In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

Well one would hope at the aerial, but there are some clever devices around
now called antenna analysers that you can place at the aerial feed point
and also on the end of the feeder. Even I know that if you are using a
doublet with a balanced feed back to the transmitter you tune the whole
thing, but if its coax fed or has a balun at the aerial its really best to
check the match there at all frequencies needed. If I were going to
transmit, I 'd go the doublet way rather than the dipole fed by coax as the
tuner can then be in the house and you stand a better chance of not having
everything acting as an aerial in the house in my view.
Really you don't need complex theory as long as you can work out the
frequency to wavelength correctly and get as near as you can to 1 quarter
wave at the frequency either side of the coax o an unbalanced system it kind
of works,

Mind you good earth mats are very handy things for both receive and
transmit.

I do hope more people would take an interest in direct point to point comms.
Its probably the only way that will work if our modern world suffers an
issue taking down the digital stuff.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Gareth Evans" wrote in message
...
In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

On 30/01/2020 19:26, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 30/01/2020 15:10, Gareth Evans wrote:
In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridgesÂ* :-(

what can you do...

We need to stress the difference between radio amateurs,
those of a technical bent, and CBers-masquerading-as-radio-amateurs,
those who only operate ready-made shop-bought
equipment. I wonder if Harry Bloomfield M1BYT places
himself in the latter category going by his rather
silly and infantile approach to debate in an international
forum?

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 05:19:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Mind you good earth mats are very handy things for both receive and
transmit.

I do hope more people would take an interest in direct point to point
comms.
Its probably the only way that will work if our modern world suffers an
issue taking down the digital stuff.

That last isnt going to happen and if it did you would
have more to worry about than communication.

No point in keeping a fleet of carrier pigeons or
a big pile of wood to do smoke signals with either.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane senile pest from Oz?
LOL

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000
Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(


I reckon that the vast majority of them would happily tell YOU where to
place an SWR bridge, Gareth.

On 30/01/2020 20:02, Bernie wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000
Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(


I reckon that the vast majority of them would happily tell YOU where to
place an SWR bridge, Gareth.


no doubt up the high hole of his arse ? .....

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:09:36 +0000
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote:

On 30/01/2020 20:02, Bernie wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000
Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(


I reckon that the vast majority of them would happily tell YOU
where to place an SWR bridge, Gareth.


no doubt up the high hole of his arse ? .....


High hole, high hole, it's off to twerk I go.

Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.

--

Roger Hayter

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.

A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?

I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:35:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might be considered to
be the bell-wethers of amateur radio are bemoaning the decline in
technical standards, especially among USA Extra class licensees who
know not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.


There is also the elitist aspect to be considered.

On Friday, 31 January 2020 00:41:11 UTC, T i m wrote:

Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.

A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?

I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.

SiLabs make some very nice single-chip FM radio receivers. You can
control the tuning over i2c. Some versions have support for actively
tuning a loop antenna. All you need is one of those and a small
microcontroller to preset the tuning.

John

On 31/01/2020 08:21, wrote:
On Friday, 31 January 2020 00:41:11 UTC, T i m wrote:

Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.

A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?

I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.

SiLabs make some very nice single-chip FM radio receivers. You can
control the tuning over i2c. Some versions have support for actively
tuning a loop antenna. All you need is one of those and a small
microcontroller to preset the tuning.

John


I built something along these lines years ago. It was downconverted to
100Khz IF or so and then pulse counted to demodulate..

It's very possible to do this these days with all sorts of circuits
being available.

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 31/01/2020 00:41, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.

A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?

I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.

Anyone who has passed the RAE, perhaps you, is well
qualified to pursue such a project, and taken with
the self-training concomitant with the interest and
the licence that you have held for a number of years,
you should have no difficulty in either completing
such a project off-the-cuff or with a little researching,
completing it then.

Good luck with the project! (You are an example
to the candidature of the exams today)

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:21:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, 31 January 2020 00:41:11 UTC, T i m wrote:

Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.

A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?

I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.

SiLabs make some very nice single-chip FM radio receivers.

Would that be this sort of thing John?

https://www.silabs.com/audio-and-rad...adio-receivers

You can
control the tuning over i2c.

