PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

(Brian Kelly) writes:

.. . . . . . .

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.

Lab course at Penn?

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.

Neat! (no, I'm not willing to wait a second for the nummers to come up
.. . ! )
. . . . .

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.

Close enough for an M.E.?

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.

You expected anything else??
.. . . .

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.

Spank.


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.

What a goofball . . .

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.

Spank.

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.

Wait a minnit, if there are sideband signals on the LO output the
inference seems to be that the carrier is being modulated. By
something. What something?

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 . . . snip . . . 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.

Huh: I learned a bit from this post. Which is what USENET usta be all
about . .

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.

Of course it isn't. This sort of overkill ticks me off, it's BS tossed
out by the advertising geniuses to reel in the no-clues and
overcomplicates the equipment for the rest of us.

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.

OK, the R-70 "happened" during my radio hiatus and went past me so I
poked around the Web for info on it. Looks like it is a decent
performer. Problem is that at this point it's OLD, it comes out of the
same generation of equipment as the TS-930/940 did both of which now
suffer well-known aging/reliability problems. I've had more than my
share of those with the 940 so I wouldn't give an R-70 the desk space
if somebody gave me one gratis. If Sweetum's R-70 is still ticking
along without problems good for him.

Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

Hang classic tags on it.

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?

Or in RRAP.

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.

Spank.

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

Yo Sweetums: I did a refresh on the 847 specs, the thing can display a
freq to 0.10 Hz resolution. Apologies for tossing out bad info. Heh.

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*.

"He can wriggle, he can squirn . . . "

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...

Is there anybody who knows what's up who *doesn't* do that
periodically??

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

Still living in the past...

That's all he has left. Not counting Burke.

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.

He's a breed I'm quite (unfortunately) familiar with: the old time
military aerospace out-in-the-shop bench tech types. Doesn't matter
what narrow fields they worked in, oleo struts, control surface
actuators, flight control electronics, radar, comms electronics, pilot
relief piping, their syndromes are all the same. They had these little
niches in which they beavered away on their little piece of the
overall much bigger job or project or whatever it was. Eventually,
because of their complete immersion in their niches, they come to the
conclusion that it all would come apart save for their "expertise" and
anybody who isn't particularly up to speed on the nits and grits of
whatever they were buried in are unworthy no-clue clods. Sweetums is a
perfect example of these windbags.

So along comes somebody like myself, a fish-out-of-water mechanical
engineeer in this group who readily concedes non-expertise in topics
like circuit design and even worse from his twisted perspective has no
interest at all in doing any "synthesizer development" sorts of things
so he bores in on me with his bafflegab. Which highlights at least two
of his fundamental deficits: (A) He's mentally incapable of conceding
a lack of "technical expertise" on any subject involving radio,
particularly ham radio and (B) He's equally incapable of understanding
why professionals like thee and me feed each others' expertise and
work together to get from here to there and *don't* reinvent wheels.

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..

A gooder for certain.

SPAAAAAANK!

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.

Maybe. I can't do it in sixty seconds at the moment, I dropped my
slide rule again and have to realign it before I do the speed run so
QRX . . . .

We both know Sweetums won't touch it with a ten foot pole even though
it's a sophmoric simple exercise. He doesn't know where to even start
to approach the problem let alone solve it so he'll diss it as
irrelevant. Typical and completely predictable sub-professional
defensive behavior.

One can spend two lifetimes diddling frequency synthesizers and such
but if whatever freq pops out of his gem doesn't make it to the
airwaves via an engineered radiator and it's support structure one
might as well have been a lifeguard in the Mohave desert.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Avery Fineman (in a desperate attempt to get through spam filters) wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

Answer: None that he will admit to.

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

Answer: None that he will admit to.

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

Answer: None

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?

Answer: None

The world wonders....;-)

"The world" isn't "wondering" at all.

Yes it is! ;-)

Neither Jimmie nor Davie have
developed any marketable ham transceivers.

Who are "Jimmie and Davie"?

Perhaps Len meant "Jim, N2EY" and "Dave, K8MN". If so, then his use of
feminized diminutives for our names proves (paraphrasing Brian, N0IMD): "he
doesn't have the guts to spell our names right".

I have designed, built, and operated at three amateur radio HF transceivers.
First one was about 25 years ago. Before that, I was doing the same with
separate receivers and transmitters.

No, I've developed the same number of marketable ham transceivers you
have, Leonard--none.

Why is it at all important that something be "marketable"? One of the joys of
home construction is *not* having to meet someone else's idea of "what the
market wants".

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?

Subbands-by-license-class came into existence in US ham radio in 1951, with the
creation of the Novice. Len wasn't a ham then.

The current system of General/Advanced/Extra subbands-by-license-class came
into existence in US ham radio in 1968, after several years of discussion. Len
wasn't a ham then. I was, K8MN was.

