About Us

October 1st 04, 06:20 PM

(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:

October 1st 04, 09:16 PM

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Avery Fineman)(so desperate to get past spam filters
that he changes screen names)wrote in message
...
In article ,

(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.

Didn't that "phase noise" bother those recycled radios using
vacuum tubes? :-)

Or do you only recycle crystal sets?

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.

Oh, my, aren't you royals Talking Down to the proletariat!

Difficult to discuss the subject of "US Licensing Restructuring"
in the presence of such nobility. :-)

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?

Heh heh heh...I'm sure you will eventually get around to showing
that...and that on-off keying telegraphy MUST be tested for in
order to operate in ham HF bands...with or without "recycled
parts" raddios.

So...was all this "phase noise" invisible way back in the
1990 time? It didn't exist? It only came up when a frequency
synthesizer was incorporated? :-)

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".

That little Icom R-70 still works fine, as advertised. I've got one.
You don't. :-)

The only thing I "recycled" was some paper to get one in working
order. :-)

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzzword then. It has a three-loop
PLL in it plus a microcontroller. Sensitivity is still good and
comparable with any contemporary HF receiver.

Have you ever used the receiver he mentions?

R-390? Yes. R-391 (which he didn't mention)? Yes. R-388?
Yes. A Collins 74 or 75 something or other owned by Ed Dodds,
(W6AFU?) long ago. A KWM2? Yes.

I have an Icom R-70. You don't. :-)

No, completely relevant. One important measure of amateur equipment
quality is how it performs in actual on-air operation.

Duhhhhh. :-)

Who decides what is "real sport"? You're not the IOC. Or TAC ;-)

I thought YOU were one of the Ruling Elite on What Is What
in amateur radio? You and all the elite PCTA extras...

The term "road race" is not limited to motor vehicles. It's
understandable that you don't like sports.

Tsk. Your "sport" here is trying to establish a world-record in
sarcastic conclusion-jumping!

I like and used to enjoy (as a participant) certain sports such as
international football (you may know it as "soccer").

I've yet to get close to the concept of sitting around a shack
making as many contacts as possible in a given time as any
"sport." Neither is that activity "pioneering the ariwaves" nor
any sort of "training for emergencies" to reasonable-thinking
human beans.

Like chess or checkers or board games, radio contesting is
a GAME.

It is FAR from an ATHLETIC sport.

Not the same as being there. It seems you enjoy only second-hand
experiences.

Tsk. You've never been in the military, certainly not in military
radio communications, yet you consistently put down what I
experienced in military HF radio communications. You "know"
about it?

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.

Heh heh heh...back to the "Sermon on the Antenna Mount" thing.

You still claim over-riding expertise in radio design from what?
Recycling parts in your shack? Building Elecraft kits? A double
degree way back when? RADIO INDUSTRY experience?

Yahhhh...to be "knowledgeable in radio" requires a radio amateur
license?!?!?

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.

If I had extra copies, I could, with a year or so off to do it, digitize
those things and put them on a website that allowed at least 100
MB user space. That includes corporate documents (public)
along with photographs. Not worth it, since the typical PCTA
extra "commentary" (to use a word very loosely) would be
totally derogatory. My little text and photo memorabilia on the
ADA assignment takes 6 MB in PDF.

YOU have REJECTED simple things like a digitized license
repro in the past. You would be expected to reject anything I
present...as "credentials" or whatever real proof there is...and
there is a lot of it.

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...

Yes. I did it then. Even got paid for it!

I have an Icom R-70. You don't. :-)

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.

Right. All hams do the "recycle" thing. :-)

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?

A federal REGULATION requiring morse code testing in order
to get an AMATEUR license to operate on HF is NOT
"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.

Lower your lance, Armstrong. This is NOT about athletic sports
or motorcycling.

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.

