In article ,
(Brian the Bluffman's Home Companion Kelly) writes:

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

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

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

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

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. :-)

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


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

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

10 Hz increments are perfectly fine for SSB voice tuning, as I've
found out with my Icom R-70. If I need to get closer than that
(don't know why I should), the RIT will handle those "infinite
frequency" things. :-)

When I bought my R-70 (years ago), the three extras at work in the
Van Nuys, CA, store didn't know squat how Icom was able to do it
with 10 KHz reference frequencies to the PFDs (factor of 1000:1)
there. 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.

Okay, so your spiffy-schmiffy 1 Hz resolution "xcver" is "guarnateed"
accurate because it has a "digital dial?" I don't think so. Exact 1 Hz
settings imply 100 PPB (Parts Per Billion) accuracy of the master
reference oscillator. 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.

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

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

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

I rather prefer what I've been exposed to since 1963 on frequency
control methods...beginning with those "cruddy" synthesizers
(without "real" frequencies, only the "synthetic" variety)...and
quartz crystal oscillator accuracy and stability to the 10 PPB
region.

Common ham radio quartz crystals have guaranteed accuracies
to 50 PPM typical. That translates to 500 Hz at 10 MHz, by way
of example. 1 Hz accuracy at 10 MHz is 100 PPB, or 500 times
closer.

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

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

I'm sorry that my technical competence seems like "bafflegab"
to you. Some further learning of the radio technical arts would
erase some of your ignorance and lend credence to what I've
said. Like, I could ask you "how's the zeta of your control loop"
and you would be out to lunch, cussing and hollering "bafflegab!"
"Zeta" is the symbol for the response characteristic in a closed
loop of a PLL, Fractional-N, or hybrid PLL-DDS system. An
important factor for lock-in and stability and anyone designing
the loop filter for a synthesizer should recognize that common
term.

I've never dined in the executive dining room (the counterpart to
your "captain's table" BS) in any electronic corporation but I
HAVE designed and made frequency synthesizers. Hands-on
work all the way, from the initial paper work-up to long hours
in the environmental lab...to accuracies in 100 PPB over
full military environment. Interesting, challenging work!

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Brian the Bluffman's Home Companion Kelly) writes:

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

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

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

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

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. :-)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I rather prefer what I've been exposed to since 1963 on frequency
control methods...beginning with those "cruddy" synthesizers
(without "real" frequencies, only the "synthetic" variety)...and
quartz crystal oscillator accuracy and stability to the 10 PPB
region.

Perhaps it is time to update your database, Leonard.


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

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

Dave K8MN

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

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

Sure, but those old VFOs tended to change the frequency a little
over time. AKA "drift". Me thinks one desires to select a frequency
and then have the rig stay put on it. Modern rigs can do that
to the accuracy and drift of a good crystal oscillator to some
set resolution. But for our uses, 10Hz resolution is more than
sufficient.



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


Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

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

Early 2 meter synthesized rigs had some trouble with this (the
phase noise would "add" to the FM modulation and produce extra
noise. Phase modulation and frequency modulation are closely
related, one is the integral (as in calculus) of the other.

As for HF CW, some poorly designed novice xtal oscillator
circuits probably had it worse than a modern synthesized rig.
And then there's chirp...

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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

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

Sure, but those old VFOs tended to change the frequency a little
over time. AKA "drift".

Of course. That problem was insignificant in good-quality amateur gear by the
mid-late 1950s. Curing it was mostly a matter of getting away from bandswitched
self-controlled oscillators.

Most amateur HF operation does not require excellent long-term frequency
stability.

Me thinks one desires to select a frequency
and then have the rig stay put on it. Modern rigs can do that
to the accuracy and drift of a good crystal oscillator to some
set resolution. But for our uses, 10Hz resolution is more than
sufficient.

Exactly! But the designers have gone one better and commonly offer 1 Hz
resolution.

However, the original point was that such frequency synthesizers were somehow
"necessary" for hams. That is simply untrue.

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

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

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

The above reflects ignorance of the HF receiving environment commonly
encountered by hams, particularly those in DX, contest, and other competitive
situations.

Early 2 meter synthesized rigs had some trouble with this (the
phase noise would "add" to the FM modulation and produce extra
noise. Phase modulation and frequency modulation are closely
related, one is the integral (as in calculus) of the other.

Agreed.

As for HF CW, some poorly designed novice xtal oscillator
circuits probably had it worse than a modern synthesized rig.

Not at all.

And then there's chirp...

All curable with proper design.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

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

Note the avoidance of answering the question ;-)

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

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

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

Note the avoidance of the facts. ;-)

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

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

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

Kellie, define "phase noise" insofar as amateur radio operation is
concerned. You, for the limits of your technical knowledge, should
call that "incidental FM" which is what the industry term "phase
noise" refers. :-)

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

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

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. :-)

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

The main importance of phase noise in amateur HF reception is that it
causes the apparent noise floor to rise when a strong signal or
signals is close to the desired signal frequency. If you are trying to
receive a -130 dBm signal and a strong signal a few kHz away mixing
with a noisy synthesized LO causes your receiver's noise floor to rise
to -120 dbm, you're out of luck.

And the amateur HF bands are often full of strong local signals
adjacent to the weak ones we want to work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All good stuff. Note how well a certain kit transceiver performs...

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

Stuck in the past. ;-)

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

Perhaps it is time to update your database, Leonard.

