Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In an ideal superheterodyne, all the oscillators would generate pure, steady injection signals. In reality, there is always some imperfections in those oscillator signals. In modern frequency synthesizers, particularly PLL types, the imperfection takes the form of noise sidebands on the oscillator signal. Technically wrong. DDS is more susceptible to spur generation and phase noise than Fractional-N and Fractional-N is more susceptible to that than PLLs. Tsk. You haven't spent much time with a spectrum analyzer... Trouble is, in the amateur HF environment we often want to listen to a weak signal surrounded by many strong ones, often only a kHz or two away. Good crystal and mechanical filters make it possible to separate such signals *if* they can get to the filter in decent shape. What happens when the LO signal is phase-noisy is that a close-in-frequency unwanted signal mixes with the LO *noise*, and produces noise in the receiver output. With a whole bunch of strong signals, the noise can be so high that it drowns out the wanted signal. This problem is not due to IMD, blocking or other various nonlinearities in the front end - it's due to phase noise alone. Tsk. Simplistic untruth. Intermodulation distortion and front end noise is enough to cause that. As part of the IMD, the 3rd Order Intercept point values figure in. You can get IMD in stages beyond the mixer. To "prove" that point, you would have to measure the IMD at various gain settings (manual or AGC). The worst part of that untrue statement is that "all those other things" were existant before the advent of frequency control by synthesizer. In ham radios as well as the radios in every other radio service. 1 Hz is common in modern manufactured amateur equipment. But that's not really the issue. Tsk. Why are Jimmie and Kellie trying to make so much of that resolution? :-) R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now.... Only for a small liferaft. It can be easily carried in one hand. It comes equipped with a handle on the side, apparently for that purpose. :-) But, you will try to use my owning an R-70 as all sorts of denigrations. Kellie did...and was completely wrong...but then he only "favors" those equipments that he's owned or has handled. How many points did Len get with it in the last CQWW? Or even the last SS or Field Day? Irrelevant. Had I an HF-privilege ham license, I wouldn't bother with contesting. I've said that before. If I wanted sports, I would go to athletics...REAL sport. [if I wanted "road races," I'd get a sports car as I used to have and do minor gymkhanas, etc., in REAL road races] btw, some years back I was there, at NIST in Boulder. Saw the various standards and how they keep WWV synchronized. Also visited the WWV/WWVB transmitter site. Got lots of pictures, too. Okay, so your resume got rejected. Sorry to hear about it. Glad you got nice pictures. Anyone can see nice pictures at the NIST website. Still living in the past... Tsk. You are repeating yourself...as you've done many times in the past. Time for a radio story... Back in high school I knew a local ham down Collingdale way who was always working on a pet project. Same age as me, saw him in school every day. Had all kinds of grand ideas of how he was going to build the next generation state-of-the-art ham rig. All solid-state, full features, all bands, all modes, etc. Now this kid was no dummy and his ideas were basically very sound. But he didn't have anywhere near the resources or practical experience to actually finish anything. He'd draw all kinds of schematics, spin all kinds of yarns and sometimes even gather some parts. But build a working rig? Never happened. Not once. When he *did* get on the air, it was with borrowed equipment that he conned some local ham into lending him "temporarily". Until said local ham had to come over and take it back. I made the mistake of loaning the kid a QST, which I never saw again. I learned fast. Meanwhile, those of us willing to make do with less than "SOTA" were on the air and having fun and QSOs while he pontificated. That was about 35 years ago but the lesson is still valid: All this bafflegab doesn't make one QSO. For some reason I was reminded of him. He sounded just like Len... Poor baby. Still with the insults sugar-coated with hypocritical "civility?" Tsk. I lost interest in DXing in "radio sports" and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago. Became a professional in the radio-electronics industry, got regular money for not only designing, but building and testing, following through in the field, etc., etc., on many projects. Do you find that without honor? Without any worth? Why do you? The main point is simple: Hams did not need synthesizers to stay in their bands and subbands. Nor do they need 1 Hz or even 10 Hz accuracy on HF. In Jimmie's world, yes. :-) It must be right across the border from nursieworld. :-) Tsk. Some "runner." Takes up one phrase and runs and runs and runs trying to prove another is unworthy in his presence. :-) Tsk. Those runs could be cured with some kaopectate... |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 29 Sep 2004 17:17:01 GMT, (Avery Fineman)
