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

In the case of the mixing-by-crystal-banks plus VFO (or "PTO" for
most Collins radios), there was a dependency on the quartz
crystals being correct.

"Waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool says to push on"..

Those were typically in the 30 to 50 PPM
(plus-minus) accuracy by themselves. That was GOOD accuracy
for the 50s to 60s time frame...but one band might be off on the
low side while another band might be off on the high side.

That "off on the low side while another band might be off on the high
side" stuff might be correct if not for the individual band trimmers
featured in all such equipment.

Yep.

Now consider how much error we're talking about. Some rigs used
heterodyne xtals as high as ~40 MHz on 10 meters. .005% works out to
2000 Hz on a 40 MHz xtal *before correction*. So the worst case could
be a total variation of maybe 4 kHz if one was high and another low -
on 10 meters. On the lower bands the error is less.

But all this is pretty meaningless because even the lower-priced rigs
have built-in calibrators and VFO/PTO calibration adjustment (usually
a dial pointer adjustment). The Heath SB-line, which isn't topshelf
stuff by any stretch of the imagination, had builtin calibrators, a
linear VFO and dial adjustment. In the early 1960s, at a price far
below Collins or Drake.

The digital-dial rigs like the TT Orion D and Corsair avoided the
problem by using a built-in custom frequency counter to actually count
the various oscillators. IIRC, this concept first appeared
commercially in the amateur market in the DG-5 accessory to the
TS-520S.

R.L. Drake and Ten-Tec also used PTOs
in their equipment.

Good units, too. A bit fast on the tuning rate, but good units
nonetheless.

With TCXOs or VTCXOs (Temperature Compensated Crystal
Oscillators, fixed or Voltage-controlled), the drift on modern
"all band" (HF that is) transceivers can be within 1 PPM after
calibration. The old Collins "PTO" (Permeability Tuned
Oscillator) achieved stability of 50 to 100 PPM over a full
military temperature environment (-55 C to +85 C) but they
were not inexpensive. Collins amateur equipment was often
at the top of the money line when they were marketing for
the hams.

Ten-Tec and Drake equipment achieved similar accuracy and were sold at
much lower prices than comparable Collins gear.

Collins amateur gear was much less expensive than commercial or
military equipment of the same vintage, and more suited to typical
amateur use. Most hams are not going to be using their equipment at
+85 C or -55 C.

Besides, "real hams" don't use any FM on HF...they hardly
ever go above 30 MHz. :-)

Is this just another things you've heard from someone else, Leonard?
While I use 2m FM, most of my operation on 6m, 2m and 70cm is on SSB or
CW. I have the latitude to choose a band I like and to operate there.
I can do this from my home or from my car.

There's also quite a bit of FM in use by hams on 10 meters. Plus FSK
is a form of FM...

The subject has gotten out of hand in here with all the PCTA
extras eager to beat on any NCTA by taking a phrase out of
logical context. :-)

It surely does get out of hand but not because of anything being taken
out of "logical context". It happened because you spouted off about
something you weren't up on. You compounded things by not admitting to
your lack of knowledge. You tried to fine tune your original statements
and were snagged yet again.

Let's take a look at those phrases:

From 2004-09-22 20:47:30 PST


LHA: "All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

They were actually about creating an incentive to learn more theory
without losing access to a band or mode.

LHA: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible
without the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for
amateur radio but adopted for that particular market."

Repeatedly proven to be incorrect, in error, and without any basis in
fact. Hams then and now are able to stay within their bands and
subbands without any need for "modern frequency synthesizers".

LHA: "I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain
how to make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10
KHz references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if
they knew how a DDS works... :-)"

It is not clear to whom Len refers as "ivy-decorated in here". If he
is referring to me (Jim, N2EY), he's completely wrong, because I could
explain both PLL and DDS designs at length and in detail.

Those all have expensive ready-builts in
their "shack" and - naturally - those rigs are the closest thing
to perfection as anything.

Jim's isn't ready built.