Len wrote here in January 2000 that he was going for Extra right out of the
box. He wasn't a ham then. Nor now.

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?

Living in the past....

Did Len have a nice office at the magazine? Did he like living in New
Hampshire? Whatever became of that magazine? - I can't find it on the
newsstands...

I do have quite a few old copies of it, but Len's name isn;t in any of them.

Not Jimmie. Not Davie.

Doesn't have the guts to spell...

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.

I've had articles published in amateur magazines. A lot more recently than Len,
too ;-)

But as you say, Dave, an author is someone who writes. I am the author of this
post; therefore, I am an author. So are you.

The point is the same: Numerous authors here have proved Len's assertions about
subbands and synthesizers to be completely without basis in fact.

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!

"Not that there's anyhting wrong with that"

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.

The plain simple fact remains that Len has not had to deal with
subbands-by-license-class in amateur radio. Or any other amateur-radio issues.
His observations are those of a spectator only, not a participant.

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.

I have several non-work activities and responsibilites and I get out quite a
bit.

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.

I realized that long ago.

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.

Actually, I don't think Len invented *any* of the circuits or systems now used
in "modern ready-built radios". Not any radios I know of, anyway.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

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.

You can understand my confusion when you wrote about losing "interest in
DXing in 'radio sports' and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after
working at station ADA long ago". You made it sound as if you got a
belly full of those things at ADA. So am I to understand that you have
no actual experience in DXing, contesting or QSLing?

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

Well, Lennie, my contesting overseas was from my home, not from an
embassy. I did plenty of contesting and plenty of DXing. I was never
in "the middle of Africa", only in West Africa, Southern Africa and East
Africa. Yes, I received tens of thousands of QSL cards for each of
those African operations. Of course I didn't operate 24/7, only in my
spare time and I didn't have a staff of operators. There was just me.

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...

So....they weren't honorable men, doing honorable work?

It obviously had
worth as all of them received paychecks.

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

Was their goal to obtain good grades? Tsk, 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... :-)

Are those men working as radio amateurs or is amateur radio what they do
as an avocation? Tsk, tsk. :-) :-)

I'm sure your professional achievements have pleased you.

They sure did.

I thought as much since you've recounted them for us here on numerous
occasions.

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.

I fail to see what difference that makes. Why should we, as radio
amateurs, posting in an amateur radio newsgroup, be concerned about what
qualifications are required for other services? Is is your aspiration
to participate in other radio service? Please, go forth and do so.

Sunnuvagun!

Yeah. You made a rather pointless comment.

What pleases you hasn't necessarily impressed us.

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

I don't sense sincerity from you.

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. :-)

I'm not the World's Greatest DXer but I thank you and your little
electrolyte for the compliments. There are things that you could write
which would please me. You just haven't written any of them.

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'm not, Leonard. You see the reaction your antics get from others.

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

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

I have a very good idea of why you grate on people. It is immediately
apparent.

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

Nope.

You'll be right when pigs fly or you obtain an amateur radio license,
whichever comes first.

Deal with it.

No problem.

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

Answer: He never could! :-)

I'm handling them rather well, Mr. No DX, but we're not talking of an
opinion; we're talking about one of your factual errors.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

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?" :-)

Well, if you were aware, what was the reason you posted erroneous
information?

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 did you recently tell us about synthesizer phase noise, Mr.
Marconi's uncle? If you keep repeating it, GE may black out your name
on all the RCA archives without a request from me.

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

You didn't post it "tonight". It was posted several days ago. Would
you like a good googling?

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

I never believed that morse code testing was necessary for "inside"
knowledge of frequency control. However, you made a number of factual
errors. Ever get around to looking at any of the material for which I
posted urls?

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

I'm not the person in a dilemma over having posted the factual errors.
You know where the shelf is, I take it?

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. :-)

Yeah " :-) "

Beats having to eat your words, doesn't it?

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.

Are you denigrating beginners in radio? those who write for them?
Are you forgetting CQ?

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

I am preparing to publish a book. Would you like to place an order for
an advance copy, Former Famous Author Lennie?

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. :-)

I dunno, Len, does setting the record straight on something destroy you
or "William"?

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.

No, not sad, just factual. When did you become plural?

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

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

You equate the statment of a fact with a demand to show papers? That
doesn't make sense.

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

This must be the point at which you realize that you've lost an
argument.

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?"

Don't you know? You are the fellow who often writes of "message
points".

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

Huh?

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

If you're still posting, your First Amendment rights are intact. What
you seem to desire is your rights to post but suppression of my right to
disagree with you, to correct you or to issue catcalls at your sillier
ideas.

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.

I thought you told us that you had no interest in obtaining such a
license.

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

Are you the course instructor (or the coarse instructor)?

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

What! Has the course (coarse) begun already. Wait a minute--I want to
make notes.

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. :-)

Wow! Now the THREE of us are even.