wrote: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: snip R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now.... Only for a small liferaft. It can be easily carried in one hand. It comes equipped with a handle on the side, apparently for that purpose. :-) I agree - I still use my R-70 almost daily. Bought it new in 1981, still works quite well (its tuning arrangement is a bit weird at the "xx.000" MHz areas, but once you get used to that it's OK...). This was an impressive rig when it was first introduced - and with the Kiwa filters installed it can pull DX signals out of the mud as well as many of the current receivers in its class. Still an excellent performer, actually - one of the best investments in radio equipment that I have ever made. If only it had some of the features of the R-71 - direct frequency entry, capability for computer control.....oh well..... snip 73, Leo |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Leo
writes: On 29 Sep 2004 17:17:01 GMT, (Avery Fineman) wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: snip R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now.... Only for a small liferaft. It can be easily carried in one hand. It comes equipped with a handle on the side, apparently for that purpose. :-) I agree - I still use my R-70 almost daily. Bought it new in 1981, still works quite well (its tuning arrangement is a bit weird at the "xx.000" MHz areas, but once you get used to that it's OK...). This was an impressive rig when it was first introduced - and with the Kiwa filters installed it can pull DX signals out of the mud as well as many of the current receivers in its class. It's still a tiny thing, hardly a "boatanchor" (unless one has a 1/12th scale model of a boat). I agree on the "xx.000" MHz switch-over. :-) That might have been a programmer's thing on what I speculate as a design argument at Icom...how to do switching to the adjacent MHz. They might have added some "hysteresis" on tuning but one can become accoustomed to it. I got no mods in this one. Still an excellent performer, actually - one of the best investments in radio equipment that I have ever made. I will agree to that. [I think we bought at about the same time] The tuning shaft encoder and very slight friction lock is still as good on mine now as when it was new. Over a dozen years. If only it had some of the features of the R-71 - direct frequency entry, capability for computer control.....oh well..... I thought about adding an outboard controller to have all the "memory" things but used the parts for other things. :-) It definitely needs an outboard audio amplifier and big speaker since the little one on the panel is not robust for anyone else but self. For a while I used an old Hi-Fi mono amplifier with it and an ancient 6" diameter speaker in a fair enclosure. Sound was just dandy then. Since wife and I had a major re-do of the roof and guttering, I've been meaning to try connecting to the end of the 45-foot run of seamless alumininum gutter on the downhill side (it is 22 feet longer on the uphill side, but closer to power lines). Need to recalibrate the Noise Bridge and see what kind of weird impedance it presents at different frequencie...and the change of that in the rain to come. :-) Sort of a "low-slung long wire" in a way. [watch for all the detractors on that...heh heh heh[ In this in-the-hills location there's little chance for low-angle skip arrival from north to east...all the fancy-schmansy antennas won't help getting Yurp or the UK here. Nevis rules. Excellent on Ozzyland and the home of the Middle Earth and LOTR. Strange that so MANY signals on HF originate from stations whose operators don't have to have a code exam...or even an amateur radio license. :-) Outside of the ham bands, of coarse. :-) |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Avery Fineman wrote:
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: Time for a radio story... Back in high school I knew a local ham down Collingdale way who was always working on a pet project. Same age as me, saw him in school every day. Had all kinds of grand ideas of how he was going to build the next generation state-of-the-art ham rig. All solid-state, full features, all bands, all modes, etc. Now this kid was no dummy and his ideas were basically very sound. But he didn't have anywhere near the resources or practical experience to actually finish anything. He'd draw all kinds of schematics, spin all kinds of yarns and sometimes even gather some parts. But build a working rig? Never happened. Not once. When he *did* get on the air, it was with borrowed equipment that he conned some local ham into lending him "temporarily". Until said local ham had to come over and take it back. I made the mistake of loaning the kid a QST, which I never saw again. I learned fast. Meanwhile, those of us willing to make do with less than "SOTA" were on the air and having fun and QSOs while he pontificated. That was about 35 years ago but the lesson is still valid: All this bafflegab doesn't make one QSO. For some reason I was reminded of him. He sounded just like Len... Poor baby. Still with the insults sugar-coated with hypocritical "civility?" Tsk. I lost interest in DXing in "radio sports" and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago. Really? Did you do lots of contesting and DXing from ADA? Still have the QSLs? Became a professional in the radio-electronics industry, got regular money for not only designing, but building and testing, following through in the field, etc., etc., on many projects. Do you find that without honor? Without any worth? Len, I have known many men who have done similar work. With few exceptions, I have viewed their work as honorable. It obviously had worth as all of them received paychecks. We radio amateurs don't receive paychecks for what we do. We do it strictly for the love of it. I'm sure your professional achievements have pleased you. They don't get you any passes in amateur radio. What pleases you hasn't necessarily impressed us. Your grating manner and rudeness to radio amateurs have not endeared you to more than a couple of people here. You strike me as the kind of guy who goes wandering through life asking, "Why don't people like me?". I'll bet you haven't an idea of the answer. The main point is simple: Hams did not need synthesizers to stay in their bands and subbands. Nor do they need 1 Hz or even 10 Hz accuracy on HF. In Jimmie's world, yes. :-) ....in anyone's world, Leonard. It is simply fact. You were wrong. :-) Deal with it. Dave K8MN |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Dave Heil
writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: Time for a radio story... Back in high school I knew a local ham down Collingdale way who was always working on a pet project. Same age as me, saw him in school every day. Had all kinds of grand ideas of how he was going to build the next generation state-of-the-art ham rig. All solid-state, full features, all bands, all modes, etc. Now this kid was no dummy and his ideas were basically very sound. But he didn't have anywhere near the resources or practical experience to actually finish anything. He'd draw all kinds of schematics, spin all kinds of yarns and sometimes even gather some parts. But build a working rig? Never happened. Not once. When he *did* get on the air, it was with borrowed equipment that he conned some local ham into lending him "temporarily". Until said local ham had to come over and take it back. I made the mistake of loaning the kid a QST, which I never saw again. I learned fast. Meanwhile, those of us willing to make do with less than "SOTA" were on the air and having fun and QSOs while he pontificated. That was about 35 years ago but the lesson is still valid: All this bafflegab doesn't make one QSO. For some reason I was reminded of him. He sounded just like Len... Poor baby. Still with the insults sugar-coated with hypocritical "civility?" Tsk. I lost interest in DXing in "radio sports" and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago. Really? Did you do lots of contesting and DXing from ADA? Still have the QSLs? Tsk. Poor Davie doesn't understand that 24/7 REAL communications in the military wasn't any "contest" and no "QSLs" were exchanged. So, Davie, did you do much contesting from those embassies in the middle of Africa or from Finland? Get many QSLs? Len, I have known many men who have done similar work. With few exceptions, I have viewed their work