In article ,
(Brian the Bluffman's Home Companion Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

As you will say later, those "analog" radios have INFINITE resolution. :-)

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example.

Heh heh heh...your bafflegab won't win blind man's bluff, Kellie,
deal yourself a better hand... :-)

Feel free to try to state you can return to that "infinite possible"
setting within a few PPM...all without any old crystal calibrator and
dependent on that "coarse" analog dial. :-)

And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

Then you should examine exactly how low that terrible phase noise
is. You can use the term "dbc" referring to the number of decibels
below the "carrier" (center frequency reference, not a modulated
carrier per se). The "crud" (as you term it) is quite far down in
relative power and certainly won't affect morse code reception of an
on-off keyed station's carrier.

"Phase noise" is a somewhat new buzzword in industry due to the
importance of keeping it low for QAM signals (Quadrature [phase]
Amplitude Modulation, a combination of PM and AM). The cell
phone engineers will know of that importance on keeping the BER
(Bit Error Rate) as low as possible. The amount of work in the last
decade on cellular telephony techniques has been enormous
worldwide. It's only natural that industry advertisements, from sub-
system components to full systems, emphasize a low "phase noise."

As far as on-off keyed radiotelegraphy, your mention of "phase noise"
as being "crud" in synthesizer frequency control is akin to making
a big case for gold-plated music system speaker wires. :-)

It is ignorance to discount the possibility of "crud" being non-existant
in analog mixing frequency generators. Those analog "infinitely-
variable" oscillators are just as prone as anything to "phase noise."
The wrong selection of mixing frequencies will produce spurious
responses...one of the papers I wrote at RCA was on quick
identification of such possible spurs (not the first, but it was a
very quick way to determine them).


My FT-847, which is not much as ham xcvrs go, can be tuned in 1 Hz
increments vs. the "make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz
increments" thingey you cite above.

10 Hz increments is common in installed equipment (including the
ham consumer market) in the past two decades. I know there are
smaller increments...:-)...but I also have to play to the common
denominator of technical expertise in here.

10 Hz increments are perfectly fine for SSB voice tuning, as I've
found out with my Icom R-70. If I need to get closer than that
(don't know why I should), the RIT will handle those "infinite
frequency" things. :-)

When I bought my R-70 (years ago), the three extras at work in the
Van Nuys, CA, store didn't know squat how Icom was able to do it
with 10 KHz reference frequencies to the PFDs (factor of 1000:1)
there. Turns out Icom has a neat 3-loop PLL arrangment, doesn't
go into DDS or Fractional-N at all. Minimal phase noise and no
discernable "crud" anywhere within full tuning range.

Okay, so your spiffy-schmiffy 1 Hz resolution "xcver" is "guarnateed"
accurate because it has a "digital dial?" I don't think so. Exact 1 Hz
settings imply 100 PPB (Parts Per Billion) accuracy of the master
reference oscillator. You will NOT be able to hold such accuracy
and be believable to anyone who has worked to such accuracies in
crystal oscillators. Certainly not for the ham consumer market.

Fella named John R. Vig (unusual surname) is a good name to
remember on what can be done and can't be done with crystal
oscillators. Big name in the frequency control part of electronics
industry, probably not in the pages of QST. :-)

You obviously need to spend
considerable time leafing thru the ham catalogs to get up to speed on
the equipment we use before you spout off and continue to goose up
your "coefficient of ignornace" on the subject of ham radio in general
and the equipment we use. Again. Gets boring.

True. I never bothered to memorize advertisements in QST by
heart...like so many PCTA extras do. :-)

I rather prefer what I've been exposed to since 1963 on frequency
control methods...beginning with those "cruddy" synthesizers
(without "real" frequencies, only the "synthetic" variety)...and
quartz crystal oscillator accuracy and stability to the 10 PPB
region.

Common ham radio quartz crystals have guaranteed accuracies
to 50 PPM typical. That translates to 500 Hz at 10 MHz, by way
of example. 1 Hz accuracy at 10 MHz is 100 PPB, or 500 times
closer.

Then there are the few "drudges" (like myself) who've
gotten our hands dirty doing the design and testing of synthesizers.

Then there are drudges like me who have ham licenses and and put
technoligies to work on the airwaves whilst all you're allowed to do
is bafflegab about 'em with your keyboard.