Ok.

Some versions have support for actively
tuning a loop antenna.

I'm not sure what that means and how it would apply it's use when
dog-walking. ;-)

All you need is one of those and a small
microcontroller to preset the tuning.

So would require something like an Arduino Nano / ESP32 along with the
radio module *just* to do that (lock it to R4)? No way of mapping it
using jumpers etc?

I think I was thinking of something much simpler, possibly with just a
preset tuning cap, rather than anything digital that's probably going
to consume more power for no real advantage in this role?

I'm not ruling out the idea of a digitally controlled FM module,
especially if it might out-perform a more basic solution (stability
AFC/ AGC etc).

Part of the point was for me to give her something simple that just
did R4 with a volume control, and ideally at a budget price. I fear
once we start down the road of something 'nice', all be it locked onto
93.2 MHz, I might as well by a manually tuned small commercial
'transistor radio' and glue the tuning knob on R4. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I have previously been given (as a promo) micro radios with no
display and a simple search button and volume control but they didn't
typically retain the last used frequency and would also 'search' on
their own if the signal dropped out for a second. ;-(

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:30:03 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

On 31/01/2020 00:41, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.

A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?

I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.

Anyone who has passed the RAE, perhaps you, is well
qualified to pursue such a project, and taken with
the self-training concomitant with the interest and
the licence that you have held for a number of years,
you should have no difficulty in either completing
such a project off-the-cuff or with a little researching,
completing it then.

No actual help on that then, you know, in the true spirit of RA (or
just some elitist posturing and hot air)?

Good luck with the project!

It will need more than luck to have it locked on 93.2 MHz.

(You are an example
to the candidature of the exams today)

Exactly. You seem very confused re what 'most people' are willing to
input into 'a hobby' these days.

As I said, I didn't take my RAE to start running long wires down my
garden, talking to people using a series of beeps or talking to anyone
for that matter, it was *purely* to be able to hook my PC up to a
digital network and move data / Emails.

The 2 FT23R's we have were to be used as walkie talkies, not to
advance the concept of amateur radio.

I attended the RA course at a local college and as a surprise, so did
my (pregnant at the time) Wife. She had to study hard (and we helping
her) whilst I had covered most of it previously so didn't really need
to learn much to get a pass (that was all I cared about). I think she
passed and I got a credit (or credits?).

She has only ever used hers to be able to transmit with the handy and
mine running the Packet station.

I did assemble a couple of BSX2 TNC's [1] but that was more in line
with my job at the time as a Data Communications support / service
Tech, a massive leap from that to *designing* RF stuff.

So, it is likely the case that *your* interpretation of the needs and
desires of anyone looking to get into RA today (who is under 40) is
more likely to look at it from an off-the-shelf, buy it and run it
POV, rather than someone winding coils round pencils or *designing*
anything.

Look at the market for kitcars, self assembly RC models or the demise
of electronics / components shops / or general hardware suppliers to
see that.

Even though I'm old, 'into electronics' and know a lot of technical /
PC type people, the only other RA I know in person is Brian. ;-(

I did attend a local radio group natter night but felt just as
uncomfortable as I did when I went to a Linux group one.

All weirdo's. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Friday, 31 January 2020 10:39:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:21:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, 31 January 2020 00:41:11 UTC, T i m wrote:
Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.
A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?
I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.
SiLabs make some very nice single-chip FM radio receivers.
Would that be this sort of thing John?
https://www.silabs.com/audio-and-rad...adio-receivers

Yes. Those ones allow you to use the headphone leads as an antenna.
There are some others that support a small loop antenna. Such loops are
narrowband, so the radio can autotune the loop for the frequency
currently being used. This gives much better performance than a fixed
tuned loop and compensates for varying proximity to other objects
such as the person wearing it when dog walking.

You can
control the tuning over i2c.

Ok.

Some versions have support for actively
tuning a loop antenna.

I'm not sure what that means and how it would apply it's use when
dog-walking. ;-)

See above

All you need is one of those and a small
microcontroller to preset the tuning.

So would require something like an Arduino Nano / ESP32 along with the
radio module *just* to do that (lock it to R4)? No way of mapping it
using jumpers etc?

