John Smith wrote:
Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here".
I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...

John Smith wrote:

Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.


nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.


I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!


however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

I find all your points circular, "John Smith is not real", "anonymous
posters are NOT to be given credence!", "It is personalities which
matter here and NOT facts!", etc...

yawn

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:50:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here".
I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...

John Smith wrote:

Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.


nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.


I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!


however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

From: "an_old_friend" on Mon 8 Aug 2005 13:56


wrote:
From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:27

You may not have seen the ham magazines of the 50s when
single channel SSB voice was beginning to take off. There
was great antipathy towards PHASING methods of modulation-
demodulation of SSB. Hams weren't told about PHASE, didn't
have the tools to see phase, few could afford 'scopes that
had passbands beyond 5 MHz. It was EASIER to build filter
SSB mod-demod even though it CO$T a lot more for those crystal
filters. Less thinking involved. AM voice spectra was
easier to understand and "brute-force" filtering to eliminate
an unwanted sideband almost intuitive. Despite some good
attempts at showing PHASING methods in the 50's magazines,
readers and editors alike didn't like it. Even after Mike
Gingell (UK ham, now living in USA) did his Polyphase Network
PhD paper on a low-cost, easy-component-tolerance quadrature
phase circuit, the U.S. periodicals didn't care for it. The
RSGB did and showed How and showed what UK and Yurp hams
were doing with it in the pages of Radio Communication. That
was 30 years ago...but European hams are having fun with that
Gingell polyphase network in homebrew SSB building.

Sorry to butt in, but a bit confused here from the only famialr with
AM voice sidebands ad the talk of phasing sidebands are you refering to
a compatable system (that is can the brute force filtered SSb uint talk
to the phasing unit or are you discuing to different and Incompatable
systems (obviosuly if they were incompatable inerta is decent reason to
keep one over the other, after it has kept morse in place a LOT longer)

Both SSB modulate-demodulate systems are compatible. Each
produces a SINGLE AM sideband. In the Phasing system one
needs two balanced mixers and a 0 degree and 90 degree
relative phase shift (commonly called 'quadrature') of BOTH
the audio AND the RF carrier. The two balanced mixer outputs
are then algebraically summed for the result.

The reason it works has to do with the relative RF phases of
the conventional AM sideband products. The upper sideband
components are differnt from the lower sideband components
even though the sideband magnitudes (and frequencies) are the
same. I could show how mathematically but this medium doesn't
show equations well and John Carson's formula is rather long.

The trick is to get a wideband audio phase shift network
that retains the quadrature (90 degree) difference all across
the desired audio bandwidth. The RF carrier can do that but
the percentage bandwidth is small so the RF quadrature is
relatively easy to do in hardware. The audio network is not
easy to do. It is the SELECTION of audio phase and carrier
phase into the mixers that determines whether or not an upper
or lower sideband is desired. The amount of rejection of the
unwanted sideband depends on the tolerance of holding the
relative phase shifts as close as possible to 90 degrees.

The "suppressed carrier" part of SSB is by virtue of the
mixers balancing out the RF carrier in their output.

The Gingell Polyphase Network takes 0 and 180 degree audio
in and produces four audio outputs, each in quadrature with
their adjacent output. The tolerance of exact quadrature is
so good one can use ordinary 5% tolerance resistors and
capacitors (relatively inexpensive) without matching them
in pairs/quads. Much better than half-century old tube
technique passive networks which required 1% or better R
and C and always had a finite relative phase error.

I migt as well learn something, and I am not afraid to admit the limits
of my knowledge that is of course the first step in increasing it

Absolutely. [few extras in here admit to gaps in knowledge
since they are Morsemen who don't need theory]

There's considerable data on phasing SSB generation-demodulation
in older textbooks and some on the Internet. A search on
"Phasing SSB" will turn up some interesting homebrewed-designed
phasing generators and a few complete transceivers.

