In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

As you will say later, those "analog" radios have INFINITE resolution.
:-)

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example.

Heh heh heh...your bafflegab won't win blind man's bluff, Kellie,
deal yourself a better hand... :-)

Feel free to try to state you can return to that "infinite possible"
setting within a few PPM...all without any old crystal calibrator and
dependent on that "coarse" analog dial. :-)

Whatta lame whack at a twist. I didn't claim any such nonsense did I?

No.

What you *did* claim was that you could operate within 200 Hz of a band edge
and know you were inside, using certain '50s/60s vintage equipment. Which is e
a reasonable claim for the equipment involved.

btw, back in 1975 or so I designed and built a "digital dial". The way it
worked was that it used TTL 74192 presettable up-down counters to count the
tunable oscillator. You'd adjust dip switches for the offset and direction of
each band and mode. Its time base was a 400 kHz xtal, easily zeroed to within a
few Hz of WWV. The thing normally read out in 100 Hz increments but could be
switched to 10 Hz or 1 Hz. Its accuracy was dependent on how well you set the
time base and presets. Could be used with almost any rig. Hooked it up to a
75S3 and got an A in the course. And yes, you could easily reset it to 100 Hz.
10 Hz took a steady hand.

Later I saw a better design. It sampled and counted all the oscillators in a
rig, and displayed the total. No presets to adjust - set the timebase to WWV
and you're done. Could go to 1 Hz if you were willing to have it update once
per second.


Heh heh heh...your bafflegab won't win blind man's bluff Sweetums,
deal yourself a better hand... :-)

Just watch...

And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned.

No sweat Sweetums. If I terminate the rcvr input with a 50 ohm dummy
load via a short length of coax and am able to hear any gurgles,
chirps, squeaks, pings, skips or burps when I swish around some freq
or another it's synthesizer crud, i.e., "phase noise" in play. However
with current-tech ham gear internally-generated crud is not often a
big problem these days since it's usually below the atmospheric and/or
electrical QRN noise floor on the band under consideration. Which is
easy enough to check. Welome to the realities of "phase noise "insofar
as amateur radio operation is concerned" Sweetums.

Sort of.

You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

Maybe when ham radio ceases to be a hobby and becomes an "industry"
Sweetums.

Then you should examine exactly how low that terrible phase
noise
is. You can use the term "dbc"

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

referring to the number of decibels
below the "carrier" (center frequency reference, not a modulated
carrier per se). The "crud" (as you term it) is quite far down in
relative power and certainly won't affect morse code reception of an
on-off keyed station's carrier.

Wrong. Incorrect. Not true at all in the real world of HF radio.

Len has just demonstrated, once more, that he just doesn't get it.

"Phase noise" is a somewhat new buzzword in industry due to the
importance of keeping it low for QAM signals (Quadrature [phase]
Amplitude Modulation, a combination of PM and AM). The cell
phone engineers will know of that importance on keeping the BER
(Bit Error Rate) as low as possible. The amount of work in the last
decade on cellular telephony techniques has been enormous
worldwide. It's only natural that industry advertisements, from sub-
system components to full systems, emphasize a low "phase noise."

Has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is HF amateur radio.

As far as on-off keyed radiotelegraphy, your mention of "phase noise"
as being "crud" in synthesizer frequency control is akin to making
a big case for gold-plated music system speaker wires. :-)

Wrong again, Len.

It is ignorance to discount the possibility of "crud" being non-existant
in analog mixing frequency generators. Those analog "infinitely-
variable" oscillators are just as prone as anything to "phase noise."
The wrong selection of mixing frequencies will produce spurious
responses...one of the papers I wrote at RCA was on quick
identification of such possible spurs (not the first, but it was a
very quick way to determine them).

Misses the point completely.

(Long pause to let the fog clear)

(Amos nudges Andy) "I thnk it's over, he melted down in his own hot
air bafflegab again, wake up."
Andy: "Are you sure? I can use more Zs."

Here's what *really* happens:

In an ideal superheterodyne, all the oscillators would generate pure, steady
injection signals. In reality, there is always some imperfections in those
oscillator signals. In modern frequency synthesizers, particularly PLL types,
the imperfection takes the form of noise sidebands on the oscillator signal.

Now even first-generation designs had noise sidebands many dB below the desired
LO signal. Someone who doesn't really understand the situation might react as
Len does, saying that such low-level noise can't have any real effect on
receiving the desired signal.

Trouble is, in the amateur HF environment we often want to listen to a weak
signal surrounded by many strong ones, often only a kHz or two away. Good
crystal and mechanical filters make it possible to separate such signals *if*
they can get to the filter in decent shape.

What happens when the LO signal is phase-noisy is that a close-in-frequency
unwanted signal mixes with the LO *noise*, and produces noise in the receiver
output. With a whole bunch of strong signals, the noise can be so high that it
drowns out the wanted signal. This problem is not due to IMD, blocking or other
various nonlinearities in the front end - it's due to phase noise alone. And in
modern ham xcvrs where the signal is first converted up to about 70 MHz and
then converted down to about 8.8 MHz by means of synthesized LOs, the problem
can be severe.

Scenario: Ham in Texas is trying to work Europeans in CQWW on 40 meters. He
points his 3 elements at 90 feet towards EU. Which also means towards a lot of
the Northeast. There's lots of points to be had working the low-power
limited-antenna hams there. But to do it, he has to be able to pick their
less-than-a-microvolt signals out from between the forest of locals and East
Coast legal-limit folks. And the band is busy - a signal every few hundred Hz
from 7000 to 7070 or more. Plus the usual cast of megawatt SWBC above 7100 and
below 7000, blasting away with big antennas aimed right at him. 100,000
microvolt and bigger signals aren't rare in such scenarios.

If his receiver's LO is noisy, he'll hear all that off-frequency RF as noise.
And he won't hear the low-power limited-antenna less-than-a-microvolt stations
he's trying to work. All the Inrads and DSP in the catalogs won't do any good
in such a situation.

That's why phase noise is important to hams.

My FT-847, which is not much as ham xcvrs go, can be tuned in 1 Hz
increments vs. the "make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz
increments" thingey you cite above.

