Leo wrote in message . ..
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/

Izzat a piece 'o work or what? The damned thing actually WORKS though. Whatta hoot!

snip



73, Leo

w3rv

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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.

Now, Leonard -40F and -40C occur at roughly the same point. Have your
ever participated in amateur radio emergency communications outdoors
when the temp was -40? Oh, that's right--you've never participated in
amateur radio emergency communications at all! Have you ever been
anyplace on this planet where the outdoor temperature sat at +85C?

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.

Ho humbug! You've little idea of what "real" hams do.

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). :-)

Let's at least go over them enough times that everyone except you
realizes your errors.

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

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

You're simply wrong. Then again, you aren't a ham so perhaps you could
be excused for not knowing. Now that you've been advised, I'd expect
that you'd be sharp enough to keep from sticking with the same erroneous
view.

If you don't like it, TS.

Does that mean you'll cling to a position no matter how wrong you are?

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.

No problem we can always treat ourselves to another dose of Dr. Len's
newsgroup salts.

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.

No, that's just you compounding your errors.

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

Why dontcha make us all use synthesizers? Did you read up on the phase
noise problem at any of those urls I provided?

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. :-)

An "Ooooooo" and a "Tsk, tsk" aren't much of a defense, are they?

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

I'd expect the Antichrist to have his ducks in a row.

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."

Whaddya know of Jim's industry experience, Leonard?

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?"

Hams aren't required to have anything like that. If you don't like
it...

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?

The name "Southgate" has certainly appeared in ham literature.

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.

Only you can read "just my way particular brand of fun in ham radio" and
take it as a statement of ego-driven superiority.

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.

....as compared to your attempting to take over the flow of debate with
your pet fun and games and promoting the abolition of morse code testing
in an endeaver in which you play no part?

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

Don't you mean "but you've proven me wrong and I just can't abide 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.

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

That's funny, I didn't see that written. Do you suppose it is
ego-driven as well?

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

Jimmie designed the K2? :-)

Do try and stay with the flow. He said it wasn't designed by you.

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!

Don't you strive for perfection, Leonard, or are you happy with slapdash
design?

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

I'm sure it seems that way to a guy like yourself.

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

Actually, telling you off isn't at all unpleasant.

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. :-)

Not much, it doesn't.

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

Why are you always living in the past?

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!

Your opinions were stated as fact--and they were incorrect.

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.

....and I'm sure it is based in experience and a great deal of solid
research *grin*

"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.

Yeah, they're sales types. They aren't engineers.

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.

So, would it have worked fine since if you'd used a credit card?

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" :-) ]

For a twenty-something-year-old design, it isn't bad. It does suffer
from the same thing which plagued many Icom transceivers of its day--the
front end folds up in the presence of nearby strong signals.

Dave K8MN

Avery Fineman wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...


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.

No, I've developed the same number of marketable ham transceivers you
have, Leonard--none. Then again, I was aware of the synthesizer phase
noise and spurs. You weren't. You attempted to spoon feed us crap.


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.

Weren't you the guy who wrote something of nit-picking? When did you
think those subbands came into existence?

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.

Authors. You know, who writes something. I've had a number of bylines
in amateur radio magazines. Be careful, you'll end up looking like
Brian Burke in his A-1 Op Club gaffe.

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!

Do us a favor and note that this newsgroup is rec.radio.amateur.policy.
I'm not impressed with your frequent touting of your past professional
status. Many radio amateurs are current or past professionals in
communications or electronics. Tooting your horn about your past work
and attempting to use it as a substitute for an amateur license in an
amateur radio newsgroup isn't likely to win you any points among hams.

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.

Oh! Didn't you know? Jim's a licensed amateur radio operator. Maybe
you could take up amateur radio.

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.

I'm guessing that Jim and everyone else here was already aware of that
factoid. Jim likely realizes that you didn't invent radio or all of the
circuits and systems in modern ready-built radios. That makes you even.

Dave K8MN

Avery Fineman wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


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.

Really? Did you do lots of contesting and DXing from ADA? Still have
the QSLs?

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?

Len, I have known many men who have done similar work. With few
exceptions, I have viewed their work as honorable. It obviously had
worth as all of them received paychecks. We radio amateurs don't
receive paychecks for what we do. We do it strictly for the love of
it. I'm sure your professional achievements have pleased you. They
don't get you any passes in amateur radio. What pleases you hasn't
necessarily impressed us.

