US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
 

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

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

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

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

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

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Perhaps it is time to update your database, Leonard.


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

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

Dave K8MN

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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

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

Sure, but those old VFOs tended to change the frequency a little
over time. AKA "drift".

Of course. That problem was insignificant in good-quality amateur gear by the
mid-late 1950s. Curing it was mostly a matter of getting away from bandswitched
self-controlled oscillators.

Most amateur HF operation does not require excellent long-term frequency
stability.

Me thinks one desires to select a frequency
and then have the rig stay put on it. Modern rigs can do that
to the accuracy and drift of a good crystal oscillator to some
set resolution. But for our uses, 10Hz resolution is more than
sufficient.

Exactly! But the designers have gone one better and commonly offer 1 Hz
resolution.

However, the original point was that such frequency synthesizers were somehow
"necessary" for hams. That is simply untrue.

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

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

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

The above reflects ignorance of the HF receiving environment commonly
encountered by hams, particularly those in DX, contest, and other competitive
situations.

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

Agreed.

As for HF CW, some poorly designed novice xtal oscillator
circuits probably had it worse than a modern synthesized rig.

Not at all.

And then there's chirp...

All curable with proper design.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

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

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

Note the avoidance of answering the question ;-)

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

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

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

Note the avoidance of the facts. ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuck in the past. ;-)

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

Perhaps it is time to update your database, Leonard.

To at least 1980s levels ;-)

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else.

This gives us cause to wonder.....

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

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

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

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

The world wonders....;-)

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

Try taking your own advice ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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

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

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

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

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

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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

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

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

That's a good summation, Robert, thank you.

10 Hz increments has been regarded as sufficient for quite a number
of years.

It all depends on the internal reference oscillator being trimmed to
the frequency it is supposed to be working at. A careful check
against WWV (for those receivers that can tune to 5, 10, or 15 MHz)
will prove that out. Since the same reference oscillator is used for
generating the transmit carrier, it will be as accurate as the receiver
once calibrated.

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. 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.

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.


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

PM and FM aren't related "integrally" other than their modulation
product series expansions are extremely close, different primarily
on the signs of the series terms...thus requiring different
equalization of analog modulating signal frequencies. "Carson's
Rule" applies equally to both to estimate bandwidth versus index
of modulation.

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

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

That's a fault of design, not the basic frequency control system.

If your "chirp" refers to on-off keying CW modulation, that's a
result of inattention to the rise and fall times of the keying plus
the stability of the power supply. Quite a different matter.

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

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: (Brian Kelly)
Date: 9/28/2004 11:15 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

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

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

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

I see. You have some sort of "moral responsibility" to keep us
"technically clueless" types straight do you Sweetums? I don't think
so. More like the technical groups don't put up with your nonsense
(ref: your dot antennas debacle) and you're outta aces and have no
choice but to lounge around in a lame hobby policy group. Even pore
Weenie Weenie Willy Beeper has a ham license. And you don't. Methinks
you *define* the lowest common denominator around here Sweetums.

He is.

I bet that once removed from his computer, Lennie's "knowledge" about many
things "radio" would roll off sharply. That's probably why he can't/won't go
sit the VE session...Can't take his "brain" with him...

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Whatta lame whack at a twist. I didn't claim any such nonsense did I?

No.

What you *did* claim was that you could operate within 200 Hz of a band edge
and know you were inside, using certain '50s/60s vintage equipment. Which is e
a reasonable claim for the equipment involved.

btw, back in 1975 or so I designed and built a "digital dial". The way it
worked was that it used TTL 74192 presettable up-down counters to count the
tunable oscillator. You'd adjust dip switches for the offset and direction of
each band and mode. Its time base was a 400 kHz xtal, easily zeroed to within a
few Hz of WWV. The thing normally read out in 100 Hz increments but could be
switched to 10 Hz or 1 Hz. Its accuracy was dependent on how well you set the
time base and presets. Could be used with almost any rig. Hooked it up to a
75S3 and got an A in the course. And yes, you could easily reset it to 100 Hz.
10 Hz took a steady hand.

Later I saw a better design. It sampled and counted all the oscillators in a
rig, and displayed the total. No presets to adjust - set the timebase to WWV
and you're done. Could go to 1 Hz if you were willing to have it update once
per second.


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

Just watch...

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

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned.

No sweat Sweetums. If I terminate the rcvr input with a 50 ohm dummy
load via a short length of coax and am able to hear any gurgles,
chirps, squeaks, pings, skips or burps when I swish around some freq
or another it's synthesizer crud, i.e., "phase noise" in play. However
with current-tech ham gear internally-generated crud is not often a
big problem these days since it's usually below the atmospheric and/or
electrical QRN noise floor on the band under consideration. Which is
easy enough to check. Welome to the realities of "phase noise "insofar
as amateur radio operation is concerned" Sweetums.

Sort of.

You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

Maybe when ham radio ceases to be a hobby and becomes an "industry"
Sweetums.

Then you should examine exactly how low that terrible phase
noise
is. You can use the term "dbc"

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

referring to the number of decibels
below the "carrier" (center frequency reference, not a modulated
carrier per se). The "crud" (as you term it) is quite far down in
relative power and certainly won't affect morse code reception of an
on-off keyed station's carrier.

Wrong. Incorrect. Not true at all in the real world of HF radio.

