Crystal phasing & single signal reception

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth"

Post by gareth
I wonder if some more experienced and senior (in the literal sense) amateur
could explain to me one difficulty that I have in understanding single
signal
reception with the crystal phasing control?
AIUI, the phasing control is adjusted so that the frequency that would give
the audio image is phased out by being in the notch.
If that is true, how is it then possible to adjust the BFO to a
pleasant-for-you tone,
because such adjustment will alter the CIO frequency?
Surely the BFO has to be set in advance to be halfway between the serial
resonant
frequency and the notchable parallel resonant frequency?
This is a query stimulated by my current project which is to build a
boatanchor style
RX, with a flywheel-loaded slide rule dial like that of the Eddystone EA12

The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is
applied to the output of the filter.

peter

gareth

2013-08-25 08:14:36 UTC

Post by Peter
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth"

The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is
applied to the output of the filter.

Thanks, but I think that you may have missed the point.

Peter Able

2013-08-25 09:17:33 UTC

Post by Peter
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth"

The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is
applied to the output of the filter.

Thanks, but I think that you may have missed the point.

IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your
rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to seed
and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if you
elaborated the point that you think he is missing.

PA

gareth

2013-08-25 10:01:06 UTC

Post by Peter Able

Post by Peter
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth"

The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is
applied to the output of the filter.

Thanks, but I think that you may have missed the point.

IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your
rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to
seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if
you elaborated the point that you think he is missing.

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

Scott Dorsey

2013-08-25 11:41:26 UTC

Post by Peter Able
IMHO, Peter's reply is the correct opening statement of a response to your
rather unstructured question. If you cannot then use this statement to
seed and to refine your own thought process, it might be more helpful if
you elaborated the point that you think he is missing.

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter
is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the
filter somewhat (but not really all that much).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ian Jackson

2013-08-25 12:21:18 UTC

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with
a sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should
be able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a
limited extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either
side).

--
Ian

gareth

2013-08-25 12:53:29 UTC

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a
sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be
able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited
extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side).

Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of
single-signal reception in which I am interested.

Have you any clues about that, please?

Ian Jackson

2013-08-25 14:26:45 UTC

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a
sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be
able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited
extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side).

Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of
single-signal reception in which I am interested.
Have you any clues about that, please?

The only clue I can offer is that 'single-signal reception' is vague -
but presumably self-explanatory, ie the filtering is very narrow,
enabling you to receive only one signal (unless you have more than one
on or very close to the same frequency). It's a term that I recall being
around when I were a lad, but I can't say I've heard it much since. I
guess it's been replaced by more scientific descriptions of how good the
filtering is.

--
Ian

gareth

2013-08-25 14:34:54 UTC

Post by gareth
Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of
single-signal reception in which I am interested.
Have you any clues about that, please?

The only clue I can offer is that 'single-signal reception' is vague - but
presumably self-explanatory, ie the filtering is very narrow, enabling you
to receive only one signal (unless you have more than one on or very close
to the same frequency). It's a term that I recall being around when I were
a lad, but I can't say I've heard it much since. I guess it's been
replaced by more scientific descriptions of how good the filtering is.

Thank you, Ian. I have a vague memory of something in BadCon from about 40
years ago which
related to setting up for single signal reception, which involved no further
adjustments to phasing or BFO once it had been set. I am fairly sure, hence
my
enquiry that it involved phasing out the audio image as well as involving
the peaking
that comes from a single series resonant crystal.

Hence my assumption that the BFO frequency must lie half way between the
peak and the notch.

I've no experience of such things. The HRO I had in my possession 20 years
ago did not posses
the crystal filter, but in an effort to speed up development of my RX
project, it seemed to me
that a single crystal filter would be an easier starting point than a ladder
filter.

Ian Jackson

2013-08-25 16:20:21 UTC

Post by gareth
Ian, with your greater experience than mine, it is the concept of
single-signal reception in which I am interested.
Have you any clues about that, please?

The only clue I can offer is that 'single-signal reception' is vague - but
presumably self-explanatory, ie the filtering is very narrow, enabling you
to receive only one signal (unless you have more than one on or very close
to the same frequency). It's a term that I recall being around when I were
a lad, but I can't say I've heard it much since. I guess it's been
replaced by more scientific descriptions of how good the filtering is.

Thank you, Ian. I have a vague memory of something in BadCon from about 40
years ago which
related to setting up for single signal reception, which involved no further
adjustments to phasing or BFO once it had been set. I am fairly sure, hence
my
enquiry that it involved phasing out the audio image as well as involving
the peaking
that comes from a single series resonant crystal.
Hence my assumption that the BFO frequency must lie half way between the
peak and the notch.
I've no experience of such things. The HRO I had in my possession 20 years
ago did not posses
the crystal filter, but in an effort to speed up development of my RX
project, it seemed to me
that a single crystal filter would be an easier starting point than a ladder
filter.

You're not confusing SSB generation (and reception) by the 'phasing
method', are you? That requires something quite different from the
action of the elementary single crystal filter we're talking about.

While a single crystal filter can provide a fair amount of selectivity
(combined, if you choose to use it, useful suck-blow or blow-suck
frequency response), it is not really suitable for 'serious' SSB
filtering. Its frequency selectivity characteristics don't really use
clever phasing out of the audio image. The passband peak is really too
sharp for either the generation or reception of good quality SSB, and
you usually need a 'proper' flat-topped filter, a 'proper' SSB phasing
TX or RX (which also does exist in a direct-conversion form) - or if
you're really clever, a 'third method' phasing TX (or, I suppose, RX).
That said, I'm sure that 'KISS' transmitters and receivers have been
made using a single-crystal filter - albeit having a somewhat limited
performance.

--
Ian

gareth

2013-08-25 16:26:49 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
You're not confusing SSB generation (and reception) by the 'phasing
method', are you?

Neither that nor Weaver's Third Method.

Post by Ian Jackson
While a single crystal filter can provide a fair amount of selectivity
(combined, if you choose to use it, useful suck-blow or blow-suck
frequency response), it is not really suitable for 'serious' SSB
filtering. Its frequency selectivity characteristics don't really use
clever phasing out of the audio image. The passband peak is really too
sharp for either the generation or reception of good quality SSB, and you
usually need a 'proper' flat-topped filter, a 'proper' SSB phasing TX or
RX (which also does exist in a direct-conversion form) - or if you're
really clever, a 'third method' phasing TX (or, I suppose, RX).

Actually easier to set up for the Third Method, because all the phasing is
done
at a single audio frequency. But that's not what this thread is about.