10 Hz increments is common in installed equipment (including the
ham consumer market) in the past two decades. I know there are
smaller increments...:-)...but I also have to play to the common
denominator of technical expertise in here.

1 Hz is common in modern manufactured amateur equipment. But that's not really
the issue.

10 Hz increments are perfectly fine for SSB voice tuning, as I've
found out with my Icom R-70.

Heh. You can't tune that pore 'ole 3-star boat anchor in 10 Hz
increments Sweetums, the best you can do with the thing is tune it to
the nearest 100 Hz increment yes? Of course you silly old thing. I've
never seen an R-70 in the flesh so tell me, are those actually Nixies
in the display for God's sake?!

R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

If that old R-70 is your "window" to ham radio I think I'm starting to
understand why you have a dour view of the hobby. You need to get past
the R-70 and try a JRC NRD 545 Sweetums, like the one I have. It'll
change your life.

The bald fact of the mattter is that once more a PCTA caught you
bafflegabbing again Sweetums, wasn't even a decent try so once more no
cigar for you.

When I bought my R-70 (years ago), the three extras at work in the
Van Nuys, CA, store . . .

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

. . . didn't know squat how Icom was able to do it
with 10 KHz reference frequencies to the PFDs (factor of 1000:1)
there.

So what?

Turns out Icom has a neat 3-loop PLL arrangment, doesn't
go into DDS or Fractional-N at all. Minimal phase noise and no
discernable "crud" anywhere within full tuning range.

How many points did Len get with it in the last CQWW? Or even the last SS or
Field Day?

Okay, so your spiffy-schmiffy 1 Hz resolution "xcver" is "guarnateed"
accurate because it has a "digital dial?" I don't think so.

Nobody claimed that it was accurate. It *is* precise, however. Big difference.

Exact 1 Hz
settings imply 100 PPB (Parts Per Billion) accuracy of the master
reference oscillator.

Let's see - 1 part per million is 10 Hz at 10 MHz. Or 1000 parts per billion.
So 100 parts per billion is 1 Hz at 10 MHz.

You will NOT be able to hold such accuracy
and be believable to anyone who has worked to such accuracies in
crystal oscillators. Certainly not for the ham consumer market.

Nobody is claiming that kind of *accuracy*. Only that kind of *precision*.

Fella named John R. Vig (unusual surname) is a good name to
remember on what can be done and can't be done with crystal
oscillators. Big name in the frequency control part of electronics
industry, probably not in the pages of QST. :-)

(Amos nudges Andy) "I thnk it's over, he melted down in his own hot
air bafflegab again, wake up."
Andy: "Are you sure? I can use more Zs."

Yup.

Of course there's an easy and quick check of all this. Just tune in WWV and see
what the fancy digidial says when you zero beat the carrier in SSB mode. That
will tell you how accurate the reference oscillator is. Traceable directly to
NIST via the F2 layer. If you're at all careful you can get to the point where
the S meter needle is slowly fluctuating as the frequency/phase difference
wanders...

btw, some years back I was there, at NIST in Boulder. Saw the various standards
and how they keep WWV synchronized. Also visited the WWV/WWVB transmitter site.
Got lots of pictures, too.

You obviously need to spend
considerable time leafing thru the ham catalogs to get up to speed on
the equipment we use before you spout off and continue to goose up
your "coefficient of ignornace" on the subject of ham radio in general
and the equipment we use. Again. Gets boring.

True. I never bothered to memorize advertisements in QST by
heart...like so many PCTA extras do. :-)

Like who? Exactly.

I rather prefer what I've been exposed to since 1963 on frequency
control methods...

Still living in the past...

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

beginning with those "cruddy" synthesizers
(without "real" frequencies, only the "synthetic" variety)...and
quartz crystal oscillator accuracy and stability to the 10 PPB
region.

Common ham radio quartz crystals have guaranteed accuracies
to 50 PPM typical.

Typically expressed as .005%. Of course that's the accuracy of the xtal itself,
before being zeroed to a better reference. WW2 FT-243s were typically good for
..005%, we do a lot better now.

That translates to 500 Hz at 10 MHz, by way
of example. 1 Hz accuracy at 10 MHz is 100 PPB, or 500 times
closer.

yadda, yadda, more of the usual . . .

WWV. Trimmer capacitor. Zero beat. What a concept.

Then there are the few "drudges" (like myself) who've
gotten our hands dirty doing the design and testing of synthesizers.

Then there are drudges like me who have ham licenses and and put
technoligies to work on the airwaves whilst all you're allowed to do
is bafflegab about 'em with your keyboard.

I'm sorry that my technical competence seems like "bafflegab"
to you. Some further learning of the radio technical arts would
erase some of your ignorance and lend credence to what I've
said. Like, I could ask you "how's the zeta of your control loop"
and you would be out to lunch, cussing and hollering "bafflegab!"

No Sweetums, not at all, that's not the way I work. You're being silly
again. If by any chance I ran into an arcane topic like that in which
I had any interest whatsoever I'd ask an EE to uncurl it for me.

Engineering 101: Don't reinvent the wheel. They even taught us EEs that one.

Miccolis is across town. Then comes the non-ham PhD EE Dean at one the
universities in this neck of the woods I know well. Or my buddy
another N3/EE who goes back to our high high school days together and
ran GE's gummint relations operations in Valley Forge, etc. etc.

And that's just the first string...

- - - - -

Amos: "Oh crap, here he goes again."
Andy: "Nudge me when he runs outta wind willya?" Zzzzz . .

"Zeta" is the symbol for the response characteristic in a closed
loop of a PLL, Fractional-N, or hybrid PLL-DDS system.

Wunnerful ducky wunnerful:

Time for a radio story...

Back in high school I knew a local ham down Collingdale way who was always
working on a pet project. Same age as me, saw him in school every day. Had all
kinds of grand ideas of how he was going to build the next generation
state-of-the-art ham rig. All solid-state, full features, all bands, all modes,
etc.