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

Hang on--I want to make sure this part gets into my notes on the civil
discourse (discoarse) session.

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

Is this the discourse (discoarse) class or a cooking class? :-) :-)

Dave K8MN

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
. . . . . . .
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 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.

Lab course at Penn?

Independent design project. Made the circuit boards meself and all.
Still have it, still works. Don't use it much though, because one
thing I learned in the process was that I prefer an analog dial for
most purposes. Just a personal preference. Which is one of the big
reasons to homebrew - you get to indulge personal preferences.

And yes, you could easily reset it to 100 Hz.
10 Hz took a steady hand.

But it could be done with a Collins.

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.

Neat! (no, I'm not willing to wait a second for the nummers to come up
. . ! )

The 74192 and other TTL family chips were hot stuff 30 years ago when
I was doing that project. You can still get pin-compatible parts
today.
. . . . .
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.

Close enough for an M.E.?

See below for the big issue.

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.

You expected anything else??
. . . .

Not really.

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.

Spank.

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.

What a goofball . . .

The audiophile *market* is full of pseudotechnology - driven by the
fact that there's $$ involved. But there's also some good stuff too,
driven by folks who like *music*.

I like music.

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.

Spank.

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.

Wait a minnit, if there are sideband signals on the LO output the
inference seems to be that the carrier is being modulated.

That's exactly what's going on.

By something. What something?

All kinds of somethings. Here's just one:

In a PLL synthesizer, the VCO control voltage may wander a bit for a
variety of reasons. Say you have a design where a voltage swing of 5
volts causes the VCO to move 5 MHz. *Any* variation in that control
voltage, from *any* source, will cause the VCO frequency to wander a
bit. 1 millivolt variation gives a shift of 1000 Hz, 1 *microvolt* of
variation gives 1 Hz, etc. Remember that the control voltage is a DC
signal and the rest is obvious.

That's just one source of phase noise.

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 . . . snip . . . 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.

Huh: I learned a bit from this post.

I hope so!

The upshot of all of it is that in real-world hamming, we often have
to deal with bands full of strong signals, yet we want to hear the
weak ones.

I've run into more than a few hams who say they "hate contests because
they make the bands so noisy". What's really going on, in at least
some cases, is that the effects of so many strong signals on the air
all at once raise the apparent noise floor of their *modern*
transceivers, in part due to phase-noisy oscillators in the
contest-haters equipment.

Which is what USENET usta be all about . .

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.

Of course it isn't. This sort of overkill ticks me off, it's BS tossed
out by the advertising geniuses to reel in the no-clues and
overcomplicates the equipment for the rest of us.

The issue is that some specifications are much more important than
others. And that getting the signal on the air is the goal...

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.

OK, the R-70 "happened" during my radio hiatus and went past me so I
poked around the Web for info on it. Looks like it is a decent
performer. Problem is that at this point it's OLD, it comes out of the
same generation of equipment as the TS-930/940 did both of which now
suffer well-known aging/reliability problems. I've had more than my
share of those with the 940 so I wouldn't give an R-70 the desk space
if somebody gave me one gratis. If Sweetum's R-70 is still ticking
along without problems good for him.

Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

Hang classic tags on it.

One of the problems with older solidstate equipment is that much of it
used custom parts for which the only sources are the manufacturer (if
they still support the unit) or junker units. If there was a weak
spot, finding a junker with a usable part maybe hopeless. The Kenwood
TS-440s reputedly has this problem in its display.

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?

Or in RRAP.

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.

Spank.

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

Yo Sweetums: I did a refresh on the 847 specs, the thing can display a
freq to 0.10 Hz resolution. Apologies for tossing out bad info. Heh.

Precise but not necessarily accurate.

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*.

"He can wriggle, he can squirn . . . "

...."says to push on"..

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...

Is there anybody who knows what's up who *doesn't* do that
periodically??

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

Still living in the past...

That's all he has left. Not counting Burke.

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.

He's a breed I'm quite (unfortunately) familiar with: the old time
military aerospace out-in-the-shop bench tech types. Doesn't matter
what narrow fields they worked in, oleo struts, control surface
actuators, flight control electronics, radar, comms electronics, pilot
relief piping, their syndromes are all the same. They had these little
niches in which they beavered away on their little piece of the
overall much bigger job or project or whatever it was. Eventually,
because of their complete immersion in their niches, they come to the
conclusion that it all would come apart save for their "expertise" and
anybody who isn't particularly up to speed on the nits and grits of
whatever they were buried in are unworthy no-clue clods. Sweetums is a
perfect example of these windbags.

