......is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago (apart from greater than
200 kHz coverage on each band!)

None of the CBer's facilities such as scanners, memories,
CAT interfaces, CTCSS and the like are necessary.

I suggest that we consider a DSP approach for all the
baseband mod and demod, and then phasing techniques
for translating into the various bands.

A power output of 5W will be more than sufficient for
any self-respecting _REAL_ Radio Hams - it is only
CBers and CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams who
need to work with BBC levels of signal strength.

Such a project could be what we need to capture the
interest of newcomers who would not then be sidetracked
into the CB-like purchasing of brand-new rigs from the
shelves of emporia, and, having, constructed their own
rigs, would feel competent to maintain those rigs, unlike
those who send them back to the emporia and thus show
themselves as closet CBers.

We _COULD_ take a lead in this NG!

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message .....

is that we club together and conceive of a design snip

We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago snip

None of the CBer's facilities such as scanners, memories,
CAT interfaces, CTCSS and the like are necessary snip

I suggest that we consider a DSP approach for all the
baseband mod and demod, and then phasing techniques
for translating into the various bands.snip

Adress the contradictions and I may consider this as a sensible
suggestion....

"mexico_zero" wrote in message
...

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message .....

is that we club together and conceive of a design snip

We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago snip

None of the CBer's facilities such as scanners, memories,
CAT interfaces, CTCSS and the like are necessary snip

I suggest that we consider a DSP approach for all the
baseband mod and demod, and then phasing techniques
for translating into the various bands.snip

Adress the contradictions and I may consider this as a sensible
suggestion....


Indeed, not a bad idea at all.

However, what is to be gained by re-inventing a (in radio terms) stone age
design?

Thinks like computer control provide added challenge and attraction to the
idea, why dismiss them? They could always be add-ons. DSP. Oh dear. I
assume this phasing technique relies on Big K.


Or maybe he just meant mixing, an existing technique not needing DSP.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

Bean apears to be operating in 'Rehabilitation Mode' - old his old
chestnuts are coming out.....:-(
--
from
Aero Spike

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

Bean apears to be operating in 'Rehabilitation Mode' - old his old
chestnuts are coming out.....:-(

I've little doubt that is his ploy. However, I lean toward being of an
overly forgiving nature and, if he can behave, maybe some good will come of
it and he will learn something.

At worst we can go back though Google and refer him to previous answers.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

M3OSN continues to exhibit a negative and destructive
maladjusted personality and demonstrates well why
anybody who holds, or who has ever held, a licence
issued under the gangrenous degeneration that is the
M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme will never make it into
the ranks of _REAL_ Radio Hams.

What is to be gained by designing a radio that is, or should
be, reproducible with ease by newcomers? Nothing if you're
a defeatist SFB Jonah such as Mr.Reay presents below, but everything if
you have the makings of being a _REAL_ Radio Ham!

Stone-age design? What a silly-billy is Mr.Reay! No doubt
by that childish sneer he reveals himself to be one of the
CB types who buys his radios off-the-shelf! What a bad
example he presents to any prospective newcomers!

Once again Mr.Reay demonstrates why he will always be
no more than an SFB CBer and never a _REAL_ Radio Ham!
(Newcomers! Do you wish to be a sneering failure such as
Mr.Reay presents, or do you wish to join the Radio Hams?)

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"mexico_zero" wrote in message
...
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message .....
is that we club together and conceive of a design snip
We wouldn't need any facilities other than were present in,
say, the KW2000 of 35 years ago snip
None of the CBer's facilities such as scanners, memories,
CAT interfaces, CTCSS and the like are necessary snip
I suggest that we consider a DSP approach for all the
baseband mod and demod, and then phasing techniques
for translating into the various bands.snip
Adress the contradictions and I may consider this as a sensible
suggestion....
Indeed, not a bad idea at all.
However, what is to be gained by re-inventing a (in radio terms) stone age
design?
Thinks like computer control provide added challenge and attraction to the
idea, why dismiss them? They could always be add-ons. DSP. Oh dear. I
assume this phasing technique relies on Big K.
Or maybe he just meant mixing, an existing technique not needing DSP.

(I see that the spikeful Old Mother-Hen Nugatory RVMJ-Binary Era
is still demonstrating her paranoid obsessive ways.)

As to Mr.Reay's rather silly and snide comments, I always behave
in a respectable manner in this NG. It is Mr.Reay, with his obsession
of sheep-shagging who regularly resorts to rather silly and childish
outbursts; witness his two sneering contributions to this thread already!

Mr.Reay does have one useful redeeming feature; he does illustrate
to a "T" why anybody who holds, or who has ever held, a licence
issued under the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools'
Licence scheme will never make it into the ranks of _REAL_ Radio
hams and thus may yet serve to put off newcomers from making the
mistake of taking up such a licence.

Perhaps even Mr.Reay may learn something from this thread - how to
behave in a respectable manner more suited to an international
public forum than the infantile boastful manner that is his wont?

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:
.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.
Bean apears to be operating in 'Rehabilitation Mode' - old his old
chestnuts are coming out.....:-(
I've little doubt that is his ploy. However, I lean toward being of an
overly forgiving nature and, if he can behave, maybe some good will come
of
it and he will learn something.
At worst we can go back though Google and refer him to previous answers.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:37:38 -0000, "Brian Reay"
wrote:


"Spike" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

Bean apears to be operating in 'Rehabilitation Mode' - all his old
chestnuts are coming out.....:-(

I've little doubt that is his ploy. However, I lean toward being of an
overly forgiving nature and, if he can behave, maybe some good will come of
it and he will learn something.

Hmm...perhaps it's just another turn of the ever-repeating cycle?

At worst we can go back though Google and refer him to previous answers.

Afraid not - he doesn't follow urls. I don't know if this is from
unfamiliarity with usenet, or that he can't read a reference and
understand which parts were relevant to the discussion. And anyway, if
you start quoting him back at himself, he killfiles you. Allegedly.
--
from
Aero Spike

Brian Reay (spamstopper) wrote:

However, what is to be gained by re-inventing a (in radio terms)
stone age
design?

Beanie can just copy something out of SPRAT and claim it as being new.
There's nothing innovative in yet another DC RX on 40m ;-)
Regards,

Mr Wibble

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:37:38 -0000, "Brian Reay"
wrote:


"Spike" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:59 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

.....is that we club together and conceive of a design
for an HF transceiver that could form the basis of the
station of any budding Radio Ham.

Bean apears to be operating in 'Rehabilitation Mode' - all his old
chestnuts are coming out.....:-(

I've little doubt that is his ploy. However, I lean toward being of an
overly forgiving nature and, if he can behave, maybe some good will come
of
it and he will learn something.

Hmm...perhaps it's just another turn of the ever-repeating cycle?

Well some people are slow learners. In fact, I seem to recall one student of
DSP admitting he was just such a slow learner.

If he learns just one new thing every cycle, have we not a duty as radio
amateurs to try and assist him? OK, it maybe painful for us, he will be
ungrateful, it may seem like we are banging out heads against a brick wall,
but think of the challenge. We could succeed where Essex University failed!


At worst we can go back though Google and refer him to previous answers.

Afraid not - he doesn't follow urls. I don't know if this is from
unfamiliarity with usenet, or that he can't read a reference and
understand which parts were relevant to the discussion. And anyway, if
you start quoting him back at himself, he killfiles you. Allegedly.

Treat it as another challenge- something we can teach him.

I'm almost tempted to let him out of the killfile but I think I'll just
watch the follow ups for now. With a recalcitrant people it does no good to
give them too much rope early on.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898