Post by Ian Jackson
That said, I'm sure that 'KISS' transmitters and receivers have been made
using a single-crystal filter - albeit having a somewhat limited
performance.

It's not for SSB. CW forever!

However, ISTR G3VA (RIP) in his TT column discussing Stenode
correction when trying to resolve voice through a single-Xtal filter.

Ian Jackson

2013-08-25 18:00:10 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
You're not confusing SSB generation (and reception) by the 'phasing
method', are you?

Neither that nor Weaver's Third Method.

Actually easier to set up for the Third Method, because all the phasing is
done
at a single audio frequency. But that's not what this thread is about.

Post by Ian Jackson
That said, I'm sure that 'KISS' transmitters and receivers have been made
using a single-crystal filter - albeit having a somewhat limited
performance.

It's not for SSB. CW forever!
However, ISTR G3VA (RIP) in his TT column discussing Stenode
correction when trying to resolve voice through a single-Xtal filter.

That is indeed true, where 'Stenode' is a fancy name for lots of HF
boost to compensate for what otherwise would be very bassy audio.

--
Ian

Scott Dorsey

2013-08-25 15:00:02 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter
is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the
filter somewhat (but not really all that much).

The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a
sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be
able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited
extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side).

Yes, and that notch is useful for eliminating a single interfering CW
signal. But it's not useful for multiple interfering signals or much
at all for SSB.

"Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass
filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

gareth

2013-08-25 15:06:28 UTC

The crystal by itself has a natural 'blow-suck' signal throughput, with a
sharp notch just HF of the peak. The phasing control capacitor should be
able to move the notch to the LF side of the peak, and also (to a limited
extent) to move the notch a little closer to the peak (on either side).

Yes, and that notch is useful for eliminating a single interfering CW
signal. But it's not useful for multiple interfering signals or much
at all for SSB.
"Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass
filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering.

Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique
from
the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the
norm today?

Scott Dorsey

2013-08-25 15:11:15 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
"Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass
filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering.

Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique
from
the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the
norm today?

Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

gareth

2013-08-25 15:25:33 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
"Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass
filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering.

Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique
from
the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the
norm today?

Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it?

No, it isn't.

I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort
of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I
do
not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will
will be likely to bin the lot.

I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow
progress
in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now
considering
the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X.

One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic
Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it
is that
single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the
moment.

Scott Dorsey

2013-08-25 17:03:27 UTC

Post by gareth
Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique
from
the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the
norm today?

Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it?

No, it isn't.
I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort
of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I
do
not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will
will be likely to bin the lot.
I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow
progress
in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now
considering
the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X.
One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic
Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it
is that
single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the
moment.

Yes, and you would like to understand how that device works in terms of
modern nyquist filter theory, correct?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

gareth

2013-08-25 17:13:43 UTC

Post by gareth
Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique
from
the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the
norm today?

Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it?

No, it isn't.
I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort
of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I
do
not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will
will be likely to bin the lot.
I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow
progress
in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now
considering
the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X.
One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic
Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it
is that
single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the
moment.

Yes, and you would like to understand how that device works in terms of
modern nyquist filter theory, correct?

Harry Nyquist is far from modern, I have somewhere an essay of his from
1924,
something along the lines of, "Certain topics in telegraph theory"

What I was after was the standard way of setting up the phasing together
with
the BFO for eliminating an interfering carrier that was equally spaced from
the BFO
frequency on the other side.

Percy Picacity

2013-08-25 18:23:16 UTC

Post by gareth
Perhaps you, as indeed do others seem, are trying to interpret a technique
from
the 1930s and 1940s in terms of the multi-pole Xtal filters that are the
norm today?

Well, yes. That is the point of this thread, isn't it?

No, it isn't.
I have a junk box going back 50 years from which I intend to make the sort
of RX that I dreamed of as a teenager in the 1960s, on the basis that if I
do
not make use of all those museum bits and pieces, the executor of my will
will be likely to bin the lot.
I am inspired by the ham-bands only Eddystone EA12 and am making slow
progress
in a DIY effort to manufacture the gears for the dial drive and am now
considering
the manufacture of a Catacomb along the lines of the National NC100X.
One technique from those pre-mechanical, and multi-pole or monolithic
Xtal, filters was to use a _SINGLE_ crystal early on in the IF chain, and it
is that
single crystal together with its phasing control that interests me at the
moment.

Yes, and you would like to understand how that device works in terms of
modern nyquist filter theory, correct?

Harry Nyquist is far from modern, I have somewhere an essay of his from
1924,
something along the lines of, "Certain topics in telegraph theory"
What I was after was the standard way of setting up the phasing together
with
the BFO for eliminating an interfering carrier that was equally spaced from
the BFO
frequency on the other side.

Once you have tuned the radio (VFO) to get the wanted signal at the
centre of the crystal passband, you can set the BFO to taste and
altering the phasing of the crystal will not alter the IF frequency of
the wanted signal so won't alter the beat note. If the phasing shifts
the crystal pass band significantly (which it probably won't) you might
need to retune the radio (VFO) slightly and then the beat note would
alter so you might have to adjust the BFO to taste again. But the BFO
won't alter where the signal is in the passband, and the crystal phasing
won't alter the beat note when it is adjusted. Only changing the VFO
could do that.

--
Percy Picacity

gareth

2013-08-25 18:53:58 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
Once you have tuned the radio (VFO) to get the wanted signal at the
centre of the crystal passband,

There is no passband, it is a single sharp peak.

Post by Percy Picacity
you can set the BFO to taste and
altering the phasing of the crystal will not alter the IF frequency of
the wanted signal so won't alter the beat note.
If the phasing shifts
the crystal pass band significantly (which it probably won't) you might
need to retune the radio (VFO) slightly and then the beat note would
alter so you might have to adjust the BFO to taste again. But the BFO
won't alter where the signal is in the passband, and the crystal phasing
won't alter the beat note when it is adjusted. Only changing the VFO
could do that.

Sorry OM, but you're way off topic.

A single-Xtal series resonant XTal has a sharp peak, and then a deep null at
the parallel resonant frequency, and the phasing control adjusts the
position of the null.

My assumption, which is where I came in, is that the BFO would be centred
between
the two frequencies so that an interfering signal at the audio image
frequency would
be nullified.

Peter Able

2013-08-25 19:51:16 UTC

Post by gareth
A single-Xtal series resonant XTal has a sharp peak, and then a deep null at
the parallel resonant frequency, and the phasing control adjusts the
position of the null.
My assumption, which is where I came in, is that the BFO would be centred
between
the two frequencies so that an interfering signal at the audio image
frequency would
be nullified.