"Arcane?" :-)

I put down ANY salesfolk that want to give me a snowjob about a
product they are selling or - in this case - just NOT KNOWING
ENOUGH - about an expensive product.

Does it work any better because you know it has a 3 loop PLL?

No. It works better BECAUSE it has that 3-loop PLL.

I could explain the reasons it does so, but you will dismiss it
as "arcane" and Kellie will think it is all "bafflegab" (because
he is not up to speed on control theory). Davie will snarl and
start babbling about his mini-radio-museum and "you should
SEE this Orion!" :-)

Oh, yeah, the gunnery nurse will probably jump in and talk
about "healthcare credentials" and call everyone "Putz."

Well, now we know where *your* mind is at, Len...

You aren't even close. But, if it pleases you to "recycle" some
imagination and fantasies, you will NOT do "nothing" as you
signed off.

October 4th 04, 05:49 PM

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Avery Fineman)(so desperate to get past spam filters
that he changes screen names)wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

So...was all this "phase noise" invisible way back in the
1990 time? It didn't exist?

That you didn't read the published material does not mean that the
material did not exist. The synthesizer phase noise issue was debated
well before 1990.

It only came up when a frequency
synthesizer was incorporated? :-)

Synthesizers were in wide use prior to 1990. The phase noise issue
became important as synthesizer circuits became common in transceivers.
I'll invite to read up on the subject. I've provided several urls.
There are numerous other sources of information on the subject. Why not
avail yourself of some of them?

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".

That little Icom R-70 still works fine, as advertised.

While I doubt that the receiver functions as advertised, I have no
trouble believing that it works as designed.

I've got one. You don't. :-)

I'm sure it is quite a nice piece of equipment for the casual SWL. I'm
happy for you.

The only thing I "recycled" was some paper to get one in working
order. :-)

I recall you mentioning that. "Cash" wasn't it? Use of a credit card
would have muddied the waters.

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzzword then. It has a three-loop
PLL in it plus a microcontroller. Sensitivity is still good and
comparable with any contemporary HF receiver.

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzz word in the Icom engineering and sales
bunch. Elsewhere, the use of the term was already common.

I've yet to get close to the concept of sitting around a shack
making as many contacts as possible in a given time as any
"sport."

Skill and endurance are certainly big factors in winning any amateur
radio contest.

Neither is that activity "pioneering the ariwaves" nor
any sort of "training for emergencies" to reasonable-thinking
human beans.

Did you ask any? No claims for contests as pioneering the "ariwaves"
have been made. Any on-air activity which requires speedy, accurate
operation is good training for emergency situations.

Like chess or checkers or board games, radio contesting is
a GAME.

There are some similarities. A good strategy, playing within the rules
and some luck are involved. No board games that I'm aware of require
putting up big antennas at height, putting together a radio station or
planning sleep breaks.

It is FAR from an ATHLETIC sport.

Not if done correctly.

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.

If I had extra copies, I could, with a year or so off to do it, digitize
those things and put them on a website that allowed at least 100
MB user space. That includes corporate documents (public)
along with photographs. Not worth it, since the typical PCTA
extra "commentary" (to use a word very loosely) would be
totally derogatory. My little text and photo memorabilia on the
ADA assignment takes 6 MB in PDF.

I thought you had no need of rank, title or status.

YOU have REJECTED simple things like a digitized license
repro in the past. You would be expected to reject anything I
present...as "credentials" or whatever real proof there is...and
there is a lot of it.

Rank, title and status?

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?

A federal REGULATION requiring morse code testing in order
to get an AMATEUR license to operate on HF is NOT
"live and let live."

Sure it is, Leonard. You have the same opportunity to take and pass
such an exam as I did. The REGULATION doesn't single you out. I don't
know why the term "AMATEUR license" bothers you. That's what the exam
is for--an "AMATEUR license" to operate an AMATEUR radio station on HF.