Your grating manner and rudeness to radio amateurs have not endeared you
to more than a couple of people here. You strike me as the kind of guy
who goes wandering through life asking, "Why don't people like me?".
I'll bet you haven't an idea of the answer.


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. :-)

....in anyone's world, Leonard. It is simply fact. You were wrong. :-)

Deal with it.

Dave K8MN

In article , Leo
writes:

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/

Neat collection of recycled toob equipment...looks like "shacks" of
the 50s and 60s. Appears to be a giant collection of QSTs to the
right...(archives of the renowned historian no doubt). :-)

Wonder if the K2 is still in the Himilayas? :-)

Pass me that Sherpa...

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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.

Tsk. Kellie is imagining things again. :-)

I've not been "firmly proven wrong." :-) That's another myth
drummed up by Quitfun.


Back to the elementary school recess crybaby analogy.

Kellie, if you prefer crybabies at elementary schools during recess,
you REALLY ought to see a shrink to wrap up your troubles.

In article , Leo
writes:

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

In article ,

(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.

It's still a tiny thing, hardly a "boatanchor" (unless one has a 1/12th
scale model of a boat).

I agree on the "xx.000" MHz switch-over. :-) That might have been
a programmer's thing on what I speculate as a design argument at
Icom...how to do switching to the adjacent MHz. They might have
added some "hysteresis" on tuning but one can become
accoustomed to it. I got no mods in this one.

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

I will agree to that. [I think we bought at about the same time]
The tuning shaft encoder and very slight friction lock is still as
good on mine now as when it was new. Over a dozen years.

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

I thought about adding an outboard controller to have all the
"memory" things but used the parts for other things. :-)

It definitely needs an outboard audio amplifier and big speaker
since the little one on the panel is not robust for anyone else
but self. For a while I used an old Hi-Fi mono amplifier with it and
an ancient 6" diameter speaker in a fair enclosure. Sound was
just dandy then.

Since wife and I had a major re-do of the roof and guttering, I've
been meaning to try connecting to the end of the 45-foot run of
seamless alumininum gutter on the downhill side (it is 22 feet
longer on the uphill side, but closer to power lines). Need to
recalibrate the Noise Bridge and see what kind of weird
impedance it presents at different frequencie...and the change
of that in the rain to come. :-) Sort of a "low-slung long wire"
in a way. [watch for all the detractors on that...heh heh heh[

In this in-the-hills location there's little chance for low-angle
skip arrival from north to east...all the fancy-schmansy antennas
won't help getting Yurp or the UK here. Nevis rules. Excellent
on Ozzyland and the home of the Middle Earth and LOTR.

Strange that so MANY signals on HF originate from stations
whose operators don't have to have a code exam...or even an
amateur radio license. :-) Outside of the ham bands, of
coarse. :-)

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

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.

Really? Did you do lots of contesting and DXing from ADA? Still have
the QSLs?

Tsk. Poor Davie doesn't understand that 24/7 REAL communications
in the military wasn't any "contest" and no "QSLs" were exchanged.

So, Davie, did you do much contesting from those embassies in
the middle of Africa or from Finland? Get many QSLs?


Len, I have known many men who have done similar work. With few
exceptions, I have viewed their work as honorable.

I'll bet you didn't understand much of it...

It obviously had
worth as all of them received paychecks.

No "A" grades on their report cards? Tsk.

We radio amateurs don't
receive paychecks for what we do. We do it strictly for the love of
it.

Tsk. Ask the behind-the-counter types at HRO if they do 9-5
for free... :-)

I'm sure your professional achievements have pleased you.

They sure did.

They don't get you any passes in amateur radio.

Yes, and amateur radio licenses don't mean squat to legal
operating in the rest of the radio world.

Sunnuvagun!

What pleases you hasn't necessarily impressed us.

Yes, your supreme royalness. Humblest of apologies, your worship.

Your grating manner and rudeness to radio amateurs have not endeared you
to more than a couple of people here.

Awwwww.

Tsk. Nothing an NCTA says can please the PCTA extras...or the
World's Greatest DXer. :-)

You strike me as the kind of guy
who goes wandering through life asking, "Why don't people like me?".