Len has just demonstrated, once more, that he just doesn't get it.

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

Has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is HF amateur radio.

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

Wrong again, Len.

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

Misses the point completely.

(Long pause to let the fog clear)

(Amos nudges Andy) "I thnk it's over, he melted down in his own hot
air bafflegab again, wake up."
Andy: "Are you sure? I can use more Zs."

Here's what *really* happens:

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.

Now even first-generation designs had noise sidebands many dB below the desired
LO signal. Someone who doesn't really understand the situation might react as
Len does, saying that such low-level noise can't have any real effect on
receiving the desired signal.

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. And in
modern ham xcvrs where the signal is first converted up to about 70 MHz and
then converted down to about 8.8 MHz by means of synthesized LOs, the problem
can be severe.

Scenario: Ham in Texas is trying to work Europeans in CQWW on 40 meters. He
points his 3 elements at 90 feet towards EU. Which also means towards a lot of
the Northeast. There's lots of points to be had working the low-power
limited-antenna hams there. But to do it, he has to be able to pick their
less-than-a-microvolt signals out from between the forest of locals and East
Coast legal-limit folks. And the band is busy - a signal every few hundred Hz
from 7000 to 7070 or more. Plus the usual cast of megawatt SWBC above 7100 and
below 7000, blasting away with big antennas aimed right at him. 100,000
microvolt and bigger signals aren't rare in such scenarios.

If his receiver's LO is noisy, he'll hear all that off-frequency RF as noise.
And he won't hear the low-power limited-antenna less-than-a-microvolt stations
he's trying to work. All the Inrads and DSP in the catalogs won't do any good
in such a situation.

That's why phase noise is important to hams.

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

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

1 Hz is common in modern manufactured amateur equipment. But that's not really
the issue.

10 Hz increments are perfectly fine for SSB voice tuning, as I've
found out with my Icom R-70.

Heh. You can't tune that pore 'ole 3-star boat anchor in 10 Hz
increments Sweetums, the best you can do with the thing is tune it to
the nearest 100 Hz increment yes? Of course you silly old thing. I've
never seen an R-70 in the flesh so tell me, are those actually Nixies
in the display for God's sake?!

R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

If that old R-70 is your "window" to ham radio I think I'm starting to
understand why you have a dour view of the hobby. You need to get past
the R-70 and try a JRC NRD 545 Sweetums, like the one I have. It'll
change your life.

The bald fact of the mattter is that once more a PCTA caught you
bafflegabbing again Sweetums, wasn't even a decent try so once more no
cigar for you.

When I bought my R-70 (years ago), the three extras at work in the
Van Nuys, CA, store . . .

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

. . . didn't know squat how Icom was able to do it
with 10 KHz reference frequencies to the PFDs (factor of 1000:1)
there.

So what?

Turns out Icom has a neat 3-loop PLL arrangment, doesn't
go into DDS or Fractional-N at all. Minimal phase noise and no
discernable "crud" anywhere within full tuning range.

How many points did Len get with it in the last CQWW? Or even the last SS or
Field Day?

Okay, so your spiffy-schmiffy 1 Hz resolution "xcver" is "guarnateed"
accurate because it has a "digital dial?" I don't think so.

Nobody claimed that it was accurate. It *is* precise, however. Big difference.

Exact 1 Hz
settings imply 100 PPB (Parts Per Billion) accuracy of the master
reference oscillator.

Let's see - 1 part per million is 10 Hz at 10 MHz. Or 1000 parts per billion.
So 100 parts per billion is 1 Hz at 10 MHz.

You will NOT be able to hold such accuracy
and be believable to anyone who has worked to such accuracies in
crystal oscillators. Certainly not for the ham consumer market.

Nobody is claiming that kind of *accuracy*. Only that kind of *precision*.

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

(Amos nudges Andy) "I thnk it's over, he melted down in his own hot
air bafflegab again, wake up."
Andy: "Are you sure? I can use more Zs."

Yup.

Of course there's an easy and quick check of all this. Just tune in WWV and see
what the fancy digidial says when you zero beat the carrier in SSB mode. That
will tell you how accurate the reference oscillator is. Traceable directly to
NIST via the F2 layer. If you're at all careful you can get to the point where
the S meter needle is slowly fluctuating as the frequency/phase difference
wanders...

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.

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

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

Like who? Exactly.

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

Still living in the past...

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

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

Common ham radio quartz crystals have guaranteed accuracies
to 50 PPM typical.

Typically expressed as .005%. Of course that's the accuracy of the xtal itself,
before being zeroed to a better reference. WW2 FT-243s were typically good for
..005%, we do a lot better now.

That translates to 500 Hz at 10 MHz, by way
of example. 1 Hz accuracy at 10 MHz is 100 PPB, or 500 times
closer.

yadda, yadda, more of the usual . . .

WWV. Trimmer capacitor. Zero beat. What a concept.

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

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

I'm sorry that my technical competence seems like "bafflegab"
to you. Some further learning of the radio technical arts would
erase some of your ignorance and lend credence to what I've
said. Like, I could ask you "how's the zeta of your control loop"
and you would be out to lunch, cussing and hollering "bafflegab!"

No Sweetums, not at all, that's not the way I work. You're being silly
again. If by any chance I ran into an arcane topic like that in which
I had any interest whatsoever I'd ask an EE to uncurl it for me.