My former boss and still my friend, Jim Hall, KD6JG, pointed me
to a very interesting circuit in the RSGB magazine Radio
Communication back in the early 70s. Jim did some early work
on "third method of SSB" that is referenced in the "Collins
SSB book" (familiar name) by Pappenfus, Bruene, and Schoenike
then with Collins Radio. I snitched a bit of mainframe time
and did a circuit analysis of it that got mentioned in Pat
Hawker's column in Radio Communication a few months after
Peter Martinez' circuit/experiments were featured. [the same
G3PLX that would go on to innovate PSK31 much later]

For others who were in early radar work, particularly avionics
weapons systems, "phasing systems" are the key ingredient to
"monopulse radars" that can determine elevation and azimuth
from a radar antenna boresight line without physical movement
of the antenna. Those started showing up in the 1950s. The
"phase shift networks" at microwaves (X and K bands) are quite
a bit diffeent than R-C ones at audio! :-)

yee haw

From: Mike Coslo on Mon 8 Aug 2005 13:36

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Gee, Len, BPL isn't supposed to be radio at all. Fill us in on the
various intended BPL wireless propagation media. Those power lines are
intended to be antennas?

I wonder why they have to have wireless routers and receivers (what
frequency do they operate at?...)

Geez, Coslo, you still don't know dink about BPL. Neither does
Heil apparently but then He can't be told anything...

The DATA signals carried on electric power lines are, effectively,
SIDEBAND components of a digital signal. Big wiiiiiide sideband
spectral content. [I have to simplify it in order to teach you
children sometimes] None of the systems have lil teeny
individual "HF channels" for subscribers. It is similar to,
but not the same as, the digital data stream coming down a
cable TV system.

Seems like if it is HF already, we shouldn't have to use them.

You "shouldn't" or "should?" Be clear in your statements.

You CAN use them if your receiver bandwidth is as wide as
from 3 MHz to 80 MHz...AND you have the digital decoder...
AND you have the subscriber unlock code.

I can see a little HF receiver hooked to my
computer, and make a little antenna from what would ordinarily go into
my Ethernet port. That should work, shouldn't it?

It will work as well as that aluminum foil hat you wear to
keep space aliens from reading your thoughts.

Maybe it is a conspiracy to sell electronic parts?

No, books...like "Broadband Techniques For Dummies and
Simple-Minded Stupid Extras."

NSA DES

wrote:
From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:42


Dave:

I don't agree with bush on a lot, but don't want to focus on running for
president either. Wasn't really happy with some teachers my son had, but
didn't want to go full-time academic either. I really don't like the way
the garbage men handle the trash, but refrain from that line of work also...

Really, make sense, drop the BS and out-right crap...

John


Another small history lesson on the newsgroup for you, John:

About 7 or 8 years ago, Obersturmbandsfuhrer Heil

Godwin invoked, Windy.

...stormed in
here making like the Authoritative Elmer of all Elmers,
spouting off about "CW" is way so much better than RTTY...

Ooops! There's your first falsehood, Mr. Carbon Obnoxide.

...and illustrating that with his saving-the-day actions from...

There's your second falsehood.

...Guinea-Bisseau in Africa for the Department of State, his
employer at the time (in the "foreign service").

It is "Foreign Service", Leonard.

That was in
the 1980s.

The time frame was late 1987 through late 1989.

He was then, as he is now, an Ultimate Authority
on HF...

That's your third falsehood. I've never claimed such.

...from his many many years as a ham (probably working a
minimum of 8 hours a day on his ham job)...

You are actually quite close to the truth in this statement. If you
count weekends, there are many weeks when I put in more hours at amateur
radio than I did at work, even if we include typical overtime. Did you
have a point to make? Are you jealous? Are you perplexed? Have you a
problem with how I spent my own time?

and waded into the
morse code testing arguments as Mister Morseman (a "foreign
service" counterpart to "Captain Code").

That makes falsehood number four. I've never posted as, nor signed any
posts as "Mister Morseman" or any similar moniker.

Unfamiliar with this country of Guinea-Bisseau, I had to look
it up. Found out it was NOT a prosperous country and that its
chief export was cashew nuts.

I can understand your unfamiliarity with the country. Why not admit
that you are unfamiliar with just about any African country?

I stated that and Heil got very
angry.

There's falsehood number five.

[he was a "key employee" or something at State as a
"communications officer"...blah blah blah]

Oh, that part came much, much later, Leonard. You actually made a
statement saying that I was never a key employee at any embassy. I
produced urls for several years of the U.S. Department of State's "Key
Officers of Foreign Service Posts" listings. My name and job title
appeared in each. You quickly dismissed the lists as some sort of a
telephone listing (even though telephone numbers did not appear with the
names listed). You ate large quantities of crow.