These ones do need a microcontroller, but an ATtiny or similar minimal
processor should be enough.
You would need good soldering skills to use one of the SiLabs devices.
I have hand-wired prototypes with them in dead-bug mode but good magnification
and a steady hand are essential. I probably have a few lying around if you
want one or two to play with. I would need to check exactly which versions
I have.

I think I was thinking of something much simpler, possibly with just a
preset tuning cap, rather than anything digital that's probably going
to consume more power for no real advantage in this role?

The supply current is about 15mA at 2.7 to 5.5V. A small microcontroller
might add a few more mA.

I'm not ruling out the idea of a digitally controlled FM module,
especially if it might out-perform a more basic solution (stability
AFC/ AGC etc).

Part of the point was for me to give her something simple that just
did R4 with a volume control, and ideally at a budget price. I fear
once we start down the road of something 'nice', all be it locked onto
93.2 MHz, I might as well by a manually tuned small commercial
'transistor radio' and glue the tuning knob on R4. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I have previously been given (as a promo) micro radios with no
display and a simple search button and volume control but they didn't
typically retain the last used frequency and would also 'search' on
their own if the signal dropped out for a second. ;-(

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

Test for you then ... I'd like to build a simple FM broadcast receiver
that I can tune (and lock) to R4 for our daughter to listen to when
she's out walking the dog.

A kit would be nice but I don't want anything that scans, unless it
can be locked on a single freq (93.2 MHz?) at startup?

I think it would only need to drive a small speaker or single
headphone.

Cheers, T i m




There are several ICs designed for something similar. I have, or had (Im
not sure where they are) a couple of cheap €˜Chinese radios someone gave me
which were about the size of a match box. They had a couple of buttons to
control the volume to a pair of ear phones and a couple to scan. FM only. I
think the ear phone cable doubled as the antenna. I used then while walking
before I bought an iPod.

The case was clearish plastic and, as I recall, there was only one IC and a
few support components inside- plus the batteries.

I saw similar ones on sale for a few pounds.

Considering the price/simplicity etc, the performance wasnt bad- certainly
good enough for casual listening while walking etc.

The only niggle, you had to scan through stations to find the one you
wanted, although I think I remained tuned to the last one used when turned
off and back on.

Try a google for €˜single ic fm receiver.

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:57:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

SiLabs make some very nice single-chip FM radio receivers.
Would that be this sort of thing John?
https://www.silabs.com/audio-and-rad...adio-receivers

Yes. Those ones allow you to use the headphone leads as an antenna.

Cool ... and that was another question answered. ;-)

There are some others that support a small loop antenna. Such loops are
narrowband, so the radio can autotune the loop for the frequency
currently being used. This gives much better performance than a fixed
tuned loop and compensates for varying proximity to other objects
such as the person wearing it when dog walking.

Thanks for the explanation. What sort of diameter are these loops do
you know please and are they directional?

snip


These ones do need a microcontroller, but an ATtiny or similar minimal
processor should be enough.

Understood.

You would need good soldering skills to use one of the SiLabs devices.

I'm not bad (been doing it for 50+ years) and it's more the eyes than
the hands / iron as such. ;-)

I have hand-wired prototypes with them in dead-bug mode but good magnification
and a steady hand are essential.

I hear you John.

I probably have a few lying around if you
want one or two to play with. I would need to check exactly which versions
I have.

You are very kind. I have a straight linear tunable mini FM radio kit
on the way so I'll check that out first.

I think I was thinking of something much simpler, possibly with just a
preset tuning cap, rather than anything digital that's probably going
to consume more power for no real advantage in this role?

The supply current is about 15mA at 2.7 to 5.5V. A small microcontroller
might add a few more mA.

So 3 x AA or a 3.7V Lipo should power it ok.


Cheers, T i m

On 31/01/2020 07:08, John wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:35:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might be considered to
be the bell-wethers of amateur radio are bemoaning the decline in
technical standards, especially among USA Extra class licensees who
know not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.


There is also the elitist aspect to be considered.