To at least 1980s levels ;-)

USING modern equipment is NOT involving development or
anything else.

This gives us cause to wonder.....

What amateur radio equipment has Len developed?

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

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

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

The world wonders....;-)

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

Try taking your own advice ;-)

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

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

It makes you look like nursie's cousin. :-)

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

Not using, not owning, not building, not developing......

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.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian the Bluffman's Home Companion Kelly) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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. :-)

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

(Long pause to let the fog clear)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Okay, so your spiffy-schmiffy 1 Hz resolution "xcver" is "guarnateed"
accurate because it has a "digital dial?" I don't think so. Exact 1 Hz
settings imply 100 PPB (Parts Per Billion) accuracy of the master
reference oscillator. 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.

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

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


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

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

Like who? Exactly.

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

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


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

Common ham radio quartz crystals have guaranteed accuracies
to 50 PPM typical. That translates to 500 Hz at 10 MHz, by way
of example. 1 Hz accuracy at 10 MHz is 100 PPB, or 500 times
closer.

yadda, yadda, more of the usual . . .

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

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

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

No Sweetums, not at all, that's not the way I work. You're being silly
again. If by any chance I ran into an arcane topic like that in which
I had any interest whatsoever I'd ask an EE to uncurl it for me.
Miccolis is across town. Then comes the non-ham PhD EE Dean at one the
universities in this neck of the woods I know well. Or my buddy
another N3/EE who goes back to our high high school days together and
ran GE's gummint relations operations in Valley Forge, etc. etc.

- - - - -

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

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

Wunnerful ducky wunnerful:

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.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian the Bluffman's Home Companion Kelly) writes:

.. . . . .

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

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

I see. You have some sort of "moral responsibility" to keep us
"technically clueless" types straight do you Sweetums? I don't think
so. More like the technical groups don't put up with your nonsense
(ref: your dot antennas debacle) and you're outta aces and have no
choice but to lounge around in a lame hobby policy group. Even pore
Weenie Weenie Willy Beeper has a ham license. And you don't. Methinks
you *define* the lowest common denominator around here Sweetums.

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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

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

That would be Kellie...whose only "engineering expertise" seems
involved with antenna support structures. Kellie not know much
of the innards of frequency control subsystems in a modern radio
so he tries to misdirect onto his mechanical thing.

Do I have knowledge of modern frequency control subsystems of
radios? Yes, considerable. Such applies to all radios, not what
a designer-maker has labeled "amateur" as (as you imply) being
somehow different than other radios.

No amateur radio license is required to acquire knowledge of
radio-electronics technology. No amateur radio license will let
you legally radiate RF outside of amateur bands (beyond the
incidental/low-power government limits). In most U.S. radio
services no federal license is required to use those radios.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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

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

Sure, but those old VFOs tended to change the frequency a little
over time. AKA "drift". Me thinks one desires to select a frequency
and then have the rig stay put on it. Modern rigs can do that
to the accuracy and drift of a good crystal oscillator to some
set resolution. But for our uses, 10Hz resolution is more than
sufficient.

That's a good summation, Robert, thank you.

10 Hz increments has been regarded as sufficient for quite a number
of years.

It all depends on the internal reference oscillator being trimmed to
the frequency it is supposed to be working at. A careful check
against WWV (for those receivers that can tune to 5, 10, or 15 MHz)
will prove that out. Since the same reference oscillator is used for
generating the transmit carrier, it will be as accurate as the receiver
once calibrated.

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

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


Early 2 meter synthesized rigs had some trouble with this (the
phase noise would "add" to the FM modulation and produce extra
noise. Phase modulation and frequency modulation are closely
related, one is the integral (as in calculus) of the other.

PM and FM aren't related "integrally" other than their modulation
product series expansions are extremely close, different primarily
on the signs of the series terms...thus requiring different
equalization of analog modulating signal frequencies. "Carson's
Rule" applies equally to both to estimate bandwidth versus index
of modulation.

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

As for HF CW, some poorly designed novice xtal oscillator
circuits probably had it worse than a modern synthesized rig.
And then there's chirp...

That's a fault of design, not the basic frequency control system.

If your "chirp" refers to on-off keying CW modulation, that's a
result of inattention to the rise and fall times of the keying plus
the stability of the power supply. Quite a different matter.

The subject has gotten out of hand in here with all the PCTA
extras eager to beat on any NCTA by taking a phrase out of
logical context. :-) Those all have expensive ready-builts in
their "shack" and - naturally - those rigs are the closest thing
to perfection as anything. They don't seem to know squat
about the inner technology involved in frequency synthesizers
so they want to "get even" with anyone who does. Sigh.

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: (Brian Kelly)
Date: 9/28/2004 11:15 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

(Brian the Bluffman's Home Companion Kelly) writes:

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

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

I see. You have some sort of "moral responsibility" to keep us
"technically clueless" types straight do you Sweetums? I don't think
so. More like the technical groups don't put up with your nonsense
(ref: your dot antennas debacle) and you're outta aces and have no
choice but to lounge around in a lame hobby policy group. Even pore
Weenie Weenie Willy Beeper has a ham license. And you don't. Methinks
you *define* the lowest common denominator around here Sweetums.

He is.

I bet that once removed from his computer, Lennie's "knowledge" about many
things "radio" would roll off sharply. That's probably why he can't/won't go
sit the VE session...Can't take his "brain" with him...

73

Steve, K4YZ