You might choose to do this - particularly if, understandably, you find
interference at the same beat frequency makes copy of the wanted signal more
difficult.

This approach, though, has no obvious merit over *normal procedure and has
the distinct disadvantage of forcing you to listen to audio at one half the
difference between the wanted and unwanted signals.

*peak the wanted signal, adjust the BFO to give the optimum audio frequency
while adjusting phasing for maximum readability.

PA

gareth

2013-08-25 21:09:11 UTC

Post by Peter Able
*peak the wanted signal, adjust the BFO to give the optimum audio
frequency while adjusting phasing for maximum readability.

What do you mean by, "adjusting phasing for maximum readability", if the
signal is already
peaked at the series resonant frequency?

And where do you derive your opinion that this is normal?

Peter Able

2013-08-26 08:48:20 UTC

Post by Peter Able
*peak the wanted signal, adjust the BFO to give the optimum audio
frequency while adjusting phasing for maximum readability.

What do you mean by, "adjusting phasing for maximum readability", if the
signal is already
peaked at the series resonant frequency?

If you need to ask this question, I think that you would benefit from
directed experience of working with this sort of filter. Remember, we are
talking Readability, not Strength.

Post by gareth
And where do you derive your opinion that this is normal?

From my lengthy experience as a successful professional engineer and from
holding a licence - Amateur (Sound) A and its successors - for many more
years than yourself. Also from what ability I have to assess and learn from
the opinions of others.
You asked for input from "experienced and senior" folk and yet you've been
rude and dismissive of such input. Why do you act down to Mr. Reay's
earlier characterisation of yourself? I'd like to see him proved wrong -
but that is a matter entirely in your hands, Gareth.

PA

Brian Reay

2013-08-26 08:57:09 UTC

Post by Peter Able

Post by Peter Able
*peak the wanted signal, adjust the BFO to give the optimum audio
frequency while adjusting phasing for maximum readability.

What do you mean by, "adjusting phasing for maximum readability", if the
signal is already
peaked at the series resonant frequency?

If you need to ask this question, I think that you would benefit from
directed experience of working with this sort of filter. Remember, we are
talking Readability, not Strength.

Post by gareth
And where do you derive your opinion that this is normal?

Oh dear Peter, don't be surprised if your employer is added to the list
who receives an Email.

I've copies of several so far. If you need advice on how to proceed when
it happens, feel free to contact me.

Percy Picacity

2013-08-25 20:30:20 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
Once you have tuned the radio (VFO) to get the wanted signal at the
centre of the crystal passband,

There is no passband, it is a single sharp peak.

Sorry that is a passband, unless it is an ideal infinitely narrow
filter, in which case you would not be able to hear the morse characters!

Sorry OM, but you're way off topic.
A single-Xtal series resonant XTal has a sharp peak, and then a deep null at
the parallel resonant frequency, and the phasing control adjusts the
position of the null.
My assumption, which is where I came in, is that the BFO would be centred
between
the two frequencies so that an interfering signal at the audio image
frequency would
be nullified.

The crystal nulls the signal that *leads to* the audio image, not the
audio image itself. The only effect of putting the BFO half way between
the wanted and unwanted signal is to give them the same beat note and
therefore make them harder to distinguish. If the BFO is elsewhere they
will have different pitches. But the position of the BFO frequency has
no effect on the the crystal nulling the unwanted signal. If you
actually wanted to null the audio image (or any other audio frequency)
you would need to use DSP.

--
Percy Picacity

gareth

2013-08-25 21:10:57 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
Once you have tuned the radio (VFO) to get the wanted signal at the
centre of the crystal passband,

There is no passband, it is a single sharp peak.

Sorry that is a passband, unless it is an ideal infinitely narrow
filter, in which case you would not be able to hear the morse characters!

Sorry OM, but you're way off topic.
A single-Xtal series resonant XTal has a sharp peak, and then a deep null at
the parallel resonant frequency, and the phasing control adjusts the
position of the null.
My assumption, which is where I came in, is that the BFO would be centred
between
the two frequencies so that an interfering signal at the audio image
frequency would
be nullified.

You're still missing the point that in addition to the peak response, there
is
also a deep null.

Percy Picacity

2013-08-25 21:37:36 UTC

In article <kvdrsp$n14$***@dont-email.me>,
"gareth" <***@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
snip

Post by gareth
You're still missing the point that in addition to the peak response, there
is
also a deep null.

No I'm not! It can be adjusted with the 'phase' control to null a signal
*at IF* near to the wanted one. Adjusting the position of the null has
no affect on beat frequency with the wanted signal, or the beat
frequency of the unwanted signal (it gives the BFO a less strong IF
interfering signal to beat with but it does not affect the frequency of
the beat note, just the loudness). Tuning the BFO has no effect on the
null. The two controls do not interact, though they both have an affect
on readability.

--
Percy Picacity

gareth

2013-08-25 23:09:58 UTC

Post by gareth
You're still missing the point that in addition to the peak response, there
is
also a deep null.

Straw Man

Jerry Stuckle

2013-08-26 00:37:46 UTC

Post by gareth
You're still missing the point that in addition to the peak response, there
is
also a deep null.

Straw Man

To call you an idiot would be an insult to idiots everywhere.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 04:49:01 UTC

Post by gareth
You're still missing the point that in addition to the peak response, there
is
also a deep null.

Straw Man

To call you an idiot would be an insult to idiots everywhere.

Subscribe to ukra for a few weeks and you'll soon see that this is quite
lucid for Gareth. Wait till he gets going on the RSGB or the British tiered
licencing scheme...

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI

2013-08-26 09:41:22 UTC

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Subscribe to ukra for a few weeks and you'll soon see that this is quite
lucid for Gareth. Wait till he gets going on the RSGB or the British tiered
licencing scheme...

or the Monarchy, the Armed Forces, his latest skirmish with the law or
anything else that's wrong in his little world. There's plenty of scope;
he's always the only one who's right.

--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

Michael Black

2013-08-26 01:18:28 UTC

Post by gareth
You're still missing the point that in addition to the peak response, there
is
also a deep null.

I dug up an early article by Lamb about the filter (not the QST article
but some other publication). And there doesn't even have to be a notch.
Ajust the control a certain way and there's no notch, it's just a very
narrow filter.