Now this kid was no dummy and his ideas were basically very sound. But he
didn't have anywhere near the resources or practical experience to actually
finish anything. He'd draw all kinds of schematics, spin all kinds of yarns and
sometimes even gather some parts. But build a working rig? Never happened. Not
once. When he *did* get on the air, it was with borrowed equipment that he
conned some local ham into lending him "temporarily". Until said local ham had
to come over and take it back. I made the mistake of loaning the kid a QST,
which I never saw again. I learned fast.

Meanwhile, those of us willing to make do with less than "SOTA" were on the air
and having fun and QSOs while he pontificated.

That was about 35 years ago but the lesson is still valid: All this bafflegab
doesn't make one QSO.

For some reason I was reminded of him. He sounded just like Len...

Now take a break from your bafflegabbery Sweetums and let's play in my
field of professional expertise this time. Demonstrate your level of
technical competence by solving a very real-world electronics design
problem. Assume that you have a one inch diameter x 1/16 inch wall x
eight foot long 6061T651 aluminum tube fully restrained at one end
with the other and dangling horizontally in the wind. Calculate the
maximum wind speed which will not produce permanent deformation of the
tube.

That's easy! Would take me about sixty seconds to get the answer.

An
important factor for lock-in and stability and anyone designing
the loop filter for a synthesizer should recognize that common
term.

Of course. Who designed the R-70? I bet it wasn't Len Anderson...

I've never dined in the executive dining room (the counterpart to
your "captain's table" BS) in any electronic corporation

Hee! No surprise at all there Sweetums, there are obvious reasons . .
. ah, never mind!

but I
HAVE designed and made frequency synthesizers. Hands-on
work all the way, from the initial paper work-up to long hours
in the environmental lab...to accuracies in 100 PPB over
full military environment. Interesting, challenging work!

So solving the tube-bending problem is a piece of cake for a
duz-it-all "engineering genius" like you eh Sweetums?

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else. Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily. Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs. It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

"Try not to nit-pick . . . ?!" WTF . . ? Bwaaahahaha - from the master
of all RRAP nit-pickers!!

The main point is simple: Hams did not need synthesizers to stay in their bands
and subbands. Nor do they need 1 Hz or even 10 Hz accuracy on HF.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else. Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily. Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs. It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

NOT USING modern equipment but attempting to spout off like you have
some knowledge of what is being discussed is making you look like
N0IMD's antenna advisor.

That would be Kellie...whose only "engineering expertise" seems
involved with antenna support structures.

Leonard, you can't seem to get anything right of late. Kelly's advice
was totally rejected by your little electrolyte, "William". Brian posed
you a question which had nothing whatever to do with "antenna support
structures". Did you come up with the answer yet?

Kellie not know much
of the innards of frequency control subsystems in a modern radio
so he tries to misdirect onto his mechanical thing.

He certainly knows more about them than you as evidenced by your
comments on phase noise compared to his.

Do I have knowledge of modern frequency control subsystems of
radios? Yes, considerable.

That hasn't been evident in light of your comments on the importance of
low synthesizer phase noise.

Such applies to all radios, not what
a designer-maker has labeled "amateur" as (as you imply) being
somehow different than other radios.

Amateur transceivers are, for the most part, quite different than
transceivers designed for point-to-point use.

Some rigs--Ten-Tec's Omni V, Omni VI and the main receiver of the Orion
are amateur band only transceivers.

No amateur radio license is required to acquire knowledge of
radio-electronics technology.

Lucky for you!

No amateur radio license will let
you legally radiate RF outside of amateur bands (beyond the
incidental/low-power government limits).

And?

In most U.S. radio
services no federal license is required to use those radios.

Sounds like a plan for you. Grab a job in one of those services and
operate like crazy.

You didn't seem to have any comments at all about your comments on phase
noise as compared to reality. My comments to you we

"Once again, you've demonstrated that you know very little about
problems
with much of the amateur radio equipment produced within the past couple
of decades. Noticeable phase noise appears not only in the receiver
output section of many transceivers but in the transmitted signals as
well. 1980's top of the line Kenwood TS-930's were rife with the phase
noise products and synthesizer spurs. A quick spin of the main tuning
dial with no antenna connected would result in a rapid p-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t
sound from such spurs. R.L. Drake's TR-7 had much less phase noise.
Rigs such as Ten-Tec's Omni VI series, using a crystal mixed front end
had almost no measureable phase noise."


"The folks in Newington whom you frequently enjoy insulting might put
you
on the road to being informed:

http://www.arrl.org/files/infoserv/tech/bestrig.txt

under 'Q. What do you mean by receiver cleanliness'?

You may continue your education by looking at the following pdf file
under section 1.2.2:

http://www.qth.com/inrad/managing-interference-ch1.pdf

One of the Polish fellows has published some excellent information.
The phase noise issue is touched upon in the last few paragraphs:

http://www.gmdx.org.uk/dxtest/qx9racze.pdf "

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In the case of the mixing-by-crystal-banks plus VFO (or "PTO" for
most Collins radios), there was a dependency on the quartz
crystals being correct. Those were typically in the 30 to 50 PPM
(plus-minus) accuracy by themselves. That was GOOD accuracy
for the 50s to 60s time frame...but one band might be off on the
low side while another band might be off on the high side.

That "off on the low side while another band might be off on the high
side" stuff might be correct if not for the individual band trimmers
featured in all such equipment. R.L. Drake and Ten-Tec also used PTOs
in their equipment.

With TCXOs or VTCXOs (Temperature Compensated Crystal
Oscillators, fixed or Voltage-controlled), the drift on modern
"all band" (HF that is) transceivers can be within 1 PPM after
calibration. The old Collins "PTO" (Permeability Tuned
Oscillator) achieved stability of 50 to 100 PPM over a full
military temperature environment (-55 C to +85 C) but they
were not inexpensive. Collins amateur equipment was often
at the top of the money line when they were marketing for
the hams.

Ten-Tec and Drake equipment achieved similar accuracy and were sold at
much lower prices than comparable Collins gear.