Neither HF rig in current use at N2EY is expensive or "ready built".
But they work, are on the air regularly, meet FCC regulations, and do
their jobs well.

So what's the problem?

I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Just my particular brand of fun in ham radio.

What's wrong with any of that?

The K2 has a single-loop PLL LO that achieves very low phase noise by
an ingenious design. This design intentionally trades off some
accuracy and general coverage reception in order to improve phase
noise, simplicity and power consumption. Its performance against
"ready built" transceivers costing much more is well documented.

It wasn't designed by Len. I doubt very much he understands how it
works, nor could he explain it....;-)

Mine is. They're both as close to perfection
as anything.

Which is to say, none of them are perfect!

Len's errors here prove he's not perfect either...

Why would that bother you?

The fact that we amateurs are actually designing, building and using
rigs on the air seems to bother Len no end. The fact that we are using
equipment, modes and technologies he has not personally blessed seems
to bother him even more.

They don't seem to know squat
about the inner technology involved in frequency synthesizers
so they want to "get even" with anyone who does. Sigh.

"Tney" seemed to know enough to chew you up and spit you out on your
synthesizer spur and phase noise gaffes. You'd better bring yourself
up to date, old fellow.

Not chewing up or spitting out anybody, Dave. Just pointing out a few
errors of Len's. He makes it easy, really.

Recall the original claims that started all of this, and how Len keeps
trying to avoid admitting his mistakes:

"All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

"None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the
modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for amateur
radio but adopted for that particular market."

"I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain how to
make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10 KHz
references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if they
knew how a DDS works... :-)"


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:


Now consider how much error we're talking about. Some rigs used
heterodyne xtals as high as ~40 MHz on 10 meters. .005% works out to
2000 Hz on a 40 MHz xtal *before correction*. So the worst case could
be a total variation of maybe 4 kHz if one was high and another low -
on 10 meters. On the lower bands the error is less.

But, there is ERROR! Error! Incorrect! Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

But all this is pretty meaningless because even the lower-priced rigs
have built-in calibrators and VFO/PTO calibration adjustment (usually
a dial pointer adjustment). The Heath SB-line, which isn't topshelf
stuff by any stretch of the imagination, had builtin calibrators, a
linear VFO and dial adjustment. In the early 1960s, at a price far
below Collins or Drake.

Riiight...you used and tested every one, dintcha? :-)

The digital-dial rigs like the TT Orion D and Corsair avoided the
problem by using a built-in custom frequency counter to actually count
the various oscillators. IIRC, this concept first appeared
commercially in the amateur market in the DG-5 accessory to the
TS-520S.

Riiiight...and you used and tested those, too? :-)


Collins amateur gear was much less expensive than commercial or
military equipment of the same vintage, and more suited to typical
amateur use. Most hams are not going to be using their equipment at
+85 C or -55 C.

Tsk. Not playing the heroic instant Emergency Communicator,
ready for every emergency when the commercial infrastructure fails?

Riiiight...all ham activity happens at "normal room temperature."

Hi hi.


There's also quite a bit of FM in use by hams on 10 meters. Plus FSK
is a form of FM...

"Real" hams use CW to DX on HF. Ho hum.


Let's take a look at those phrases:

Yes. Go over and over and over and over and over and over them
until you tire out the opposition to your golden words of truth and
beauty (which are never ever wrong). :-)


LHA: "All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

That's my opinion and I'm holding to that.

If you don't like it, TS.

They were actually about creating an incentive to learn more theory
without losing access to a band or mode.

If that's your evaluation, then you are badly in need of something
to relieve your mental constipation.

LHA: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible
without the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for
amateur radio but adopted for that particular market."

That's a corollary to my subdivision opinion.

Again, if you don't like that opinion, TS for you. :-)

Repeatedly proven to be incorrect, in error, and without any basis in
fact. Hams then and now are able to stay within their bands and
subbands without any need for "modern frequency synthesizers".