The notch is just iciing on the cake, the filter was there to get a narrow
enough bandwidth so the audio image isn't there. There were some
construciton articles in the sixties in various magazines for adding cw
selectivity to SSB transceivers, which of course at the time often had
only an SSB suitable IF filter. And one scheme was to gang a few of those
phasing type filters, the ganging narrowed the skirt. SO they'd use
triodes, the crystal from the plate of one to the grid of the next, the
phasing capacitor from the cathode of one to the grid of the next, the
triode acting as a phase inverter instead of the transformer. And while
there were trimmer capacitors in each section so they could all be
aligned, no phasing control was brought to the front panel.

I said I never used the phasing control on the Sp-600, and one of these
days when I get my $20 at a garage sale TMC GPR-90 going (I don't think it
needs much work, I just need to get around to it), I doubt I'll use the
phasing control on it. The description of such filters always sounded to
me like the notch ability wasn't so useful, since it interacted with the
peaking of the actual crystal filter. It's not like having a separate
notch filter to wipe out offending interference. Circa 1936, the phasing
control probably helped a lot, all the receivers fairly simple and nobody
wanting to make things complicated in circuit or price, and of course the
bands weren't as crowded. But nowadays, it is something from the 1930s.
A great thing when you need a simple crystal filter, or to start with to
get the receiver going (and then replace with a better filter), but there
are better schemes out there already.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black

2013-08-25 16:55:33 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey
"Single signal reception" to me would imply a narrow-sloped bandpass
filter but it sounds more like marketing than engineering.

"Single signal reception" is specific, about no audio image. Before Lamb
came up with the filter (and some argue it was someone else before him),
receivers were generally 'broad", there was no way to get rid of the
image, though I suppose at the time there were some lab receivers that
used really low IFs for some high selectivity (or that famous experiment
that used sharp low frequency antennas to prove the existence of a carrier
and two sidebands on an AM signal).

So the term applies to CW, siince at the time, the late thirties, SSB
wasn't really used by hams, and AM has no image in this context.

But in terms of SSB, it still means no audio image. So if you use a
direct conversion receiver, you get an audio image, and there's nothing at
audio that you can do to get rid of the image (same with CW and a DC
receiver, the audio filter will get rid of adjacent signals, but not the
audio image). You can't knock out the interfering signal that's on the
other side of zero-beat.

If you use a DC receiver that has phasing networks to get
rid of the audio image, you have "single signal reception" since you've
wiped out the image.

Same with a crystal filter, it allows only one sideband to pass so
anything on the other side of zero-beat is knocked down in strength
significantly.

MIchael VE2BVW

gareth

2013-08-25 16:59:36 UTC

Post by Michael Black
Same with a crystal filter, it allows only one sideband to pass so
anything on the other side of zero-beat is knocked down in strength
significantly.

Except in the case of CW through a single-Xtal filter, when the carrier
and BOTH sidebands***** pass through, but an interfering signal
on the other sie of the BFO is phased out.

***** very close in, eg 12WPM is 10baud.

Michael Black

2013-08-25 17:08:36 UTC

Post by Michael Black
Same with a crystal filter, it allows only one sideband to pass so
anything on the other side of zero-beat is knocked down in strength
significantly.

Except in the case of CW through a single-Xtal filter, when the carrier
and BOTH sidebands***** pass through, but an interfering signal
on the other sie of the BFO is phased out.

No, you put the BFO on the slope of the filter, no different from some
fancier filter, and so the image is attenuated because it's outside of the
filter bandwidth.

Michael VE2BVW

gareth

2013-08-25 17:16:14 UTC

Post by Michael Black

Post by Michael Black
Same with a crystal filter, it allows only one sideband to pass so
anything on the other side of zero-beat is knocked down in strength
significantly.

Except in the case of CW through a single-Xtal filter, when the carrier
and BOTH sidebands***** pass through, but an interfering signal
on the other sie of the BFO is phased out.

No, you put the BFO on the slope of the filter, no different from some
fancier filter, and so the image is attenuated because it's outside of the
filter bandwidth.

That's not the case with a single-Xtal filter because of the notch caused by
the parallel resonant frequency.

gareth

2013-08-25 12:51:52 UTC

Thanks. but the subject matter seems to have WHOOSHED over your head.

Mine too, I don't really understand what you're asking. The crystal filter
is a bandpass filter. The phasing control affects the symmetry of the
filter somewhat (but not really all that much).

A single crystal-plus-phasing-control is NOT a bandpass filter. It is
a SINGLE crystal that has a series-resonant peak and a parallel-resonant
notch, and it is most certainly not a symmetrical response curve.

The phasing control affects the frequency of the parallel-resonant notch.

The reason for my query is that googling threw up the instructions for
a Hallicrafters (SX42, I think) that suggested that the BFO could be
adjusted
AFTER the setting of the phasing control, when it seemed to me that such
action
would move the position of the notch AWAY from the audio image and thus
lost the single-signal facility.

But thanks for your contribution.

Jeff

2013-08-26 09:17:54 UTC

Post by gareth
A single crystal-plus-phasing-control is NOT a bandpass filter. It is
a SINGLE crystal that has a series-resonant peak and a parallel-resonant
notch, and it is most certainly not a symmetrical response curve.
The phasing control affects the frequency of the parallel-resonant notch.
The reason for my query is that googling threw up the instructions for
a Hallicrafters (SX42, I think) that suggested that the BFO could be
adjusted
AFTER the setting of the phasing control, when it seemed to me that such
action
would move the position of the notch AWAY from the audio image and thus
lost the single-signal facility.
But thanks for your contribution.

Gareth,

The answer is quite simple; unless you move the VFO there will be no
need to change the BFO setting. Adjusting the phasing control is akin to
an IF shift control on a modern radio with the addition of a notch to
the side of the passband which you can move with the phasing control.
Adjusting it will have no effect on the frequency of the received signal
merely the range of frequencies in the passband or the notch.

The only reason that the BFO might need adjusting is pulling of the VFO
which was quite common on early receivers due to poor supply regulation
and the like.

73
Jeff

atec77

2013-08-25 10:23:32 UTC

Post by Peter Able

Post by Peter
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:06:59 +0100, "gareth"

The filter is operating on the incoming signal. The BFO frequency is
applied to the output of the filter.

Thanks, but I think that you may have missed the point.

kinda pretentious bs om , try harder next time

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

Michael Black

2013-08-24 23:20:13 UTC

When I had an SP-600, I don't remember using the phasing control much.
I'd leave it somewhere, I'd set the BFO and all was generally fine.

When that type of filter came along, it didn't replace anything, it added
something (so there was a wave of commercial receivers where you could get
two models, one without the filter, the other with the filter). The
single signal was because it suddenly did get rid of the audio image.
Tghe phasing control doesn't really change that, it allows some level of
control and you also get a notch at the same time.