How dare *I*
question ANY statements of Heil's! :-)

Heil got ****ed and a half when I recounted the HF comms done
by the U.S. Army of the 1950s...using mainly RTTY and TTY over
(commercial format) SSB...NOT encountering these "bad
conditions" where "only 'CW' would get through" (and saving-
the-day).

Here we have your falsehood number six. I was not even ****ed, much
less "****ed and a half". You vastly overestimate your ability to
motivate. I wrote nothing about CW saving the day.

Heil tried to make the argument that "CW" was
"necessary" and all that old snit.

The use of CW was necessary and mandated.


Heil stated that "my
station" (taxpayer owned, actually) "NEVER WORKED 24/7!"

There's your seventh falsehood. I stated that *you*, Leonard H.
Anderson, never worked 24/7. You'd claimed that you had.

Tsk,
four operating teams very certainly worked the 3rd largest
Army station in ACAN-STARCOM then, using about 40 transmitters
shooting across the Pacific south-east-west from Tokyo, all
around the clock. NO "CW" (manual morse code) used by my
battalion that served the Headquarters for the Far East Command
then...none later...all on HF.

Bully for you, Leonard! Bully!

Heil committed some small gaffes in his rationalizations on
what he wrote...specifically that the "CW" was needed to
"synchronize" the RTTY schedules.
Any TTY is automatically
self-synchronizeable, has been since before WW2 times.

TTY is "self-synchronizable" (did you mean synchronizing?) but schedules
are not.

Heil
then "explained" that "synchronizing" meant schedule times
and so forth. Odd that such wouldn't have been worked out
beforehand in operating orders, common to everyone else.

One may issue orders and make demands. Propagation doesn't seem bound
to comply.

Heil got most disturbed on my descriptions of the Army net
being BIGGER than what State had (it was) and said...

Wrong! That's falsehood number eight. I never cared what the Army net
had and did not dispute its size.

"I didn't
know anything about what State's radio had/did."

....and the fact is that you didn't and don't know anything about the
Department of State's communications methods or abilities.

Tsk, I
did and already possessed a great deal of documentation
obtained from Army sources and a few items of contractors
supplying the U.S. government (the RCA "RACES" mass
memory on mag cards, two of which were installed in DC at
State's headquarters).

None of those were any longer used at State by the mid-1980s.

Heil did not realize that some of
the Department of State messages were actually carried on
Army and Air Force communications circuits...

None of the Department of State's record traffic is carried by either
Army or Air Force circuits.

...more in
Europe than in Asia.

None in Europe or in Asia.

[I can identify the stations, the
TTY ID, paths, and controlling hubs on all of ACAN-STARCOM
from publicly-released information available before 1980,
stuff that I have, obtained from a civilian engineer
acquaintence who worked at "my" Army station]

Before 1980? Why don't you just do another recounting of your RTTY
experience at ADA in the early 1950's?

Heil engages in a lot of Gamesmanship in here, frequently
citing his many State assignments (Finland, several
countries in Africa).

Frequently? Not at all, Leonard. Your retellings of your single ADA
experience in Japan have to outnumber any postings I've made about State
Department postings by six or eight to one. Those experiences of yours
date back more than a half century.

He WAS DX to a lot of other hams,
courtesy of the U.S. government...

Courtesy of the U.S. government? Excuse me, that's your ninth
falsehood. The U.S. government did not purchase any of my radio
equipment, make any amateur radio QSOs or subsidize my time spent on the
air as a radio amateur.

and complementary callsigns
given to "diplomatic" personnel of the USA.

Your tenth falsehood appears above. I paid the going license fee at
each post and requested a license under reciprocal agreements the host
country had with the United States. No special agreements exist for
those in diplomatic status.

Problem is,
Department of State radio is rather smaller than the U.S.
military networks and the retirees from State's radio are
a tiny percentage of "radio operators." Now the military
networks' former members are also a small percentage...but
they are larger than civil government "radio operators."

Nobody retires from State's "radio". Those in communications were
"Support Communications Officers", now "Information Mangagement
Specialists". They handle not only HF radio circuits, but satellite and
leased-line circuits. They are responsible for stand-alone PCs,
unclassified and classified LAN's, embassy telephones, HF E&E radios,
post VHF/UHF repeaters, handheld and mobile radios, secure telephones,
and classified pouch. They also supervise the embassy receptionists and
the mailroom staff. Those with HF radio expertise, listed as "CPO
(Communications Programs Officer) or IPO (Information Programs
Officer)-Radio" are an even tinier percentage of all of the Department
of State's communications/information management employees.