I'm sorry that my technical competence seems like "bafflegab"
to you. Some further learning of the radio technical arts would
erase some of your ignorance and lend credence to what I've
said. Like, I could ask you "how's the zeta of your control loop"
and you would be out to lunch, cussing and hollering "bafflegab!"
"Zeta" is the symbol for the response characteristic in a closed
loop of a PLL, Fractional-N, or hybrid PLL-DDS system. An
important factor for lock-in and stability and anyone designing
the loop filter for a synthesizer should recognize that common
term.

I've never dined in the executive dining room (the counterpart to
your "captain's table" BS) in any electronic corporation but I
HAVE designed and made frequency synthesizers. Hands-on
work all the way, from the initial paper work-up to long hours
in the environmental lab...to accuracies in 100 PPB over
full military environment. Interesting, challenging work!

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else. Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily. Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs. It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Brian the Bluffman's Home Companion Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

As you will say later, those "analog" radios have INFINITE resolution. :-)

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example.

Heh heh heh...your bafflegab won't win blind man's bluff, Kellie,
deal yourself a better hand... :-)

Feel free to try to state you can return to that "infinite possible"
setting within a few PPM...all without any old crystal calibrator and
dependent on that "coarse" analog dial. :-)

And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

Then you should examine exactly how low that terrible phase noise
is. You can use the term "dbc" referring to the number of decibels
below the "carrier" (center frequency reference, not a modulated
carrier per se). The "crud" (as you term it) is quite far down in
relative power and certainly won't affect morse code reception of an
on-off keyed station's carrier.

"Phase noise" is a somewhat new buzzword in industry due to the
importance of keeping it low for QAM signals (Quadrature [phase]
Amplitude Modulation, a combination of PM and AM). The cell
phone engineers will know of that importance on keeping the BER
(Bit Error Rate) as low as possible. The amount of work in the last
decade on cellular telephony techniques has been enormous
worldwide. It's only natural that industry advertisements, from sub-
system components to full systems, emphasize a low "phase noise."

As far as on-off keyed radiotelegraphy, your mention of "phase noise"
as being "crud" in synthesizer frequency control is akin to making
a big case for gold-plated music system speaker wires. :-)

Once again, you've demonstrated that you know very little about problems
with much of the amateur radio equipment produced within the past couple
of decades. Noticeable phase noise appears not only in the receiver
output section of many transceivers but in the transmitted signals as
well. 1980's top of the line Kenwood TS-930's were rife with the phase
noise products and synthesizer spurs. A quick spin of the main tuning
dial with no antenna connected would result in a rapid p-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t
sound from such spurs. R.L. Drake's TR-7 had much less phase noise.
Rigs such as Ten-Tec's Omni VI series, using a crystal mixed front end
had almost no measureable phase noise.


The folks in Newington whom you frequently enjoy insulting might put you
on the road to being informed:

http://www.arrl.org/files/infoserv/tech/bestrig.txt

under "Q. What do you mean by receiver 'cleanliness'"?

You may continue your education by looking at the following pdf file
under section 1.2.2:

http://www.qth.com/inrad/managing-interference-ch1.pdf

One of the Polish fellows has published some excellent information.
The phase noise issue is touched upon in the last few paragraphs:

http://www.gmdx.org.uk/dxtest/qx9racze.pdf


I rather prefer what I've been exposed to since 1963 on frequency
control methods...beginning with those "cruddy" synthesizers
(without "real" frequencies, only the "synthetic" variety)...and
quartz crystal oscillator accuracy and stability to the 10 PPB
region.

Perhaps it is time to update your database, Leonard.


USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else. Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily. Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs. It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

NOT USING modern equipment but attempting to spout off like you have
some knowledge of what is being discussed is making you look like
N0IMD's antenna advisor.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

As you will say later, those "analog" radios have INFINITE resolution. :-)

Note the avoidance of answering the question ;-)

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example.

