|
Why don't Real Hams you face the facts?
Trolls suck. Ignore them. SO in that light.... Is radio a great hobby? I sure think so. How about you? TS |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:44:44 +0100, "citizensband"
wrote: Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken you all! You poor troll. Don't you have anything to sell or auction? And, on the chance that you really are a CBer, did we not make it simple enough for you to get a ham license. The requirements are so minimal now that a two year old could get a ticket. You ought to try it. |
Yes, I agree!! Furthermore, I think, IMHO, that that is what this newsgroup
should continue to be about---the exchange of valuable information and the education of those less versed but definitely interested ones (people like me) in the ways of the firebottle. People who are intelligent enough to be interested in 50 year old (or more), 50 lb. (or more) pieces of radio equipment usually are intelligent enough to refrain from senseless flaming. Those with more neanderthal sloping foreheads are the ones who seem to knock what we do. There's ideas to be shared, and tips to be learned in keeping these fine old pieces of gear WORKING!! Is radio a great hobby? I sure think so. How about you? |
citizensband wrote:
All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB, unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these days. Most people can't even be bothered, have no interest or don't have the time to build rigs anymore. Boatanchors should be used for exactly that, anchoring boats! Actually, the neat thing is that current technology makes homebrewing more fun than ever! I can now build one hell of a nice receiver using DSP technology and doing most of the IF processing in the digital domain, using off the shelf stuff. And I can get performance that beats anything on the shelf right now. What I want right now, though, is a PLL on a chip that will take a simple BCD or binary encoded frequency, and produce an unmodulated carrier. I would be surprised if someone hasn't built something like that already using one of those Sanyo mask-programmed microprocessors with the PLL on the chip like a lot of CBs use today. Doesn't have to be a PLL, it could be DDS too, but I want a single chip synthesizer that will tune 160 through 10 meters continuously and I'd like to avoid the microprocessor interface. Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken you all! Whinging? I'm not winging, I'm having a great time! Real technology makes this a great time to be a ham. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
I must say, that sounds very impressive, although I really do doubt that he
understood all that......or is that the intent? Actually, the neat thing is that current technology makes homebrewing more fun than ever! I can now build one hell of a nice receiver using DSP technology and doing most of the IF processing in the digital domain, using off the shelf stuff. And I can get performance that beats anything on the shelf right now. What I want right now, though, is a PLL on a chip that will take a simple BCD or binary encoded frequency, and produce an unmodulated carrier. I would be surprised if someone hasn't built something like that already using one of those Sanyo mask-programmed microprocessors with the PLL on the chip like a lot of CBs use today. Doesn't have to be a PLL, it could be DDS too, but I want a single chip synthesizer that will tune 160 through 10 meters continuously and I'd like to avoid the microprocessor interface. Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken you all! Whinging? I'm not winging, I'm having a great time! Real technology makes this a great time to be a ham. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Opara Kvijji wrote:
I must say, that sounds very impressive, although I really do doubt that he understood all that......or is that the intent? I dunno, if one person understands it and happens to have a source for PLLs, I'll be happy. It's true, though, that I can go to the trash bins down the street, and pick up VCRs with wideband electronics that will carry from DC to 4 MHz, TV sets with great digital tuner stages, really slick sweep amplifier stages that can put out decent power across the whole HF band, and all kinds of nifty stuff. People complain about technology today making homebrewing impossible, but frankly I would have given my eyeteeth for this sort of salvage when I was a kid. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Thanks for the tip, Carl. Geeze, Analog Devices. I should have remembered.