So along comes somebody like myself, a fish-out-of-water mechanical
engineeer in this group who readily concedes non-expertise in topics
like circuit design and even worse from his twisted perspective has no
interest at all in doing any "synthesizer development" sorts of things
so he bores in on me with his bafflegab. Which highlights at least two
of his fundamental deficits: (A) He's mentally incapable of conceding
a lack of "technical expertise" on any subject involving radio,
particularly ham radio and (B) He's equally incapable of understanding
why professionals like thee and me feed each others' expertise and
work together to get from here to there and *don't* reinvent wheels.

Just like my friend from high school:

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..

A gooder for certain.

SPAAAAAANK!

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.

Maybe. I can't do it in sixty seconds at the moment, I dropped my
slide rule again and have to realign it before I do the speed run so
QRX . . . .

We both know Sweetums won't touch it with a ten foot pole even though
it's a sophmoric simple exercise. He doesn't know where to even start
to approach the problem let alone solve it so he'll diss it as
irrelevant. Typical and completely predictable sub-professional
defensive behavior.

One can spend two lifetimes diddling frequency synthesizers and such
but if whatever freq pops out of his gem doesn't make it to the
airwaves via an engineered radiator and it's support structure one
might as well have been a lifeguard in the Mohave desert.

And THAT'S the game!

73 de Jim, N2EY


btw - the way I'd solve the problem would be to email you for the
solution.

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

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

(Brian Kelly) writes:
. . . . . . .
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 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.

Lab course at Penn?

Independent design project. Made the circuit boards meself and all.
Still have it, still works. Don't use it much though, because one
thing I learned in the process was that I prefer an analog dial for
most purposes. Just a personal preference. Which is one of the big
reasons to homebrew - you get to indulge personal preferences.

The "160" and "190" series ICs appeared some time prior to
1973 since their full data is included in the hard-bound Texas
Instruments "The TTL Data Book" that I have from RCA days
(courtesy of distributor R.V. Weatherford).

There were a number of applications notes by several semi-
conductor makers on various ways to use those two families
of 8 separate function types. I admit to not retaining many of
those...most went to paper recycling long ago. Memory serves
that several frequency counters, including up-down counting
types did appear back then.

The even numbered ones of the 8 were decade counters, the
odd numbered ones 4-bit binary (maximum 16 count). The
decade counter types are now either dropped from production
(Philips, Fairchild) or marked "not for new designs" (ON Semi,
ST). That includes all the upgraded performance families such
as 74LS, 74S, 74ALS, 74AC, 74ACT, 74F, 74HC, 74HCT.
The only up-down counters available for decade counting now
are either surplus stock at a few vendors or in old, slow CD4000
series maxiing at about 4 MHz tops at 5 VDC.

To do top-of-the-HF band programmable dividers for a PLL today
requires the 4-bit binary '191 which can safely count to about
45 MHz with a 74AC191 and using the terminal count gated with
clock pulse low state as the assynchronous parallel load for
presets carrying the divider control input. Preset input has to be
binary so any conversion from BCD has to be separate (either
hardware with slow-speed adders or through an embedded micro-
controller).

If all that is wanted is digital readout from an existing analog
frequency control subsystem, the microcontroller-based frequency
meter marketed by AADE can't be beat...and Neil offers a TCXO
crystal option for absolute minimum drift (both can be "beat" with
WWV). The microcontroller itself (a 16F71 from Microchip's PIC
series) is the counter (up to 40 MHz maximum) and the internal
PIC programming handles the conversion from binary to decimal
plus the translation to ASCII and scanning for an LCD readout.
Ingenious way of making a frequency meter without any separate
IC counter packages...devised by a non-ham Brit about 10 years
ago.


The 74192 and other TTL family chips were hot stuff 30 years ago when
I was doing that project. You can still get pin-compatible parts
today.

At best, without going to the surplus stock vendors (one is located
in Beverly Hills, CA, of all places), Jameco offers the 74HC192 and
74HC193 at reasonable prices. Unknown how long that will last
since the 74HC192 is not in production.

"30 years ago" would make it 1974. At that time there were a
number of application notes on counter uses. "pre-design"
designs that anyone could copy.

The '192 and '193 have the distinguishing characteristic of separate
up/down count inputs and separate up/down terminal count outputs.
Made it convenient for the input (least-significant bit or decade) from
different count sources. The bad part was that the TC (Terminal
Count) was active on the clock pulse low state; that does not offer
a long enough recovery time prior to the next positive-going clock
edge to do high-rate programmable counting. Programmable up-
down dividers of higher rates should use the '190 or '191.

All of that is important when there's a "recyclable update" for that
"impressive to all visitors" Southgate Type 7 with "inventions" of
adding semiconductor IC technology.

Hello? Something about "not re-inventing the wheel?" :-)

The audiophile *market* is full of pseudotechnology - driven by the
fact that there's $$ involved. But there's also some good stuff too,
driven by folks who like *music*.

I like music.

Tsk. Why do you insist that all test their musicology by testing
for monotonic, aperiodic beeps that are a representation of the
written word?