Heh heh heh...your bafflegab won't win blind man's bluff, Kellie,
deal yourself a better hand... :-)

Note the avoidance of the facts. ;-)

Feel free to try to state you can return to that "infinite possible"
setting within a few PPM...all without any old crystal calibrator and
dependent on that "coarse" analog dial. :-)

Note that the importance of this feature is not explained ;-)

And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

Then you should examine exactly how low that terrible phase noise
is. You can use the term "dbc" referring to the number of decibels
below the "carrier" (center frequency reference, not a modulated
carrier per se). The "crud" (as you term it) is quite far down in
relative power and certainly won't affect morse code reception of an
on-off keyed station's carrier.

"Phase noise" is a somewhat new buzzword in industry due to the
importance of keeping it low for QAM signals (Quadrature [phase]
Amplitude Modulation, a combination of PM and AM). The cell
phone engineers will know of that importance on keeping the BER
(Bit Error Rate) as low as possible. The amount of work in the last
decade on cellular telephony techniques has been enormous
worldwide. It's only natural that industry advertisements, from sub-
system components to full systems, emphasize a low "phase noise."

As far as on-off keyed radiotelegraphy, your mention of "phase noise"
as being "crud" in synthesizer frequency control is akin to making
a big case for gold-plated music system speaker wires. :-)

Once again, you've demonstrated that you know very little about problems
with much of the amateur radio equipment produced within the past couple
of decades. Noticeable phase noise appears not only in the receiver
output section of many transceivers but in the transmitted signals as
well. 1980's top of the line Kenwood TS-930's were rife with the phase
noise products and synthesizer spurs. A quick spin of the main tuning
dial with no antenna connected would result in a rapid p-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t
sound from such spurs. R.L. Drake's TR-7 had much less phase noise.
Rigs such as Ten-Tec's Omni VI series, using a crystal mixed front end
had almost no measureable phase noise.

The main importance of phase noise in amateur HF reception is that it
causes the apparent noise floor to rise when a strong signal or
signals is close to the desired signal frequency. If you are trying to
receive a -130 dBm signal and a strong signal a few kHz away mixing
with a noisy synthesized LO causes your receiver's noise floor to rise
to -120 dbm, you're out of luck.

And the amateur HF bands are often full of strong local signals
adjacent to the weak ones we want to work.

The folks in Newington whom you frequently enjoy insulting might put you
on the road to being informed:

http://www.arrl.org/files/infoserv/tech/bestrig.txt

under "Q. What do you mean by receiver 'cleanliness'"?

You may continue your education by looking at the following pdf file
under section 1.2.2:

http://www.qth.com/inrad/managing-interference-ch1.pdf

One of the Polish fellows has published some excellent information.
The phase noise issue is touched upon in the last few paragraphs:

http://www.gmdx.org.uk/dxtest/qx9racze.pdf

All good stuff. Note how well a certain kit transceiver performs...

I rather prefer what I've been exposed to since 1963 on frequency
control methods...

Stuck in the past. ;-)

beginning with those "cruddy" synthesizers
(without "real" frequencies, only the "synthetic" variety)...and
quartz crystal oscillator accuracy and stability to the 10 PPB
region.

Perhaps it is time to update your database, Leonard.

To at least 1980s levels ;-)

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else.

This gives us cause to wonder.....

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

What amateur radio equipment has Len actually used, and in what
environments? (The contest environment is quite different from the
"quiet band" environment)

How many contest points/countries/states/contacts has Len made with
amateur radio equipment he developed/designed/built/paid for himself?

What articles on amateur radio receiver performance issues such as
dynamic range (third order IMD, BDR, etc.), phase noise, etc., has he
authored? Or even actually read and understood?

The world wonders....;-)

Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily.

Try taking your own advice ;-)

Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs.

What minor phrases? Len claimed that frequency synthesizer rigs were
necessary for the "subdivisions" of 1968. Numerous positngs by
different authors, all of whom actually had to deal with those
"subdivisions" have proved that to be utterly false and without basis.
Len, of course, never had to deal with them at all because he's never
been a radio amateur and never operated an amateur radio station. (By
FCC definition, operating requires a license).

It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

NOT USING modern equipment but attempting to spout off like you have
some knowledge of what is being discussed is making you look like
N0IMD's antenna advisor.

Not using, not owning, not building, not developing......

Of course, to the knowledgeable reader, Len's postings simply reveal
how truly ignorant he is of amateur radio in many ways. That's not a
crime, of course, but it does get boring.