It has been quite a few years since I worked in Materials Engineering and actually had a feel for the current state of the art. Heck, I was only off by a factor of 10 on that clock rate! 10 percent is one thing, but by a decade! :) LOL. Be grateful I didn't suggest wiring a bunch of 12AU7s together in flip flops. Hmmm ... where'd I put that core memory anyways? BTW, those 400 MHz devices are 10 cents per dozen, right? :) I will check out the site, however; again, thanks for the tip. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA aka "trailing edge technology" :) "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Some of the newer DDS devices (check Analog Devices' website) are clocking at up to 400MHz (maybe more by now, as I haven't looked in a few months). Some provide quadrature outputs. Some provide on-chip phase modulation and/or FSK. There are also techniques using harmonic aliases that will allow a relatively low frequency DDS to effectively produce a higher frequency signal ... Lots of interesting stuff in the data sheets and app notes. 73, Carl - wk3c --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/03 |
"Ged" wrote in message ... In message , citizensband writes All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB, unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these days. Most people can't even be bothered, have no interest or don't have the time to build rigs anymore. Boatanchors should be used for exactly that, anchoring boats! Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken you all! tox Spoken like a true brain-dead CB-er. -- Ged Spoken like a brain-dead 'alleged' Ham, who thinks radio revolves around a soldering iron...it doesn't anymore. Things are changing, look what has happened to the Morse assessment! Even the RSGB have had the good sense to move into the twenty first century! HTH tox |
.:\:/:. +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +-------------------+ / \ | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \ | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Thanks for the tip, Carl. Geeze, Analog Devices. I should have remembered. It has been quite a few years since I worked in Materials Engineering and actually had a feel for the current state of the art. Heck, I was only off by a factor of 10 on that clock rate! 10 percent is one thing, but by a decade! :) LOL. Be grateful I didn't suggest wiring a bunch of 12AU7s together in flip flops. Hmmm ... where'd I put that core memory anyways? BTW, those 400 MHz devices are 10 cents per dozen, right? :) IIRC, they are not $1.95, but they are not hundreds of dollars, either ... seems to me that the range is generally from about 5 - 50 bucks, depending on device, quantity, etc. I will check out the site, however; again, thanks for the tip. ur wlcm es 73, Carl - wk3c |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:44:44 +0100, "citizensband"
wrote: Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken you all! oh ? i thought it was about the person behind the mic (key / camera ) and that persons permission to self-train in the art of communications. never did i think that AMATEUR RADIO was about technology. |
On 16 Jul 2003 18:53:15 GMT, Leigh wrote:
.....and a true example of home-built radio was heard on 80m CW a week or so ago - a Russian with homemade equipment that rasped CW more than broke the carrier and was a wide signal. Sort of knocks the 'build your own' case for Gareth into a cocked hat - not easy to work or even work out who or where he was. thats the classic eastern european sound of homemade gear. that and the tone that starts high and goes low as the dah dah dah is sent. dont worry, you get used to it. |
Jim Hampton wrote:
Thanks for the tip, Carl. Geeze, Analog Devices. I should have remembered. It has been quite a few years since I worked in Materials Engineering and actually had a feel for the current state of the art. Heck, I was only off by a factor of 10 on that clock rate! 10 percent is one thing, but by a decade! :) LOL. Be grateful I didn't suggest wiring a bunch of 12AU7s together in flip flops. Hmmm ... where'd I put that core memory anyways? BTW, those 400 MHz devices are 10 cents per dozen, right? :) All of the AD synthesizers I have seen have a microprocessor interface, where they basically memory-map into a processor. I'd rather have something I can directly address. I could probably pull out a 68HC11 to control the thing if I absolutely had to, but I'd rather have something I can just latch a BCD input into. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Some of us have ALWAYS built our own equipment. That's why
some of us became "hams" --- so we could test it out..... Alas, most today are appliance operators. I can't, personally, see any thrill at all in spending 2K for a rig designed and built by strangers, and spending a month reading the manual learning how to use it... Still, there's room in the hobby for all of us. And, in fact, there's a whole lot of us that have more degrees and licenses than can fit on a good sized wall. Enjoy whatever facet of it you choose.... Andy W4OAH |
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Jim Hampton wrote: Thanks for the tip, Carl. Geeze, Analog Devices. I should have remembered. It has been quite a few years since I worked in Materials Engineering and actually had a feel for the current state of the art. Heck, I was only off by a factor of 10 on that clock rate! 10 percent is one thing, but by a decade! :) LOL. Be grateful I didn't suggest wiring a bunch of 12AU7s together in flip flops. Hmmm ... where'd I put that core memory anyways? BTW, those 400 MHz devices are 10 cents per dozen, right? :) All of the AD synthesizers I have seen have a microprocessor interface, where they basically memory-map into a processor. I'd rather have something I can directly address. I could probably pull out a 68HC11 to control the thing if I absolutely had to, but I'd rather have something I can just latch a BCD input into. --scott Modern DDS devices would require too many pins on the device for cheap packages unless they used some sort of serial communications or a modest pin count multiplexed bus. I doubt that you will find anything useful with a straight binary or BCD input because the devices need too many bits loaded into them to set up all of the internal functions/registers. Carl - wkc3 |
thats the classic eastern european sound of homemade gear.
that and the tone that starts high and goes low as the dah dah dah is sent. dont worry, you get used to it. We thought it was the sound of your head deflating after the Atlantic crossing. |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
--scott Modern DDS devices would require too many pins on the device for cheap packages unless they used some sort of serial communications or a modest pin count multiplexed bus. I doubt that you will find anything useful with a straight binary or BCD input because the devices need too many bits loaded into them to set up all of the internal functions/registers. Right. I am looking for something that might best be implemented as an ASIC somewhere, in that it would be a special-purpose sine wave synthesizer rather than a general purpose DDS device. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:53:15 UTC, Leigh
wrote: "citizensband" wrote in : All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB, unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these days. What? I've never heard that. Folks should know how their radios work, that's why the FCC exam includes "theory". There's never been a requirement to bring in a Home Brew transceiver as part of the exam. .....and a true example of home-built radio was heard on 80m CW a week or so ago - a Russian with homemade equipment that rasped CW more than broke the carrier and was a wide signal. Sort of knocks the 'build your own' case for Gareth into a cocked hat - not easy to work or even work out who or where he was. Leigh..... I've been licensed for 35 years and I've only met one person who built an SSB transceiver from scratch. I know lots of folk who have the expertise to repair them and many have built kits. de ah6gi/4 -- |
hey this could be a troll! ya think?