as honorable. I'll bet you didn't understand much of it... It obviously had worth as all of them received paychecks. No "A" grades on their report cards? Tsk. We radio amateurs don't receive paychecks for what we do. We do it strictly for the love of it. Tsk. Ask the behind-the-counter types at HRO if they do 9-5 for free... :-) I'm sure your professional achievements have pleased you. They sure did. They don't get you any passes in amateur radio. Yes, and amateur radio licenses don't mean squat to legal operating in the rest of the radio world. Sunnuvagun! What pleases you hasn't necessarily impressed us. Yes, your supreme royalness. Humblest of apologies, your worship. Your grating manner and rudeness to radio amateurs have not endeared you to more than a couple of people here. Awwwww. Tsk. Nothing an NCTA says can please the PCTA extras...or the World's Greatest DXer. :-) You strike me as the kind of guy who goes wandering through life asking, "Why don't people like me?". Tsk. Don't project your own personality on others. I'll bet you haven't an idea of the answer. Tsk, tsk. We all know you don't. ...in anyone's world, Leonard. It is simply fact. You were wrong. :-) Nope. Deal with it. No problem. Now, why can't Mr. DX handle opposite opinions to his? Answer: He never could! :-) |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: Tsk. I lost interest in DXing in "radio sports" and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago. Really? Did you do lots of contesting and DXing from ADA? Still have the QSLs? Tsk. Poor Davie doesn't understand that 24/7 REAL communications in the military wasn't any "contest" and no "QSLs" were exchanged. You can understand my confusion when you wrote about losing "interest in DXing in 'radio sports' and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago". You made it sound as if you got a belly full of those things at ADA. So am I to understand that you have no actual experience in DXing, contesting or QSLing? So, Davie, did you do much contesting from those embassies in the middle of Africa or from Finland? Get many QSLs? Well, Lennie, my contesting overseas was from my home, not from an embassy. I did plenty of contesting and plenty of DXing. I was never in "the middle of Africa", only in West Africa, Southern Africa and East Africa. Yes, I received tens of thousands of QSL cards for each of those African operations. Of course I didn't operate 24/7, only in my spare time and I didn't have a staff of operators. There was just me. Len, I have known many men who have done similar work. With few exceptions, I have viewed their work as honorable. I'll bet you didn't understand much of it... So....they weren't honorable men, doing honorable work? It obviously had worth as all of them received paychecks. No "A" grades on their report cards? Tsk. Was their goal to obtain good grades? Tsk, tsk. We radio amateurs don't receive paychecks for what we do. We do it strictly for the love of it. Tsk. Ask the behind-the-counter types at HRO if they do 9-5 for free... :-) Are those men working as radio amateurs or is amateur radio what they do as an avocation? Tsk, tsk. :-) :-) I'm sure your professional achievements have pleased you. They sure did. I thought as much since you've recounted them for us here on numerous occasions. They don't get you any passes in amateur radio. Yes, and amateur radio licenses don't mean squat to legal operating in the rest of the radio world. I fail to see what difference that makes. Why should we, as radio amateurs, posting in an amateur radio newsgroup, be concerned about what qualifications are required for other services? Is is your aspiration to participate in other radio service? Please, go forth and do so. Sunnuvagun! Yeah. You made a rather pointless comment. What pleases you hasn't necessarily impressed us. Yes, your supreme royalness. Humblest of apologies, your worship. I don't sense sincerity from you. Your grating manner and rudeness to radio amateurs have not endeared you to more than a couple of people here. Awwwww. Tsk. Nothing an NCTA says can please the PCTA extras...or the World's Greatest DXer. :-) I'm not the World's Greatest DXer but I thank you and your little electrolyte for the compliments. There are things that you could write which would please me. You just haven't written any of them. You strike me as the kind of guy who goes wandering through life asking, "Why don't people like me?". Tsk. Don't project your own personality on others. I'm not, Leonard. You see the reaction your antics get from others. I'll bet you haven't