Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/17/2011 1:49 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:30:28 -0800, John
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 7:25 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:50:08 -0800, John
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 4:30 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 11/16/11 18:14 , flipper wrote:

virtually expands
the limits of interpretation to include flea markets, garage sales,
and one on one cash transactions.

You're way late to the game, then, because there's nothing in the bill
that "expands the limits" to "flea markets, garage sales, and one on
one cash transactions" more than the already existing law.


Your selective attention is interesting.

It's the broadness of the language that expands the limits. Because the
broadness of the language does nothing to limit the definition of the
terms. And, one more time, the legislators voting for the bill
specifically intend for the law to include garage sales, flea markets
and one on one cash transactions. This by their own admission.



As I said, one of the legislators voting for the bill. I'm in
media. I frequently interview legislators about their intents, and
their actions. I've been attempting to get the Attorney General on
the line to explain how this law affects street level commerce.

No offense intended but none of that means anything. What legislator,
what did he say, and why would I presume he knows better than the
author? And why should I take 'your word' or 'opinions'?

Well, that IS the crux of the argument, then, isn't it.



Louisiana has been attempting to get control of cash transactions
since I lived there in the 80's.

What in the world does that mean? Just 'who' is "Louisiana?" Maybe
they shouldn't vote for "Louisiana" next time if Mr. "Louisiana"
supports wacky things.

Wow. Obfuscation 101. This discussion has suddenly become a waste of
bandwidth.

Bottom line...I've lived there, you haven't. I deal with the legislators
in Louisiana every week, you don't.

You're entitled to your skepticism. Enjoy it.

Have a good evening.


Only an imbecile would support the law in the first place ... why screw
around with imbeciles?

He just needs to be told what an ignorant fooker he is and blown off ...
that is the problem today, people get confused and think they should be
"nice" to nuts, nuts need to be protected from hurting themselves and
those around them ...

Regards,
JS


I take it your definition of "imbecile" is "not a thief."

Intelligent thiefs are never caught, so difficult to analyze them

There is, no doubt, a good chunk of the prison population that thought
the same thing.

... or
else they are criminal public servants and all have get-out-of-jail-free
cards provided by their rich corporate, bankster, wall street puppet
masters ... so, you have a point, they are just well protected imbeciles ...

Sounds pretty 'smart' to me since, according to you, they've got you
beat.


Regards,
JS

I should have known it would be too difficult for you to connect the
dots, so let me just give you the answer ...

The intelligent crooks, perverts, child molesters, intern molesters,
treasonous terrorists, economic terrorists, etc. are illegally holding
our public servant offices and displaying their get-out-of-jail-free-cards.

Regards,
JS

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/17/2011 1:44 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:23:40 -0800, John
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 7:24 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:59:32 -0500, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 4:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
[...]

But the language of the bill is sufficiently broad to allow
interpretation beyond commercial interests alone, to include persons
conducting flea markets, garage sales, or one on one transactions.
To the degree that it's had a chilling effect on flea markets on the
local level, in areas where economic distress has made flea markets
a significant segment of the shopping culture.





What we need is a whole new culture of privacy.

A climate in which not only can corporations, banks, and governments
not restrict or tax or control our private transactions in any way
-- but a climate in which it is universally acknowledged that they
also have _no_ right to even _know_ what those transactions are.

They are here to serve us, not the other way round. They are the
peons, and we are the rulers -- not the reverse. They have no right
to know ANYTHING about our transactions.

We, on the other hand, have the absolute right to know everything
about theirs, and restrict them if we so choose.

A whole new mindset, of unalterable and immovable steel and will, is
needed.

I doubt, however, that a generation of cowed and bowed dependents
and yes-men can produce such a thing.



With every good wish,



Kevin Alfred Strom.

You might have a different opinion if you were burglarized and all
your stuff was sold by 'private transactions' through a second hand
dealer front man.

Btw, the information only becomes available to the police in the event
of a criminal investigation and it's only that transaction. There is
no routine 'reporting to the government'.

Isn't that the reason we initially hired "cops" for?

What is the 'reason' you are mysteriously alluding to?

I mean, I realize
they are no longer doing a job for the people, the citizens -- and are
mostly revenue generators for the town, city, county, state, feds, etc.

Just how does a murder, burglary, theft, etc. investigation 'generate
revenue'?

But, really, watching every dollar trade hands is NOT what we have
public servants and authorities for,

And the bill doesn't do that, even for the limited group "secondhand
dealers" it addresses. It requires them to keep their own records,
which is no more information to no more people than the persons
involved in the transaction.

The only occasion for government to even know a transaction took place
is in the event of a criminal investigation.

we don't have them to "punish" us

Depends on who 'us' is. 'Punishment' is pretty much the whole concept
behind a prison system.

... we simply need to remind them to do the original job they were
created for

You mean like search and seizure police powers?