His posts also reveal how resistant is he is to new ideas and
information, when presented to him from certain sources he deems
inferior.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

Tsk, Jimmie be posting to me, yet doesn't get who he be making
a reply to... :-) [see later]


Note the avoidance of answering the question ;-)

Note the avoidance of the facts. ;-)

Note that the importance of this feature is not explained ;-)

Stuck in the past. ;-)

Tsk. Jimmie looking in mirror again when writing, reflecting his own
"renowned historian" claim and musing on stacks and stacks of old
periodicals.

This gives us cause to wonder.....

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

What amateur radio equipment has Len actually used, and in what
environments? (The contest environment is quite different from the
"quiet band" environment)

How many contest points/countries/states/contacts has Len made with
amateur radio equipment he developed/designed/built/paid for himself?

What articles on amateur radio receiver performance issues such as
dynamic range (third order IMD, BDR, etc.), phase noise, etc., has he
authored? Or even actually read and understood?

The world wonders....;-)

"The world" isn't "wondering" at all. Neither Jimmie nor Davie have
developed any marketable ham transceivers.

[if they did, they should fire their marketing consultants for creating
invisibility of product]

Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily.

Try taking your own advice ;-)

Always do.

Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs.

What minor phrases? Len claimed that frequency synthesizer rigs were
necessary for the "subdivisions" of 1968.

Tsk. I didn't refer to 1968 per se.

Numerous positngs by
different authors, all of whom actually had to deal with those
"subdivisions" have proved that to be utterly false and without basis.

"Authors?" Who in here, besides myself, can claim many bylines
and a staff position at a ham magazine? Not Jimmie. Not Davie.

Len, of course, never had to deal with them at all because he's never
been a radio amateur and never operated an amateur radio station. (By
FCC definition, operating requires a license).

Pity that. All that while as a professional and never becoming a
licensed amateur! Horrors!


Of course, to the knowledgeable reader, Len's postings simply reveal
how truly ignorant he is of amateur radio in many ways. That's not a
crime, of course, but it does get boring.

Poor baby. Bored are you? Tsk, tsk.

Jimmie needs a hobby activity or to get out and see more things.

Jimmie ought to understand that radio amateurs didn't invent radio
nor did they develop all the circuits and systems in modern ready-
built radios. Tsk.

His posts also reveal how resistant is he is to new ideas and
information, when presented to him from certain sources he deems
inferior.

Tsk. Still on that inferiority complex are you?

Don't worry. You keep shouting and denigrating your inferiors and
all will respect you in the morning. :-)

Avery Fineman wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...


What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

What amateur radio equipment has Len actually used, and in what
environments? (The contest environment is quite different from the
"quiet band" environment)

How many contest points/countries/states/contacts has Len made with
amateur radio equipment he developed/designed/built/paid for himself?

What articles on amateur radio receiver performance issues such as
dynamic range (third order IMD, BDR, etc.), phase noise, etc., has he
authored? Or even actually read and understood?

The world wonders....;-)

"The world" isn't "wondering" at all. Neither Jimmie nor Davie have
developed any marketable ham transceivers.

No, I've developed the same number of marketable ham transceivers you
have, Leonard--none. Then again, I was aware of the synthesizer phase
noise and spurs. You weren't. You attempted to spoon feed us crap.


What minor phrases? Len claimed that frequency synthesizer rigs were
necessary for the "subdivisions" of 1968.

Tsk. I didn't refer to 1968 per se.

Weren't you the guy who wrote something of nit-picking? When did you
think those subbands came into existence?

Numerous positngs by
different authors, all of whom actually had to deal with those
"subdivisions" have proved that to be utterly false and without basis.

"Authors?" Who in here, besides myself, can claim many bylines
and a staff position at a ham magazine? Not Jimmie. Not Davie.

Authors. You know, who writes something. I've had a number of bylines
in amateur radio magazines. Be careful, you'll end up looking like
Brian Burke in his A-1 Op Club gaffe.

Len, of course, never had to deal with them at all because he's never
been a radio amateur and never operated an amateur radio station. (By
FCC definition, operating requires a license).

Pity that. All that while as a professional and never becoming a
licensed amateur! Horrors!