Oooooooo! "repeatedly 'proven' to be incorrect, in error and without
any basis in fact! Ooooooo. Tsk, tsk. :-)

Geez, better get an Exorcist, you are going to proclaim me the
AntiChrist next. :-)


It is not clear to whom Len refers as "ivy-decorated in here". If he
is referring to me (Jim, N2EY), he's completely wrong, because I could
explain both PLL and DDS designs at length and in detail.

Riiiiight...you've got lots and lots of industry experience in that,
many products on the market...just like you were in the space
business so long that you could call others "wrong" about having
opinions opposite to your "expertise."


Neither HF rig in current use at N2EY is expensive or "ready built".
But they work, are on the air regularly, meet FCC regulations, and do
their jobs well.

I suppose next you have Proof of Performance papers, fully
notarized and witnessed, that they are ipsy-pipsy "within spec?"


I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Just my particular brand of fun in ham radio.

Trying always to be the Superior in anything is fun for the ego-
driven. Lots of PCTA extras in here (practically all of them) get
their jollies that way.

What's wrong with any of that?

Nothing "wrong" with that other than taking over the flow of debate
with your pet fun-and-games and promoting morse well over and
above any valid reasons for keeping the morse code test.

But, you consider yourself Superior and therefore "must" triumph
in all things. :-)

The K2 has a single-loop PLL LO that achieves very low phase noise by
an ingenious design. This design intentionally trades off some
accuracy and general coverage reception in order to improve phase
noise, simplicity and power consumption. Its performance against
"ready built" transceivers costing much more is well documented.

Jimmie has a K2. Naturally it is "superior" to all others.

It wasn't designed by Len. I doubt very much he understands how it
works, nor could he explain it....;-)

Jimmie designed the K2? :-)

Which is to say, none of them are perfect!

Len's errors here prove he's not perfect either...

Heavens...Jimmie wants PERFECTION in all things!

Naturally, PCTA extras are "always perfect" in everything?

Of course they are. They will tell you right off... :-)


The fact that we amateurs are actually designing, building and using
rigs on the air seems to bother Len no end. The fact that we are using
equipment, modes and technologies he has not personally blessed seems
to bother him even more.

Doesn't bother me a bit. :-)

I've still "done" modes, modulations far more than is allowed in the
U.S. ham bands. [that even includes CW, heh heh heh]

It's a bit irritating when everyone uses verbatim sales ad phrasing
and OTHERS reviews as Gospel as if they themselves have used
and operated all the equipment they mention.


Not chewing up or spitting out anybody, Dave. Just pointing out a few
errors of Len's. He makes it easy, really.

Isn't it awful? There oughta be a law against anyone having opinions
opposing the PCTA extras!

Recall the original claims that started all of this, and how Len keeps
trying to avoid admitting his mistakes:

"All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

That's my opinion and I'm staying with it.

"I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain how to
make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10 KHz
references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if they
knew how a DDS works... :-)"

Tsk. When I preparing to buy my Icom R-70 at the Van Nuys, CA,
HRO, I asked three hams behind the counter how Icom achieved
10 Hz resolution using a 10 KHz reference to all the phase-frequency
detectors. None of the three knew. Two of those were extras.

I got a copy of the Icom User's Manual and figured it out myself.
Looked like it was worth the money. Went back later and bought
one. Cash. It's been working fine ever since.

I'll have to go back to old checkbook transactions to find the
purchase date (one has to be EXACT for Jimmie da Perfectionist).
Needless to say, DDS frequency control subsystems weren't yet
in the offshore-designed-and-made ham transceivers. [this statement
ought to be good for another few weeks of Jimmie "proving me wrong
in all things" :-) ]

Well, Jimmie KNOWS how all that ham frequency control stuff works
so he doesn't have to explain "zeta" (that's a control loop damping
factor, Kellie) nor does he have to explain why a 10 KHz reference
is used (there's a technical reason) nor anything else. When he
needs to show off his Superiority (just about every day), he climbs
K2 and plants his flag on the summit and announces he is
equivalent to Sir Edmund (and probably Tenzing too) of the ham world.