an idea of the answer. Tsk, tsk. We all know you don't. I have a very good idea of why you grate on people. It is immediately apparent. ...in anyone's world, Leonard. It is simply fact. You were wrong. :-) Nope. You'll be right when pigs fly or you obtain an amateur radio license, whichever comes first. Deal with it. No problem. Now, why can't Mr. DX handle opposite opinions to his? Answer: He never could! :-) I'm handling them rather well, Mr. No DX, but we're not talking of an opinion; we're talking about one of your factual errors. Dave K8MN |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: Tsk. I lost interest in DXing in "radio sports" and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago. Really? Did you do lots of contesting and DXing from ADA? Still have the QSLs? Tsk. Poor Davie doesn't understand that 24/7 REAL communications in the military wasn't any "contest" and no "QSLs" were exchanged. You can understand my confusion when you wrote about losing "interest in DXing in 'radio sports' and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago". You made it sound as if you got a belly full of those things at ADA. Tsk. I admit to not understanding Davies' total confusion or lack of understanding of the written word. Tsk, tsk. If Davie had actually worked in USAF communications he would have KNOWN that military communications does not engage in "radiosport contests" nor does it "QSL." 24/7 radio communications on HF (or any other EM spectrum) is professional-quality work for the military. So am I to understand that you have no actual experience in DXing, contesting or QSLing? Define "DXing." If that means listening to radio broadcasting stations in other parts of the world, yes, I have and continue to listen to them. If that means working distant HF stations on a two-way, full duplex basis over 8000 miles away 24/7, yes, I have experience in that. If that means "only" having an amateur license and making out like the world's greatest amateur (windbag), no, definitely no experience in that. I fail to see what difference that makes. Why should we, as radio amateurs, posting in an amateur radio newsgroup, be concerned about what qualifications are required for other services? Is is your aspiration to participate in other radio service? Please, go forth and do so. Tsk. Why does Davie want to abrogate the First Amendment and deny citizens the right to petition their government for change in federal regulations? You DO that in the incessant demands to post in here ONLY if one has a valid amateur radio license. Tsk, tsk. Don't you understand that neither FCC commissioners nor FCC staff are NOT required to have amateur radio licenses...and they regulate ALL U.S. amateur radio. Tsk. You should really drop the arrogant "show your papers!" and elitist demand-by-intimidation-attempt that this newsgroup "belongs only to already-licensed hams." YOU don't, nor ever have, regulated or controlled U.S. amateur radio. You are only a participant. You aren't gang boss, aren't a government official, aren't even a 'hood chieftan. All you are is a participant. What is at stake is a possible restructuring of U.S. regulations on amateur radio to eliminate or retain the morse code test for an amateur license having below-30-MHz privileges. YOUR ranting and raving is confined to nastygramming anyone who wishes to eliminate that code test. It isn't "civil discourse" much less discussion. YOUR ranting and raving is about control over who can post and who cannot. Clue: This newsgroup is unmoderated and open to anyone with Internet access. Now, why can't Mr. DX handle opposite opinions to his? Answer: He never could! :-) I'm handling them rather well, Mr. No DX, but we're not talking of an opinion; we're talking about one of your factual errors. Tsk, tsk. NOT at all well. Since you mishandle OPINION as "fact," your comments could be dismissed as being entirely "factual errors." Your opinion on anything is just your opinion and is not (believe it or not) any ethical or moral standard that all others MUST follow. Try, oh TRY to get used to the fact that neither you nor Jimmie are the Supreme Arbiter of Ham things. No one MUST do as you say. There is still some freedom left in the world and considerable independent thought. Your long tenure in hamdom does not give you any "position" of control over others. Not here, not anywhere. Try to adjust to that, big Arbiter. Bite me. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Avery Fineman)(so desperate to get past spam filters that he changes screen names)wrote in message ...