Be that as it may, you didn't bother to answer the question about you
denigrating what some radio amateurs do for fun. Why would it bother
you that someone participates in a contest? I mean, it isn't as if you
are actually involved in amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

October 5th 04, 12:56 AM

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Avery Fineman)(so desperate to get past spam filters
that he changes screen names)wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

So...was all this "phase noise" invisible way back in the
1990 time? It didn't exist?

That you didn't read the published material does not mean that the
material did not exist. The synthesizer phase noise issue was debated
well before 1990.

It is referred to in QST product reviews of ~20 years ago.

It only came up when a frequency
synthesizer was incorporated? :-)

Synthesizers were in wide use prior to 1990. The phase noise issue
became important as synthesizer circuits became common in transceivers.
I'll invite to read up on the subject. I've provided several urls.
There are numerous other sources of information on the subject. Why not
avail yourself of some of them?

Compare the transmitted noise spectra of an SG2020, Elecraft K2, and K1. Guess
where that noise comes from?

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".

That little Icom R-70 still works fine, as advertised.

While I doubt that the receiver functions as advertised, I have no
trouble believing that it works as designed.

Ya missed the point.

Other designs are criticized because of age - but not the R-70. Guess why.

I've got one. You don't. :-)

Don't want one. If somebody gave me one, I'd sell it.

I'm sure it is quite a nice piece of equipment for the casual SWL. I'm
happy for you.

The only thing I "recycled" was some paper to get one in working
order. :-)

I recall you mentioning that. "Cash" wasn't it? Use of a credit card
would have muddied the waters.

I paid cash for all the parts in the Type 7....

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzzword then. It has a three-loop
PLL in it plus a microcontroller. Sensitivity is still good and
comparable with any contemporary HF receiver.

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzz word in the Icom engineering and sales
bunch. Elsewhere, the use of the term was already common.

Like amongst hams.

I've yet to get close to the concept of sitting around a shack
making as many contacts as possible in a given time as any
"sport."

It's called "competition".

Skill and endurance are certainly big factors in winning any amateur
radio contest.

Neither is that activity "pioneering the ariwaves" nor
any sort of "training for emergencies" to reasonable-thinking
human beans.

Did you ask any? No claims for contests as pioneering the "ariwaves"
have been made. Any on-air activity which requires speedy, accurate
operation is good training for emergency situations.

Contest operation also points up the weak points in any radio station. The
contest and DX folks have pushed the need for better rigs for decades.

Like chess or checkers or board games, radio contesting is
a GAME.

So are all sports. Like the Olympic GAMES...

There are some similarities. A good strategy, playing within the rules
and some luck are involved. No board games that I'm aware of require
putting up big antennas at height, putting together a radio station or
planning sleep breaks.

Think car racing. Bicycle racing (Lance Armstrong wasn't riding a three-speed
with baloon tires)

It is FAR from an ATHLETIC sport.

Not if done correctly.

Let's see....I run as exercise and also a sport. Done two marathons and more
half-marathons, ten-milers, 10Ks and 5 milers than I can recall. Mike Coslo is
a hockey player.

What sports do others participate in? Not as spectators!

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.

If I had extra copies, I could, with a year or so off to do it, digitize
those things and put them on a website that allowed at least 100
MB user space. That includes corporate documents (public)
along with photographs.

The challenge is for *homebrew* radio projects. Not stuff done for work.

Not worth it, since the typical PCTA
extra "commentary" (to use a word very loosely) would be
totally derogatory.

You mean you fear reaping what you sow?

My little text and photo memorabilia on the
ADA assignment takes 6 MB in PDF.

Did you design and build ADA on your own time, with your own resources?

I thought you had no need of rank, title or status.

YOU have REJECTED simple things like a digitized license
repro in the past.

I didn't ask for it. I had already said I'd take your word that you had one.

But you sent me*several* unsolicited emails with unknown attachments of large
size. (Ever hear of compressing a file before sending?).