I've run into more than a few hams who say they "hate contests because
they make the bands so noisy". What's really going on, in at least
some cases, is that the effects of so many strong signals on the air
all at once raise the apparent noise floor of their *modern*
transceivers, in part due to phase-noisy oscillators in the
contest-haters equipment.

So...you hate the contest haters all on account of "phase noise?"

Tsk. You ought to get used to the fact that not everyone likes
contests for the simple reason that they are contests, organized
by contestant-wannabes so that they can Win and show off that
they are "better" than the non-contestants. :-)


One of the problems with older solidstate equipment is that much of it
used custom parts for which the only sources are the manufacturer (if
they still support the unit) or junker units. If there was a weak
spot, finding a junker with a usable part maybe hopeless. The Kenwood
TS-440s reputedly has this problem in its display.

So...you think vacuum tubes will be with you always? :-)

Of course...you can "recycle" them...somewhat after their useful
life...and "impress all who visit your shack."

Tsk.

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

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.

You can understand my confusion when you wrote about losing "interest in
DXing in 'radio sports' and the wallpaper collection of QSLs after
working at station ADA long ago". You made it sound as if you got a
belly full of those things at ADA.

Tsk. I admit to not understanding Davies' total confusion or lack
of understanding of the written word.

Tsk, tsk. If Davie had actually worked in USAF communications
he would have KNOWN that military communications does not
engage in "radiosport contests" nor does it "QSL."

24/7 radio communications on HF (or any other EM spectrum) is
professional-quality work for the military.

So am I to understand that you have
no actual experience in DXing, contesting or QSLing?

Define "DXing." If that means listening to radio broadcasting stations
in other parts of the world, yes, I have and continue to listen to them.

If that means working distant HF stations on a two-way, full duplex
basis over 8000 miles away 24/7, yes, I have experience in that.

If that means "only" having an amateur license and making out like
the world's greatest amateur (windbag), no, definitely no experience
in that.


I fail to see what difference that makes. Why should we, as radio
amateurs, posting in an amateur radio newsgroup, be concerned about what
qualifications are required for other services? Is is your aspiration
to participate in other radio service? Please, go forth and do so.

Tsk. Why does Davie want to abrogate the First Amendment and
deny citizens the right to petition their government for change in
federal regulations?

You DO that in the incessant demands to post in here ONLY if
one has a valid amateur radio license. Tsk, tsk.

Don't you understand that neither FCC commissioners nor FCC
staff are NOT required to have amateur radio licenses...and they
regulate ALL U.S. amateur radio.

Tsk. You should really drop the arrogant "show your papers!"
and elitist demand-by-intimidation-attempt that this newsgroup
"belongs only to already-licensed hams."

YOU don't, nor ever have, regulated or controlled U.S. amateur
radio. You are only a participant. You aren't gang boss, aren't
a government official, aren't even a 'hood chieftan. All you are
is a participant.

What is at stake is a possible restructuring of U.S. regulations
on amateur radio to eliminate or retain the morse code test for an
amateur license having below-30-MHz privileges.

YOUR ranting and raving is confined to nastygramming anyone
who wishes to eliminate that code test. It isn't "civil discourse"
much less discussion. YOUR ranting and raving is about
control over who can post and who cannot. Clue: This newsgroup
is unmoderated and open to anyone with Internet access.


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

Answer: He never could! :-)

I'm handling them rather well, Mr. No DX, but we're not talking of an
opinion; we're talking about one of your factual errors.

Tsk, tsk. NOT at all well.

Since you mishandle OPINION as "fact," your comments could
be dismissed as being entirely "factual errors." Your opinion on
anything is just your opinion and is not (believe it or not) any
ethical or moral standard that all others MUST follow.

Try, oh TRY to get used to the fact that neither you nor Jimmie
are the Supreme Arbiter of Ham things. No one MUST do as you
say. There is still some freedom left in the world and considerable
independent thought. Your long tenure in hamdom does not give
you any "position" of control over others. Not here, not anywhere.
Try to adjust to that, big Arbiter. Bite me.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


Who are "Jimmie and Davie"?

Perhaps Len meant "Jim, N2EY" and "Dave, K8MN". If so, then his use of
feminized diminutives for our names proves (paraphrasing Brian, N0IMD): "he
doesn't have the guts to spell our names right".

Tsk. I'm only copying the style of some PCTA extras in here.

Notably your mutual buddy, gunnery nurse yell-yell.

Isn't it time you slapped his wrist with wet noodles again?

I have designed, built, and operated at three amateur radio HF transceivers.
First one was about 25 years ago. Before that, I was doing the same with
separate receivers and transmitters.

Right. JAMES was the designer of the mighty K2. Hi hi.


Len wrote here in January 2000 that he was going for Extra right out of the
box. He wasn't a ham then. Nor now.