Besides, "real hams" don't use any FM on HF...they hardly
ever go above 30 MHz. :-)

Is this just another things you've heard from someone else, Leonard?
While I use 2m FM, most of my operation on 6m, 2m and 70cm is on SSB or
CW. I have the latitude to choose a band I like and to operate there.
I can do this from my home or from my car.

The subject has gotten out of hand in here with all the PCTA
extras eager to beat on any NCTA by taking a phrase out of
logical context. :-)

It surely does get out of hand but not because of anything being taken
out of "logical context". It happened because you spouted off about
something you weren't up on. You compounded things by not admitting to
your lack of knowledge. You tried to fine tune your original statements
and were snagged yet again.

Those all have expensive ready-builts in
their "shack" and - naturally - those rigs are the closest thing
to perfection as anything.

Jim's isn't ready built. Mine is. They're both as close to perfection
as anything. Why would that bother you?

They don't seem to know squat
about the inner technology involved in frequency synthesizers
so they want to "get even" with anyone who does. Sigh.

"Tney" seemed to know enough to chew you up and spit you out on your
synthesizer spur and phase noise gaffes. You'd better bring yourself
up to date, old fellow.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In the case of the mixing-by-crystal-banks plus VFO (or "PTO" for
most Collins radios), there was a dependency on the quartz
crystals being correct.

"Waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool says to push on"..

Those were typically in the 30 to 50 PPM
(plus-minus) accuracy by themselves. That was GOOD accuracy
for the 50s to 60s time frame...but one band might be off on the
low side while another band might be off on the high side.

That "off on the low side while another band might be off on the high
side" stuff might be correct if not for the individual band trimmers
featured in all such equipment.

Yep.

Now consider how much error we're talking about. Some rigs used
heterodyne xtals as high as ~40 MHz on 10 meters. .005% works out to
2000 Hz on a 40 MHz xtal *before correction*. So the worst case could
be a total variation of maybe 4 kHz if one was high and another low -
on 10 meters. On the lower bands the error is less.

But all this is pretty meaningless because even the lower-priced rigs
have built-in calibrators and VFO/PTO calibration adjustment (usually
a dial pointer adjustment). The Heath SB-line, which isn't topshelf
stuff by any stretch of the imagination, had builtin calibrators, a
linear VFO and dial adjustment. In the early 1960s, at a price far
below Collins or Drake.

The digital-dial rigs like the TT Orion D and Corsair avoided the
problem by using a built-in custom frequency counter to actually count
the various oscillators. IIRC, this concept first appeared
commercially in the amateur market in the DG-5 accessory to the
TS-520S.

R.L. Drake and Ten-Tec also used PTOs
in their equipment.

Good units, too. A bit fast on the tuning rate, but good units
nonetheless.

With TCXOs or VTCXOs (Temperature Compensated Crystal
Oscillators, fixed or Voltage-controlled), the drift on modern
"all band" (HF that is) transceivers can be within 1 PPM after
calibration. The old Collins "PTO" (Permeability Tuned
Oscillator) achieved stability of 50 to 100 PPM over a full
military temperature environment (-55 C to +85 C) but they
were not inexpensive. Collins amateur equipment was often
at the top of the money line when they were marketing for
the hams.

Ten-Tec and Drake equipment achieved similar accuracy and were sold at
much lower prices than comparable Collins gear.

Collins amateur gear was much less expensive than commercial or
military equipment of the same vintage, and more suited to typical
amateur use. Most hams are not going to be using their equipment at
+85 C or -55 C.

Besides, "real hams" don't use any FM on HF...they hardly
ever go above 30 MHz. :-)

Is this just another things you've heard from someone else, Leonard?
While I use 2m FM, most of my operation on 6m, 2m and 70cm is on SSB or
CW. I have the latitude to choose a band I like and to operate there.
I can do this from my home or from my car.

There's also quite a bit of FM in use by hams on 10 meters. Plus FSK
is a form of FM...

The subject has gotten out of hand in here with all the PCTA
extras eager to beat on any NCTA by taking a phrase out of
logical context. :-)

It surely does get out of hand but not because of anything being taken
out of "logical context". It happened because you spouted off about
something you weren't up on. You compounded things by not admitting to
your lack of knowledge. You tried to fine tune your original statements
and were snagged yet again.

Let's take a look at those phrases:

From 2004-09-22 20:47:30 PST


LHA: "All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

They were actually about creating an incentive to learn more theory
without losing access to a band or mode.

LHA: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible
without the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for
amateur radio but adopted for that particular market."

Repeatedly proven to be incorrect, in error, and without any basis in
fact. Hams then and now are able to stay within their bands and
subbands without any need for "modern frequency synthesizers".

LHA: "I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain
how to make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10
KHz references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if
they knew how a DDS works... :-)"

It is not clear to whom Len refers as "ivy-decorated in here". If he
is referring to me (Jim, N2EY), he's completely wrong, because I could
explain both PLL and DDS designs at length and in detail.

Those all have expensive ready-builts in
their "shack" and - naturally - those rigs are the closest thing
to perfection as anything.

Jim's isn't ready built.

Neither HF rig in current use at N2EY is expensive or "ready built".
But they work, are on the air regularly, meet FCC regulations, and do
their jobs well.

So what's the problem?

I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Just my particular brand of fun in ham radio.

What's wrong with any of that?

The K2 has a single-loop PLL LO that achieves very low phase noise by
an ingenious design. This design intentionally trades off some
accuracy and general coverage reception in order to improve phase
noise, simplicity and power consumption. Its performance against
"ready built" transceivers costing much more is well documented.

It wasn't designed by Len. I doubt very much he understands how it
works, nor could he explain it....;-)

Mine is. They're both as close to perfection
as anything.

Which is to say, none of them are perfect!

Len's errors here prove he's not perfect either...

Why would that bother you?

The fact that we amateurs are actually designing, building and using
rigs on the air seems to bother Len no end. The fact that we are using
equipment, modes and technologies he has not personally blessed seems
to bother him even more.

They don't seem to know squat
about the inner technology involved in frequency synthesizers
so they want to "get even" with anyone who does. Sigh.

