s53...

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
Hmm..... only 6 replies and only one in anything that
might be construed as a positive response, and that
one was pretty defeatist.

Perhaps Ham Radio has degenerated in to becoming an offshoot
of CB Radio in Yankland as well as in Britland?

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. Done by amateurs for amateurs and surpassing
in
most features, anything offered commercially at any price.

You're very good Airhead, you are the only one on any newsgroup that I
subscribe to that can raise my blood pressure just by reading your byline.
Fortunately, I am blessed with low blood pressure and can stand it, but to
absolutely preclude any possible ill side effects, you are now entering my
kill file zone. Too bad God made so many more horses asses than he did
horses.


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

ROTFLMAO !

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

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

Grow up, Harold.

Stupid boy.

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:iCyEd.84797$k25.40602@attbi_s53...
"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
Hmm..... only 6 replies and only one in anything that
might be construed as a positive response, and that
one was pretty defeatist.
Perhaps Ham Radio has degenerated in to becoming an offshoot
of CB Radio in Yankland as well as in Britland?
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. Done by amateurs for amateurs and surpassing
in
most features, anything offered commercially at any price.
You're very good Airhead, you are the only one on any newsgroup that I
subscribe to that can raise my blood pressure just by reading your byline.
Fortunately, I am blessed with low blood pressure and can stand it, but to
absolutely preclude any possible ill side effects, you are now entering my
kill file zone. Too bad God made so many more horses asses than he did
horses.

That Mr.Reay rejoices at insults but not at
technical proposals serves to illustrate once again
that nobody who holds, or who has ever held, a licence
issued under the gangrenous degeneration that is the
M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme will _EVER_ make it
into the ranks of _REAL_ Radio Hams with their gentlemanly
traditions.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Brilliant Harold, no one can dress an insult up like an American. I love
it!
ROTFLMAO !