The more vocal hams with previous military radio
experience seem to come from the USN and those mostly from
ship "radio room" assignments.

The more vocal? Are the folks with Army, Marine, Air Force and Coast
Guard experience just quieter by nature?

Heil seems to be banking
on his Department of State experience being rare, thus he
can bull**** his way into posing as a Great Authority on
What The Government Does In Radio among amateur radio
hobbyists.

"Heil" knows that his Department of State experience is rare and there's
no posing is necessary. You made a statement about government not using
Morse. I corrected you. I knew something which was unknown to you.
Deal with it.

Heil shows no sign of having worked IN the
larger military radio communications networks during his
military service...yet he implies knowing all about them.

"Heil" has shown numerous "signs". "Heil" was in the U.S. Air Force for
four years and worked as a radio operator. "Heil" served in Vietnam as
a U.S. Air Force radio operator. Heil wasn't some maintenance type,
leaning on an equipment rack.

He knows little and all he can do is the BS implication
that he does.

You really should write that it is your guess that I know little and
that it is your guess that "all he can do..." There are quite a number
of regular posters here whose time as professional communications types
exceeds your own by several magnitudes. If you add their amateur radio
experience, you're left in the dust. Deal with it.

A shock to Heil must have been my appearance in here, an
unlicensed-in-amateur-radio person who is no shrinking
violet on opinions!

Not exactly, Len. What shocked me was your pompous and condescending
manner toward radio amateurs. You're right about your not being a
shrinking violet on opinions. You have one whether you know what you're
talking about or not. If no one pays attention to them, you restate
them time after time in hopes of being noticed. Well, you've been
noticed. You're still on the sidelines of amateur radio.

Even worse, one who HAS documentary
proof to counter most of the total bull**** spouted by
this great "radio expert." [three such documents posted
on http://kauko.hallikainen.org/history/equipment]

Just what is this documentary proof supposed to be, Leonard--that you
were somewhere in uniform in the early 1950's? I've never denied that.
I just don't know why I'm supposed to be impressed and I don't know how
it is supposed to relate to amateur radio.

Perhaps
he was disturbed that I didn't polish the boots of his
surplus Wehrmacht costume from Western Casting? Could be.

Godwin x 2.

Heil, like Robeson, vents a lot of anger in here, always
trying to verbally thrash his "opponents" on a personal
basis. SUBJECT be damned, he wants to "fight" on a one-
to-one basis anyone who speaks against his opinions.

You've pretty well described your own behavior. N2EY even did a
finely-crafted profile of your likely response to any poster who
disagrees with you. Would you like to see it again?

In the last half year Heil has whittled a schtick about
my "not being a participant in ham radio" etc. and thinks
that is some kind of psywar "weapon." It isn't.

No, it isn't some kind of psywar weapon. It is plain fact and I've
brought up up for nearly eight years. You aren't a participant in
amateur radio, despite your boast of several years back that you were
going for an "Extra right out of the box".

Contrary
to Fearless Leader's instruction-commands, I didn't get a
ham license FIRST "to show an interest in radio."

You didn't get into amateur radio first, last or in between.

The
Army provided the opportunity to INCREASE my interest in
radio (since 1947 along with lots of other interests) and
I "disobeyed orders" by getting a Commercial First Phone
in 1956 and then became an electronics design engineer.
No, no, no, that was NOT the Order Of The Day...I should
have dutifully learned morsemanship to become an amateur
first according to Fearless Leader Heil. Screum.

I disagree. I don't care whether you obtain an amateur radio license at
all. If you choose to sit on the sidelines for the few years you have
remaining, it bothers me not. What I won't put up with, is your endless
sniping.

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

I find all your points circular, "John Smith is not real",

Circular? Hell, that's fact, "John". You're hiding behind a mask.

"anonymous
posters are NOT to be given credence!"

That is my very sincere opinion. I give you no credence, especially
after reading your rants.

, "It is personalities which
matter here and NOT facts!", etc...

You've attributed that to me but it not something I've written. You
wrote it. Go have an argument with yourself over it.

yawn

You boring yourself?

Dave K8MN

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:50:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here".
I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan.