Tsk. I didn't lie down on the floor of the Church of St. Hiram and
Take Vows For Life while forming a code key with my body. :-)

If you want to take me to task, ask about my anti-gravity invention.
It's not done yet! Something is still holding me down...


Living in the past....

Tsk. Jimmie used the mantra "the past is prologue" often before...

Did Len have a nice office at the magazine? Did he like living in New
Hampshire? Whatever became of that magazine? - I can't find it on the
newsstands...

Like most of the "staff" of HR, we worked wherever we lived.

New Hampshire is lovely in the fall. In the winter it can be muy cold
as Alf Wilson, W6NIF, complained to me on the phone several
times. Alf took over on the sudden death of Jim Fisk, ex-W1HR,
founding partner and chief editor of HR. He and his wife moved
back to southern California after the second cold winter there.

Ham Radio magazine and Ham Radio Horizons, as well as the
Ham Radio Bookstore, were all part of Communications Technology
Incorporated. It was sold to CQ Communications in 1990 after HR
had a 22-year publishing history as an independent amteur radio
technical periodical.

A three-CD electronic reprint of all 22 years' contents are available
mail-order from CQ or ARRL and across the counter at HRO outlets
for US$150.

I do have quite a few old copies of it, but Len's name isn;t in any of them.

Tsk. Jimmie doesn't have enough copies. :-)

Recycle some dollars and get your own copies right on the computer
screen. [you DO have a CD-compatible drive in that computer, don't
you, master of high-tech?]


But as you say, Dave, an author is someone who writes. I am the author of
this post; therefore, I am an author. So are you.

Tsk. You post. Posts hold fences. You make fences to keep out
independent thought, limit those within to YOUR type of thinking.

The point is the same: Numerous authors here have proved Len's assertions
about subbands and synthesizers to be completely without basis in fact.

Tsk. That's not a post. Your judgement is a post hole.


The plain simple fact remains that Len has not had to deal with
subbands-by-license-class in amateur radio. Or any other amateur-radio
issues. His observations are those of a spectator only, not a participant.

Tsk. Jimmie want to dismiss the FCC because the FCC does not
require any commissioner or staff to hold amateur radio licenses?


I have several non-work activities and responsibilites and I get out quite a
bit.

Good for you. Whatever they are, I'm sure they are superior to
anything any NCTA does, did, or is considering. :-)


Actually, I don't think Len invented *any* of the circuits or systems now used
in "modern ready-built radios". Not any radios I know of, anyway.

Tsk. Recycling old parts circa-1990 and using vacuum tubes is
hardly "invention." :-)

But, Jimmies qualification is the phrase "Not any radios I know of,
anyway." That imperious declaration infers he is judge, jury, and
supreme court of all "radio" that is meaningful anywhere, anytime.
:-)

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

Tsk. That's the ONLY way in this newsgroup where attempted
domination in all things amateur is done by PCTA extras.

Pass the A-1 sauce and the sherpa...

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message

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.

You expected anything else??

"Real world of HF radio?" The one that goes from 3 MHz to 30 MHz?

Amateur activity is concerned only with a fraction of that.

Amateur licenses aren't legal for out-of-amateur band transmission
even if one has a four-on-the-floor extra license.


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

Spank.

Kellie has a spanking fetish?

The SUBJECT AT HAND is "US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???

Look at the subject line in the message header.

Try to get your subject threads in a row, ducks.


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.

What a goofball . . .

Kellie has Monster Cable speaker wires installed? Tsk. No wonder
he be angry at anyone slighting Monster Cable products. :-)


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.

Spank.

Tsk. More of the spanking fetish. :-)


Wait a minnit, if there are sideband signals on the LO output the
inference seems to be that the carrier is being modulated. By
something. What something?

You're an extra and you don't know? :-)

Tsk.


That's why phase noise is important to hams.

Huh: I learned a bit from this post. Which is what USENET usta be all
about . .

Tsk. Mighty macho morsemen extras shoulda known this.

Where was all the noise about phase noise BEFORE the
cellular equipment expansion? There were oscillators around
then, even PLL frequency control systems.

Phase noise was NOT an important buzzword then. Now it is,
coincidental with the cell phone equipment and component
makers using it in their advertisements.

Conclusion: Too many hams get their "technical expertise"
by memorizing advertisement copy instead of theory texts.


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

Of course it isn't. This sort of overkill ticks me off, it's BS tossed
out by the advertising geniuses to reel in the no-clues and
overcomplicates the equipment for the rest of us.

...like the use of the Big Buzzword "phase noise." Hi hi.

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.

OK, the R-70 "happened" during my radio hiatus and went past me so I
poked around the Web for info on it. Looks like it is a decent
performer. Problem is that at this point it's OLD, it comes out of the
same generation of equipment as the TS-930/940 did both of which now
suffer well-known aging/reliability problems. I've had more than my
share of those with the 940 so I wouldn't give an R-70 the desk space
if somebody gave me one gratis. If Sweetum's R-70 is still ticking
along without problems good for him.