(plonk) -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html "citizensband" wrote in message ... All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB, unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these days. Most people can't even be bothered, have no interest or don't have the time to build rigs anymore. Boatanchors should be used for exactly that, anchoring boats! Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken you all! tox |
Sheesh! 1 GHz with a 10 bit binary counter. Only $350.00 each in quantities
of 1000. Someone care to loan me over 1/3 of a million? Seriously, however, there are affordable AMD devices but they appear to be in the 50 MHz to under 200 MHz range. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: --scott Modern DDS devices would require too many pins on the device for cheap packages unless they used some sort of serial communications or a modest pin count multiplexed bus. I doubt that you will find anything useful with a straight binary or BCD input because the devices need too many bits loaded into them to set up all of the internal functions/registers. Right. I am looking for something that might best be implemented as an ASIC somewhere, in that it would be a special-purpose sine wave synthesizer rather than a general purpose DDS device. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/15/03 |
Leigh wrote: "citizensband" wrote in : All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB, unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these days. .....and a true example of home-built radio was heard on 80m CW a week or so ago - a Russian with homemade equipment that rasped CW more than broke the carrier and was a wide signal. Sort of knocks the 'build your own' case for Gareth into a cocked hat - not easy to work or even work out who or where he was. Leigh..... You were probably hearing a keyed parasitic oscillation. |
zpk_12wpm wrote:. that and the tone that starts high and goes low as the dah dah dah is sent. That one usually comes from Cuba |
ISTR that the programming interface for PLL chips is the three wire serial
form, with a static clock. you _COULD_ drive it with three switches, but you'd have to at least debounce them - RS flip-flop from NAND ususally being the simplest way. Might be interesting to derive a driving circuit from el-bug principles! Scott Dorsey wrote in message ... All of the AD synthesizers I have seen have a microprocessor interface, where they basically memory-map into a processor. I'd rather have something I can directly address. I could probably pull out a 68HC11 to control the thing if I absolutely had to, but I'd rather have something I can just latch a BCD input into. --scott |
Jim Hampton wrote:
Sheesh! 1 GHz with a 10 bit binary counter. Only $350.00 each in quantities of 1000. Someone care to loan me over 1/3 of a million? Seriously, however, there are affordable AMD devices but they appear to be in the 50 MHz to under 200 MHz range. I could do that. Generate a 50-80 Mhz sine wave, then put it into a mixer with a 50 Hz crystal oscillator and turn it into a DC-30 Mhz signal. I think I could even get a brickwall high pass at 30 MHz so the whole thing would be broadband with no tuning. Of course, you'd lose some stability in the process from those extra stages, but probably not enough to be a big issue. Oh, and for 10M FM, of course, I could modulate the local oscillator. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
In article , Dick Carroll wrote:
Leigh wrote: "citizensband" wrote in : All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB, unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these days. .....and a true example of home-built radio was heard on 80m CW a week or so ago - a Russian with homemade equipment that rasped CW more than broke the carrier and was a wide signal. Sort of knocks the 'build your own' case for Gareth into a cocked hat - not easy to work or even work out who or where he was. You were probably hearing a keyed parasitic oscillation. Yup. I am sorry to report that my first homebrew rig did the same thing too. Some of the eastern european folks I know are still rockbound, and some of them are cutting their own crystals. This is a recipe for parasitics, or at least it was when I tried doing it in high school. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
Too many eggs in the diet?