How was I to know what they were? I found out later that one attachement was a
picture that contained male nudity. Not my cup of tea, so to speak.

You would be expected to reject anything I
present...as "credentials" or whatever real proof there is...and
there is a lot of it.

It's real simple, Len:

Pick an HF radio project that you did in your home workshop as a "hobby"
activity. Not something for work, or something you did as part of a group, but
something you dreamed up and built yourself, just for the fun of it. Not some
accessory, either - a complete receiver, transmitter or transceiver.

Put a picture and a short description on your AOL homepage, just like I did. We
don't need megabytes or a long diatribe. Just a .jpg and a short description.

My project is out there for all to see. Where's yours? Or are you too afraid of
what others will say?

--

Rank, title and status?

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?

A federal REGULATION requiring morse code testing in order
to get an AMATEUR license to operate on HF is NOT
"live and let live."

Yes, it is.

Sure it is, Leonard. You have the same opportunity to take and pass
such an exam as I did. The REGULATION doesn't single you out. I don't
know why the term "AMATEUR license" bothers you. That's what the exam
is for--an "AMATEUR license" to operate an AMATEUR radio station on HF.

Be that as it may, you didn't bother to answer the question about you
denigrating what some radio amateurs do for fun. Why would it bother
you that someone participates in a contest? I mean, it isn't as if you
are actually involved in amateur radio.

Exactly.

And guess what: If the code test goes away, contesting in amateur radio will
continue. Some contesters are actually *for* doing away with the code test on
the grounds that it will allegedly get more hams on HF, thereby raising their
scores by having more folks to work and making some sections/countries/zones
less rare.

73 de Jim, N2EY

October 6th 04, 02:40 AM

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Avery Fineman)(so desperate to get past spam filters
that he changes screen names)wrote in message
...
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

So...was all this "phase noise" invisible way back in the
1990 time? It didn't exist?

That you didn't read the published material does not mean that the
material did not exist. The synthesizer phase noise issue was debated
well before 1990.

It is referred to in QST product reviews of ~20 years ago.

Thus the tube radio. No synthesizer. What a wunderful way around it.
Hi, hi!

It only came up when a frequency
synthesizer was incorporated? :-)

Synthesizers were in wide use prior to 1990.

Extreme wide use.

The phase noise issue
became important as synthesizer circuits became common in transceivers.

The phase noise issue became an issue with the first synthesizer
circuit.

I'll invite to read up on the subject.

Ditto.

I've provided several urls.

Ho ho!

There are numerous other sources of information on the subject. Why not
avail yourself of some of them?

Compare the transmitted noise spectra of an SG2020, Elecraft K2, and K1. Guess
where that noise comes from?

Synthesizer circuits?

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".

That little Icom R-70 still works fine, as advertised.

While I doubt that the receiver functions as advertised, I have no
trouble believing that it works as designed.

Ya missed the point.

Ooops!

Other designs are criticized because of age - but not the R-70. Guess why.

Schindler?

I've got one. You don't. :-)

Don't want one. If somebody gave me one, I'd sell it.

And do what with the money?

I'm sure it is quite a nice piece of equipment for the casual SWL. I'm
happy for you.

Happiness abounds in RRAP!

The only thing I "recycled" was some paper to get one in working
order. :-)

I recall you mentioning that. "Cash" wasn't it? Use of a credit card
would have muddied the waters.

I paid cash for all the parts in the Type 7....

What? No TV transformer yoke?

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzzword then. It has a three-loop
PLL in it plus a microcontroller. Sensitivity is still good and
comparable with any contemporary HF receiver.

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzz word in the Icom engineering and sales
bunch. Elsewhere, the use of the term was already common.

Like amongst hams.

Like with the first synthesized circuit radios???

And of course, those very first synthisized circuit radios were ham
radios!

Hi, hi!

I've yet to get close to the concept of sitting around a shack
making as many contacts as possible in a given time as any
"sport."

