In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

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

Thnak you, Len!

of recycled toob equipment..

The parts are recycled but the designs are new and unique.

looks like "shacks" of
the 50s and 60s.

Picture is less than 2 years old.

Appears to be a giant collection of QSTs to the
right...

Every issue since mid-1926, and some older ones. Also lots of other radio
magazines, books, manuals, etc. The picture shows only a small part of the
library.

(archives of the renowned historian no doubt). :-)

Who would that be?

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

It was elsewhere at the time the picture was taken. You can see really good
pictures of the K2, K1 and KX1 at the Elecraft website

http://www.elecraft.com

Last time I looked, there was an interesting project under "Tech Notes" on that
site. An inventive amateur built an ITX-motherboard based computer into an EC2
enclosure, to match the K2.

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/

snip



73, Leo

Yikes!

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.


-40C and -40F are not roughly the same point, they are EXACTLY the same
point.

(Celsius * 9/5) + 32 = Fahrenheit
(-40C * 9/5) + 32 = -40F

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Leo

writes:

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

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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

Thnak you, Len!

of recycled toob equipment..

The parts are recycled but the designs are new and unique.

It seems to bother our Leonard that vacuum tubes were used.

looks like "shacks" of
the 50s and 60s.

It seems to bother our Leonard that your equipment doesn't look like
stereo equipment.

Picture is less than 2 years old.

Appears to be a giant collection of QSTs to the
right...

It seems to bother our Leonard that you have an extensive QST library.

Every issue since mid-1926, and some older ones. Also lots of other radio
magazines, books, manuals, etc. The picture shows only a small part of the
library.

(archives of the renowned historian no doubt). :-)

Who would that be?

I think he means you, Jim. Our Leonard seems to be bothered that you
have the information contained in those magazines. It gives you unfair
advantage over him.

I have the QSTs, the whole run of CQ, nearly the whole runs of EI and
Pop'tronics, the whole run of the now-defunct Ham Radio and most of HRH.
Add to that a ten-year run of ER, five years worth of Radio Amatoori
(Finnish), about ten years worth of RadComm, some miscellaneous issues
of ham mags from Japan, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Russia, ten or so
years of Radio, loads of old Radio and Radiocraft mags.

I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to Leonard that my funeral pyre will
be fueled with those magazines. I'll lie in a rack cabinet as I'm sent
off to the amateur radio valhalla. A special A-1 Op Club honor guard
will be present. The ceremony will be performed by local members of the
Royal Order of Wouff Hong.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

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.

That's right. That portion of the radio spectrum used by radio
amateurs.
That's the portion of the spectrum of concern to those in this
newsgroup.

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

Right again. We all knew that. It hasn't bothered us in the least.

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.

Wouldn't you just love to know the last date on which you commented on
the topic in that header? Shall I google it up for you?

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 . . .

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

You didn't read about it; therefore, it could not have taken place.
Izzat about it?

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.

Your facts are wrong.

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

And if your facts are wrong, you end up with a wrong conclusion.


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.

I dunno, Len...That sounds an awfully lot like you.


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.

You just had to get him started again, eh Brian?


Sweetums is a
perfect example of these windbags.

"Windbags?" :-)

That pretty well sums it up.


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.

No non-amateur-licensee can possibly operate legally on Field Day? I'd
think you'd get one right once in a great while, Leonard. That response
would be wrong.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

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?

Is this part of the civil discoarse lesson?

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. :-)

So no one can take your word on a thing unless you've done something
like that? :-) I'll try to remember that.


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.

Hang on, Len. I want to get all of this part of your civil discoarse
lesson for my notes.

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.

I take it that you really can't defend your earlier statements. The end
result is that you're reduced to answering with the nonsense above.

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?

There are some things you just don't get no matter how many times the
explanation is provided for you: The FCC staff gets paid to regulate
and administer amateur radio in the U.S. They aren't spectators. We
are participants. We're not spectators. You are neither a regulator
nor a participant. Have you grasped the concept?

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." :-)

You walk a few steps and then you trip. It was written that YOU didn't
invent any of the circuits or systems used in "modern ready-built"
radios.
He didn't claim that he invented the recycling of parts and vacuum
tubes.
You really need to pay attention.

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.
:-)

I really have no trouble accepting that you believe that is what Jim's
phrase meant.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

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.

....at least as written by you.

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."

Tsk, tsk. I did actually work in USAF communications. Since you were
in the Army and since you wrote the confusing piece above, I thought
perhaps you Army types did things differently. Nothing I encountered in
Air Force communications caused me to lose interest in DXing, contesting
or QSLing.

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

So the guys who work in stations which aren't open twenty-four hours per
day, seven days per week aren't doing professional quality work in the
military? If you worked in a station which was open around the clock and
you worked for eight to ten hours per day and got a day or two off from
time to time, was your work less than professional quality?

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.

Nope, that isn't it.

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.

Nope, that isn't it.

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

Don't sell yourself short. All you need now is the amateur radio
license.

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?

Have you petitioned your government? Have you posted here? End of
story.


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.

I seem to understand it far better than you do. They are paid to
administer amateur radio. We radio amateurs are participants. You are
not a paid administrator nor are you a participant. You are a
bystander.

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 have had no amateur radio license. You currently have no amateur
radio license. You've told us that you have no intention of obtaining
an amateur radio license in the future. You don't look good as a
potential licensee, Leonard.

YOU don't, nor ever have, regulated or controlled U.S. amateur
radio. You are only a participant.

Only? Without the participants, there'd be no amateur radio to
regulate.
The participants ARE amateur radio, "William".

You aren't gang boss, aren't
a government official, aren't even a 'hood chieftan. All you are
is a participant.

