In article ,
Don Bowey wrote:

On 7/1/07 10:06 PM, in article
,
"Telamon" wrote:

In article ,
cledus wrote:

Snip

Would you please have the decency to snip rec.radio.shortwave and other
groups from the newsgroup header. Thanks.

Would you please come and ask nicely. I don't like how you put your order.

This is a stupid cross posted Troll thread so pretty please with sugar
on it snip the other news groups it does not originate from. Thank you
very, very much in advance.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Jul 2, 9:09 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
Don Bowey wrote:

On 7/1/07 10:06 PM, in article
,
"Telamon" wrote:

In article ,
cledus wrote:

Snip

Would you please have the decency to snip rec.radio.shortwave and other
groups from the newsgroup header. Thanks.

Would you please come and ask nicely. I don't like how you put your order.

This is a stupid cross posted Troll thread so pretty please with sugar
on it snip the other news groups it does not originate from. Thank you
very, very much in advance.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Bravo ! ;o} ~ RHF

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?
What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?
What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

Don Bowey wrote:
On 7/2/07 12:29 PM, in article , "John Smith"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

You allude to knowing how the sidebands come into being yet you cannot
provide any clue that you really understand AM, and you continue to think
microphone current in a telephone loop is the same thing. You're as FOS as
they come.

I doubt you have fooled anyone

Please point out, above, or wherever you wish, where I said they were
fooled. You can't you POS liar.

Buddy, you speak about these people being "fooled", interesting term,
implying you consider them fools!

on this board with your attempts to look like you know more than you really
do.

I doubt that is true, they have seen through you in a heartbeat, most,
probably long before now ... I imagine they are just embarrassed for
you--having made such an A$$ of yourself ...

JS

While you continue to allude to skills and knowledge you don't have.

Do you often get away with this useless chest beating?

Don Bowey wrote:
On 7/2/07 2:12 PM, in article , "John Smith"
wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

...
While you continue to allude to skills and knowledge you don't have.

Do you often get away with this useless chest beating?


You pathetically petty idiot ... I guess you call names because of your
age. Or, others have called you names and it has hurt your ego. Get an
education, grow-up and get off the drugs--you will be able to finally
respect yourself! :-(

Best hope in your therapy!

JS

But POS was intended for guys like you.

Ok! Again, you win. Please enjoy your blissful ignorance with my good
wishes.

Finis

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:42:49 -0700, RHF
wrote:

On Jul 2, 6:16 am, Don Bowey wrote:
On 7/1/07 10:06 PM, in article
,

"Telamon" wrote:
In article ,
cledus wrote:

Snip

Would you please have the decency to snip rec.radio.shortwave and other
groups from the newsgroup header. Thanks.

- Would you please come and ask nicely.
- I don't like how you put your order.

don bowey, Don Bowey. DON BOWEY !

Oh Please with Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice
snip, Snip. SNIP ! the "Rec.Radio.Shortwave" Group
from the Newsgroups {Distribution} Header when you
Post your Reply - It would be ever so decent of you
Kind and Wonder Sir. ;-)

thank you very much - most respectfully ~ RHF

---
Seems to me his posts are on topic for rrs, so why don't you just
learn how to use a filter?


--
JF

Stellar Evolution In The Electric Universe. www.rense.com

It's a Stellar thingy.
cuhulin

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
wrote:


"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

---
LTSPICE circuit list:

Version 4
SHEET 1 1672 1576
WIRE 32 880 -256 880
WIRE 192 880 32 880
WIRE 528 912 336 912
WIRE 192 944 -112 944
WIRE -256 992 -256 880
WIRE -112 992 -112 944
WIRE -256 1120 -256 1072
WIRE -112 1120 -112 1072
WIRE -112 1120 -256 1120
WIRE -256 1168 -256 1120
FLAG -256 1168 0
FLAG 32 880 in
SYMBOL SPECIALFUNCTIONS\\MODULATE 192 880 R0
WINDOW 0 37 -55 Left 0
WINDOW 3 55 119 Center 0
SYMATTR InstName A1
SYMATTR Value mark=1e6 space=1e6
SYMBOL voltage -256 976 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 10
SYMBOL voltage -112 976 R0
WINDOW 3 24 160 Left 0
WINDOW 123 24 132 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value SINE(.5 .5 1e5)
SYMATTR Value2 AC 1
TEXT -96 1240 Left 0 !.tran 5e-5
TEXT -96 1208 Left 0 !.params w0=2*pi*1K Q=5