DOn't forget the crystal gave really quite high selectivity, the phasing
was simply to balance out the capacitance of the crystal holder. Since
this added some control, you'd see the phasing control on the front panel.
Most of those filters had a selectivity switch, which would vary the
amount of loading of the output of the crystal filter, which allowed for
varying selectivity (though since it was only one crystal, the skirt
selectivity wasn't that great). The wider the filter was, the less effect
the phasing control would have on it. Which is likely why I never saw
much use in the phasing control on that SP-600, I'd generally keep it at
3KHz

MIchael VE2BVW

Post by gareth
If that is true, how is it then possible to adjust the BFO to a
pleasant-for-you tone,
because such adjustment will alter the CIO frequency?
Surely the BFO has to be set in advance to be halfway between the serial
resonant
frequency and the notchable parallel resonant frequency?
This is a query stimulated by my current project which is to build a
boatanchor style
RX, with a flywheel-loaded slide rule dial like that of the Eddystone EA12

gareth

2013-08-25 08:18:48 UTC

I think that it can only do that if the CIO / BFO is half way between the
peak
and the notch?

Tghe phasing control doesn't really change that, it allows some level of
control and you also get a notch at the same time.

If the notch is variable, then it will be some other audio frequency which
would be
notched out (clearly you'd go for the most troublesome interference, but
that
would not necessarily be the audio image)

TNX FER contribution OM

philo

2013-08-25 13:37:45 UTC

Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.

Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.

Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.

I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.

Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view
your phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted
during the zeroth +1 day of April.

philo

2013-08-25 14:24:10 UTC

On 08/25/2013 09:13 AM, gareth wrote:
/plonk/

Jerry Stuckle

2013-08-25 14:25:16 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Your question is rather unfocused. You have not even given details as to
the filter type...viz: chebychev filter, butterworth filter. etc.
Additionally, the BFO has nothing at all to do with filtering and
as you have seen by the answers here, only confuses the issue.
Once you have your thoughts organized feel free to post back with a
coherent question. There is no need for you to talk rudely to those who
have attempted to answer your ill-formed query.
I've been licensed since 1964 so may very well qualify as senior and
experienced. As to knowledgeable...? I'm still in the learning phase.
Now that I think of it, it appears perhaps that you have only been
attempting to be humorous. Throughout my Usenet peregrinations I view your
phraseology as being analogous to that class of inquiry oft posted during
the zeroth +1 day of April.

If you were, indeed, licensed in 1964, then it is high time that you
presented
a more mature attitude to public debate. Your comments about rudeness above
would seem to be Freudian Projection.
I have not been rude, but I have replied to those who have been rude, and
corrected those
who misunderstood the issues.

Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically,
a horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because
YOU did not explain yourself properly.

There is nothing lacking in my original query for those who would be
knowledgeable
about single crystals together with their phasing controls. That you muddy
the water
with talk of Tchebychev etc suggests that you are not amongst their number.

There is a tremendous amount lacking from your original query. That you
don't know how Tchebychev, Butterworth and other filter types are
pertinent to your question shows your lack of knowledge. Yet you try to
claim everyone else is ignorant - when you are asking the question.

The BFO is entirely relevant to be sat 1/2 way between the peak and the
notch so
that the audio image would be removed.
Nevertheless, thank-you for your (immature) contribution.

The BFO is not relevant to the crystal filter. The relationship between
the filter's bandpass and the BFO frequency can be relevant.

And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to
rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be
"enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967,
(in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them
in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand
how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or
provided non-pertinent information.

Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly
suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly
drive people away from trying to help you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

gareth

2013-08-25 14:26:20 UTC

Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.

Jerry Stuckle

2013-08-25 14:33:41 UTC

Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.

Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this
is pretty normal operation for you.

But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their
bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe
your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED
people ask questions.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
***@attglobal.net
==================

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-25 14:52:27 UTC

Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.

Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this
is pretty normal operation for you.
But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their
bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe
your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED
people ask questions.

Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in
uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the
Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour
at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Jerry Stuckle

2013-08-25 14:57:47 UTC

Incorrect. You have (and continue) to be rude, arrogant and, basically, a
horse's ass. And if someone misunderstood the issues, it is because YOU
did not explain yourself properly.

Grow up.

Ah, I just read the relevant posts in uk.radio.amateur. Looks like this
is pretty normal operation for you.
But then trolls are like that, and always blame everyone else for their
bad behavior. Maybe this is normal operation in your family, or maybe
your mother didn't teach you any manners. But this is not how CIVILIZED
people ask questions.

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

Wymsey

2013-08-26 09:20:34 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 09:26:55 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Ian Jackson

2013-08-26 09:35:28 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

Steve, have you really lost the plot? The 'old RAE' WAS a rigorous exam
(but maybe not as daunting as the Dreaded Morse Test).

--
Ian

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 09:43:23 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

Steve, have you really lost the plot? The 'old RAE' WAS a rigorous exam
(but maybe not as daunting as the Dreaded Morse Test).
Ian

yes and you had to be able to write the answer...not just walk about tapping
shite into an iphone.......like wot steve is expert at....

Wymsey

2013-08-26 09:50:22 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
Steve, have you really lost the plot? The 'old RAE' WAS a rigorous exam
(but maybe not as daunting as the Dreaded Morse Test).

He's just trying to wind me up Ian. He won't succeed but I do feel sorry
for him.

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 11:29:50 UTC

Post by Wymsey
He's just trying to wind me up Ian. He won't succeed

Clearly I have.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 11:29:51 UTC

he is a very fitting friend for brain ...that's nice......it's nice to
have a friend with the same interests .....

True.
There could be implications regarding what STC has said about me.
Particualy if any of what he has said comes to my attention outside of
this group and the ones he has cross-posted to.
Luckily I spent the last few years of full time work at a law firm in
Southampton so have friends in the right places. It's not that I care
what he thinks about me or that I want any of his apple gadget money
rather that such behaviour can have unforeseen consequences. As I
understand similar behaviour did for his friend Brian.
Anyway, more important things to do: the bread maker just busted - we'll
have to eat cake!

Chaz, love, allow me to LOL!

There's a precedent here, I feel, from Reay vs Evans, in particular the
judge's comments regarding that which was clearly childish banter and could
not be taken seriously. Against the backdrop of perversion and madness that
often consumes ukra and beyond, plus the many personal attacks you have
made against me here and elsewhere, you don't have a leg to stand on, pops.
But please, waste your time and energy if you like, I'll laugh and laugh
and laugh at how gotten to you are.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 11:32:55 UTC

he is a very fitting friend for brain ...that's nice......it's nice to
have a friend with the same interests .....