Do us a favor and note that this newsgroup is rec.radio.amateur.policy.
I'm not impressed with your frequent touting of your past professional
status. Many radio amateurs are current or past professionals in
communications or electronics. Tooting your horn about your past work
and attempting to use it as a substitute for an amateur license in an
amateur radio newsgroup isn't likely to win you any points among hams.

Of course, to the knowledgeable reader, Len's postings simply reveal
how truly ignorant he is of amateur radio in many ways. That's not a
crime, of course, but it does get boring.

Poor baby. Bored are you? Tsk, tsk.

Jimmie needs a hobby activity or to get out and see more things.

Oh! Didn't you know? Jim's a licensed amateur radio operator. Maybe
you could take up amateur radio.

Jimmie ought to understand that radio amateurs didn't invent radio
nor did they develop all the circuits and systems in modern ready-
built radios. Tsk.

I'm guessing that Jim and everyone else here was already aware of that
factoid. Jim likely realizes that you didn't invent radio or all of the
circuits and systems in modern ready-built radios. That makes you even.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:


No, I've developed the same number of marketable ham transceivers you
have, Leonard--none. Then again, I was aware of the synthesizer phase
noise and spurs. You weren't. You attempted to spoon feed us crap.

I "wasn't aware?" :-)

Wow, Marconi Jr., you best run to GE and have them cancel out
a bunch of RCA archives with my name on it. They were very
much concerned with spurious output (noise is a spurious output).
Real technical papers, published and all that after being checked
by staff folks.

What "crap" did you get in your feeding spoon tonight?

Did it give you terrible heartburn to having an NCTA demonstrate
some inside knowledge of frequency control? I'll bet it did.

There's all kinds of antacids on the shelf. Avail yourself of them.


Weren't you the guy who wrote something of nit-picking? When did you
think those subbands came into existence?

The first ones were in 1934...birth of the FCC. :-)


Authors. You know, who writes something. I've had a number of bylines
in amateur radio magazines.

Wow. Yeah! Ham Radio Horizons...aimed for the beginner in
radio.

Go for it! Famous Author Davie! You ought to publish a book.

Be careful, you'll end up looking like Brian Burke in his A-1 Op Club gaffe.

...or any other NCTA you want to destroy. :-)


Do us a favor and note that this newsgroup is rec.radio.amateur.policy.
I'm not impressed with your frequent touting of your past professional
status.

Awww. We don't impress you? How sad.

Many radio amateurs are current or past professionals in
communications or electronics.

So? You demand "showing papers" at train stations too?

That black leather overcoat is in style, I suppose. The jack
boots aren't...

Tooting your horn about your past work
and attempting to use it as a substitute for an amateur license in an
amateur radio newsgroup isn't likely to win you any points among hams.

Tsk. This is a "points count?"

Poor Davie...still stuck on enforced licensing just to advocate some
freeding into getting into licensing. Tsk.

Who says the PCTA abrogate the First Amendment? Nearly all...


Oh! Didn't you know? Jim's a licensed amateur radio operator. Maybe
you could take up amateur radio.

Toss out the code test and I'll think about it.

Maybe you could take up "civil discourse," Davie?

Then you wouldn't look like second cousin to nursie yell-yell.


I'm guessing that Jim and everyone else here was already aware of that
factoid. Jim likely realizes that you didn't invent radio or all of the
circuits and systems in modern ready-built radios. That makes you even.

No problem. You sure as hell didn't invent much. :-)

Didn't St. Hiram invent radio? And then form a religious order around
it? :-)

Why did you grab all the A-1 sauce? :-)

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Avery Fineman (in a desperate attempt to get through spam filters) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

Answer: None that he will admit to.

What amateur radio equipment has Len actually used, and in what
environments? (The contest environment is quite different from the
"quiet band" environment)

Answer: None that he will admit to.

How many contest points/countries/states/contacts has Len made with
amateur radio equipment he developed/designed/built/paid for himself?

Answer: None

What articles on amateur radio receiver performance issues such as
dynamic range (third order IMD, BDR, etc.), phase noise, etc., has he
authored? Or even actually read and understood?

Answer: None

The world wonders....;-)

"The world" isn't "wondering" at all.

Yes it is! ;-)

Neither Jimmie nor Davie have
developed any marketable ham transceivers.

Who are "Jimmie and Davie"?