"Tney" seemed to know enough to chew you up and spit you out on your
synthesizer spur and phase noise gaffes. You'd better bring yourself
up to date, old fellow.

Not chewing up or spitting out anybody, Dave. Just pointing out a few
errors of Len's. He makes it easy, really.

Recall the original claims that started all of this, and how Len keeps
trying to avoid admitting his mistakes:

"All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

"None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the
modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for amateur
radio but adopted for that particular market."

"I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain how to
make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10 KHz
references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if they
knew how a DDS works... :-)"


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


In an ideal superheterodyne, all the oscillators would generate pure, steady
injection signals. In reality, there is always some imperfections in those
oscillator signals. In modern frequency synthesizers, particularly PLL types,
the imperfection takes the form of noise sidebands on the oscillator signal.

Technically wrong. DDS is more susceptible to spur generation and
phase noise than Fractional-N and Fractional-N is more susceptible
to that than PLLs.

Tsk. You haven't spent much time with a spectrum analyzer...


Trouble is, in the amateur HF environment we often want to listen to a weak
signal surrounded by many strong ones, often only a kHz or two away. Good
crystal and mechanical filters make it possible to separate such signals *if*
they can get to the filter in decent shape.

What happens when the LO signal is phase-noisy is that a close-in-frequency
unwanted signal mixes with the LO *noise*, and produces noise in the receiver
output. With a whole bunch of strong signals, the noise can be so high that
it drowns out the wanted signal. This problem is not due to IMD, blocking or
other
various nonlinearities in the front end - it's due to phase noise alone.

Tsk. Simplistic untruth.

Intermodulation distortion and front end noise is enough to cause that.
As part of the IMD, the 3rd Order Intercept point values figure in.

You can get IMD in stages beyond the mixer. To "prove" that point,
you would have to measure the IMD at various gain settings (manual
or AGC).

The worst part of that untrue statement is that "all those other things"
were existant before the advent of frequency control by synthesizer.
In ham radios as well as the radios in every other radio service.


1 Hz is common in modern manufactured amateur equipment. But that's not
really the issue.

Tsk. Why are Jimmie and Kellie trying to make so much of that
resolution? :-)


R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

Only for a small liferaft. It can be easily carried in one hand. It comes
equipped with a handle on the side, apparently for that purpose. :-)

But, you will try to use my owning an R-70 as all sorts of denigrations.
Kellie did...and was completely wrong...but then he only "favors" those
equipments that he's owned or has handled.


How many points did Len get with it in the last CQWW? Or even the last SS or
Field Day?

Irrelevant. Had I an HF-privilege ham license, I wouldn't bother with
contesting. I've said that before.

If I wanted sports, I would go to athletics...REAL sport.

[if I wanted "road races," I'd get a sports car as I used to have and
do minor gymkhanas, etc., in REAL road races]

btw, some years back I was there, at NIST in Boulder. Saw the various
standards
and how they keep WWV synchronized. Also visited the WWV/WWVB transmitter
site. Got lots of pictures, too.

Okay, so your resume got rejected. Sorry to hear about it. Glad you
got nice pictures.

Anyone can see nice pictures at the NIST website.


Still living in the past...

Tsk. You are repeating yourself...as you've done many times in the
past.


Time for a radio story...

Back in high school I knew a local ham down Collingdale way who was always
working on a pet project. Same age as me, saw him in school every day. Had
all
kinds of grand ideas of how he was going to build the next generation
state-of-the-art ham rig. All solid-state, full features, all bands, all
modes,
etc.

Now this kid was no dummy and his ideas were basically very sound. But he
didn't have anywhere near the resources or practical experience to actually
finish anything. He'd draw all kinds of schematics, spin all kinds of yarns
and
sometimes even gather some parts. But build a working rig? Never happened.
Not
once. When he *did* get on the air, it was with borrowed equipment that he
conned some local ham into lending him "temporarily". Until said local ham
had
to come over and take it back. I made the mistake of loaning the kid a QST,
which I never saw again. I learned fast.

Meanwhile, those of us willing to make do with less than "SOTA" were on the
air
and having fun and QSOs while he pontificated.

That was about 35 years ago but the lesson is still valid: All this bafflegab
doesn't make one QSO.

For some reason I was reminded of him. He sounded just like Len...

Poor baby. Still with the insults sugar-coated with hypocritical
"civility?"

Tsk. I lost interest in DXing in "radio sports" and the wallpaper
collection of QSLs after working at station ADA long ago.

Became a professional in the radio-electronics industry, got regular
money for not only designing, but building and testing, following
through in the field, etc., etc., on many projects.

Do you find that without honor? Without any worth?

Why do you?


The main point is simple: Hams did not need synthesizers to stay in their
bands and subbands. Nor do they need 1 Hz or even 10 Hz accuracy on HF.

In Jimmie's world, yes. :-)

It must be right across the border from nursieworld. :-)

Tsk. Some "runner." Takes up one phrase and runs and runs and
runs trying to prove another is unworthy in his presence. :-)

Tsk. Those runs could be cured with some kaopectate...

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

Tsk, Jimmie be posting to me, yet doesn't get who he be making
a reply to... :-) [see later]


Note the avoidance of answering the question ;-)

Note the avoidance of the facts. ;-)

Note that the importance of this feature is not explained ;-)

Stuck in the past. ;-)

Tsk. Jimmie looking in mirror again when writing, reflecting his own
"renowned historian" claim and musing on stacks and stacks of old
periodicals.

This gives us cause to wonder.....

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

What amateur radio equipment has Len actually used, and in what
environments? (The contest environment is quite different from the
"quiet band" environment)

How many contest points/countries/states/contacts has Len made with
amateur radio equipment he developed/designed/built/paid for himself?

What articles on amateur radio receiver performance issues such as
dynamic range (third order IMD, BDR, etc.), phase noise, etc., has he
authored? Or even actually read and understood?

The world wonders....;-)

"The world" isn't "wondering" at all. Neither Jimmie nor Davie have
developed any marketable ham transceivers.

[if they did, they should fire their marketing consultants for creating
invisibility of product]

Try not to run off at the mouth/keyboard so
hastily.