Chaz, love, allow me to LOL!
There's a precedent here, I feel, from Reay vs Evans, in particular the
judge's comments regarding that which was clearly childish banter and could
not be taken seriously. Against the backdrop of perversion and madness that
often consumes ukra and beyond, plus the many personal attacks you have
made against me here and elsewhere, you don't have a leg to stand on, pops.
But please, waste your time and energy if you like, I'll laugh and laugh
and laugh at how gotten to you are.

Well from what you have said Charlie is a pirate and a cheat...simple...and
all the people in the other groups crossposted to will think the same
thing......

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 09:37:42 UTC

"current, rigorous Full Licence exam" !??!!??!!!..ha ha ha ho ho

"BOLLOCKS" he is worth a dozen of you and so is his RAE pass .........

Percy Picacity

2013-08-26 09:40:58 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

--
Percy Picacity

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 09:47:28 UTC

AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.
Percy Picacity

just put steve down as an arse hole ............not worth a fuck

Wymsey

2013-08-26 09:56:15 UTC

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
just put steve down

I saw that and a nursery rhyme came to mind

"Ding dong dell
pussy's down the well"

Went to the MKARS rally yesterday - pretty small but a good site if they
can get more sellers. I think the weather put the the car booters off.
bAndover next weekend. Nice day out though.

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

Wymsey

2013-08-26 09:52:44 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

I'm sure your right - on both counts! He's just trying to wind me but
being the better man I merely pity him. And pity is cheap!

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

Spike

2013-08-26 11:25:36 UTC

Post by Percy Picacity
AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

Thanks for injecting some uncomfortable reality here, while noting it
isn't the first time you've said something on these lines to the person
concerned.

I see it's now gone rather quiet, for some reason, although it might be
that the backchannels could be a little busy.

--
Spike

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 11:28:03 UTC

Post by Spike

Post by Percy Picacity
AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

Thanks for injecting some uncomfortable reality here, while noting it
isn't the first time you've said something on these lines to the person
concerned.
I see it's now gone rather quiet, for some reason, although it might be
that the backchannels could be a little busy.
Spike

he will be getting advice from his big mucker....he knows how to proceed in
these matters.

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 11:29:52 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

Percy, you spend too much time pontificating in uk.legal.moderated, my
hysterical friend.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 11:33:43 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by
fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

Percy, you spend too much time pontificating in uk.legal.moderated, my
hysterical friend.

hoisted.......!

FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI

2013-08-26 09:51:42 UTC

If his certificate is 40 years old he will have passed the old written exam
and not the current multiple choice paper. Have you seen any of the question
papers from that era?

--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 10:08:29 UTC

Post by FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI
If his certificate is 40 years old he will have passed the old written
exam and not the current multiple choice paper. Have you seen any of the
question papers from that era?
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.

he won't be able to understand the questions never mind write an answer in
longhand....just another ticky box dickhead.......nice to be in his killfile
though...he obviously is intimidated by quality ....

Wymsey

2013-08-26 10:12:51 UTC

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate

to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."

I just wish he had the sense not to behave in this manner, particularly
in the groups that I frequent!

<plonk)

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 11:29:52 UTC

Post by Wymsey
Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.

Post by Wymsey
Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"
Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"
Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate

to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."

Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old pass
certificate.

Post by Wymsey
I just wish he had the sense not to behave in this manner, particularly
in the groups that I frequent!
<plonk)

Didn't you have me killfiled already or was that a lie?

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 11:32:10 UTC

Post by Wymsey
Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.

Post by Wymsey
Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"
Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"
Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate

to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."

Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old pass
certificate.

Not only old, but also obsolete.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 11:35:23 UTC

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Not only old, but also obsolete.

...and totally legal to use

Jerry Stuckle

2013-08-26 10:34:47 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

Hmmm, I don't know about over there, but here in the U.S., the tests
were MUCH harder 42 years ago when I passed my Amateur Extra exam.
Tests were administered by FCC personnel, not volunteer examiners. The
question pool was not published, and you had to actually know and
understand electronics and the laws to pass it. In fact, I found the
Amateur Extra to be harder than either the Second or First Class
Radiotelephone (commercial) test i had passed 9 months earlier (back
then you had to have General or above to test for the Amateur Extra).

Nowadays here you can sit in class, memorize the answers and pass all of
the tests before going home for dinner.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
***@attglobal.net
==================

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 11:25:47 UTC

spot on ...just dross in the hobby these days ......

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-26 11:45:49 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

Hmmm, I don't know about over there, but here in the U.S., the tests were
MUCH harder 42 years ago when I passed my Amateur Extra exam. Tests were
administered by FCC personnel, not volunteer examiners. The question
pool was not published, and you had to actually know and understand
electronics and the laws to pass it. In fact, I found the Amateur Extra
to be harder than either the Second or First Class Radiotelephone
(commercial) test i had passed 9 months earlier (back then you had to
have General or above to test for the Amateur Extra).
Nowadays here you can sit in class, memorize the answers and pass all of
the tests before going home for dinner.

Hi Jerry. The short response is; I'm yanking Charlie's chain. And it was a
glorious success, which is no surprise as he's *very* sensitive about it!
Chaz's biggest problem is his pomposity, and it's a great wheeze giving him
a kick up the arse and sending him into a flying fit.

I'm not denigrating the old style qualifications and exams, not at all. I'm
positive that they were more rigorous, standards were higher. The UK full
exam today, though, is not far removed from that which was extant in the
60s, which is when Chaz says he sat it (but bizarrely didn't convert it to
a licence for 4 decades!), the main difference being that it was long form
answers rather than multiple choice. Which isn't, to my mind, that big a
deal. If one knows something one should be able to quite easily write about
it. We don't get the answers pool over here, either.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Fred Roberts

2013-08-26 10:38:53 UTC

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole

What would you know about the old RAE or the current Full, "my mates
will ensure a pass" exam given you have no experience of either? Are
you talking utter bollocks again Steve?

philo

2013-08-25 15:00:01 UTC

On 08/25/2013 09:52 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head.

Even though I completely understood your statement, my brain always
likes to see things in a humorous manner and often twists things around.

I imagined , rather than a police officer subduing the troll who posted
here... the officer in an inverted position.

Anton Deque

2013-08-25 15:34:31 UTC

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in
uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the
Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his
behaviour at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing
on his head.

IIRC that incident was unrelated to Gareth's behaviour and was in fact a
result of the deranged imagination of your chubby chum.