Engineering 101: Don't reinvent the wheel. They even taught us EEs that one.

Miccolis is across town. Then comes the non-ham PhD EE Dean at one the
universities in this neck of the woods I know well. Or my buddy
another N3/EE who goes back to our high high school days together and
ran GE's gummint relations operations in Valley Forge, etc. etc.

And that's just the first string...

- - - - -

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

"Zeta" is the symbol for the response characteristic in a closed
loop of a PLL, Fractional-N, or hybrid PLL-DDS system.

Wunnerful ducky wunnerful:

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...

Now take a break from your bafflegabbery Sweetums and let's play in my
field of professional expertise this time. Demonstrate your level of
technical competence by solving a very real-world electronics design
problem. Assume that you have a one inch diameter x 1/16 inch wall x
eight foot long 6061T651 aluminum tube fully restrained at one end
with the other and dangling horizontally in the wind. Calculate the
maximum wind speed which will not produce permanent deformation of the
tube.

That's easy! Would take me about sixty seconds to get the answer.

An
important factor for lock-in and stability and anyone designing
the loop filter for a synthesizer should recognize that common
term.

Of course. Who designed the R-70? I bet it wasn't Len Anderson...

I've never dined in the executive dining room (the counterpart to
your "captain's table" BS) in any electronic corporation

Hee! No surprise at all there Sweetums, there are obvious reasons . .
. ah, never mind!

but I
HAVE designed and made frequency synthesizers. Hands-on
work all the way, from the initial paper work-up to long hours
in the environmental lab...to accuracies in 100 PPB over
full military environment. Interesting, challenging work!

So solving the tube-bending problem is a piece of cake for a
duz-it-all "engineering genius" like you eh Sweetums?

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

"Try not to nit-pick . . . ?!" WTF . . ? Bwaaahahaha - from the master
of all RRAP nit-pickers!!

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lucky for you!

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

And?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave K8MN

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

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.


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.

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.

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. Mine is. They're both as close to perfection
as anything. Why would that bother you?

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.

Dave K8MN

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 , 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...

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

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


Note the avoidance of answering the question ;-)

Note the avoidance of the facts. ;-)

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

Stuck in the past. ;-)

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

This gives us cause to wonder.....

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

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

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

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

The world wonders....;-)

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

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

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

Try taking your own advice ;-)

Always do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Poor baby. Bored are you? Tsk, tsk.

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

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

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

Tsk. Still on that inferiority complex are you?

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

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

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

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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.

Now, Leonard -40F and -40C occur at roughly the same point. Have your
ever participated in amateur radio emergency communications outdoors
when the temp was -40? Oh, that's right--you've never participated in
amateur radio emergency communications at all! Have you ever been
anyplace on this planet where the outdoor temperature sat at +85C?

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.

Ho humbug! You've little idea of what "real" hams do.

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). :-)

Let's at least go over them enough times that everyone except you
realizes your errors.

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

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

You're simply wrong. Then again, you aren't a ham so perhaps you could
be excused for not knowing. Now that you've been advised, I'd expect
that you'd be sharp enough to keep from sticking with the same erroneous
view.

If you don't like it, TS.

Does that mean you'll cling to a position no matter how wrong you are?

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.

No problem we can always treat ourselves to another dose of Dr. Len's
newsgroup salts.

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.

No, that's just you compounding your errors.

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

Why dontcha make us all use synthesizers? Did you read up on the phase
noise problem at any of those urls I provided?

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. :-)

An "Ooooooo" and a "Tsk, tsk" aren't much of a defense, are they?

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

I'd expect the Antichrist to have his ducks in a row.

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."

Whaddya know of Jim's industry experience, Leonard?

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?"

Hams aren't required to have anything like that. If you don't like
it...

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?

The name "Southgate" has certainly appeared in ham literature.

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.

Only you can read "just my way particular brand of fun in ham radio" and
take it as a statement of ego-driven superiority.

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.

....as compared to your attempting to take over the flow of debate with
your pet fun and games and promoting the abolition of morse code testing
in an endeaver in which you play no part?

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

Don't you mean "but you've proven me wrong and I just can't abide 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.

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

That's funny, I didn't see that written. Do you suppose it is
ego-driven as well?

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

Jimmie designed the K2? :-)

Do try and stay with the flow. He said it wasn't designed by you.

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!

Don't you strive for perfection, Leonard, or are you happy with slapdash
design?

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

I'm sure it seems that way to a guy like yourself.

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

Actually, telling you off isn't at all unpleasant.

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. :-)

Not much, it doesn't.

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

Why are you always living in the past?

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!

Your opinions were stated as fact--and they were incorrect.

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.

....and I'm sure it is based in experience and a great deal of solid
research *grin*

"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.

Yeah, they're sales types. They aren't engineers.

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.

So, would it have worked fine since if you'd used a credit card?

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" :-) ]

For a twenty-something-year-old design, it isn't bad. It does suffer
from the same thing which plagued many Icom transceivers of its day--the
front end folds up in the presence of nearby strong signals.

Dave K8MN

Avery Fineman wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...


What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

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

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

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

The world wonders....;-)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor baby. Bored are you? Tsk, tsk.