Perhaps Len meant "Jim, N2EY" and "Dave, K8MN". If so, then his use of
feminized diminutives for our names proves (paraphrasing Brian, N0IMD): "he
doesn't have the guts to spell our names right".

I have designed, built, and operated at three amateur radio HF transceivers.
First one was about 25 years ago. Before that, I was doing the same with
separate receivers and transmitters.

No, I've developed the same number of marketable ham transceivers you
have, Leonard--none.

Why is it at all important that something be "marketable"? One of the joys of
home construction is *not* having to meet someone else's idea of "what the
market wants".

Then again, I was aware of the synthesizer phase
noise and spurs. You weren't. You attempted to spoon feed us crap.

What minor phrases? Len claimed that frequency synthesizer rigs were
necessary for the "subdivisions" of 1968.

Tsk. I didn't refer to 1968 per se.

Weren't you the guy who wrote something of nit-picking? When did you
think those subbands came into existence?

Subbands-by-license-class came into existence in US ham radio in 1951, with the
creation of the Novice. Len wasn't a ham then.

The current system of General/Advanced/Extra subbands-by-license-class came
into existence in US ham radio in 1968, after several years of discussion. Len
wasn't a ham then. I was, K8MN was.

Len wrote here in January 2000 that he was going for Extra right out of the
box. He wasn't a ham then. Nor now.

Numerous positngs by
different authors, all of whom actually had to deal with those
"subdivisions" have proved that to be utterly false and without basis.

"Authors?" Who in here, besides myself, can claim many bylines
and a staff position at a ham magazine?

Living in the past....

Did Len have a nice office at the magazine? Did he like living in New
Hampshire? Whatever became of that magazine? - I can't find it on the
newsstands...

I do have quite a few old copies of it, but Len's name isn;t in any of them.

Not Jimmie. Not Davie.

Doesn't have the guts to spell...

Authors. You know, who writes something. I've had a number of bylines
in amateur radio magazines. Be careful, you'll end up looking like
Brian Burke in his A-1 Op Club gaffe.

I've had articles published in amateur magazines. A lot more recently than Len,
too ;-)

But as you say, Dave, an author is someone who writes. I am the author of this
post; therefore, I am an author. So are you.

The point is the same: Numerous authors here have proved Len's assertions about
subbands and synthesizers to be completely without basis in fact.

Len, of course, never had to deal with them at all because he's never
been a radio amateur and never operated an amateur radio station. (By
FCC definition, operating requires a license).

Pity that. All that while as a professional and never becoming a
licensed amateur! Horrors!

"Not that there's anyhting wrong with that"

Do us a favor and note that this newsgroup is rec.radio.amateur.policy.
I'm not impressed with your frequent touting of your past professional
status. Many radio amateurs are current or past professionals in
communications or electronics. Tooting your horn about your past work
and attempting to use it as a substitute for an amateur license in an
amateur radio newsgroup isn't likely to win you any points among hams.

The plain simple fact remains that Len has not had to deal with
subbands-by-license-class in amateur radio. Or any other amateur-radio issues.
His observations are those of a spectator only, not a participant.

Of course, to the knowledgeable reader, Len's postings simply reveal
how truly ignorant he is of amateur radio in many ways. That's not a
crime, of course, but it does get boring.

Poor baby. Bored are you? Tsk, tsk.

Jimmie needs a hobby activity or to get out and see more things.

Oh! Didn't you know? Jim's a licensed amateur radio operator. Maybe
you could take up amateur radio.

I have several non-work activities and responsibilites and I get out quite a
bit.

Jimmie ought to understand that radio amateurs didn't invent radio
nor did they develop all the circuits and systems in modern ready-
built radios. Tsk.

I'm guessing that Jim and everyone else here was already aware of that
factoid.

I realized that long ago.

Jim likely realizes that you didn't invent radio or all of the
circuits and systems in modern ready-built radios. That makes you even.

Actually, I don't think Len invented *any* of the circuits or systems now used
in "modern ready-built radios". Not any radios I know of, anyway.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else. Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily. Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs. It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

NOT USING modern equipment but attempting to spout off like you have
some knowledge of what is being discussed is making you look like
N0IMD's antenna advisor.