Try taking your own advice ;-)

Always do.

Try not to nit-pick like nits over minor phrases in
postings so that you have an "excuse" to cuss and snarl at
NCTAs.

What minor phrases? Len claimed that frequency synthesizer rigs were
necessary for the "subdivisions" of 1968.

Tsk. I didn't refer to 1968 per se.

Numerous positngs by
different authors, all of whom actually had to deal with those
"subdivisions" have proved that to be utterly false and without basis.

"Authors?" Who in here, besides myself, can claim many bylines
and a staff position at a ham magazine? Not Jimmie. Not Davie.

Len, of course, never had to deal with them at all because he's never
been a radio amateur and never operated an amateur radio station. (By
FCC definition, operating requires a license).

Pity that. All that while as a professional and never becoming a
licensed amateur! Horrors!


Of course, to the knowledgeable reader, Len's postings simply reveal
how truly ignorant he is of amateur radio in many ways. That's not a
crime, of course, but it does get boring.

Poor baby. Bored are you? Tsk, tsk.

Jimmie needs a hobby activity or to get out and see more things.

Jimmie ought to understand that radio amateurs didn't invent radio
nor did they develop all the circuits and systems in modern ready-
built radios. Tsk.

His posts also reveal how resistant is he is to new ideas and
information, when presented to him from certain sources he deems
inferior.

Tsk. Still on that inferiority complex are you?

Don't worry. You keep shouting and denigrating your inferiors and
all will respect you in the morning. :-)

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:


Now consider how much error we're talking about. Some rigs used
heterodyne xtals as high as ~40 MHz on 10 meters. .005% works out to
2000 Hz on a 40 MHz xtal *before correction*. So the worst case could
be a total variation of maybe 4 kHz if one was high and another low -
on 10 meters. On the lower bands the error is less.

But, there is ERROR! Error! Incorrect! Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

But all this is pretty meaningless because even the lower-priced rigs
have built-in calibrators and VFO/PTO calibration adjustment (usually
a dial pointer adjustment). The Heath SB-line, which isn't topshelf
stuff by any stretch of the imagination, had builtin calibrators, a
linear VFO and dial adjustment. In the early 1960s, at a price far
below Collins or Drake.

Riiight...you used and tested every one, dintcha? :-)

The digital-dial rigs like the TT Orion D and Corsair avoided the
problem by using a built-in custom frequency counter to actually count
the various oscillators. IIRC, this concept first appeared
commercially in the amateur market in the DG-5 accessory to the
TS-520S.

Riiiight...and you used and tested those, too? :-)


Collins amateur gear was much less expensive than commercial or
military equipment of the same vintage, and more suited to typical
amateur use. Most hams are not going to be using their equipment at
+85 C or -55 C.

Tsk. Not playing the heroic instant Emergency Communicator,
ready for every emergency when the commercial infrastructure fails?

Riiiight...all ham activity happens at "normal room temperature."

Hi hi.


There's also quite a bit of FM in use by hams on 10 meters. Plus FSK
is a form of FM...

"Real" hams use CW to DX on HF. Ho hum.


Let's take a look at those phrases:

Yes. Go over and over and over and over and over and over them
until you tire out the opposition to your golden words of truth and
beauty (which are never ever wrong). :-)


LHA: "All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

That's my opinion and I'm holding to that.

If you don't like it, TS.

They were actually about creating an incentive to learn more theory
without losing access to a band or mode.

If that's your evaluation, then you are badly in need of something
to relieve your mental constipation.

LHA: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible
without the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for
amateur radio but adopted for that particular market."

That's a corollary to my subdivision opinion.

Again, if you don't like that opinion, TS for you. :-)

Repeatedly proven to be incorrect, in error, and without any basis in
fact. Hams then and now are able to stay within their bands and
subbands without any need for "modern frequency synthesizers".

Oooooooo! "repeatedly 'proven' to be incorrect, in error and without
any basis in fact! Ooooooo. Tsk, tsk. :-)

Geez, better get an Exorcist, you are going to proclaim me the
AntiChrist next. :-)


It is not clear to whom Len refers as "ivy-decorated in here". If he
is referring to me (Jim, N2EY), he's completely wrong, because I could
explain both PLL and DDS designs at length and in detail.

Riiiiight...you've got lots and lots of industry experience in that,
many products on the market...just like you were in the space
business so long that you could call others "wrong" about having
opinions opposite to your "expertise."


Neither HF rig in current use at N2EY is expensive or "ready built".
But they work, are on the air regularly, meet FCC regulations, and do
their jobs well.

I suppose next you have Proof of Performance papers, fully
notarized and witnessed, that they are ipsy-pipsy "within spec?"


I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Just my particular brand of fun in ham radio.

Trying always to be the Superior in anything is fun for the ego-
driven. Lots of PCTA extras in here (practically all of them) get
their jollies that way.

What's wrong with any of that?

Nothing "wrong" with that other than taking over the flow of debate
with your pet fun-and-games and promoting morse well over and
above any valid reasons for keeping the morse code test.

But, you consider yourself Superior and therefore "must" triumph
in all things. :-)

The K2 has a single-loop PLL LO that achieves very low phase noise by
an ingenious design. This design intentionally trades off some
accuracy and general coverage reception in order to improve phase
noise, simplicity and power consumption. Its performance against
"ready built" transceivers costing much more is well documented.

Jimmie has a K2. Naturally it is "superior" to all others.

It wasn't designed by Len. I doubt very much he understands how it
works, nor could he explain it....;-)

Jimmie designed the K2? :-)

Which is to say, none of them are perfect!

Len's errors here prove he's not perfect either...

Heavens...Jimmie wants PERFECTION in all things!

Naturally, PCTA extras are "always perfect" in everything?

Of course they are. They will tell you right off... :-)


The fact that we amateurs are actually designing, building and using
rigs on the air seems to bother Len no end. The fact that we are using
equipment, modes and technologies he has not personally blessed seems
to bother him even more.

