There is no national magazine for Radio Hams in Britland,
unless you mean Practical Wireless.

No other magazine is widely available to all who wish to
purchase it.

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:iCyEd.84797$k25.40602@attbi_s53...
In truth, if you only read your own National magazine
that you profess so much dislike for, you would find that they recently
carried for some 20 months a construction article having every feature you
have supposedly considered.

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
I wonder why Mr.Reay pours scorn on a proposal
which perhaps he himself ought to have come up
with bearing in mind his regular _BOASTING_ about how
important he perceives himself to be in the training
of newcomers?


Actually, Dr Reay said it was a good idea. He did point out a few flaws in
your concept. As we have all done in the past.

You always react like this Gareth when one of your great ideas proves to be
less than great. At least this failure isn't going to cost you your job.

"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?

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.

Gareth has always been full of 'good ideas'. They just never seem to have
actually been implemented- be they radio, railway signalling, home made
hacksaws, or telecoms systems. He has always been so- way back to TMC days.

"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
I'm not proposing anything like that. I don't know
anything about the K2.


Something else you know nothing about. That list keeps growing Gareth. Have
you thought of studying at all?

You have plenty of time on your hands. (Your posting times suggest you are
not working at the moment.)

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:04:58 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

I don't follow URL's from Usenet - it is a bad debating style
to send your correspondents off to do reading. if you have
something of value to say, then please say it yourself.

groan

But if it's someone else's work, it is only correct to point to it.
After all, you might have a different interpretation of it....sheesh!

Standard practice for Gareth, has been so for years. Way back to the TMC
days. If he avoids research he can pretend it wasn't his fault when it goes
belly up.

"Airy R.Bean" (aka Gareth G4SDW) wrote in message
...
That Dr.Reay rejoices at insults but not at
technical proposals

But yoy have to admit Gareth, the insult was a good one and your technical
proposal was pretty crap. As we have come to expect of you.

Airy R.Bean wrote:

Whatever you say about your K2, it is a proprietary design,
and thus no different from the YaesKenIcom products, and
therefore is off-the-shelf

Yes - but it isn't a propreitary design - it's simply been put together
by a group of radio amateurs and there is scope within the kits to do
your own modifications - making it way way different from the commercial
far-eastern models.

The essence of Ham Radio is that we produce and maintain
our own designs and are not beholden to any commercial
operation that has its sights set on the shekels.

Whatever you say.

I'm not interested in a comparison with commercial gear. The
idea is to design a transceiver that is easily reproducible by
beginners, and which is future-proofed by having the
interface between stages well-specified so that you could,
for example, substitute your own mixing stages.

But, why not move with the times and include an element of computer
control and computer based audio filtering rather then re-inventing the
wheel.

As I've said before, apart from the DSP, I and other radio amateurs have
radios here that match your criteria, so why should we bother?

David.

Harold E. Johnson wrote:

The alternate conclusion of course, might well be simply that your fame
preceeds you Airhead. In truth, if you only read your own National magazine
that you profess so much dislike for, you would find that they recently
carried for some 20 months a construction article having every feature you
have supposedly considered.

He refuses to read anything 'official' or that represents the public at
large for fear of having to catch up or having his views challenged.

You can bet his workshop drill is still treadle powered with wooden
drill bits.

David.

Airy R.Bean wrote:

A rather silly and childish broadcast (CB) from you.

Grow up, Harold.

Stupid boy.

Nice, once more old Bean, to see you classing someone of Harold's
vintage as a 'CBer'.

Typical Bean style - if all else fails - cry CBer and run!

Muppet.

David.

Airy R.Bean wrote:

A rather silly and childish broadcast (CB) from you.

Grow up, Harold.

Stupid boy.

Actually, if you care to look at Harold's website - www.W4ZCB.com,
you'll see he is more than qualified to critise you old Bean - as he
seems to have much more design and construction skills than you've
dreamt of.

Then again, any common sense you have is often released against the
porcelain I bet!

David.