By the way, the '190 and '192 up-down decade counters went
DEFUNCT on everyone's semiconductor production line some years
ago. ON Semiconductor will do a limited production run if you
guarantee acceptance of a lot of 2500 of the 74F190s...just the
thing for any teen ager's senior project, ey? Wow, guaranteed
"A" on a report card, maybe even a gold star sticker to boot. :-)

Tsk. All I got for using some 74S190s back in 1977 was a
continuation of a paycheck every week. Not as good as an "A"
on a report card, huh? :-)

The '191 and '193s are still in active production. I'm currently
using some 74AC191s, by the way. Want to discuss the differences
of the TC (Terminal Count) output between '191 and '193? Timing in
nanoseconds of propagation delay clock-to-TC, setup time to the
PL_not (Parallel Load for preset input), and maximum guaranteed
programmable counter operating frequency? [more "bafflegab" for
Kellie to bitch about, heh heh]

Pack up your pitons. I'm sure you will want to climb K2 again. :-)




BTW, I went to my other screen name and sent a couple of missives
in reply to you. That ought to be good for another year of bitching
about "false identities" and your saying I have "countless other
names." :-) Still "signed" by me with the ieee.org alias. :-)

Ayup, I'll bet you make a big thing about the "alias" too! :-)

On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip


I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

snip



73, Leo

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip


I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

Izzat a piece 'o work or what? The damned thing actually WORKS though. Whatta hoot!

snip



73, Leo

w3rv

In article , Leo
writes:

On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip

I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

Neat collection of recycled toob equipment...looks like "shacks" of
the 50s and 60s. Appears to be a giant collection of QSTs to the
right...(archives of the renowned historian no doubt). :-)

Wonder if the K2 is still in the Himilayas? :-)

Pass me that Sherpa...

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Leo

writes:

On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip

I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

Neat collection

Thnak you, Len!

of recycled toob equipment..

The parts are recycled but the designs are new and unique.

looks like "shacks" of
the 50s and 60s.

Picture is less than 2 years old.

Appears to be a giant collection of QSTs to the
right...

Every issue since mid-1926, and some older ones. Also lots of other radio
magazines, books, manuals, etc. The picture shows only a small part of the
library.

(archives of the renowned historian no doubt). :-)

Who would that be?

Wonder if the K2 is still in the Himilayas? :-)

It was elsewhere at the time the picture was taken. You can see really good
pictures of the K2, K1 and KX1 at the Elecraft website

http://www.elecraft.com

Last time I looked, there was an interesting project under "Tech Notes" on that
site. An inventive amateur built an ITX-motherboard based computer into an EC2
enclosure, to match the K2.

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Leo

writes:

On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

Neat collection

Thnak you, Len!

of recycled toob equipment..

The parts are recycled but the designs are new and unique.

It seems to bother our Leonard that vacuum tubes were used.

looks like "shacks" of
the 50s and 60s.

It seems to bother our Leonard that your equipment doesn't look like
stereo equipment.

Picture is less than 2 years old.

Appears to be a giant collection of QSTs to the
right...

It seems to bother our Leonard that you have an extensive QST library.

Every issue since mid-1926, and some older ones. Also lots of other radio
magazines, books, manuals, etc. The picture shows only a small part of the
library.

(archives of the renowned historian no doubt). :-)

Who would that be?

I think he means you, Jim. Our Leonard seems to be bothered that you
have the information contained in those magazines. It gives you unfair
advantage over him.

I have the QSTs, the whole run of CQ, nearly the whole runs of EI and
Pop'tronics, the whole run of the now-defunct Ham Radio and most of HRH.
Add to that a ten-year run of ER, five years worth of Radio Amatoori
(Finnish), about ten years worth of RadComm, some miscellaneous issues
of ham mags from Japan, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Russia, ten or so
years of Radio, loads of old Radio and Radiocraft mags.