Dave K8MN


"Dave Heil" wrote in message
hlink.net...


John Smith wrote:


Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.



nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.



I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!



however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

Like I say, repetitive and run in a circle... krist, no wonder your posts
seems do dizzy!

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:23:20 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

I find all your points circular, "John Smith is not real",

Circular? Hell, that's fact, "John". You're hiding behind a mask.

"anonymous
posters are NOT to be given credence!"

That is my very sincere opinion. I give you no credence, especially
after reading your rants.

, "It is personalities which
matter here and NOT facts!", etc...

You've attributed that to me but it not something I've written. You
wrote it. Go have an argument with yourself over it.

yawn

You boring yourself?

Dave K8MN

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:50:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here".
I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan.

Dave K8MN


"Dave Heil" wrote in message
thlink.net...


John Smith wrote:


Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.



nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.



I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!



however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Like I say, repetitive and run in a circle...

Your posts? It seems that way. You make a false statement and then
dismiss anything which runs counter to it. As an example, you have a
beef with my saying, "John Smith is not real". Well, "John", you
aren't. There's nothing circular about it.

You complain over my opinion that anonymous posters shouldn't be given
any credence. You don't provide a valid reason why anyone should give
them credence.

You tried to put words in my mouth when you wrote (and put into quotes):
"It is personalities which matter here and NOT facts!" but I didn't
write that--you did. How do you account for that?

You start with a false premise and quickly veer away or become
dismissive when someone confronts you with the falsehood.

krist, no wonder your posts
seems do dizzy!

I'm sure they seem that way to you, "John". My posts seem dizzy because
they address specific things which you've written. Yet you don't
address my points in response at all. That's the nice thing about being
an anonymous troll.

Dave K8MN

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:23:20 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

I find all your points circular, "John Smith is not real",

Circular? Hell, that's fact, "John". You're hiding behind a mask.


"anonymous
posters are NOT to be given credence!"

That is my very sincere opinion. I give you no credence, especially
after reading your rants.

, "It is personalities which

matter here and NOT facts!", etc...

You've attributed that to me but it not something I've written. You
wrote it. Go have an argument with yourself over it.


yawn

You boring yourself?

Dave K8MN


John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:50:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here".
I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan.

Dave K8MN



"Dave Heil" wrote in message
rthlink.net...



John Smith wrote:



Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.




nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.




I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!




however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Like I say, repetitive and run in a circle...

Your posts? It seems that way. You make a false statement and then
dismiss anything which runs counter to it. As an example, you have a
beef with my saying, "John Smith is not real". Well, "John", you
aren't. There's nothing circular about it.

eniterely circlar Dave

You complain over my opinion that anonymous posters shouldn't be given
any credence. You don't provide a valid reason why anyone should give
them credence.

But you clearly give credence by going on and on that they do not have
credence

you sound like Stevie, claiming he doesn't care what his targets say
and dreicting most of his output towards them


John need not, indeed can not provide a vaild reason, each person must
do that or not do it for themselves

You tried to put words in my mouth when you wrote (and put into quotes):
"It is personalities which matter here and NOT facts!" but I didn't
write that--you did. How do you account for that?

it certainly the case you are not influenced by facts, few humans
really are, the matter is mostly one of personalities

You start with a false premise and quickly veer away or become
dismissive when someone confronts you with the falsehood.

you guys realy need to learn the difference beteween Falsehood and
simple difference of point of view

krist, no wonder your posts
seems do dizzy!

I'm sure they seem that way to you, "John". My posts seem dizzy because
they address specific things which you've written. Yet you don't

you don't have control over your world indeed no one does really merely
the ilusion of control

you come back to insiting on the same thing the right to control the
discussion, you can't, you can only influence it

address my points in response at all. That's the nice thing about being
an anonymous troll.