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

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

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

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

Dave K8MN

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

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 ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatta giggle. He gets mad and stamps his feet and rants when somebody
points out that he's been firmly proven wrong and has made a nitwit of
himself again.

Tsk. Kellie is imagining things again. :-)

I've not been "firmly proven wrong." :-) That's another myth
drummed up by Quitfun.


Back to the elementary school recess crybaby analogy.

Kellie, if you prefer crybabies at elementary schools during recess,
you REALLY ought to see a shrink to wrap up your troubles.

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. :-)

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! :-)

In article , Dave Heil
writes:


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

I "wasn't aware?" :-)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Tsk. This is a "points count?"

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

In article , 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

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

Answer: None that he will admit to.

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

Answer: None that he will admit to.

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

Answer: None

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

Answer: None

The world wonders....;-)

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

Yes it is! ;-)

Neither Jimmie nor Davie have
developed any marketable ham transceivers.

Who are "Jimmie and Davie"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living in the past....

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

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

Not Jimmie. Not Davie.

Doesn't have the guts to spell...

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Not that there's anyhting wrong with that"

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

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

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

Poor baby. Bored are you? Tsk, tsk.

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

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

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

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

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

I realized that long ago.

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

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

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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

I "wasn't aware?" :-)

Well, if you were aware, what was the reason you posted erroneous
information?

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

What did you recently tell us about synthesizer phase noise, Mr.
Marconi's uncle? If you keep repeating it, GE may black out your name
on all the RCA archives without a request from me.

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

You didn't post it "tonight". It was posted several days ago. Would
you like a good googling?

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

I never believed that morse code testing was necessary for "inside"
knowledge of frequency control. However, you made a number of factual
errors. Ever get around to looking at any of the material for which I
posted urls?

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

I'm not the person in a dilemma over having posted the factual errors.
You know where the shelf is, I take it?

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

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

Yeah " :-) "

Beats having to eat your words, doesn't it?

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

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

Are you denigrating beginners in radio? those who write for them?
Are you forgetting CQ?

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

I am preparing to publish a book. Would you like to place an order for
an advance copy, Former Famous Author Lennie?

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

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

I dunno, Len, does setting the record straight on something destroy you
or "William"?

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

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

No, not sad, just factual. When did you become plural?

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

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

You equate the statment of a fact with a demand to show papers? That
doesn't make sense.

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

This must be the point at which you realize that you've lost an
argument.

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

Tsk. This is a "points count?"

Don't you know? You are the fellow who often writes of "message
points".

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

Huh?

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

If you're still posting, your First Amendment rights are intact. What
you seem to desire is your rights to post but suppression of my right to
disagree with you, to correct you or to issue catcalls at your sillier
ideas.

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

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

I thought you told us that you had no interest in obtaining such a
license.

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

Are you the course instructor (or the coarse instructor)?

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

What! Has the course (coarse) begun already. Wait a minute--I want to
make notes.

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

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

Wow! Now the THREE of us are even.

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

Hang on--I want to make sure this part gets into my notes on the civil
discourse (discoarse) session.

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

Is this the discourse (discoarse) class or a cooking class? :-) :-)

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
. . . . . . .
What you *did* claim was that you could operate within 200 Hz of a band
edge
and know you were inside, using certain '50s/60s vintage equipment. Which

is a reasonable claim for the equipment involved.

btw, back in 1975 or so I designed and built a "digital dial". The way it
worked was that it used TTL 74192 presettable up-down counters to count
the
tunable oscillator. You'd adjust dip switches for the offset and
direction of
each band and mode. Its time base was a 400 kHz xtal, easily zeroed to
within a
few Hz of WWV. The thing normally read out in 100 Hz increments but could
be
switched to 10 Hz or 1 Hz. Its accuracy was dependent on how well you set

the
time base and presets. Could be used with almost any rig. Hooked it up to
a
75S3 and got an A in the course.

Lab course at Penn?

Independent design project. Made the circuit boards meself and all.
Still have it, still works. Don't use it much though, because one
thing I learned in the process was that I prefer an analog dial for
most purposes. Just a personal preference. Which is one of the big
reasons to homebrew - you get to indulge personal preferences.

The "160" and "190" series ICs appeared some time prior to
1973 since their full data is included in the hard-bound Texas
Instruments "The TTL Data Book" that I have from RCA days
(courtesy of distributor R.V. Weatherford).

There were a number of applications notes by several semi-
conductor makers on various ways to use those two families
of 8 separate function types. I admit to not retaining many of
those...most went to paper recycling long ago. Memory serves
that several frequency counters, including up-down counting
types did appear back then.

The even numbered ones of the 8 were decade counters, the
odd numbered ones 4-bit binary (maximum 16 count). The
decade counter types are now either dropped from production
(Philips, Fairchild) or marked "not for new designs" (ON Semi,
ST). That includes all the upgraded performance families such
as 74LS, 74S, 74ALS, 74AC, 74ACT, 74F, 74HC, 74HCT.
The only up-down counters available for decade counting now
are either surplus stock at a few vendors or in old, slow CD4000
series maxiing at about 4 MHz tops at 5 VDC.

To do top-of-the-HF band programmable dividers for a PLL today
requires the 4-bit binary '191 which can safely count to about
45 MHz with a 74AC191 and using the terminal count gated with
clock pulse low state as the assynchronous parallel load for
presets carrying the divider control input. Preset input has to be
binary so any conversion from BCD has to be separate (either
hardware with slow-speed adders or through an embedded micro-
controller).