....and most of the elete are professionals and not true hobbyists

On 31/01/2020 11:07, T i m wrote:

As I said, I didn't take my RAE to start running long wires down my
garden, talking to people using a series of beeps or talking to anyone
for that matter, it was *purely* to be able to hook my PC up to a
digital network and move data / Emails.

Whatever your original motivation, you nevertheless have passed
the necessary qualification to develop your interests (and
your project) further, and are to be encouraged to do so.

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:57:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

I also found this:

https://www.velleman.eu/products/view/?id=430858

Looks like it also needs some sort of microcontroller.

Cheers, T i m

On 31/01/2020 13:34, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 31/01/2020 07:08, John wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:35:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might be considered to
be the bell-wethers of amateur radio are bemoaning the decline in
technical standards, especially among USA Extra class licensees who
know not where to connect their SWR bridgesÂ* :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.


There is also the elitist aspect to be considered.

...and most of the elete are professionals and not true hobbyists

There is no elitism. _ A L L _ without exception are
encouraged to study for the qualifying exams and to take
an interest in electronics.

Perhaps there is a misuse of language here, with
elitism being equivocated with qualified?

For, example, your local GP is not being elitist if
he does not treat as equal someone whose only medical skill
is to apply a Bandaid.

On 31/01/2020 13:43, Gareth Evans wrote:
On 31/01/2020 13:34, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 31/01/2020 07:08, John wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:35:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might be
considered to
be the bell-wethers of amateur radio are bemoaning the decline in
technical standards, especially among USA Extra class licensees who
know not where to connect their SWR bridgesÂ* :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.


There is also the elitist aspect to be considered.

...and most of the elete are professionals and not true hobbyists

There is no elitism. _ A L L _Â* without exception are
encouraged to study for the qualifying exams and to take
an interest in electronics.

Perhaps there is a misuse of language here, with
elitism being equivocated with qualified?

For, example, your local GP is not being elitist if
he does not treat asÂ* equal someone whose only medical skill
is to apply a Bandaid.

because electronic professionals share a hobby with true hobbyists it is
human nature for them to feel superior....

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:35:18 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

On 31/01/2020 11:07, T i m wrote:

As I said, I didn't take my RAE to start running long wires down my
garden, talking to people using a series of beeps or talking to anyone
for that matter, it was *purely* to be able to hook my PC up to a
digital network and move data / Emails.

Whatever your original motivation, you nevertheless have passed
the necessary qualification to develop your interests (and
your project) further, and are to be encouraged to do so.

What part of 'getting though an exam' and having no actual interest or
skill in something don't you get?

I was an IT instructor for 7 years (CNI, MCT and A+CT) so have seen my
share of those who are only interested in becoming 'paper engineers'
as a means to an end, like all those who get degrees in subjects they
have no interest in but that add a notch on their CV.

People forget, people never understood in the first place and many can
pass a multiple choice exam without knowing the subject (a mate has
passed 50 without knowing the subject on many of them[1]).

So a bit of paper can mean nothing and someone without a bit of paper
isn't necessarily incompetent.

Cheers, T i m

[1] He 'tested' many of the professional electronic exams to make sure
they ran ok etc and generally passed, even if they were on subjects
that he had little knowledge of / on.

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:

snip

There are several ICs designed for something similar. I have, or had (I’m
not sure where they are) a couple of cheap ‘Chinese’ radios someone gave me
which were about the size of a match box.

That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.

They had a couple of buttons to
control the volume to a pair of ear phones and a couple to scan.

Yup.

FM only.

All that's needed / wanted in this case. ;-)

I
think the ear phone cable doubled as the antenna.

Yeah, that sounds familiar and was mentioned elsewhere.

I used then while walking
before I bought an iPod.

The case was clearish plastic and, as I recall, there was only one IC and a
few support components inside- plus the batteries.

Ok.

I saw similar ones on sale for a few pounds.

Yup, they are on eBay and the like.

Considering the price/simplicity etc, the performance wasn’t bad- certainly
good enough for casual listening while walking etc.

That's the goal, just for R4 so mostly the spoken word etc.

The only niggle, you had to scan through stations to find the one you
wanted,

And that was the rub and what I was trying to avoid with 'set' tuning
jobby.

although I think I remained tuned to the last one used when turned
off and back on.