Tsk. If an NCTA has an R-70, Kellie calls it "a piece of crap."

Leo has an R-70 which is not a "piece of crap" either...but Leo
isn't a PCTA extra (Canadian ham rules don't have "extras" but
I'm sure they have their share of mighty macho morsemen).

Collins radios for the amateur radio market are OLD.

Almost qualifies as a boatanchor now....

Hang classic tags on it.

No tags required. Just dust it off once in a while. Still works as
specified when purchased new.

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?

Or in RRAP.

Tsk. Jimmie and Kellie avoid answering or discussing. Misdirection
is all they can do...but that is traditional in Usenet since before it was
split from the ARPANET. Saw it then, still see it now...all the
self-professed "experts" making like renowned gurus, dissing and
cussing anyone who disagrees with their immortal words.

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.

Spank.

Kellie been watching Spanky McFarland on the late-night oldies on
TV? :-)


Yo Sweetums: I did a refresh on the 847 specs, the thing can display a
freq to 0.10 Hz resolution. Apologies for tossing out bad info. Heh.

Display is NOT the same as ACCURACY.

Didn't they teach you that in Mechanical Engineering courses on
phase-lock loops? :-)


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

"He can wriggle, he can squirn . . . "

Kellie still think display resolution is the same as ACCURACY?


Is there anybody who knows what's up who *doesn't* do that
periodically??

How often Kellie do the WWV beat thing?

When he came back from "hiatus?" After the assignment to
shoot bears for navel intelligence?

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

Still living in the past...

That's all he has left. Not counting Burke.

Awwww. You are beginning to sound like Jim Kehler...of the old days
before prostateitis hit him bad. Tsk, tsk. Get well soon.

I've accumulated frequency control design engineering experience
for 31 years now, along with a lot of other disciplines. I'm sure that
you will call all of that "more crap" and "bafflegab." :-)

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.

Tsk. PCTA extras would only ask another PCTA for technical help.
They don't recognize any NCTA as having any technical cognizance.

He's a breed I'm quite (unfortunately) familiar with: the old time
military aerospace out-in-the-shop bench tech types.

Kellie have years and years of experience in aerospace bullpens?

Tsk. Not long ago he was snottily looking down on all those
who got paychecks from employers, later calling them "drudges."

Self-professed royalty, he was.

Doesn't matter
what narrow fields they worked in, oleo struts, control surface
actuators, flight control electronics, radar, comms electronics, pilot
relief piping, their syndromes are all the same.

I've never worked in, on, around "oleo struts, control surface
actuators, flight control electronics, or relief piping." :-)

I use oleomargarine on bread and rolls, sometimes on baked
potatoes. Is that permissible by Kellie without having a degree
in nutrition? :-)

However, I HAVE had experience in civilian and military radio
communications, radionavigation equipment (TACAN, DME, VOR,
Localizer, Glideslope), IFF transponders, radars (search, weather,
target acquisition and tracking), earlier air-to-air missle systems
(principally the first Hughes Aircraft GARs 1 through 4), and the
strange McDonnel decoy drone that could imitate formations of
B-52s to Russky radar...using a TWT as a broadband mixer
covering many octaves.

None of that involved important work (according to Kellie) on
Relief Piping! (I am sooooo deficient in my resume...:-)

They had these little
niches in which they beavered away on their little piece of the
overall much bigger job or project or whatever it was. Eventually,
because of their complete immersion in their niches, they come to the
conclusion that it all would come apart save for their "expertise" and
anybody who isn't particularly up to speed on the nits and grits of
whatever they were buried in are unworthy no-clue clods.

Poor baby. Got confused by BASIC ELEMENTS of control loops?

Still think that control loops basic item descriptions are "nits and
grits" of minutae? Tsk.

"Zeta" is the common-use symbol for Damping Factor (as earlier
instructors wanted to call it). That's found in all control loop/system
textbooks. It determines the response in time of any such loop as
well as extremes of it resulting in things like "servo hunting" were
a servo will never settle down, always dithering (not at all good for
things like control surface coupling on aircraft or missles).

Response time figures into all control loops whether those involve
receiver AGC or PLLs. [the less cognizant want to characterize
"time constant" of AGC systems because that is "understandable"
without going into control system theory...but it is still a control
loop to hold gain more constant]

Sweetums is a
perfect example of these windbags.

"Windbags?" :-)

So along comes somebody like myself, a fish-out-of-water mechanical
engineeer in this group who readily concedes non-expertise in topics
like circuit design and even worse from his twisted perspective has no
interest at all in doing any "synthesizer development" sorts of things
so he bores in on me with his bafflegab.

Kellie is the fish out of water who wants to diss and cuss the
fisherman with his dying breath. Tsk.

Kellie calls basic control system items as "bafflegab."