If all that is wanted is digital readout from an existing analog
frequency control subsystem, the microcontroller-based frequency
meter marketed by AADE can't be beat...and Neil offers a TCXO
crystal option for absolute minimum drift (both can be "beat" with
WWV). The microcontroller itself (a 16F71 from Microchip's PIC
series) is the counter (up to 40 MHz maximum) and the internal
PIC programming handles the conversion from binary to decimal
plus the translation to ASCII and scanning for an LCD readout.
Ingenious way of making a frequency meter without any separate
IC counter packages...devised by a non-ham Brit about 10 years
ago.


The 74192 and other TTL family chips were hot stuff 30 years ago when
I was doing that project. You can still get pin-compatible parts
today.

At best, without going to the surplus stock vendors (one is located
in Beverly Hills, CA, of all places), Jameco offers the 74HC192 and
74HC193 at reasonable prices. Unknown how long that will last
since the 74HC192 is not in production.

"30 years ago" would make it 1974. At that time there were a
number of application notes on counter uses. "pre-design"
designs that anyone could copy.

The '192 and '193 have the distinguishing characteristic of separate
up/down count inputs and separate up/down terminal count outputs.
Made it convenient for the input (least-significant bit or decade) from
different count sources. The bad part was that the TC (Terminal
Count) was active on the clock pulse low state; that does not offer
a long enough recovery time prior to the next positive-going clock
edge to do high-rate programmable counting. Programmable up-
down dividers of higher rates should use the '190 or '191.

All of that is important when there's a "recyclable update" for that
"impressive to all visitors" Southgate Type 7 with "inventions" of
adding semiconductor IC technology.

Hello? Something about "not re-inventing the wheel?" :-)

The audiophile *market* is full of pseudotechnology - driven by the
fact that there's $$ involved. But there's also some good stuff too,
driven by folks who like *music*.

I like music.

Tsk. Why do you insist that all test their musicology by testing
for monotonic, aperiodic beeps that are a representation of the
written word?


I've run into more than a few hams who say they "hate contests because
they make the bands so noisy". What's really going on, in at least
some cases, is that the effects of so many strong signals on the air
all at once raise the apparent noise floor of their *modern*
transceivers, in part due to phase-noisy oscillators in the
contest-haters equipment.

So...you hate the contest haters all on account of "phase noise?"

Tsk. You ought to get used to the fact that not everyone likes
contests for the simple reason that they are contests, organized
by contestant-wannabes so that they can Win and show off that
they are "better" than the non-contestants. :-)


One of the problems with older solidstate equipment is that much of it
used custom parts for which the only sources are the manufacturer (if
they still support the unit) or junker units. If there was a weak
spot, finding a junker with a usable part maybe hopeless. The Kenwood
TS-440s reputedly has this problem in its display.

So...you think vacuum tubes will be with you always? :-)

Of course...you can "recycle" them...somewhat after their useful
life...and "impress all who visit your shack."

Tsk.

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.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


Who are "Jimmie and Davie"?

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

Tsk. I'm only copying the style of some PCTA extras in here.

Notably your mutual buddy, gunnery nurse yell-yell.

Isn't it time you slapped his wrist with wet noodles again?

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

Right. JAMES was the designer of the mighty K2. Hi hi.


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

Tsk. I didn't lie down on the floor of the Church of St. Hiram and
Take Vows For Life while forming a code key with my body. :-)

If you want to take me to task, ask about my anti-gravity invention.
It's not done yet! Something is still holding me down...


Living in the past....

Tsk. Jimmie used the mantra "the past is prologue" often before...

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

Like most of the "staff" of HR, we worked wherever we lived.

New Hampshire is lovely in the fall. In the winter it can be muy cold
as Alf Wilson, W6NIF, complained to me on the phone several
times. Alf took over on the sudden death of Jim Fisk, ex-W1HR,
founding partner and chief editor of HR. He and his wife moved
back to southern California after the second cold winter there.

Ham Radio magazine and Ham Radio Horizons, as well as the
Ham Radio Bookstore, were all part of Communications Technology
Incorporated. It was sold to CQ Communications in 1990 after HR
had a 22-year publishing history as an independent amteur radio
technical periodical.

A three-CD electronic reprint of all 22 years' contents are available
mail-order from CQ or ARRL and across the counter at HRO outlets
for US$150.

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

Tsk. Jimmie doesn't have enough copies. :-)

Recycle some dollars and get your own copies right on the computer
screen. [you DO have a CD-compatible drive in that computer, don't
you, master of high-tech?]


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

Tsk. You post. Posts hold fences. You make fences to keep out
independent thought, limit those within to YOUR type of thinking.

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

Tsk. That's not a post. Your judgement is a post hole.


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

Tsk. Jimmie want to dismiss the FCC because the FCC does not
require any commissioner or staff to hold amateur radio licenses?


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

Good for you. Whatever they are, I'm sure they are superior to
anything any NCTA does, did, or is considering. :-)


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

Tsk. Recycling old parts circa-1990 and using vacuum tubes is
hardly "invention." :-)

But, Jimmies qualification is the phrase "Not any radios I know of,
anyway." That imperious declaration infers he is judge, jury, and
supreme court of all "radio" that is meaningful anywhere, anytime.
:-)

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

Tsk. That's the ONLY way in this newsgroup where attempted
domination in all things amateur is done by PCTA extras.