Of course, if you're a criminal the best thing is to not keep any
records they can search and seize, isn't it?

On the other hand, knowing who you're dealing with is pretty much SOP
for legitimate business even if for no other reason than they don't
want to be screwed by some fly by night huckster.

and the things you mention are already taken care of ...

And just how is it "already taken care of" when a criminal front man
doesn't 'know who' he bought the stolen goods from and paid cash so
it's untraceable?

I suppose we could go back to the bright light and rubber hose
methods.

let's just get the public servants and cops to do the job for the people.

I don't know what 'job' you have in mind since criminal theft rings
seem to be off your radar screen.

But let's get one thing clear. I never said this particular law was
well worded, 'ideal', or even adequate. All I said is that Internet
and media hysterics misrepresent both the intent and functioning of it
and your "watching every dollar trade hands" is an example.

But, to the point that started this sub thread, there is nothing
whatsoever in that law which requires any seller, secondhand or not,
to get the 'identity' of a --buyer-- (of a radio or anything else).

Btw, it isn't just the poor schmuck who got robbed that's screwed
because, no matter how much 'good faith' you had in buying, if the
'used' radio you bought from the "secondhand dealer" was stolen it
isn't yours. It goes back to the rightful owner and you're out
whatever you paid for it so Mr. "Don't know who and paid cash" is
screwing you too.

Regards,
JS

Gee, just when we thought we had enough, another complete imbecile ...
how special ...

Regards,
JS

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/17/2011 2:20 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:59:32 -0500, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 4:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
[...]

But the language of the bill is sufficiently broad to allow
interpretation beyond commercial interests alone, to include persons
conducting flea markets, garage sales, or one on one transactions.
To the degree that it's had a chilling effect on flea markets on the
local level, in areas where economic distress has made flea markets
a significant segment of the shopping culture.





What we need is a whole new culture of privacy.

A climate in which not only can corporations, banks, and governments
not restrict or tax or control our private transactions in any way
-- but a climate in which it is universally acknowledged that they
also have _no_ right to even _know_ what those transactions are.

How do you propose funding government and, besides that, how do you
expect government to protect your property rights, such as your home,
if they don't even 'know' you bought/own it?

They are here to serve us,

I'm curious. How did you arrive at the theory that banks and
corporations, which are simply people engaging in "private
transactions," are "here to serve" you?

not the other way round. They are the
peons, and we are the rulers -- not the reverse.

They have no right
to know ANYTHING about our transactions.

Ya know, that's what Al Capone said too.

We, on the other hand, have the absolute right to know everything
about theirs, and restrict them if we so choose.

A whole new mindset, of unalterable and immovable steel and will, is
needed.

I doubt, however, that a generation of cowed and bowed dependents
and yes-men can produce such a thing.



With every good wish,

Btw, strange and mysterious as it may seem I actually agree with the
nebulous gist, if not the details, of your point and, in that light,
let me mention that the theory to our form of governance holds that
governments do not have "rights" but are granted "powers." So, you are
quite correct in saying government has no "right" to know about
transactions, or anything else for that matter. The question is what
powers we wish to grant them for the purpose of our mutual benefit and
security. Like, in this instance, to be secure from having our
property stolen and fenced through 'secondhand dealers'.


Kevin Alfred Strom.

Well, true to form, you continue down an idiots path ... the public
servants are the treasonous crooks, the rich elite, corporations, NWO
types, etc. are their puppet masters ... neither are serving me.
Anyone, other than rich elite, corporations, NWO types, etc., who thinks
they are are serving them are imbeciles along with you.

Regards,
JS

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On Nov 17, 5:18*am, dave wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:34:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

Of course, towards the end of the life of tubes, one could get some
that ran off 12v, intended for use in car radios. *Not so useful now
since they were produced in a limited time span as transistors were
taking over, so quantity is relatively limited.

Even rarer were tubes that drew almost no current. They used "cold
cathodes" so they did not need expensive (in terms of current and heat
dissipation) filaments and had low plate voltages.

They came out when transistors where just starting out, but rise of
transisitors was so rapid and transistors were so cheap in comparison,
that it was simpler and cheaper to build a 7 or 12 transistor radio than
a 5 tube cold cathode one.

They showed some promise in the missle and space exploration systems of
the time, because transistors could not stand the temperature extremes
or cosmic radiation they would be exposed to. That also did not last
long, as improved "space grade" transistors came out.

What really killed them was NASA's adoption of the new integrated
circuits (which actually pre-date the "space race").

Cold Cathode tubes were voltage regulators, displays, etc. I have never
seen a cold cathode amplifier.

Between miniature tubes and solid state there were Compactrons, which
were several tube stages in a single envelope.

There was also the 'Nuvistor'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuvistor

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/18/11 01:54 , John Smith wrote:

Gee, just when we thought we had enough, another complete imbecile ...
how special ...