Doesn't bother me a bit. :-)

I've still "done" modes, modulations far more than is allowed in the
U.S. ham bands. [that even includes CW, heh heh heh]

It's a bit irritating when everyone uses verbatim sales ad phrasing
and OTHERS reviews as Gospel as if they themselves have used
and operated all the equipment they mention.


Not chewing up or spitting out anybody, Dave. Just pointing out a few
errors of Len's. He makes it easy, really.

Isn't it awful? There oughta be a law against anyone having opinions
opposing the PCTA extras!

Recall the original claims that started all of this, and how Len keeps
trying to avoid admitting his mistakes:

"All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

That's my opinion and I'm staying with it.

"I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain how to
make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10 KHz
references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if they
knew how a DDS works... :-)"

Tsk. When I preparing to buy my Icom R-70 at the Van Nuys, CA,
HRO, I asked three hams behind the counter how Icom achieved
10 Hz resolution using a 10 KHz reference to all the phase-frequency
detectors. None of the three knew. Two of those were extras.

I got a copy of the Icom User's Manual and figured it out myself.
Looked like it was worth the money. Went back later and bought
one. Cash. It's been working fine ever since.

I'll have to go back to old checkbook transactions to find the
purchase date (one has to be EXACT for Jimmie da Perfectionist).
Needless to say, DDS frequency control subsystems weren't yet
in the offshore-designed-and-made ham transceivers. [this statement
ought to be good for another few weeks of Jimmie "proving me wrong
in all things" :-) ]

Well, Jimmie KNOWS how all that ham frequency control stuff works
so he doesn't have to explain "zeta" (that's a control loop damping
factor, Kellie) nor does he have to explain why a 10 KHz reference
is used (there's a technical reason) nor anything else. When he
needs to show off his Superiority (just about every day), he climbs
K2 and plants his flag on the summit and announces he is
equivalent to Sir Edmund (and probably Tenzing too) of the ham world.

By the way, the '190 and '192 up-down decade counters went
DEFUNCT on everyone's semiconductor production line some years
ago. ON Semiconductor will do a limited production run if you
guarantee acceptance of a lot of 2500 of the 74F190s...just the
thing for any teen ager's senior project, ey? Wow, guaranteed
"A" on a report card, maybe even a gold star sticker to boot. :-)

Tsk. All I got for using some 74S190s back in 1977 was a
continuation of a paycheck every week. Not as good as an "A"
on a report card, huh? :-)

The '191 and '193s are still in active production. I'm currently
using some 74AC191s, by the way. Want to discuss the differences
of the TC (Terminal Count) output between '191 and '193? Timing in
nanoseconds of propagation delay clock-to-TC, setup time to the
PL_not (Parallel Load for preset input), and maximum guaranteed
programmable counter operating frequency? [more "bafflegab" for
Kellie to bitch about, heh heh]

Pack up your pitons. I'm sure you will want to climb K2 again. :-)




BTW, I went to my other screen name and sent a couple of missives
in reply to you. That ought to be good for another year of bitching
about "false identities" and your saying I have "countless other
names." :-) Still "signed" by me with the ieee.org alias. :-)

Ayup, I'll bet you make a big thing about the "alias" too! :-)

On 29 Sep 2004 18:47:50 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip


I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Here's a picture, and some technical details...

http://hometown.aol.com/n2ey/myhomepage/

snip



73, Leo

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:


Now consider how much error we're talking about. Some rigs used
heterodyne xtals as high as ~40 MHz on 10 meters. .005% works out to
2000 Hz on a 40 MHz xtal *before correction*. So the worst case could
be a total variation of maybe 4 kHz if one was high and another low -
on 10 meters. On the lower bands the error is less.

But, there is ERROR! Error! Incorrect! Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

But all this is pretty meaningless because even the lower-priced rigs
have built-in calibrators and VFO/PTO calibration adjustment (usually
a dial pointer adjustment). The Heath SB-line, which isn't topshelf
stuff by any stretch of the imagination, had builtin calibrators, a
linear VFO and dial adjustment. In the early 1960s, at a price far
below Collins or Drake.

Riiight...you used and tested every one, dintcha? :-)

The digital-dial rigs like the TT Orion D and Corsair avoided the
problem by using a built-in custom frequency counter to actually count
the various oscillators. IIRC, this concept first appeared
commercially in the amateur market in the DG-5 accessory to the
TS-520S.

Riiiight...and you used and tested those, too? :-)


Collins amateur gear was much less expensive than commercial or
military equipment of the same vintage, and more suited to typical
amateur use. Most hams are not going to be using their equipment at
+85 C or -55 C.

Tsk. Not playing the heroic instant Emergency Communicator,
ready for every emergency when the commercial infrastructure fails?

Riiiight...all ham activity happens at "normal room temperature."

Hi hi.


There's also quite a bit of FM in use by hams on 10 meters. Plus FSK
is a form of FM...

"Real" hams use CW to DX on HF. Ho hum.


Let's take a look at those phrases:

Yes. Go over and over and over and over and over and over them
until you tire out the opposition to your golden words of truth and
beauty (which are never ever wrong). :-)


LHA: "All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

That's my opinion and I'm holding to that.

If you don't like it, TS.

They were actually about creating an incentive to learn more theory
without losing access to a band or mode.

If that's your evaluation, then you are badly in need of something
to relieve your mental constipation.

LHA: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible
without the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for
amateur radio but adopted for that particular market."

That's a corollary to my subdivision opinion.

Again, if you don't like that opinion, TS for you. :-)

Repeatedly proven to be incorrect, in error, and without any basis in
fact. Hams then and now are able to stay within their bands and
subbands without any need for "modern frequency synthesizers".

Oooooooo! "repeatedly 'proven' to be incorrect, in error and without
any basis in fact! Ooooooo. Tsk, tsk. :-)

Geez, better get an Exorcist, you are going to proclaim me the
AntiChrist next. :-)


It is not clear to whom Len refers as "ivy-decorated in here". If he
is referring to me (Jim, N2EY), he's completely wrong, because I could
explain both PLL and DDS designs at length and in detail.

Riiiiight...you've got lots and lots of industry experience in that,
many products on the market...just like you were in the space
business so long that you could call others "wrong" about having
opinions opposite to your "expertise."