Pass the A-1 sauce and the sherpa...

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message

Wrong. Incorrect. Not true at all in the real world of HF radio.

Len has just demonstrated, once more, that he just doesn't get it.

You expected anything else??

"Real world of HF radio?" The one that goes from 3 MHz to 30 MHz?

Amateur activity is concerned only with a fraction of that.

Amateur licenses aren't legal for out-of-amateur band transmission
even if one has a four-on-the-floor extra license.


Has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is HF amateur radio.

Spank.

Kellie has a spanking fetish?

The SUBJECT AT HAND is "US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???

Look at the subject line in the message header.

Try to get your subject threads in a row, ducks.


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

Wrong again, Len.

What a goofball . . .

Kellie has Monster Cable speaker wires installed? Tsk. No wonder
he be angry at anyone slighting Monster Cable products. :-)


responses...one of the papers I wrote at RCA was on quick
identification of such possible spurs (not the first, but it was a
very quick way to determine them).

Misses the point completely.

Spank.

Tsk. More of the spanking fetish. :-)


Wait a minnit, if there are sideband signals on the LO output the
inference seems to be that the carrier is being modulated. By
something. What something?

You're an extra and you don't know? :-)

Tsk.


That's why phase noise is important to hams.

Huh: I learned a bit from this post. Which is what USENET usta be all
about . .

Tsk. Mighty macho morsemen extras shoulda known this.

Where was all the noise about phase noise BEFORE the
cellular equipment expansion? There were oscillators around
then, even PLL frequency control systems.

Phase noise was NOT an important buzzword then. Now it is,
coincidental with the cell phone equipment and component
makers using it in their advertisements.

Conclusion: Too many hams get their "technical expertise"
by memorizing advertisement copy instead of theory texts.


1 Hz is common in modern manufactured amateur equipment. But that's not
really the issue.

Of course it isn't. This sort of overkill ticks me off, it's BS tossed
out by the advertising geniuses to reel in the no-clues and
overcomplicates the equipment for the rest of us.

...like the use of the Big Buzzword "phase noise." Hi hi.

increments Sweetums, the best you can do with the thing is tune it to
the nearest 100 Hz increment yes? Of course you silly old thing. I've
never seen an R-70 in the flesh so tell me, are those actually Nixies
in the display for God's sake?!

R-70 is a pretty good receiver.

OK, the R-70 "happened" during my radio hiatus and went past me so I
poked around the Web for info on it. Looks like it is a decent
performer. Problem is that at this point it's OLD, it comes out of the
same generation of equipment as the TS-930/940 did both of which now
suffer well-known aging/reliability problems. I've had more than my
share of those with the 940 so I wouldn't give an R-70 the desk space
if somebody gave me one gratis. If Sweetum's R-70 is still ticking
along without problems good for him.

Tsk. If an NCTA has an R-70, Kellie calls it "a piece of crap."

Leo has an R-70 which is not a "piece of crap" either...but Leo
isn't a PCTA extra (Canadian ham rules don't have "extras" but
I'm sure they have their share of mighty macho morsemen).

Collins radios for the amateur radio market are OLD.

Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

Hang classic tags on it.

No tags required. Just dust it off once in a while. Still works as
specified when purchased new.

Turns out Icom has a neat 3-loop PLL arrangment, doesn't
go into DDS or Fractional-N at all. Minimal phase noise and no
discernable "crud" anywhere within full tuning range.

How many points did Len get with it in the last CQWW? Or even the last SS
or Field Day?

Or in RRAP.

Tsk. Jimmie and Kellie avoid answering or discussing. Misdirection
is all they can do...but that is traditional in Usenet since before it was
split from the ARPANET. Saw it then, still see it now...all the
self-professed "experts" making like renowned gurus, dissing and
cussing anyone who disagrees with their immortal words.

Okay, so your spiffy-schmiffy 1 Hz resolution "xcver" is "guarnateed"
accurate because it has a "digital dial?" I don't think so.

Nobody claimed that it was accurate. It *is* precise, however. Big
difference.

Spank.

Kellie been watching Spanky McFarland on the late-night oldies on
TV? :-)


Yo Sweetums: I did a refresh on the 847 specs, the thing can display a
freq to 0.10 Hz resolution. Apologies for tossing out bad info. Heh.

Display is NOT the same as ACCURACY.

Didn't they teach you that in Mechanical Engineering courses on
phase-lock loops? :-)


Nobody is claiming that kind of *accuracy*. Only that kind of *precision*.

"He can wriggle, he can squirn . . . "

Kellie still think display resolution is the same as ACCURACY?


Is there anybody who knows what's up who *doesn't* do that
periodically??

How often Kellie do the WWV beat thing?

When he came back from "hiatus?" After the assignment to
shoot bears for navel intelligence?

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

Still living in the past...

That's all he has left. Not counting Burke.

Awwww. You are beginning to sound like Jim Kehler...of the old days
before prostateitis hit him bad. Tsk, tsk. Get well soon.

I've accumulated frequency control design engineering experience
for 31 years now, along with a lot of other disciplines. I'm sure that
you will call all of that "more crap" and "bafflegab." :-)

said. Like, I could ask you "how's the zeta of your control loop"
and you would be out to lunch, cussing and hollering "bafflegab!"