It's called "competition".

Nope, it's called contesting.

Best of Luck.

Skill and endurance are certainly big factors in winning any amateur
radio contest.

Somebody's half-way awake. Missed the boat ont he sport concept.

Neither is that activity "pioneering the ariwaves" nor
any sort of "training for emergencies" to reasonable-thinking
human beans.

Did you ask any? No claims for contests as pioneering the "ariwaves"
have been made. Any on-air activity which requires speedy, accurate
operation is good training for emergency situations.

Contest operation also points up the weak points in any radio station. The
contest and DX folks have pushed the need for better rigs for decades.

Where money is no object. I thought you guys were focused on
third-worlders who had to self-manufacture CW only circuits?
Wherethere is no money. Which is it?

Like chess or checkers or board games, radio contesting is
a GAME.

So are all sports. Like the Olympic GAMES...

Messing with Steve is a game. Emergency comms is no game.

MARS is NOT Amateur Radio.

There are some similarities. A good strategy, playing within the rules

Rules

RULES???

Like copying the W1AW message the day before? Hello Kelly???

Hi, hi! These guys obey no rules.

They are the elite! Rules are for the other hams.

and some luck are involved. No board games that I'm aware of require
putting up big antennas at height, putting together a radio station or
planning sleep breaks.

Why must you confine your "game" to board games???

Are road rally's played on a board?

Think car racing. Bicycle racing (Lance Armstrong wasn't riding a three-speed
with baloon tires)

Allow Bill Sohl to speak of road rally's. If you dare.

It is FAR from an ATHLETIC sport.

Not if done correctly.

Let's see....I run as exercise and also a sport. Done two marathons and more
half-marathons, ten-milers, 10Ks and 5 milers than I can recall. Mike Coslo is
a hockey player.

What sports do others participate in? ot as spectators!

Lying? Robeson leads.

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.

If I had extra copies, I could, with a year or so off to do it, digitize
those things and put them on a website that allowed at least 100
MB user space. That includes corporate documents (public)
along with photographs.

The challenge is for *homebrew* radio projects. Not stuff done for work.

Yet most of the HEROES of amateur radio were doing their heroic work
as PROFESSIONALS!!!

Explain.

Explain again!

Not worth it, since the typical PCTA
extra "commentary" (to use a word very loosely) would be
totally derogatory.

You mean you fear reaping what you sow?

"We" only fear reaping what Steve sows. Spooky dood. Low-class
ideas.

My little text and photo memorabilia on the
ADA assignment takes 6 MB in PDF.

Did you design and build ADA on your own time, with your own resources?

Did you build the VE system on your own time, with your own resources?

YOU have REJECTED simple things like a digitized license
repro in the past.

I didn't ask for it. I had already said I'd take your word that you had one.

But you sent me*several* unsolicited emails with unknown attachments of large
size. (Ever hear of compressing a file before sending?).

How was I to know what they were? I found out later that one attachement was a
picture that contained male nudity. Not my cup of tea, so to speak.

Must have been right up Steve's foci!

You would be expected to reject anything I
present...as "credentials" or whatever real proof there is...and
there is a lot of it.

It's real simple, Len:

Pick an HF radio project that you did in your home workshop as a "hobby"
activity. Not something for work, or something you did as part of a group, but
something you dreamed up and built yourself, just for the fun of it. Not some
accessory, either - a complete receiver, transmitter or transceiver.

Put a picture and a short description on your AOL homepage, just like I did. We
don't need megabytes or a long diatribe. Just a .jpg and a short description.

My project is out there for all to see. Where's yours? Or are you too afraid of
what others will say?

Was Fesseden's projects for amateur radio? Marconi?

--

Rank, title and status?

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?

A federal REGULATION requiring morse code testing in order
to get an AMATEUR license to operate on HF is NOT
"live and let live."

Yes, it is.