HTH

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-25 15:58:05 UTC

Post by Anton Deque

IIRC that incident was unrelated to Gareth's behaviour and was in fact a
result of the deranged imagination of your chubby chum.
HTH

Nope, it stemmed directly from his behaviour online.

Here's some clippings from the web:

Radio ham Gareth Evans, G4SDW, was reported to have been arrested in
connection with the harassment of an Internet chat room user.
Now Mr Evans, 54, of Hardens Close, Chippenham SN15 3AA, has made a
complaint to police that he was roughly treated during the arrest.
But police say they are confident they acted within the law when arresting
him.
Mr Evans, who has been bailed pending further police inquiries, was
arrested by six officers at his home on Monday 7th March 2005.
He claims he was pinned to the floor by three police officers, while
another put a boot on the side of his face and forced his head into the
ground.
He said: "They carried me out by the strap of the handcuffs which were
biting against the bone." But Sergeant Matt Armstrong said officers had
made a video recording of the arrest, "We are confident we acted within the
law and if Mr Evans made a complaint then it will be fully investigated by
the Police Professional Standards Department and could be referred to the
Independent Police Complaints Commission.
"He was released on bail pending further inquiries."
Mr Evans was kept in custody overnight at Melksham Police Station and
subsequently made a complaint to Chief Superintendent Amanda Eveley.

///
POLICE sergeant Richard Fullers name has been cleared after he was found
not guilty of using unreasonable force to arrest a man.

Radio ham Gareth Evans, 55, had complained Sgt Fuller, who lives near
Devizes, had unnecessarily used his foot to force his head to the ground
while he was being arrested at his home, in Hardens Close, Chippenham, in
March.
Magistrates in Chippenham found Sgt Fuller, a member of the force's armed
response unit based in Devizes who has an unblemished career record, not
guilty on the second day of his trial on Thursday, February 9.
They said he had not intended to harm Mr Evans, who suffered superficial
facial injuries, and had not used excessive or unreasonable force. He was
alleged to have forced Mr Evans' head to the ground with his foot.

Magistrates in Chippenham heard Mr Evans was arrested at his home in
Hardens Close in connection with the harassment of an Internet chat room
user a case which has since been dropped. The court was shown a video of
the arrest and photographs of Mr Evans' facial injuries taken after the
incident. Mr Evans, 55, spoke of his terror at the arrest, which used what
he described as "agonising force".
Giving evidence, he said: "I was upstairs in my office when I saw a number
of police coming up the road. "I came down to the front door where they
told me they were going to arrest me. "I was in a panic and extremely
frightened by so many people. "I had been at the door for several minutes
when I was suddenly thrown to the floor. It was completely uncalled for.
"A handcuff had been put on to my left wrist with huge force.

Eleven months later and the mark is still visible. I was in a panic that
the same thing was going to happen to my right wrist and I was flailing
around on the floor. "Mr Fuller was swearing at me continuously and I
remember him saying to me I know what to do about this'. A boot was applied
for my face and ground down hard and I gave a cry of distress. "I was lying
on the floor pinned down by a number of officers. There was a feeling of
despair as the handcuff was placed tightly around my other wrist."

Peter Coombe, prosecuting, said the question wasn't whether the incident
happened, but if it amounted to reasonable force. He said: "It was clear
that Sgt Fuller lost his temper and used excessive force. "It was clearly
motivated by anger and that is reflected by the remarks he made at the
time. Mr Evans posed no risk of immediate violence.

"The state entrusts police officers with the right and power to use force
when necessary and must be guarded against using it in excess." Mr Evans
was examined by a forensic pathologist who found the injury on his face
consistent with contact of the boot of the type worn by Sgt Fuller.

Nick Fridd, defending, said by last June Mr Evans had made 59 complaints to
the Independent Police Complaints Commission about Wiltshire Constabulary.
He said Mr Evans aired his views of the police force on the Internet,
calling them the "we'll s***e all over you constabulary". He also said
former police officer Roy Clarke, who was stabbed to death in his Melksham
home in December 2004, "deserved what he got".

When asked by Mr Fridd if he shouted and screamed during the arrest to draw
the attention of his neighbours, Mr Evans replied: "No. I was in absolute
agony. I've never known such pain."

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 09:24:28 UTC

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW has quite the colourful past history in
uk.radio.amateur. If you fancy a good laugh, have a delve through the
Google Groups archive. It will not surprise you to learn that his behaviour
at one point eventually resulted in a police officer standing on his head.

I blame the masons...never mind the polis man probably paid dearly for
believing what another mason probably told him ......

Fred Roberts

2013-08-26 10:45:57 UTC

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:24:28 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
I blame the masons...never mind the polis man probably paid dearly for
believing what another mason probably told him ......

Indeed, the plonker STC conveniently forgets or probably doesn't know
where the events ended.

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-26 11:29:00 UTC

Post by Fred Roberts
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:24:28 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."

Post by Jim GM4DHJ ...
I blame the masons...never mind the polis man probably paid dearly for
believing what another mason probably told him ......

Indeed, the plonker STC conveniently forgets or probably doesn't know
where the events ended.

true....karma

philo

2013-08-25 14:46:05 UTC

<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
And if you still think everyone else is wrong, perhaps you need to
rewrite the physics books. I'm sure the entire world would love to be
"enlightened" by your misconceptions. I've been licensed since 1967,
(in fact my first receiver was a Hallicrafters SK-43) have studied them
in college and designed circuits around them, and I actually understand
how they work. No one here has asked a non-pertinent question - or
provided non-pertinent information.
Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly
suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly
drive people away from trying to help you.

Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed.

In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and
unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the
doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize
they are just trolling and no longer view their posts.

Jerry Stuckle

2013-08-25 14:50:13 UTC

<snip>

Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed.
In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and
unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the
doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize
they are just trolling and no longer view their posts.

Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the confirmation.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-08-25 14:54:20 UTC

<snip>

Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed.
In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and
unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the
doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize
they are just trolling and no longer view their posts.

Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the confirmation.

Well, I never let trolls bother me too much...but I suppose I should
really check my own kill-filter to determine whether or not it's a
Butterworth : )

Jerry Stuckle

2013-08-25 14:59:26 UTC

<snip>

Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed.
In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and
unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the
doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize
they are just trolling and no longer view their posts.

Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the
confirmation.

Well, I never let trolls bother me too much...but I suppose I should
really check my own kill-filter to determine whether or not it's a
Butterworth : )

Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his
question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his
ignorance).