No Sweetums, not at all, that's not the way I work. You're being silly
again. If by any chance I ran into an arcane topic like that in which
I had any interest whatsoever I'd ask an EE to uncurl it for me.

Engineering 101: Don't reinvent the wheel. They even taught us EEs that
one.

Tsk. PCTA extras would only ask another PCTA for technical help.
They don't recognize any NCTA as having any technical cognizance.

He's a breed I'm quite (unfortunately) familiar with: the old time
military aerospace out-in-the-shop bench tech types.

Kellie have years and years of experience in aerospace bullpens?

Tsk. Not long ago he was snottily looking down on all those
who got paychecks from employers, later calling them "drudges."

Self-professed royalty, he was.

Doesn't matter
what narrow fields they worked in, oleo struts, control surface
actuators, flight control electronics, radar, comms electronics, pilot
relief piping, their syndromes are all the same.

I've never worked in, on, around "oleo struts, control surface
actuators, flight control electronics, or relief piping." :-)

I use oleomargarine on bread and rolls, sometimes on baked
potatoes. Is that permissible by Kellie without having a degree
in nutrition? :-)

However, I HAVE had experience in civilian and military radio
communications, radionavigation equipment (TACAN, DME, VOR,
Localizer, Glideslope), IFF transponders, radars (search, weather,
target acquisition and tracking), earlier air-to-air missle systems
(principally the first Hughes Aircraft GARs 1 through 4), and the
strange McDonnel decoy drone that could imitate formations of
B-52s to Russky radar...using a TWT as a broadband mixer
covering many octaves.

None of that involved important work (according to Kellie) on
Relief Piping! (I am sooooo deficient in my resume...:-)

They had these little
niches in which they beavered away on their little piece of the
overall much bigger job or project or whatever it was. Eventually,
because of their complete immersion in their niches, they come to the
conclusion that it all would come apart save for their "expertise" and
anybody who isn't particularly up to speed on the nits and grits of
whatever they were buried in are unworthy no-clue clods.

Poor baby. Got confused by BASIC ELEMENTS of control loops?

Still think that control loops basic item descriptions are "nits and
grits" of minutae? Tsk.

"Zeta" is the common-use symbol for Damping Factor (as earlier
instructors wanted to call it). That's found in all control loop/system
textbooks. It determines the response in time of any such loop as
well as extremes of it resulting in things like "servo hunting" were
a servo will never settle down, always dithering (not at all good for
things like control surface coupling on aircraft or missles).

Response time figures into all control loops whether those involve
receiver AGC or PLLs. [the less cognizant want to characterize
"time constant" of AGC systems because that is "understandable"
without going into control system theory...but it is still a control
loop to hold gain more constant]

Sweetums is a
perfect example of these windbags.

"Windbags?" :-)

So along comes somebody like myself, a fish-out-of-water mechanical
engineeer in this group who readily concedes non-expertise in topics
like circuit design and even worse from his twisted perspective has no
interest at all in doing any "synthesizer development" sorts of things
so he bores in on me with his bafflegab.

Kellie is the fish out of water who wants to diss and cuss the
fisherman with his dying breath. Tsk.

Kellie calls basic control system items as "bafflegab."

He should have stuck with "important niche work" in relief piping.

Which highlights at least two
of his fundamental deficits: (A) He's mentally incapable of conceding
a lack of "technical expertise" on any subject involving radio,
particularly ham radio and (B) He's equally incapable of understanding
why professionals like thee and me feed each others' expertise and
work together to get from here to there and *don't* reinvent wheels.

Tsk. Kellie wants to retain the artificial arrogance of the PCTA
extra in many areas. Such as denigrating 1980s commercial
communication receiver products as "piece of crap." Such as
denouncing basic control system items/principles as "bafflegab."
Such as dismissing all who work for an employer as "drones"
or "drudges" incapable of going out on their own.

Tsk. You and Jimmie, "two expert professionals" in the field
of "radio communication" can go right ahead and reinvent all
your morsemanship wheels and make every newcomer to ham
radio keep the morse wheels revolving to the spin of the mighty
macho morsemen of the pre-WW2 times.

Old wheels still go around in circles...whether they "recycle"
OLD parts or not (which is a euphemism for "reinventing the
wheel" as it was done in decades past).


For some reason I was reminded of him. He sounded just like Len..

A gooder for certain.

SPAAAAAANK!

Spanky McKelly ought to readjust his paddles.


We both know Sweetums won't touch it with a ten foot pole even though
it's a sophmoric simple exercise. He doesn't know where to even start
to approach the problem let alone solve it so he'll diss it as
irrelevant. Typical and completely predictable sub-professional
defensive behavior.

Tsk. Sort of like Kellie and Jimmie's hot-loaded "questions" and
"challenges" which are strangely similar to the defensive mis-
directs of all the PCTA extras in here. :-)

Kellie and Jimmie want "my scores from the last Field Day" as
one loaded "challenge." :-) Not all amateurs participate in
"Field Day" and no non-amateur-licensee can possibly operate
legally. An example of a NON-challenge, already-known answer
disguised as a sort-of (sort off, really) "civil discourse" question.