I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to Leonard that my funeral pyre will
be fueled with those magazines. I'll lie in a rack cabinet as I'm sent
off to the amateur radio valhalla. A special A-1 Op Club honor guard
will be present. The ceremony will be performed by local members of the
Royal Order of Wouff Hong.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Leo

writes:

On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

Neat collection

Thnak you, Len!

of recycled toob equipment..

The parts are recycled but the designs are new and unique.

It seems to bother our Leonard that vacuum tubes were used.

Does it? I don't see that, Dave. He wrote that is was a "neat collection".

looks like "shacks" of
the 50s and 60s.

It seems to bother our Leonard that your equipment doesn't look like
stereo equipment.

Why should it? It's not stereo equipment. It's amateur radio equipment.

Picture is less than 2 years old.

Appears to be a giant collection of QSTs to the
right...

It seems to bother our Leonard that you have an extensive QST library.

I don't see that at all, Dave.

Every issue since mid-1926, and some older ones. Also lots of other radio
magazines, books, manuals, etc. The picture shows only a small part of the
library.

(archives of the renowned historian no doubt). :-)

Who would that be?

I think he means you, Jim. Our Leonard seems to be bothered that you
have the information contained in those magazines. It gives you unfair
advantage over him.

??

The entire run of QST is available on CD-ROM, so the info is available to
anyone willing to spend the $$. (I spent a lot less on the paper mags, but they
take up more space and it's taken me decades to build up the collection).

I have the QSTs, the whole run of CQ, nearly the whole runs of EI and
Pop'tronics, the whole run of the now-defunct Ham Radio and most of HRH.
Add to that a ten-year run of ER, five years worth of Radio Amatoori
(Finnish), about ten years worth of RadComm, some miscellaneous issues
of ham mags from Japan, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Russia, ten or so
years of Radio, loads of old Radio and Radiocraft mags.

That's more extensive than my collection. But if you really want to see a radio
library, go to the AWA annex.

I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to Leonard that my funeral pyre will
be fueled with those magazines.

Please don't! Future generations will be deprived of those magazines if you
burn them. Much of my collection was saved from destruction by hams who would
not let them go to the dump or incinerator. Same for the parts.

I know an amateur (not me) who was *given* a near-complete collection of QST by
an elderly ham who knew he would soon be SK. He had saved every issue from the
post WW1 reawakening to the prsent day. He had many duplicates, too. It took 3
trips in a Citation to move them all.

I'll lie in a rack cabinet as I'm sent
off to the amateur radio valhalla. A special A-1 Op Club honor guard
will be present. The ceremony will be performed by local members of the
Royal Order of Wouff Hong.

Sounds good to me. I want bagpipes at mine. And selected readings from the Book
of Bokonon.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"happy, happy mud"

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

It seems to bother our Leonard that your equipment doesn't look like
stereo equipment.


Does he engage in diversity reception?

In article , Leo
writes:

On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip


I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

That's it all right. Website's been up about a year IIRC. All anybody has to do
is google my callsign and the url comes right up.

Rig was built in the early 1990s and has been one of the main rigs here since
1994. Cost less than $100, and was built from almost all recycled parts (had to
have 3 crystals made). Tuning mechanism is recycled from a junker BC-221 -
swords into plowshares, as the Book says. Built around some nice 8 pole 500 Hz
bandwidth filters I found at Gaithersburg hamfest. Two cascaded filters
separated by the first IF stage are used. All the heterodyne crystals have
trimmers to permit setting to exact frequency. The heterodyne system is unique,
not copied from any other rig. (Not that there's anyhting wrong with that; the
Type 6 used the Heath SB-series scheme).

Antenna is a W3DZZ-inspired inverted V with the apex at about 37 feet and the
ends at about 12 feet.

Of course the shack isn't always that neat. ;-)

If you look carefully, you can see that the shack table and shelves are
homebrew too.

Several rrappers and thousands of other hams have worked me while I was using
that setup. It's even been on Field Day, where in 1995 I took sixth place in
1B-1 (2948 points, 640 QSOs, all setup, operation and takedown by one person -
me).

The rig has been described elsewhere, both on the internet and amateur
magazines.

73 de Jim, N2EY