On 17 Jul 2003 10:33:21 (Scott Dorsey) wrote:- Some of the eastern european folks I know are still rockbound, |
"Airy R Bean" SPAM@trap wrote in message ... Too many eggs in the diet? On 17 Jul 2003 10:33:21 (Scott Dorsey) wrote:- Some of the eastern european folks I know are still rockbound, No, that would be egg bound. -- Jon |
"citizensband" wrote in message ... All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB, unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these days. Most people can't even be bothered, have no interest or don't have the time to build rigs anymore. Boatanchors should be used for exactly that, anchoring boats! Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken you all! tox In all honesty, unless go in for VERY low power ( 1Watt), the problem is that you are going to have real problems ensuring that you don't generate unacceptable levels of spurious emissions. To properly test things to the standard required nowadays, with today's high density of electronic equipment in any residential area, you will need test equipment costing much more than a brand new 'off the shelf' set. But it is certainly possible to design your own passive circuits, for instance filters and traps, without this risk being involved. If you are interested in DX, then a commercially designed receiver is going to be much more sensitive and selective, of course. This is due to the fact that a multinational company has the development resources that an individual could only dream of. Obviously, you do gain a lot of respect for designing your own circuits, and you will attract a lot of interest by doing so! So I don't think that 'home brew' will ever die out in it's entirety! DN |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On 21 Jul 2003 06:10:18 -0700, (Gary) wrote: I don't think you have the proficiency to use one my little "walt-sucker" Hello Groid! I had been wondering what had happened to you. Away trouble-making on other newsgroups, no doubt. Still working for Littlewoods, are we? Not much of a job ... but then, assholes can't be choosers, can they? You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands, to spend it posting abusive messages from your employer's IT network. Still using the same NTL broadband connection from home, too, I see. You are being watched, sunshine. :-))) 73 de G3NYY -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @freeuk.com Careful Walt, that could be considered a threat |
In article , (N2EY)
writes: I'll save you the bother of responding. They are being killed by CRIMINALS using GUNS. Criminals will always have guns in this country, because criminals, by definition, are not constrained by the moral necessity to observe the law, including gun laws. Just ask any victim of gun crime in Great Britain, where the law-abiding citizens have no rights to keep and bear arms, and even sporting shotguns must be kept in gun club armories, instead of in the owner's home. Over there, violent criminals have no problem getting guns -- they're brought into the country by the SEALAND container load under the watchful eye of Customs officers who have nice fat pockets full of payoff money. They are quickly distributed throughout the criminal and terrorist underground at obscene profits, and end up in the hands of the same kinds of criminals that they've always ended up in. Even unarmed criminals are having a "field day" of their own. They can simply walk into the homes of innocent citizens, even in broad daylight, since they know with absolute certainty that they will not be faced with the barrel of a shotgun or a 9mm pistol, as they may have been years before. The net result is that British citizens are being robbed and killed by criminals with guns at a rate three times what it was before the country went to total civil disarmament. Crimes against property have risen to the point where it is now estimated that fully 50% of the British population has been or will be crime victims within their lifetimes. Can you point us to a source for that info, Larry? Jim: I don't know if I should. I'm about 14 years behind on receiving "sources" I've requested from others in the past. However, start at www.nra.org. Also check out www.fredoneverything.com (columnist Fred Reed). It is a proven fact that everywhere in the United States where "Shall Issue" Right-to-Carry concealed weapon laws exist, violent crime drops at a dramatic rate. Surce, please? Axed and answered, sort of. Your own home state of Texas is one of the leading examples. It is also a proven fact that the only force that can stop a criminal with a gun is a law-abiding citizen with another gun. I assume you include law enforcement officers in that group. Certainly. You see, the guns don't know who is using them -- they are inanimate objects which require a responsible human agency to utilize them for good or evil. The best solution to the problem of violent gun crime is to ensure that the criminals have as much to fear from their victims as their victims have to fear from them. I disagree. I think the best solution to the problem of violent gun crime is to ensure that the criminals have *MORE* to fear from their victims and the criminal justice system as their victims have to fear from them. Won't argue with that, Jim. I'm all for criminals being in fear. BTW, If I were the owner of a convenience store, I'd have a special door chime that played a .WAV of a 12-ga. pump-action shotgun being racked every time someone came in after sundown. And, you'd probably be local news. Yeah. The story would be about why my store is never robbed. There is nothing so stupid that some criminal won't try it. Heck, there was at least one case where a couple of guys tried to hold up a gun shop. Owner was better armed and trained than they were. He's OK. They aren't. Besides, total disarmament in this country would simply not work because millions of law-abiding citizens would simply hide their guns and ammo. Indeed, many non-gun-owners would go out and buy guns and ammo before any ban went into effect. Yep, they sure would! Look for that to start happening sometime in 2007, when Hillary decides to run for President. I still think the best arrangement would be to license gun owners, not their weapons. If someone is an adult, law abiding, responsible taxpaying citizen with a clean record, they should not have their rights infringed. OTOH, children, people with serious mental problems, and criminals should not be allowed to have any dangerous weapons. OF course the laws would have to be structured to put the burden on the govt. to show why someone should not get a license, not the other way around. I'm all for that, Jim! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
|
Teflon Tips: When you don't care and really wanna wax the sunnovab*tch!
Ryan 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Hollow Points: when you care enough to send the very best. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com