Tsk. Don't project your own personality on others.

I'll bet you haven't an idea of the answer.

Tsk, tsk. We all know you don't.


...in anyone's world, Leonard. It is simply fact. You were wrong. :-)

Nope.

Deal with it.

No problem.

Now, why can't Mr. DX handle opposite opinions to his?

Answer: He never could! :-)

In article , Dave Heil
writes:


No, I've developed the same number of marketable ham transceivers you
have, Leonard--none. Then again, I was aware of the synthesizer phase
noise and spurs. You weren't. You attempted to spoon feed us crap.

I "wasn't aware?" :-)

Wow, Marconi Jr., you best run to GE and have them cancel out
a bunch of RCA archives with my name on it. They were very
much concerned with spurious output (noise is a spurious output).
Real technical papers, published and all that after being checked
by staff folks.

What "crap" did you get in your feeding spoon tonight?

Did it give you terrible heartburn to having an NCTA demonstrate
some inside knowledge of frequency control? I'll bet it did.

There's all kinds of antacids on the shelf. Avail yourself of them.


Weren't you the guy who wrote something of nit-picking? When did you
think those subbands came into existence?

The first ones were in 1934...birth of the FCC. :-)


Authors. You know, who writes something. I've had a number of bylines
in amateur radio magazines.

Wow. Yeah! Ham Radio Horizons...aimed for the beginner in
radio.

Go for it! Famous Author Davie! You ought to publish a book.

Be careful, you'll end up looking like Brian Burke in his A-1 Op Club gaffe.

...or any other NCTA you want to destroy. :-)


Do us a favor and note that this newsgroup is rec.radio.amateur.policy.
I'm not impressed with your frequent touting of your past professional
status.

Awww. We don't impress you? How sad.

Many radio amateurs are current or past professionals in
communications or electronics.

So? You demand "showing papers" at train stations too?

That black leather overcoat is in style, I suppose. The jack
boots aren't...

Tooting your horn about your past work
and attempting to use it as a substitute for an amateur license in an
amateur radio newsgroup isn't likely to win you any points among hams.

Tsk. This is a "points count?"

Poor Davie...still stuck on enforced licensing just to advocate some
freeding into getting into licensing. Tsk.

Who says the PCTA abrogate the First Amendment? Nearly all...


Oh! Didn't you know? Jim's a licensed amateur radio operator. Maybe
you could take up amateur radio.

Toss out the code test and I'll think about it.

Maybe you could take up "civil discourse," Davie?

Then you wouldn't look like second cousin to nursie yell-yell.


I'm guessing that Jim and everyone else here was already aware of that
factoid. Jim likely realizes that you didn't invent radio or all of the
circuits and systems in modern ready-built radios. That makes you even.

No problem. You sure as hell didn't invent much. :-)

Didn't St. Hiram invent radio? And then form a religious order around
it? :-)

Why did you grab all the A-1 sauce? :-)

In article , Leo
writes:

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/

That's it all right. Website's been up about a year IIRC. All anybody has to do
is google my callsign and the url comes right up.

Rig was built in the early 1990s and has been one of the main rigs here since
1994. Cost less than $100, and was built from almost all recycled parts (had to
have 3 crystals made). Tuning mechanism is recycled from a junker BC-221 -
swords into plowshares, as the Book says. Built around some nice 8 pole 500 Hz
bandwidth filters I found at Gaithersburg hamfest. Two cascaded filters
separated by the first IF stage are used. All the heterodyne crystals have
trimmers to permit setting to exact frequency. The heterodyne system is unique,
not copied from any other rig. (Not that there's anyhting wrong with that; the
Type 6 used the Heath SB-series scheme).

Antenna is a W3DZZ-inspired inverted V with the apex at about 37 feet and the
ends at about 12 feet.

Of course the shack isn't always that neat. ;-)

If you look carefully, you can see that the shack table and shelves are
homebrew too.

Several rrappers and thousands of other hams have worked me while I was using
that setup. It's even been on Field Day, where in 1995 I took sixth place in
1B-1 (2948 points, 640 QSOs, all setup, operation and takedown by one person -
me).

The rig has been described elsewhere, both on the internet and amateur
magazines.

73 de Jim, N2EY