He should have stuck with "important niche work" in relief piping.

Which highlights at least two
of his fundamental deficits: (A) He's mentally incapable of conceding
a lack of "technical expertise" on any subject involving radio,
particularly ham radio and (B) He's equally incapable of understanding
why professionals like thee and me feed each others' expertise and
work together to get from here to there and *don't* reinvent wheels.

Tsk. Kellie wants to retain the artificial arrogance of the PCTA
extra in many areas. Such as denigrating 1980s commercial
communication receiver products as "piece of crap." Such as
denouncing basic control system items/principles as "bafflegab."
Such as dismissing all who work for an employer as "drones"
or "drudges" incapable of going out on their own.

Tsk. You and Jimmie, "two expert professionals" in the field
of "radio communication" can go right ahead and reinvent all
your morsemanship wheels and make every newcomer to ham
radio keep the morse wheels revolving to the spin of the mighty
macho morsemen of the pre-WW2 times.

Old wheels still go around in circles...whether they "recycle"
OLD parts or not (which is a euphemism for "reinventing the
wheel" as it was done in decades past).


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

A gooder for certain.

SPAAAAAANK!

Spanky McKelly ought to readjust his paddles.


We both know Sweetums won't touch it with a ten foot pole even though
it's a sophmoric simple exercise. He doesn't know where to even start
to approach the problem let alone solve it so he'll diss it as
irrelevant. Typical and completely predictable sub-professional
defensive behavior.

Tsk. Sort of like Kellie and Jimmie's hot-loaded "questions" and
"challenges" which are strangely similar to the defensive mis-
directs of all the PCTA extras in here. :-)

Kellie and Jimmie want "my scores from the last Field Day" as
one loaded "challenge." :-) Not all amateurs participate in
"Field Day" and no non-amateur-licensee can possibly operate
legally. An example of a NON-challenge, already-known answer
disguised as a sort-of (sort off, really) "civil discourse" question.

One can spend two lifetimes diddling frequency synthesizers and such
but if whatever freq pops out of his gem doesn't make it to the
airwaves via an engineered radiator and it's support structure one
might as well have been a lifeguard in the Mohave desert.

Tsk. Ever hear of China Lake? It's the Naval Weapons Station
Test Center in the middle Mojave desert. It had a doozy of an
antenna test range...for battleships and smaller...scale metal
models, of course, on a huge turntable...enabled scale testing of
HF antenna patterns on various ships.

There are three actual, water-filled lakes in the Mojave. Don't know
if they have lifeguards there, though. :-) [manmade] There's at
least one swimming pool at the Edwards AFB Flight Test Center
complex in the northern Mojave. Haven't been in that but I suppose
there's a "regulation" life guard on duty when it is open. I've only
been on the Edwards flight line, some shops, some offices there.

Sad to say for Kellie's Windbag Denigration, some of my work did
indeed fly as actual hardware...including from Kern County Airport
#7 at the northern end of the Mojave. "Mojave International" as it
is jokingly known in local aerospace circles is also the home of
Scaled Composites, Burt Rutan's company which got in the news
lately with the first flight (for prize purposes) of SpaceShipOne.

Kellie, best get your water wings on if you want to come out to
where the aerospace action is in the USA. Call ahead and you
can ask for a lifeguard on duty. You will need it more than your
windbaggery substitute for water wings. :-)

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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?

I've been outdoors working when the temperature was -30 F.

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?

....good question...

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.

A person can hold any opinion they want. Len's stated opinion in this area is
not based on fact.

If you don't like it, TS.

"Civil discourse" from Len...

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

Isn't that obvious?

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.

Note that Len simply attacks an opposing opinion without any facts to
substantiate his attack.

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?

I think Len would prefer that all of amateur radio be channelized.

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?

Nope.

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.

Indeed.

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.

The Morse Code test was not mentioned at all, but Len cannot see any other
issue.

...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"?

bingo!

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?

Not by my ego...

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]

I don't think Len has operated using Morse Code.

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.

Well, let's see...

I've operated equipment made by Collins (S-line), Drake (4 line and 2B), Heath
(SB line and various HWs, including HW-101 and -16), EF Johnson (Adventurer,
Viking 2, Valiant), Kenwood (TS-520, TS-820, TS-450, TS-940) Yaesu (FT-101 and
others) Icom (IC-735, IC-751, and a bunch of others), Ten Tec (Argosy, Corsair
2, Omni D and V)....

And a bunch of others I can't recall offhand.

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?

Len walked into a radio store once upon a time and the salespeople couldn't
explain some technical point to his satisfaction. Some of those salespeople
held the Extra class license. Len's conclusion is that people who hold an Extra
class license don't know how radios work.

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.

It also won't transmit....

Of course, what we see here is another classic case of Len's behavior that can
be summed up in one sentence: Do as Len says, not as Len does.

73 de Jim, N2EY