It is not. No other AMERICAN radio service requires such.

Sure it is, Leonard. You have the same opportunity to take and pass
such an exam as I did. The REGULATION doesn't single you out. I don't
know why the term "AMATEUR license" bothers you. That's what the exam
is for--an "AMATEUR license" to operate an AMATEUR radio station on HF.

Be that as it may, you didn't bother to answer the question about you
denigrating what some radio amateurs do for fun. Why would it bother
you that someone participates in a contest? I mean, it isn't as if you
are actually involved in amateur radio.

Exactly.

Would you mind saying that just one more time for the record?

And guess what: If the code test goes away, contesting in amateur radio will
continue.

Yes. Even with Morse Code.

But what is wrong with amateur radio gaining another RTTY or SSB
contester???

Some contesters are actually *for* doing away with the code test on
the grounds that it will allegedly get more hams on HF, thereby raising their
scores by having more folks to work and making some sections/countries/zones
less rare.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And all PCTA's are actually against doing away with the code test on
the ground that it will diminish their status as "REAL Hams."

73 de bb

October 8th 04, 11:16 PM

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

(Avery Fineman)(so desperate to get past spam
filters
that he changes screen names)wrote in message
...
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

So...was all this "phase noise" invisible way back in the
1990 time? It didn't exist?

That you didn't read the published material does not mean that the
material did not exist. The synthesizer phase noise issue was debated
well before 1990.

It is referred to in QST product reviews of ~20 years ago.

Thus the tube radio. No synthesizer. What a wunderful way around it.
Hi, hi!

Ever see a mention of "phase noise" causing all the front end noise
in receivers back 20 years ago? :-)

Nope. Just plain old "kay-tee-delta-eff" random noise. That's still
around, still the limiting factor in sensitivity.

Jimmie, putting on his "kluge clothes," said that "phase noise" is
THE limiting factor in receiver sensitivity. He has two degrees and
is a PCTA extra...no one can argue with him. :-)

It only came up when a frequency
synthesizer was incorporated? :-)

Synthesizers were in wide use prior to 1990.

Extreme wide use.

The phase noise issue
became important as synthesizer circuits became common in transceivers.

The phase noise issue became an issue with the first synthesizer
circuit.

I'll invite to read up on the subject.

Ditto.

I've provided several urls.

Ho ho!

There are numerous other sources of information on the subject. Why not
avail yourself of some of them?

Compare the transmitted noise spectra of an SG2020, Elecraft K2, and K1.
Guess
where that noise comes from?

Synthesizer circuits?

Tsk. Apparently random noise at the input has disappeared with
the advent of the frequency synthesizers. :-)

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".

That little Icom R-70 still works fine, as advertised.

While I doubt that the receiver functions as advertised, I have no
trouble believing that it works as designed.

Ya missed the point.

Ooops!

Other designs are criticized because of age - but not the R-70. Guess why.

Schindler?

Nah. Jimmie knows I have an Icom R-70. THAT is the reason for
his diatribe.

Doesn't matter what the model is, if I have it, it must be no good! :-)

I've got one. You don't. :-)

Don't want one. If somebody gave me one, I'd sell it.

And do what with the money?

Buy running shoes? Almost anything but buy a (hack, ptui)
ready-built ham radio! :-)

I'm sure it is quite a nice piece of equipment for the casual SWL. I'm
happy for you.

Happiness abounds in RRAP!

Only among the mighty macho morsemen...

The only thing I "recycled" was some paper to get one in working
order. :-)

I recall you mentioning that. "Cash" wasn't it? Use of a credit card
would have muddied the waters.

I paid cash for all the parts in the Type 7....

What? No TV transformer yoke?

...or the color burst crystal. :-)

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzzword then. It has a three-loop
PLL in it plus a microcontroller. Sensitivity is still good and
comparable with any contemporary HF receiver.

