"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Scott Dorsey
writes
gareth wrote:
"Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message
IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to
your
rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to
seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful
if
you elaborated the point that you think he is missing.

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal
filter
is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the
filter somewhat (but not really all that much).
--scott

The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a
sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be
able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited
extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side).

Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of
single-signal reception in which I am interested.

Have you any clues about that, please?

On 08/24/2013 03:06 PM, gareth wrote:
I wonder if some more experienced and senior (in the literal sense) amateur
could explain to me one difficulty that I have in understanding single
signal
reception with the crystal phasing control?

AIUI, the phasing control is adjusted so that the frequency that would give
the audio image is phased out by being in the notch.

If that is true, how is it then possible to adjust the BFO to a
pleasant-for-you tone,
because such adjustment will alter the CIO frequency?

Surely the BFO has to be set in advance to be halfway between the serial
resonant
frequency and the notchable parallel resonant frequency?

This is a query stimulated by my current project which is to build a
boatanchor style
RX, with a flywheel-loaded slide rule dial like that of the Eddystone EA12





Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.

Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.


Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.


I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.


Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during the zeroth +1 day of April.

On 08/25/2013 09:13 AM, gareth wrote:


/plonk/

On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.

I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.


Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically,
a horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because
YOU did not explain yourself properly.

There is nothing lacking in my original query for those who would be
knowledgeable
about single crystals together with their phasing controls. That you muddy
the water
with talk of Tchebychev etc suggests that you are not amongst their number.


There is a tremendous amount lacking from your original query. That you
don't know how Tchebychev, Butterworth and other filter types are
pertinent to your question shows your lack of knowledge. Yet you try to
claim everyone else is ignorant - when you are asking the question.

The BFO is entirely relevant to be sat 1/2 way between the peak and the
notch so
that the audio image would be removed.

Nevertheless, thank-you for your (immature) contribution.




The BFO is not relevant to the crystal filter. The relationship between
the filter's bandpass and the BFO frequency can be relevant.

And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to
rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be
"enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967,
(in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them
in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand
how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or
provided non-pertinent information.

Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly
suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly
drive people away from trying to help you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

"gareth" wrote in message
...
I wonder if some more experienced and senior (in the literal sense) amateur
could explain to me one difficulty that I have in understanding single
signal
reception with the crystal phasing control?
AIUI, the phasing control is adjusted so that the frequency that would
give
the audio image is phased out by being in the notch.
If that is true, how is it then possible to adjust the BFO to a
pleasant-for-you tone,
because such adjustment will alter the CIO frequency?
Surely the BFO has to be set in advance to be halfway between the serial
resonant
frequency and the notchable parallel resonant frequency?
This is a query stimulated by my current project which is to build a
boatanchor style
RX, with a flywheel-loaded slide rule dial like that of the Eddystone EA12


Thanks to all those who have attempted to reply.

As to rudeness, you might find it interesting to look at the thread as it
appears
in uk.radio.amateur, where a couple of children are trying to ensure that
their
infantile remarks do not reach a wider audience by removing the cross-posts.

Once again, thanks to all those who have attempted to reply, but I have now
found the answers by reference to my collection of old electircal
engineering texts,
specifically the 11th, 1947, edition of "Radio Handbook" published by
Editors and
Engineers Ltd of Sanata Barbara, California.

Perhaps it should have been the first place to look, a book published at the
time the technique was extant? :-)

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness
above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.

I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.


Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.

In message , gareth
writes
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Scott Dorsey
writes
gareth wrote:
"Peter Able" stuck@home wrote in message
IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to
your
rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to
seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful
if
you elaborated the point that you think he is missing.

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal
filter
is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the
filter somewhat (but not really all that much).
--scott

The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a
sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be
able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited
extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side).

Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of
single-signal reception in which I am interested.

Have you any clues about that, please?

The only clue I can offer is that 'single-signal reception' is vague -
but presumably self-explanatory, ie the filtering is very narrow,
enabling you to receive only one signal (unless you have more than one
on or very close to the same frequency). It's a term that I recall being
around when I were a lad, but I can't say I've heard it much since. I
guess it's been replaced by more scientific descriptions of how good the
filtering is.
--
Ian

On 8/25/2013 10:26 AM, gareth wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2013 10:13 AM, gareth wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness
above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.

I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.


Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.



Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this
is pretty normal operation for you.

But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their
bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe
your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED
people ask questions.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of
single-signal reception in which I am interested.

Have you any clues about that, please?

The only clue I can offer is that 'single-signal reception' is vague - but
presumably self-explanatory, ie the filtering is very narrow, enabling you
to receive only one signal (unless you have more than one on or very close
to the same frequency). It's a term that I recall being around when I were
a lad, but I can't say I've heard it much since. I guess it's been
replaced by more scientific descriptions of how good the filtering is.

Thank you, Ian. I have a vague memory of something in BadCon from about 40
years ago which
related to setting up for single signal reception, which involved no further
adjustments to phasing or BFO once it had been set. I am fairly sure, hence
my
enquiry that it involved phasing out the audio image as well as involving
the peaking
that comes from a single series resonant crystal.

Hence my assumption that the BFO frequency must lie half way between the
peak and the notch.

I've no experience of such things. The HRO I had in my possession 20 years
ago did not posses
the crystal filter, but in an effort to speed up development of my RX
project, it seemed to me
that a single crystal filter would be an easier starting point than a ladder
filter.

On 08/25/2013 09:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
X

snip

And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to
rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be
"enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967,
(in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them
in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand
how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or
provided non-pertinent information.

Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly
suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly
drive people away from trying to help you.



Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed.

In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and
unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the
doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize
they are just trolling and no longer view their posts.