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
==================

philo

2013-08-25 15:01:47 UTC

<snip>

Unfortunately "gareth" is a troll and has now been filtered from my feed.
In the years I have been on Usenet I have seen numerous rambling and
unfocused questions but I always give the poster the benefit of the
doubt at first. As soon as they attack those trying to help, I realize
they are just trolling and no longer view their posts.

Yup, I figured that out after reading u.r.a. Thanks for the
confirmation.

Well, I never let trolls bother me too much...but I suppose I should
really check my own kill-filter to determine whether or not it's a
Butterworth : )

Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his
question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his
ignorance).

I just stuck that in their to give him a taste of his own medicine, so
to speak.,,,but I should have just ignored the guy in the first place.

gareth

2013-08-25 15:04:36 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his
question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his
ignorance).

Grow up, OM, that you may disagree with a technical matter is
nojustification
for you to sling abusive remarks, perhaps in an attempt to make yourself
feel better?

A single crystal filter together with its phasing control both fed
differentially
from either side of a transformer secondary cannot be Butterworth,
Tchebychev,
Elliptical, Cohn or any other multi pole filter that you would care to
posit,
simply because there are only two poles

As to not knowing the difference, it does appear that once again you exhibit
Freudian projection.

Stephen Thomas Cole

2013-08-25 15:08:10 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Don't bother - he doesn't know the difference, so it's unrelated to his
question (IOW, he can't answer, so he blames everyone else for his
ignorance).

Grow up, OM, that you may disagree with a technical matter is
nojustification
for you to sling abusive remarks, perhaps in an attempt to make yourself
feel better?
A single crystal filter together with its phasing control both fed
differentially
from either side of a transformer secondary cannot be Butterworth,
Tchebychev,
Elliptical, Cohn or any other multi pole filter that you would care to
posit,
simply because there are only two poles
As to not knowing the difference, it does appear that once again you exhibit
Freudian projection.

That's it Gareth, when in over your head, keep swinging wildly! Ah, that
indefatigable Welsh spirit!

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Jim GM4DHJ ...

2013-08-25 17:19:30 UTC

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

Full of excuses...just like brian avoiding CW for decades.......always some
excuse........

FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI

2013-08-25 17:31:41 UTC

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
That's it Gareth, when in over your head, keep swinging wildly! Ah, that
indefatigable Welsh spirit!

One day he'll work out that when you're in a hole the worst thing you can do
is keep digging. Don't tell him, though, it would spoil all the fun.

--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

Brian Reay

2013-08-25 14:48:00 UTC

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Meanwhile, if you want help on this or any other list or forum, I highly
suggest you change your approach. The one you are using will quickly
drive people away from trying to help you.

Those of us who have attempted to help this character in the past have
the sense to avoid him.

This thread has developed exactly as I expected, with his insulting
those attempting to assist him.

Needless to say, he will never share his supposed new found knowledge
from the book he has 'found'.

Big K and 1/T all over again!

philo

2013-08-25 14:51:43 UTC

Post by Brian Reay

Those of us who have attempted to help this character in the past have
the sense to avoid him.
This thread has developed exactly as I expected, with his insulting
those attempting to assist him.
Needless to say, he will never share his supposed new found knowledge
from the book he has 'found'.
Big K and 1/T all over again!

Well, even though the guy is a troll, I always try to make to best of
everything. Though I had known about the "homebrew" group I had never
before known of the existence of the "boatanchor" group.

I can now relive the good old days.

Through the years I have gotten rid of most of my "boatanchors"
but happily still have my HQ-140-X

Scott Dorsey

2013-08-25 15:08:19 UTC

Post by philoÂ
Well, even though the guy is a troll, I always try to make to best of
everything. Though I had known about the "homebrew" group I had never
before known of the existence of the "boatanchor" group.

Welcome! It is a good place! Traffic is much lower than it used to be,
but there are still plenty of interesting people hanging out here.

Post by philoÂ
I can now relive the good old days.
Through the years I have gotten rid of most of my "boatanchors"
but happily still have my HQ-140-X

I had one of those when I was a novice and eventually did a horse-trade
for an R-388 that made me a lot happier, but you can't really complain
about any of those old rigs. You turn on the receiver and there are
people talking and after a few decades that's still pretty cool.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

philo

2013-08-25 16:06:13 UTC

Welcome! It is a good place! Traffic is much lower than it used to be,
but there are still plenty of interesting people hanging out here.

Post by philoÂ
I can now relive the good old days.
Through the years I have gotten rid of most of my "boatanchors"
but happily still have my HQ-140-X

I actually purchased the HQ-140-X at a rummage sale near my house about
25 years ago. My original novice receiver was an HQ-110-C which I later
used to trade-up to a Drake 2A which I probably never should have sold.

Michael Black

2013-08-25 16:58:40 UTC

Welcome! It is a good place! Traffic is much lower than it used to be,
but there are still plenty of interesting people hanging out here.

Post by philoÂ
I can now relive the good old days.
Through the years I have gotten rid of most of my "boatanchors"
but happily still have my HQ-140-X

Did the R-388 have a phasing type crystal filter, or did Collins put a
mechanical filter in it? I seem to recall the former.

Michael VE2BVW

Scott Dorsey

2013-08-25 17:08:34 UTC

Post by Michael Black
Did the R-388 have a phasing type crystal filter, or did Collins put a
mechanical filter in it? I seem to recall the former.

Yes, it had the crystal filter, which was useful in a CW pileup, but not
really all that great for AM or SSB.

I traded _that_ up for an R-390A which has mechanical filters with very
sharp skirts combined with a narrowband audio filter for picking one CW
signal out. Audio quality for phone is not very good, but you can hear
stuff way down in the grass.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

gareth

2013-08-25 15:17:47 UTC

Needless to say, he will never share his supposed new found knowledge from
the book he has 'found'.

I will be quite happy to share the information with you, or, indeed any
genuine
enquirer who emails me, OM.

gareth

2013-08-25 14:25:21 UTC

Thanks to all those who have attempted to reply.

As to rudeness, you might find it interesting to look at the thread as it
appears
in uk.radio.amateur, where a couple of children are trying to ensure that
their
infantile remarks do not reach a wider audience by removing the cross-posts.

Once again, thanks to all those who have attempted to reply, but I have now
found the answers by reference to my collection of old electircal
engineering texts,
specifically the 11th, 1947, edition of "Radio Handbook" published by
Editors and
Engineers Ltd of Sanata Barbara, California.

Perhaps it should have been the first place to look, a book published at the
time the technique was extant? :-)

gareth

2013-08-25 14:39:09 UTC