or simply in exercising Human choice

Dave K8MN

not entirely sure what John is up to, which is of course part of the
fun in watching

wrote:
From: "an_old_friend" on Mon 8 Aug 2005 13:56


wrote:
From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:27

You may not have seen the ham magazines of the 50s when
single channel SSB voice was beginning to take off. There
was great antipathy towards PHASING methods of modulation-
demodulation of SSB. Hams weren't told about PHASE, didn't
have the tools to see phase, few could afford 'scopes that
had passbands beyond 5 MHz. It was EASIER to build filter
SSB mod-demod even though it CO$T a lot more for those crystal
filters. Less thinking involved. AM voice spectra was
easier to understand and "brute-force" filtering to eliminate
an unwanted sideband almost intuitive. Despite some good
attempts at showing PHASING methods in the 50's magazines,
readers and editors alike didn't like it. Even after Mike
Gingell (UK ham, now living in USA) did his Polyphase Network
PhD paper on a low-cost, easy-component-tolerance quadrature
phase circuit, the U.S. periodicals didn't care for it. The
RSGB did and showed How and showed what UK and Yurp hams
were doing with it in the pages of Radio Communication. That
was 30 years ago...but European hams are having fun with that
Gingell polyphase network in homebrew SSB building.

Sorry to butt in, but a bit confused here from the only famialr with
AM voice sidebands ad the talk of phasing sidebands are you refering to
a compatable system (that is can the brute force filtered SSb uint talk
to the phasing unit or are you discuing to different and Incompatable
systems (obviosuly if they were incompatable inerta is decent reason to
keep one over the other, after it has kept morse in place a LOT longer)

Both SSB modulate-demodulate systems are compatible. Each
produces a SINGLE AM sideband. In the Phasing system one
needs two balanced mixers and a 0 degree and 90 degree
relative phase shift (commonly called 'quadrature') of BOTH
the audio AND the RF carrier. The two balanced mixer outputs
are then algebraically summed for the result.

The reason it works has to do with the relative RF phases of
the conventional AM sideband products. The upper sideband
components are differnt from the lower sideband components
even though the sideband magnitudes (and frequencies) are the
same. I could show how mathematically but this medium doesn't
show equations well and John Carson's formula is rather long.

indeed it does not do equations well but I have seen most of it back in
college, pity my Physics prof never mentioned use SSB as a tranmission
medium his lecture would have gotten my attention beter, but by then I
was more interested in Plate Techtonics and what my geology profs was
going on about

and the graphical analys made more sense anyway

The trick is to get a wideband audio phase shift network
that retains the quadrature (90 degree) difference all across
the desired audio bandwidth. The RF carrier can do that but
the percentage bandwidth is small so the RF quadrature is
relatively easy to do in hardware. The audio network is not
easy to do. It is the SELECTION of audio phase and carrier
phase into the mixers that determines whether or not an upper
or lower sideband is desired. The amount of rejection of the
unwanted sideband depends on the tolerance of holding the
relative phase shifts as close as possible to 90 degrees.

The "suppressed carrier" part of SSB is by virtue of the
mixers balancing out the RF carrier in their output.

The Gingell Polyphase Network takes 0 and 180 degree audio
in and produces four audio outputs, each in quadrature with
their adjacent output. The tolerance of exact quadrature is
so good one can use ordinary 5% tolerance resistors and
capacitors (relatively inexpensive) without matching them
in pairs/quads. Much better than half-century old tube
technique passive networks which required 1% or better R
and C and always had a finite relative phase error.

I migt as well learn something, and I am not afraid to admit the limits
of my knowledge that is of course the first step in increasing it

Absolutely. [few extras in here admit to gaps in knowledge
since they are Morsemen who don't need theory]

There's considerable data on phasing SSB generation-demodulation
in older textbooks and some on the Internet. A search on
"Phasing SSB" will turn up some interesting homebrewed-designed
phasing generators and a few complete transceivers.

My former boss and still my friend, Jim Hall, KD6JG, pointed me
to a very interesting circuit in the RSGB magazine Radio
Communication back in the early 70s. Jim did some early work
on "third method of SSB" that is referenced in the "Collins
SSB book" (familiar name) by Pappenfus, Bruene, and Schoenike
then with Collins Radio. I snitched a bit of mainframe time
and did a circuit analysis of it that got mentioned in Pat
Hawker's column in Radio Communication a few months after
Peter Martinez' circuit/experiments were featured. [the same
G3PLX that would go on to innovate PSK31 much later]

For others who were in early radar work, particularly avionics
weapons systems, "phasing systems" are the key ingredient to
"monopulse radars" that can determine elevation and azimuth
from a radar antenna boresight line without physical movement
of the antenna. Those started showing up in the 1950s. The
"phase shift networks" at microwaves (X and K bands) are quite
a bit diffeent than R-C ones at audio! :-)

yee haw