Regards,
JS




They appear to be in limitless supply, John.

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On 11/18/11 14:21 , flipper wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:44:18 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 11/18/11 01:54 , John Smith wrote:

Gee, just when we thought we had enough, another complete imbecile ...
how special ...

Regards,
JS




They appear to be in limitless supply, John.

If it seems everyone else is an 'imbecile' then it just might be the
reverse that is the case.


And then, again...it may not. :)

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On Nov 16, 6:59*pm, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
On 11/16/2011 4:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
[...]



But the language of the bill is sufficiently broad to allow
interpretation beyond commercial interests alone, to include persons
conducting flea markets, garage sales, or one on one transactions.
To the degree that it's had a chilling effect on flea markets on the
local level, in areas where economic distress has made flea markets
a significant segment of the shopping culture.

What we need is a whole new culture of privacy.

A climate in which not only can corporations, banks, and governments
not restrict or tax or control our private transactions in any way
-- but a climate in which it is universally acknowledged that they
also have _no_ right to even _know_ what those transactions are.

They are here to serve us, not the other way round. They are the
peons, and we are the rulers -- not the reverse. They have no right
to know ANYTHING about our transactions.

We, on the other hand, have the absolute right to know everything
about theirs, and restrict them if we so choose.

A whole new mindset, of unalterable and immovable steel and will, is
needed.

I doubt, however, that a generation of cowed and bowed dependents
and yes-men can produce such a thing.

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://nationalvanguard.org/http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Wow.

I remember listening to YOU-and Dr. Pierce-on the first regen I ever
built when I lived in Texas, about ten miles from the Louisiana line
on that shortwave station the NA bought time on. I did not always
agree with what you said but I damn sure backed your right to say it.
Pierce was really an intelligent person. I read the biography on him
by Robert Griffin, great read.

Louisiana is a seriously warped state. Texas was screwed up in some
ways but Louisiana with its nightmarish hodgepodge of laws built on
four different legal systems and general laissez-les-bon-temps-rouler
attitude is Third World.

Regens are a pain in the ass. The best regen ever built was probably
the National SW-3, or for low frequency work the old Mackay Marine
set. Lindsay is full of **** when he says the homebrewer can better it
with moderate effort.And even so any mediocre superhet will outperform
it in some ways. My late forties Zenith console will separate stations
the SW-3 won't. But they are interesting to build-once-like the
crystal set, which can be run into a hi fi amp and give good local
station performance. My regen was the two tube set in the Romney book
which Lindsay also published. The SW-3 was far better-it would copy
ham CW on 80 and 40 consistently and even SSB with a good signal. The
homebrew was good for WWV and Radio Havana and that was it.

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

Of course, towards the end of the life of tubes, one could get some that
ran off 12v, intended for use in car radios. *Not so useful now since they
were produced in a limited time span as transistors were taking over, so
quantity is relatively limited.

The R392 ran off 24 or 28 volts, using those low plate voltage tubes. *Of
course, it had a lot of tubes so the filament drain was large.

Of course, some people experimented with low voltage on regular tubes. *A
loss of gain, but sometimes that was a good thing.



The R392 used conventional tubes selected for performance at 24 volt B
+. 24 volts isn't much but is a lot better than 12. The 12 volt tubes
were space chrge affairs and were current hogs and delicate.

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

Hate to say this but you are doomed to fail from the start.
Why? There are PILES of tube type SW receivers available
now FAR cheaper than you could build one.

Hey, I get it. It'd be a fun project. I've thought about doing
something like this myself but seriously consider the cost.
Not just of the parts but the time involved in the design,
marketing, and *liability insurance*. Bet you didn't think
about that one!
Steve

Building a new shortwave tube radio
 

On Nov 16, 4:23*pm, Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011, dave wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:01:11 -0600, D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 11/15/11 19:05 , flipper wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:45:09 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
*wrote:

On 11/11/11 08:42 , Lord Valve wrote:
If the **** hits the fan, most hi-mu triodes will work well enough to
build a regen set. Where to get the B+ is the problem.

That simple, since there's only a few tubes.

9v "transistor" batteries in series. *It doesn't take that many to get
reasonable B+ and since tubes are low current, it's reasonable.

Of course, towards the end of the life of tubes, one could get some that
ran off 12v, intended for use in car radios. *Not so useful now since they
were produced in a limited time span as transistors were taking over, so
quantity is relatively limited.

The R392 ran off 24 or 28 volts, using those low plate voltage tubes. *Of
course, it had a lot of tubes so the filament drain was large.

Of course, some people experimented with low voltage on regular tubes. *A
loss of gain, but sometimes that was a good thing.

* * Michael

In the 19-teens it was common to run triodes with no negative bias,
and very low V_anode, like 20-30v. It worked, and cuts HT battery
cost, but of course distorts the grid signal.


NT