That would be Kellie...whose only "engineering expertise" seems
involved with antenna support structures. Kellie not know much
of the innards of frequency control subsystems in a modern radio
so he tries to misdirect onto his mechanical thing.

Do I have knowledge of modern frequency control subsystems of
radios? Yes, considerable. Such applies to all radios, not what
a designer-maker has labeled "amateur" as (as you imply) being
somehow different than other radios.

No amateur radio license is required to acquire knowledge of
radio-electronics technology. No amateur radio license will let
you legally radiate RF outside of amateur bands (beyond the
incidental/low-power government limits). In most U.S. radio
services no federal license is required to use those radios.

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else. Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily. Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs. It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

NOT USING modern equipment but attempting to spout off like you have
some knowledge of what is being discussed is making you look like
N0IMD's antenna advisor.

That would be Kellie...whose only "engineering expertise" seems
involved with antenna support structures.

Leonard, you can't seem to get anything right of late. Kelly's advice
was totally rejected by your little electrolyte, "William". Brian posed
you a question which had nothing whatever to do with "antenna support
structures". Did you come up with the answer yet?

Kellie not know much
of the innards of frequency control subsystems in a modern radio
so he tries to misdirect onto his mechanical thing.

He certainly knows more about them than you as evidenced by your
comments on phase noise compared to his.

Do I have knowledge of modern frequency control subsystems of
radios? Yes, considerable.

That hasn't been evident in light of your comments on the importance of
low synthesizer phase noise.

Such applies to all radios, not what
a designer-maker has labeled "amateur" as (as you imply) being
somehow different than other radios.

Amateur transceivers are, for the most part, quite different than
transceivers designed for point-to-point use.

Some rigs--Ten-Tec's Omni V, Omni VI and the main receiver of the Orion
are amateur band only transceivers.

No amateur radio license is required to acquire knowledge of
radio-electronics technology.

Lucky for you!

No amateur radio license will let
you legally radiate RF outside of amateur bands (beyond the
incidental/low-power government limits).

And?

In most U.S. radio
services no federal license is required to use those radios.

Sounds like a plan for you. Grab a job in one of those services and
operate like crazy.

You didn't seem to have any comments at all about your comments on phase
noise as compared to reality. My comments to you we

"Once again, you've demonstrated that you know very little about
problems
with much of the amateur radio equipment produced within the past couple
of decades. Noticeable phase noise appears not only in the receiver
output section of many transceivers but in the transmitted signals as
well. 1980's top of the line Kenwood TS-930's were rife with the phase
noise products and synthesizer spurs. A quick spin of the main tuning
dial with no antenna connected would result in a rapid p-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t
sound from such spurs. R.L. Drake's TR-7 had much less phase noise.
Rigs such as Ten-Tec's Omni VI series, using a crystal mixed front end
had almost no measureable phase noise."


"The folks in Newington whom you frequently enjoy insulting might put
you
on the road to being informed:

http://www.arrl.org/files/infoserv/tech/bestrig.txt

under 'Q. What do you mean by receiver cleanliness'?

You may continue your education by looking at the following pdf file
under section 1.2.2:

http://www.qth.com/inrad/managing-interference-ch1.pdf

One of the Polish fellows has published some excellent information.
The phase noise issue is touched upon in the last few paragraphs:

http://www.gmdx.org.uk/dxtest/qx9racze.pdf "

Dave K8MN

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example.

Sure, but those old VFOs tended to change the frequency a little
over time. AKA "drift". Me thinks one desires to select a frequency
and then have the rig stay put on it. Modern rigs can do that
to the accuracy and drift of a good crystal oscillator to some
set resolution. But for our uses, 10Hz resolution is more than
sufficient.



And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.


Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

Then you should examine exactly how low that terrible phase noise
is. You can use the term "dbc" referring to the number of decibels
below the "carrier" (center frequency reference, not a modulated
carrier per se). The "crud" (as you term it) is quite far down in
relative power and certainly won't affect morse code reception of an
on-off keyed station's carrier.

Early 2 meter synthesized rigs had some trouble with this (the
phase noise would "add" to the FM modulation and produce extra
noise. Phase modulation and frequency modulation are closely
related, one is the integral (as in calculus) of the other.

As for HF CW, some poorly designed novice xtal oscillator
circuits probably had it worse than a modern synthesized rig.
And then there's chirp...