"Phase noise" wasn't a big buzz word in the Icom engineering and sales
bunch. Elsewhere, the use of the term was already common.

Like amongst hams.

Like with the first synthesized circuit radios???

And of course, those very first synthisized circuit radios were ham
radios!

Hi, hi!

Jimmie has wide experience in all radio...comes from "serving
his country" by having a ham license and reading all those QSTs
stacked next to his kluge.

I've yet to get close to the concept of sitting around a shack
making as many contacts as possible in a given time as any
"sport."

It's called "competition".

Nope, it's called contesting.

Best of Luck.

Skill and endurance are certainly big factors in winning any amateur
radio contest.

Somebody's half-way awake. Missed the boat ont he sport concept.

He's not as good a sport as he pretends...

Neither is that activity "pioneering the ariwaves" nor
any sort of "training for emergencies" to reasonable-thinking
human beans.

Did you ask any? No claims for contests as pioneering the "ariwaves"
have been made. Any on-air activity which requires speedy, accurate
operation is good training for emergency situations.

Contest operation also points up the weak points in any radio station. The
contest and DX folks have pushed the need for better rigs for decades.

Where money is no object. I thought you guys were focused on
third-worlders who had to self-manufacture CW only circuits?
Wherethere is no money. Which is it?

They don't really know. The one they are sure of is that morse
code skill is the ultimate, the ne plus ultra, of all radio skill. Do
morse or be considered lesser. :-)

Like chess or checkers or board games, radio contesting is
a GAME.

So are all sports. Like the Olympic GAMES...

Messing with Steve is a game. Emergency comms is no game.

MARS is NOT Amateur Radio.

PCTA fantasy says it IS. Excuse me...IS. :-)

Jimmie "serves his country" by engaging in the hobby of ham
radio. He said so. We can't argue anything that he's said.

There are some similarities. A good strategy, playing within the rules

Rules

RULES???

Like copying the W1AW message the day before? Hello Kelly???

Hi, hi! These guys obey no rules.

They are the elite! Rules are for the other hams.

In one way, that's nice...we get to "eat cake" when we have no
bread.

Marie A. once said that, got so upset she lost her head...

and some luck are involved. No board games that I'm aware of require
putting up big antennas at height, putting together a radio station or
planning sleep breaks.

Why must you confine your "game" to board games???

Are road rally's played on a board?

PCTA fantasies are done in their heads.

Think car racing. Bicycle racing (Lance Armstrong wasn't riding a
three-speed
with baloon tires)

Allow Bill Sohl to speak of road rally's. If you dare.

It is FAR from an ATHLETIC sport.

Not if done correctly.

Let's see....I run as exercise and also a sport. Done two marathons and more
half-marathons, ten-milers, 10Ks and 5 milers than I can recall. Mike Coslo
is
a hockey player.

What sports do others participate in? ot as spectators!

Lying? Robeson leads.

That's a PCTA radiosport. :-)

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.

If I had extra copies, I could, with a year or so off to do it,
digitize
those things and put them on a website that allowed at least 100
MB user space. That includes corporate documents (public)
along with photographs.

The challenge is for *homebrew* radio projects. Not stuff done for work.

Yet most of the HEROES of amateur radio were doing their heroic work
as PROFESSIONALS!!!

Explain.

Explain again!

Tsk. Jimmie NEVER said what HE does at his regular job. All he's
admitted to was in one Comment on one of the petitions at the FCC
that he is engaged in vehicular propulsion systems. That's all. No
details, just a general statement.

Well, Jimmie must do SUCH good work at work that he doesn't think
any of it is a challenge. Tsk. No enthusiasm shown for what he does
for a living.

The "challenge" is to build kluges in the shack and then try to get
everyone to admire and respect his work.

Not worth it, since the typical PCTA
extra "commentary" (to use a word very loosely) would be
totally derogatory.

You mean you fear reaping what you sow?

"We" only fear reaping what Steve sows. Spooky dood. Low-class
ideas.