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In an ideal superheterodyne, all the oscillators would generate pure, steady injection signals. In reality, there is always some imperfections in those oscillator signals. In modern frequency synthesizers, particularly PLL types, the imperfection takes the form of noise sidebands on the oscillator signal. Technically wrong. DDS is more susceptible to spur generation and phase noise than Fractional-N and Fractional-N is more susceptible to that than PLLs. Tsk. You haven't spent much time with a spectrum analyzer... Sure have. You can nitpick over the minor points but the main thing is correct: Frequency synthesizers do not produce perfectly clean LO signals, and that phase noise in the LO causes performance degradation in HF ham gear. Trouble is, in the amateur HF environment we often want to listen to a weak signal surrounded by many strong ones, often only a kHz or two away. Good crystal and mechanical filters make it possible to separate such signals *if* they can get to the filter in decent shape. What happens when the LO signal is phase-noisy is that a close-in-frequency unwanted signal mixes with the LO *noise*, and produces noise in the receiver output. With a whole bunch of strong signals, the noise can be so high that it drowns out the wanted signal. This problem is not due to IMD, blocking or other various nonlinearities in the front end - it's due to phase noise alone. Tsk. Simplistic untruth. No, it's true. You just don't understand the point. I should have included a clarifying phrase in the above, but I thought the average technically knoweldgeable reader would understand the point anyway. The clarifying phrase is: "Even with an ideal receiver front end" meaning that even if IMD and IP3 aren't causing problems, phase noise *alone* can cause the apparent noise floor to rise if there are strong adjacent-channel signals. Note how, in lab tests, there is sometimes the annotation "noise limited" when certain tests are made. What do you think that term means? Intermodulation distortion and front end noise is enough to cause that. As part of the IMD, the 3rd Order Intercept point values figure in. Only if the LO is clean enough to allow it. Note how, in lab tests, there is sometimes the annotation "noise limited" when certain tests are made. What do you think that term means? You can get IMD in stages beyond the mixer. To "prove" that point, you would have to measure the IMD at various gain settings (manual or AGC). Of course. But even in an ideal signal path, phase-noisy LOs can degrade performance. That's the point. Note how, in lab tests, there is sometimes the annotation "noise limited" when certain tests are made. What do you think that term means? The worst part of that untrue statement is that "all those other things" were existant before the advent of frequency control by synthesizer. In ham radios as well as the radios in every other radio service. Nobody denies that. However, in many sets the phase noise is the limiting factor. Particularly in real-world situations. 1 Hz is common in modern manufactured amateur equipment. But that's not really the issue. Tsk. Why are Jimmie and Kellie trying to make so much of that resolution? :-) You brought it up ;-) R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now.... Only for a small liferaft. It can be easily carried in one hand. It comes equipped with a handle on the side, apparently for that purpose. :-) But, you will try to use my owning an R-70 as all sorts of denigrations. Like what? R70s were made 1982-84 (approximately), so the design is at least 23 years old (1981). You frequenctly denigrate others as "behind the times", yet the R70 is the newest/most modern piece of HF radio equipment you mention owning. Just another example of "do as Len says, not as Len does". Kellie did...and was completely wrong...but then he only "favors" those equipments that he's owned or has handled. Just like you, Len ;-) Have you ever used the receiver he mentions? How many points did Len get with it in the last CQWW? Or even the last SS or Field Day? Irrelevant. No, completely relevant. One important measure of amateur equipment quality is how it performs in actual on-air operation. Had I an HF-privilege ham license, I wouldn't bother with contesting. I've said that before. So the answer is: Zero. There are VHF/UHF contests - including Field Day. If I wanted sports, I would go to athletics...REAL sport. Who decides what is "real sport"? You're not the IOC. Or TAC ;-) [if I wanted "road races," I'd get a sports car as I used to have and do minor gymkhanas, etc., in REAL road races] The term "road race" is not limited to motor vehicles. It's understandable that you don't like sports. btw, some years back I was there, at NIST in Boulder. Saw the various standards and how they keep WWV synchronized. Also visited the WWV/WWVB transmitter site. Got lots of pictures, too. Okay, so your resume got rejected. Nope. Didn't bring one; wasn't looking for a job. Sorry