Airy R.Bean wrote:

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.

The muppet demonstrates his silly attitude when challenged once more.

You know which magazine he means old Bean - except it's the official
organ of an organisation you despise so much.

Such pathetic and childish behaviour for a man in his 50s!

David.

"David Edmonds" wrote in message
...
Airy R.Bean wrote:


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?


Funny you should mention DSP, David, Airys theory on this subject is
legendary.

Google DSP and Airy, within this forum and the results will keep you amused
for hours!

Regards
tox

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:00:12 -0000, "Nimrod" wrote:


"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.


Yes....When he was a student at his avant-garde university in the
turbulent sixties, I'll bet he never said to his lecturers "it is a
bad debating style to send your students off to do reading, if you
have something of value to say".
--
from
Aero Spike

Here in New York -- we say Foo Get Bout It

This is 2005 not 1927


--
Caveat Lector

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

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.

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.

Please list all projects you have designed and completed, radio or
otherwise.

Have they even been published? Surely a man of you 'expertise' could put
them on the internet.

"Caveat Lector" wrote in message
news:HBCEd.50513$8e5.34594@fed1read07...
Here in New York -- we say Foo Get Bout It

This is 2005 not 1927


Not in bits of Chippenham.

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:00:12 -0000, "Nimrod" wrote:


"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.


Yes....When he was a student at his avant-garde university in the
turbulent sixties, I'll bet he never said to his lecturers "it is a
bad debating style to send your students off to do reading, if you
have something of value to say".


Maybe he never graduated? That could explain lots of things. Especially his
degree envy.

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.

Excellent idea. Let's make it a high-quality job, though;
uncompromising on sensitivity/selectivity/noise etc. And use
ubiquitous, easily-available components that will be around for the
foreseeable future to come to permit serviceability over the long
term!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

Yep 6 replies - obviously the other 4 users of this newsgroup have
killfiled you Bean (or are on Hoilday with Slim).

Therein lies a problem; I had considered the use of 270MHz
SAW filters as used in GSM phones as RX roofing filters, but
with the deign of GSM phones moving en masse to direct
conversion, that's not possible.

One area in which we can assure some degree of future proofing
is to define the interfaces between the sections so that any
section could be replaced by circuitry of your own making
and/or of your own repair.

"Paul Burridge" 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.

Excellent idea. Let's make it a high-quality job, though;
uncompromising on sensitivity/selectivity/noise etc. And use
ubiquitous, easily-available components that will be around for the
foreseeable future to come to permit serviceability over the long
term!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.