No fear here. No pity either. Tsk.

My little text and photo memorabilia on the
ADA assignment takes 6 MB in PDF.

Did you design and build ADA on your own time, with your own resources?

Did you build the VE system on your own time, with your own resources?

Either HE did or he aligns hisself in the same league by virtue of the
document about a hobby he says is "service to the country!"

We can't argue with Homeland Security these days...

YOU have REJECTED simple things like a digitized license
repro in the past.

I didn't ask for it. I had already said I'd take your word that you had
one.

But you sent me*several* unsolicited emails with unknown attachments of
large
size. (Ever hear of compressing a file before sending?).

How was I to know what they were? I found out later that one attachement was
a
picture that contained male nudity. Not my cup of tea, so to speak.

Must have been right up Steve's foci!

"Male nudity?" In that nice aerial photo of a converted B-26 in flight
it is impossible to tell gender. :-)

You would be expected to reject anything I
present...as "credentials" or whatever real proof there is...and
there is a lot of it.

It's real simple, Len:

Pick an HF radio project that you did in your home workshop as a "hobby"
activity. Not something for work, or something you did as part of a group,
but
something you dreamed up and built yourself, just for the fun of it. Not
some
accessory, either - a complete receiver, transmitter or transceiver.

Put a picture and a short description on your AOL homepage, just like I did.
We
don't need megabytes or a long diatribe. Just a .jpg and a short
description.

My project is out there for all to see. Where's yours? Or are you too afraid
of
what others will say?

Was Fesseden's projects for amateur radio? Marconi?

All of the broadcasting stations I worked in all do AM by sticking a single
microphone in the antenna leads...NOT. :-)

All of the broadcasting stations I worked in all did morse code news...NOT.

Actually, I DO have enough material that could be digitized from various
employments (even has my picture in some of them), enough to fill at
least 100 MB of filespace. Why bother? Just to answer Jimmie's
so-called challenge? He thinks so. He says it enough to make it a
demand.

I DO have some pictures of stuff I've done personally, again enough to fill
lots of filespace. I'm even taking progress pictures as a couple projects
get done in various stages. For MY pleasure and maybe some ideas for a
very few others who I've known for some time.

I'm not out in any "competition" via websites appearance or that sort of
thing. I'm not out to garner admiration and respect through websites.

Jimmie got bent out of shape by not getting gushing admiration or
respect for his kluges built from tubes in the 1990s. Saying that the
photo shows neatness isn't enough. We were all supposed to applaud
and make gratuitous nine-nice noises?

As to the "ability to draw schematics from memory," I don't recall a
single design review meeting at work where a participant was NOT
able to recall schematics from memory...of their project, or others
projects that they were peripherally involved in. That includes ALL
details pertinent, such as environmental conditions, some mechanical
structural considerations and the like.

A federal REGULATION requiring morse code testing in order
to get an AMATEUR license to operate on HF is NOT
"live and let live."

Yes, it is.

It is not. No other AMERICAN radio service requires such.

To the PCTA extra, the ONLY way to be American is to take the
code test...like THEY did.

Ho hum.

Would you mind saying that just one more time for the record?

Please don't encourage the guru of here...Jimmie will bust a gut
writing and writing and writing and writing "truth" (as only he knows).

And all PCTA's are actually against doing away with the code test on
the ground that it will diminish their status as "REAL Hams."

That is IT in a nutshell. Quintescense of their existace. :-)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???	Joe Guthart	Policy	170	October 19th 04 12:57 PM
US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???	N2EY	Policy	0	September 23rd 04 11:44 PM
US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???	Len Over 21	Policy	0	September 23rd 04 12:02 AM
New ARRL Proposal	N2EY	Policy	331	March 4th 04 12:02 AM
My restructuring proposal	Jason Hsu	Policy	0	January 20th 04 06:24 PM

Menu

About Us