Let's see....I'm one of the items from your list. You are which one?

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.

Really? That'll effect you how?

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.

You're still posting aren't you?

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.

I'd think you'd want to remember those words of yours. You, especially
as one who has no stake in amateur radio, are not the Supreme Arbiter of
Ham things. Neither the regulators nor the participants in amateur
radio are compelled to do as you say.

There is still some freedom left in the world and considerable
independent thought.

Your thought is....well....really, really, really independent.


Your long tenure in hamdom does not give
you any "position" of control over others. Not here, not anywhere.

Thous sayest.

Try to adjust to that, big Arbiter. Bite me.

Is this more of the civil discoarse course (coarse)?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

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:

snip of Len's lecture on IC's

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. :-)

How are you involved? Wanting to win at something and being competitive
are part of being human. Don't want to participate in an amateur radio
contest? Don't enter. Oh, that's right--you couldn't enter if you
wanted to.

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? :-)

If he doesn't have enough, I'll give 'em to him. If I die first, I'll
will them to him. He can have enough to see him through his lifetime.
Does that suit your definition of "always"?

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

Don't you ever try to impress folks who visit your shack, Len? You
know, take 'em in to view the R-70?

Dave K8MN

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

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.

Tsk. How could you stand it being that warm? :-)

Poor baby. Wear your long undies, did you?

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...

Try the inside of a vehicle when the outside air is 116 F (47 C) that
has been closed and sitting in the sun to add 40 C more to the
ambient.

Oh, I forgot...all ham "emergency operations" are done at Field
Day temperatures! [Field Day is an "emergency drill," right? :-) ]

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.

WRONG. INCORRECT. My opinions are based on FACTUAL
evidence of over a half century of observation.

If you don't like it, TS.

"Civil discourse" from Len...

If you don't like that remark, then more TS. I have a sharp TS punch
and will be glad to mark your TS card anytime.

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

Isn't that obvious?

Tsk. You guys are a couple of Clingons, bravely regressing to
early pioneer days when Kode was King...because that's all
any ham could come up with on a $100 "recycled parts" budget.

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.

WRONG. INCORRECT. My opinions are based on FACTUAL
evidence of over a half century of observation.

Since when is your religious BELIEF in the "need" of morse code
based on any "fact" of the year 2004?

Since when did you two Clingons become sole arbiter and judge of
what is "fact?"

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.

WRONG. INCORRECT. My opinions are based on FACTUAL
evidence of over a half century of observation.

One of those observations is the NON-civil diss-cuss technique
of alleged mind-readers who imagine what I think. I've said
NOTHING about "channelizing" any ham band. But the FCC has
given U.S. hams five "channels" to play with.

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.

Defense? Hardly. Those are just little onomotopoetic phrases to
keep from breaking out in nursie yell-yells maniacal laughter at
the sobresides damning of NCTAs by you two Clingons. Hi hi )as
the emotionless hams do).

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.

Then it should be in the ARRL Museum, yes?

Famous "names" need enshrining in the lore and mythos of the
pioneer days in radio...

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.

Hello? The message thread title is "US Lincensing Restructuring ???
When ???" At stake are some 18 petitions sitting at the FCC waiting
for someone there to put together an NPRM. Most of those petitions
involve the retention or elimination of the morse code test.

Jimmie and Davie (those 'sweethearts') feel that folks in here must
talk ONLY about the subjects THEY approve of?

...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!

Tsk...I've not "been proven wrong," just issued the usual baseless
non-facts by PCTA determined to damn every NCTA they can
find.

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...

1. Jimmie "designs and builds his own equipment."

2. Jimmie has often praised the Elecraft K2 that he built.

Conclusion: Jimmie is claiming design of the K2...yet his
name is not at the Elecraft company.

That's all in Google and there more than once. Jimmie will deny
it but there it all is.

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.

"It just seems to write itself!" :-)

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.

Quite true. Most manual scalpels are metal, the RF Cauteries
use continuous wave, no keying. Operations are done with both.
The most "operating" I've done is removal of splinters. I'm not
allowed to "operate" on anyone by law. Are you two Clingons?

The spliners resulted from normal wear and tear remodeling this
house, a mere four rooms worth, that including a center room
workshop with a bench 104 inches long with five 19" racks (also
hand built) above and below the bench. And I'm not a licensed
cabinetmaker and never had to use morse code once to do any
of that remodeling. :-)

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.

You seem to recall that "Southgate Type 7" fondly. :-)

Recycled 30 to 40 year old technology, all tubes...

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.

Poor baby, still feel hurt at not being "respected" for that vaunted
extra class status?

I was NOT thinking what you imagined. I was thinking that a sales
outlet that didn't know about its product nor could offer to help
potential customers find out, wasn't a very good business. To this
day I won't look to HRO for "technical answers."

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....

Duhhhh...receivers aren't designed or manufactured to transmit.

That's what transmitters do. They transmit.

Have you got that straight yet?

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.

Yeah. I believe in freedom and liberty and less-restrictive government
regulations. Independence of thought allowed, not restricted, and
separation of church and state continued so as to separate the
Church of St. Hiram from the FCC.

Tsk. I know that isn't in your ethos or mythos since you two Clingons
demand that ALL follow your example, doing as you did.

Why are you two Clingons so anal-retentive on holding everyone to
outdated standards and practices?

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to Leonard that my funeral pyre will
be fueled with those magazines. I'll lie in a rack cabinet as I'm sent
off to the amateur radio valhalla. A special A-1 Op Club honor guard
will be present. The ceremony will be performed by local members of the
Royal Order of Wouff Hong.

G'bye...have a nice afterlife... :-)

LHA/WMD