to hear about it. Glad you got nice pictures. Anyone can see nice pictures at the NIST website. Not the same as being there. It seems you enjoy only second-hand experiences. Still living in the past... Tsk. You are repeating yourself...as you've done many times in the past. Not nearly so many times as you, Len. ;-) Time for a radio story... Back in high school I knew a local ham down Collingdale way who was always working on a pet project. Same age as me, saw him in school every day. Had all kinds of grand ideas of how he was going to build the next generation state-of-the-art ham rig. All solid-state, full features, all bands, all modes, etc. Now this kid was no dummy and his ideas were basically very sound. But he didn't have anywhere near the resources or practical experience to actually finish anything. He'd draw all kinds of schematics, spin all kinds of yarns and sometimes even gather some parts. But build a working rig? Never happened. Not once. When he *did* get on the air, it was with borrowed equipment that he conned some local ham into lending him "temporarily". Until said local ham had to come over and take it back. I made the mistake of loaning the kid a QST, which I never saw again. I learned fast. Meanwhile, those of us willing to make do with less than "SOTA" were on the air and having fun and QSOs while he pontificated. That was about 35 years ago but the lesson is still valid: All this bafflegab doesn't make one QSO. For some reason I was reminded of him. He sounded just like Len... Poor baby. Still with the insults sugar-coated with hypocritical "civility?" Are you insulted? Why? The above story is true. The ham involved (actually an ex-ham; he no longer shows up in the database) behaved exactly as described. He probably went on to a career in electronics in some capacity or other. And as I said, most of his ideas were pretty good - he just never carried them to completion or even to partial implementation. At least he held a ham license for a while - you haven't even done that. You *do* sound just like him, Len. Lots of words and lots of put-downs and lots of theory. But in terms of actual radios built on your own time, with your own resources, from your own design....nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Not that anyone here knows about in all your years and petabytes of posting. I even looked through the online database of ham radio magazine articles. You had 24 "bylines" in ham radio from 1977 to 1982 (even though ham radio magazine was in operation a lot longer than that). Most of them were in the 1977-79 time frame (20 bylines). Not one "build this radio!" article - lots of commentary, some theory, lots of basic stuff on digital logic theory. Last mention was over 22 years ago... You talk about "independent thought". Designing and building a ham station with only one's available personal resources requires a lot of independent thought - and action. It also explodes the myth of amateurs as simple consumers of manufactured products. Tsk. I lost interest in DXing in "radio sports" and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago. To each his own. Why do you denigrate what others find as fun? What is wrong with live and let live? Became a professional in the radio-electronics industry, got regular money for not only designing, but building and testing, following through in the field, etc., etc., on many projects. Completely different game. You sound like someone saying the Tour de France is no big deal because you did the same route in a car in less time. Or that a marathon is no big deal because you can do 26.22 miles in less than half the time on a motorcycle. Point is, for your own personal use, you just go out and buy a radio. Yet you put down the salesfolk of 20+ years ago for not knowing some arcane bit of info about the innards of the set. Does it work any better because you know it has a 3 loop PLL? Do you find that without honor? Nope. Without any worth? Nope. You got paid, I presume? Why do you? Why do you presuppose my answer? And why do you make fun of others' work and accomplishments, yet expect honor for your own? "Do as Len says, not as Len does". The main point is simple: Hams did not need synthesizers to stay in their bands and subbands. Nor do they need 1 Hz or even 10 Hz accuracy on HF. In Jimmie's world, yes. :-) Why is such accuracy needed by hams, Len? It must be right across the border from nursieworld. :-) Tsk. Some "runner." Takes up one phrase and runs and runs and runs trying to prove another is unworthy in his presence. :-) Tsk. Those runs could be cured with some kaopectate... Well, now we know where *your* mind is at, Len... So there's only one logical thing for me to do: |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ??? | Policy | |||
US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ??? | Policy | |||
US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ??? | Policy | |||
New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
My restructuring proposal | Policy |