Neither HF rig in current use at N2EY is expensive or "ready built".
But they work, are on the air regularly, meet FCC regulations, and do
their jobs well.

I suppose next you have Proof of Performance papers, fully
notarized and witnessed, that they are ipsy-pipsy "within spec?"


I can explain how they work in detail. I'll even draw you schematics
of the Southgate Type 7 from memory. (It ain't simple, either). Amazes
shack visitors of all ages and levels of technical ability.

Tsk. You've yet to explain that "Southgate Type 7." [other than the
unusual name] Does it appear in ham literature? In Nobel archives?

Just my particular brand of fun in ham radio.

Trying always to be the Superior in anything is fun for the ego-
driven. Lots of PCTA extras in here (practically all of them) get
their jollies that way.

What's wrong with any of that?

Nothing "wrong" with that other than taking over the flow of debate
with your pet fun-and-games and promoting morse well over and
above any valid reasons for keeping the morse code test.

But, you consider yourself Superior and therefore "must" triumph
in all things. :-)

The K2 has a single-loop PLL LO that achieves very low phase noise by
an ingenious design. This design intentionally trades off some
accuracy and general coverage reception in order to improve phase
noise, simplicity and power consumption. Its performance against
"ready built" transceivers costing much more is well documented.

Jimmie has a K2. Naturally it is "superior" to all others.

It wasn't designed by Len. I doubt very much he understands how it
works, nor could he explain it....;-)

Jimmie designed the K2? :-)

Which is to say, none of them are perfect!

Len's errors here prove he's not perfect either...

Heavens...Jimmie wants PERFECTION in all things!

Naturally, PCTA extras are "always perfect" in everything?

Of course they are. They will tell you right off... :-)


The fact that we amateurs are actually designing, building and using
rigs on the air seems to bother Len no end. The fact that we are using
equipment, modes and technologies he has not personally blessed seems
to bother him even more.

Doesn't bother me a bit. :-)

I've still "done" modes, modulations far more than is allowed in the
U.S. ham bands. [that even includes CW, heh heh heh]

It's a bit irritating when everyone uses verbatim sales ad phrasing
and OTHERS reviews as Gospel as if they themselves have used
and operated all the equipment they mention.


Not chewing up or spitting out anybody, Dave. Just pointing out a few
errors of Len's. He makes it easy, really.

Isn't it awful? There oughta be a law against anyone having opinions
opposing the PCTA extras!

Recall the original claims that started all of this, and how Len keeps
trying to avoid admitting his mistakes:

"All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory." "

That's my opinion and I'm staying with it.

"I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain how to
make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution using 10 KHz
references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother asking them if they
knew how a DDS works... :-)"

Tsk. When I preparing to buy my Icom R-70 at the Van Nuys, CA,
HRO, I asked three hams behind the counter how Icom achieved
10 Hz resolution using a 10 KHz reference to all the phase-frequency
detectors. None of the three knew. Two of those were extras.

I got a copy of the Icom User's Manual and figured it out myself.
Looked like it was worth the money. Went back later and bought
one. Cash. It's been working fine ever since.

I'll have to go back to old checkbook transactions to find the
purchase date (one has to be EXACT for Jimmie da Perfectionist).
Needless to say, DDS frequency control subsystems weren't yet
in the offshore-designed-and-made ham transceivers. [this statement
ought to be good for another few weeks of Jimmie "proving me wrong
in all things" :-) ]

Well, Jimmie KNOWS how all that ham frequency control stuff works
so he doesn't have to explain "zeta" (that's a control loop damping
factor, Kellie) nor does he have to explain why a 10 KHz reference
is used (there's a technical reason) nor anything else. When he
needs to show off his Superiority (just about every day), he climbs
K2 and plants his flag on the summit and announces he is
equivalent to Sir Edmund (and probably Tenzing too) of the ham world.

By the way, the '190 and '192 up-down decade counters went
DEFUNCT on everyone's semiconductor production line some years
ago. ON Semiconductor will do a limited production run if you
guarantee acceptance of a lot of 2500 of the 74F190s...just the
thing for any teen ager's senior project, ey? Wow, guaranteed
"A" on a report card, maybe even a gold star sticker to boot. :-)

Tsk. All I got for using some 74S190s back in 1977 was a
continuation of a paycheck every week. Not as good as an "A"
on a report card, huh? :-)

The '191 and '193s are still in active production. I'm currently
using some 74AC191s, by the way. Want to discuss the differences
of the TC (Terminal Count) output between '191 and '193? Timing in
nanoseconds of propagation delay clock-to-TC, setup time to the
PL_not (Parallel Load for preset input), and maximum guaranteed
programmable counter operating frequency? [more "bafflegab" for
Kellie to bitch about, heh heh]

Pack up your pitons. I'm sure you will want to climb K2 again. :-)




BTW, I went to my other screen name and sent a couple of missives
in reply to you. That ought to be good for another year of bitching
about "false identities" and your saying I have "countless other
names." :-) Still "signed" by me with the ieee.org alias. :-)

Ayup, I'll bet you make a big thing about the "alias" too! :-)




Whatta giggle. He gets mad and stamps his feet and rants when somebody
points out that he's been firmly proven wrong and has made a nitwit of
himself again.

Back to the elementary school recess crybaby analogy.

On 29 Sep 2004 17:17:01 GMT, (Avery Fineman)
wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:
snip

R-70 is a pretty good receiver. Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

Only for a small liferaft. It can be easily carried in one hand. It comes
equipped with a handle on the side, apparently for that purpose. :-)

I agree - I still use my R-70 almost daily. Bought it new in 1981,
still works quite well (its tuning arrangement is a bit weird at the
"xx.000" MHz areas, but once you get used to that it's OK...). This
was an impressive rig when it was first introduced - and with the Kiwa
filters installed it can pull DX signals out of the mud as well as
many of the current receivers in its class.

Still an excellent performer, actually - one of the best investments
in radio equipment that I have ever made.

If only it had some of the features of the R-71 - direct frequency
entry, capability for computer control.....oh well.....

snip




73, Leo