---

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

---

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

---

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

---
LTSPICE circuit list:

Version 4
SHEET 1 880 680
WIRE 240 64 176 64
WIRE 432 64 320 64
WIRE 352 144 224 144
WIRE 352 160 352 144
WIRE 16 176 -208 176
WIRE 160 176 96 176
WIRE 176 176 176 64
WIRE 176 176 160 176
WIRE 320 176 176 176
WIRE 432 192 432 64
WIRE 432 192 384 192
WIRE 320 208 288 208
WIRE 288 256 288 208
WIRE 16 288 -48 288
WIRE 160 288 160 176
WIRE 160 288 96 288
WIRE 224 320 224 144
WIRE 352 320 352 224
WIRE -208 336 -208 176
WIRE -48 336 -48 288
WIRE -208 448 -208 416
WIRE -48 448 -48 416
WIRE -48 448 -208 448
WIRE 224 448 224 400
WIRE 224 448 -48 448
WIRE 352 448 352 400
WIRE 352 448 224 448
WIRE -208 496 -208 448
FLAG -208 496 0
FLAG 288 256 0
SYMBOL voltage -208 320 R0
WINDOW 0 -42 5 Left 0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value SINE(0 .1 1.1e6)
SYMBOL res 112 160 R90
WINDOW 0 -33 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 -31 61 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL voltage -48 320 R0
WINDOW 0 -39 4 Left 0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value SINE(0 .1 .9e6)
SYMBOL res 112 272 R90
WINDOW 0 -38 56 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 -31 59 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 1000
SYMBOL res 336 48 R90
WINDOW 0 -36 59 VBottom 0
WINDOW 3 -36 61 VTop 0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL voltage 352 416 R180
WINDOW 0 14 106 Left 0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V3
SYMATTR Value 12
SYMBOL voltage 224 304 R0
WINDOW 0 -44 4 Left 0
WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V4
SYMATTR Value 12
SYMBOL Opamps\\UniversalOpamp 352 192 R0
SYMATTR InstName U2
TEXT -252 520 Left 0 !.tran 3e-5


Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

---

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

---

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz


--
JF

On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

....Keith

On Jul 3, 2:07 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:50 pm, John Fields wrote:





On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:36 -0700, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"

wrote:

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Radium wrote:

snip

Suppose you have a 1 MHz sine wave whose amplitude
is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine wave.
What would it look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

What would it look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| | | |
--------+--------------------+-------+------+----
100kHz 0.9MHz 1MHz 1.1MHz

Then suppose you have a 1.1 MHz sine wave added
to a 0.9 MHz sine wave.
What would that look like on an oscilloscope?

snip

Tricky!!!

It looks like AM but it isn't, it's just the phases sliding past
each other slowly and algebraically adding which creates the
illusion.

What would that look like on a spectrum analyzer?

| |
| |
-----------------------------+--------------+----
0.9MHz 1.1MHz

--
JF

But if you remove the half volt bias you put on the
100 kHz signal in the multiplier version, the results
look exactly like the summed version, so I suggest
that results are the same when a 4 quadrant multiplier
is used.

And since the original request was for a "1 MHz sine
wave whose amplitude is multiplied by a 0.1 MHz sine
wave" I think a 4 quadrant multiplier is in order.

...Keith-

Ooops. I misspoke. They are not quite the same.

The spectrum is the same, but if you want to get exactly
the same result, the lower frequency needs a 90 degree
offset and the upper frequency needs a -90 degree offset.

And the amplitudes of the the sum and difference
frequencies need to be one half of the amplitude of
the frequencies being multiplied.

....Keith