One can spend two lifetimes diddling frequency synthesizers and such
but if whatever freq pops out of his gem doesn't make it to the
airwaves via an engineered radiator and it's support structure one
might as well have been a lifeguard in the Mohave desert.

Tsk. Ever hear of China Lake? It's the Naval Weapons Station
Test Center in the middle Mojave desert. It had a doozy of an
antenna test range...for battleships and smaller...scale metal
models, of course, on a huge turntable...enabled scale testing of
HF antenna patterns on various ships.

There are three actual, water-filled lakes in the Mojave. Don't know
if they have lifeguards there, though. :-) [manmade] There's at
least one swimming pool at the Edwards AFB Flight Test Center
complex in the northern Mojave. Haven't been in that but I suppose
there's a "regulation" life guard on duty when it is open. I've only
been on the Edwards flight line, some shops, some offices there.

Sad to say for Kellie's Windbag Denigration, some of my work did
indeed fly as actual hardware...including from Kern County Airport
#7 at the northern end of the Mojave. "Mojave International" as it
is jokingly known in local aerospace circles is also the home of
Scaled Composites, Burt Rutan's company which got in the news
lately with the first flight (for prize purposes) of SpaceShipOne.

Kellie, best get your water wings on if you want to come out to
where the aerospace action is in the USA. Call ahead and you
can ask for a lifeguard on duty. You will need it more than your
windbaggery substitute for water wings. :-)

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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.

Now, Leonard -40F and -40C occur at roughly the same point. Have your
ever participated in amateur radio emergency communications outdoors
when the temp was -40?

I've been outdoors working when the temperature was -30 F.

Oh, that's right--you've never participated in
amateur radio emergency communications at all! Have you ever been
anyplace on this planet where the outdoor temperature sat at +85C?

....good question...

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.

Ho humbug! You've little idea of what "real" hams do.

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). :-)

Let's at least go over them enough times that everyone except you
realizes your errors.

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

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

You're simply wrong. Then again, you aren't a ham so perhaps you could
be excused for not knowing. Now that you've been advised, I'd expect
that you'd be sharp enough to keep from sticking with the same erroneous
view.

A person can hold any opinion they want. Len's stated opinion in this area is
not based on fact.

If you don't like it, TS.

"Civil discourse" from Len...

Does that mean you'll cling to a position no matter how wrong you are?

Isn't that obvious?

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.

No problem we can always treat ourselves to another dose of Dr. Len's
newsgroup salts.

Note that Len simply attacks an opposing opinion without any facts to
substantiate his attack.

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.

No, that's just you compounding your errors.

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

Why dontcha make us all use synthesizers? Did you read up on the phase
noise problem at any of those urls I provided?

I think Len would prefer that all of amateur radio be channelized.

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. :-)

An "Ooooooo" and a "Tsk, tsk" aren't much of a defense, are they?

Nope.

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

I'd expect the Antichrist to have his ducks in a row.

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."

Whaddya know of Jim's industry experience, Leonard?

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?"

Hams aren't required to have anything like that. If you don't like
it...

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?

The name "Southgate" has certainly appeared in ham literature.

Indeed.

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.

Only you can read "just my way particular brand of fun in ham radio" and
take it as a statement of ego-driven superiority.

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.

The Morse Code test was not mentioned at all, but Len cannot see any other
issue.

...as compared to your attempting to take over the flow of debate with
your pet fun and games and promoting the abolition of morse code testing
in an endeaver in which you play no part?

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

Don't you mean "but you've proven me wrong and I just can't abide that"?

bingo!

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.

That's funny, I didn't see that written. Do you suppose it is
ego-driven as well?

Not by my ego...

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

Jimmie designed the K2? :-)

Do try and stay with the flow. He said it wasn't designed by you.

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!

Don't you strive for perfection, Leonard, or are you happy with slapdash
design?

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

I'm sure it seems that way to a guy like yourself.

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

Actually, telling you off isn't at all unpleasant.

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. :-)

Not much, it doesn't.

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

I don't think Len has operated using Morse Code.

Why are you always living in the past?

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.

Well, let's see...

I've operated equipment made by Collins (S-line), Drake (4 line and 2B), Heath
(SB line and various HWs, including HW-101 and -16), EF Johnson (Adventurer,
Viking 2, Valiant), Kenwood (TS-520, TS-820, TS-450, TS-940) Yaesu (FT-101 and
others) Icom (IC-735, IC-751, and a bunch of others), Ten Tec (Argosy, Corsair
2, Omni D and V)....

And a bunch of others I can't recall offhand.

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!

Your opinions were stated as fact--and they were incorrect.

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.

...and I'm sure it is based in experience and a great deal of solid
research *grin*

"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.

Yeah, they're sales types. They aren't engineers.

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.

So, would it have worked fine since if you'd used a credit card?

Len walked into a radio store once upon a time and the salespeople couldn't
explain some technical point to his satisfaction. Some of those salespeople
held the Extra class license. Len's conclusion is that people who hold an Extra
class license don't know how radios work.

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" :-) ]

For a twenty-something-year-old design, it isn't bad. It does suffer
from the same thing which plagued many Icom transceivers of its day--the
front end folds up in the presence of nearby strong signals.

It also won't transmit....

Of course, what we see here is another classic case of Len's behavior that can
be summed up in one sentence: Do as Len says, not as Len does.

73 de Jim, N2EY