Well that would be ok, as long as it didn't also autotune, if it lost
signal for a second (as I think the one I had did).

Try a google for ‘single ic fm receiver’.

I nearly got there when Googling last night but was looking more for
something that was a kit than just a component list, knowing how
'funny' RF can be around component layout.

That said, I was wondering if such a radio could be made stable enough
to stay 'locked' on say 93.2 MHz (R4 off CP?) or would I still need
some sort of user accessible trimmer if not tuner?

If it was locked on one frequency I'm guessing it could then be
optimised for that (a nice high to our 'Q'?). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 31/01/2020 16:57, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:35:18 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

On 31/01/2020 11:07, T i m wrote:

As I said, I didn't take my RAE to start running long wires down my
garden, talking to people using a series of beeps or talking to anyone
for that matter, it was *purely* to be able to hook my PC up to a
digital network and move data / Emails.

Whatever your original motivation, you nevertheless have passed
the necessary qualification to develop your interests (and
your project) further, and are to be encouraged to do so.

What part of 'getting though an exam' and having no actual interest or
skill in something don't you get?


What part of encouraging you to take an interest and to build
on what you already have don't you get?

You said further that you have been an instructor and so
you should understand exactly my intention for you.

From your original challenge and also the replies to you
from other contributors and your responses to them, you
do seem to be taking an interest in some electronic construction, so I
am warmly encouraging you in
your endeavours.

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

Should they be connected:

a) Between the microphone and the mic input?

b) Between the mains socket and the mains input?

c) Between the low pass filter and the antenna?

d) At the far end of the antenna?

e) At the antenna output socket?

f) None of the above?

On 31/01/2020 19:27, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(
Should they be connected:
c) Between the low pass filter and the antenna?

You'd be quite lucky to have an installation where there
was no ATU after the LPF because of an extraordinarily
well matched antenna, but if you were so equipped then
the SWR bridge could be used as an emergency indication
that something was at fault on the feeder or the antenna
itself, otherwise a pretty pointless installation.

e) At the antenna output socket?

Usually between the TX and the ATU; ie the TX antenna output
socket and not that of the ATU.

We all know that ATU is a misnomer because it does not tune the
antenna but acts as an impedance transformer. The RSGB seems
to prefer the name ASchew. (which seems medically undesirable :-) )

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:15:25 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

From your original challenge and also the replies to you
from other contributors and your responses to them, you
do seem to be taking an interest in some electronic construction, so I
am warmly encouraging you in
your endeavours.

You're wasting your time; the bloke's a MORON.

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:

snip

There are several ICs designed for something similar. I have, or had (IÂ’m
not sure where they are) a couple of cheap ‘Chinese’ radios someone gave me
which were about the size of a match box.

That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.

They had a couple of buttons to
control the volume to a pair of ear phones and a couple to scan.

Yup.

FM only.

All that's needed / wanted in this case. ;-)

I
think the ear phone cable doubled as the antenna.

Yeah, that sounds familiar and was mentioned elsewhere.

I used then while walking
before I bought an iPod.

The case was clearish plastic and, as I recall, there was only one IC and a
few support components inside- plus the batteries.

Ok.

I saw similar ones on sale for a few pounds.

Yup, they are on eBay and the like.

Considering the price/simplicity etc, the performance wasnÂ’t bad- certainly
good enough for casual listening while walking etc.

That's the goal, just for R4 so mostly the spoken word etc.

The only niggle, you had to scan through stations to find the one you
wanted,

And that was the rub and what I was trying to avoid with 'set' tuning
jobby.

although I think I remained tuned to the last one used when turned
off and back on.

Well that would be ok, as long as it didn't also autotune, if it lost
signal for a second (as I think the one I had did).

Try a google for ‘single ic fm receiver’.

I nearly got there when Googling last night but was looking more for
something that was a kit than just a component list, knowing how
'funny' RF can be around component layout.

That said, I was wondering if such a radio could be made stable enough
to stay 'locked' on say 93.2 MHz (R4 off CP?) or would I still need
some sort of user accessible trimmer if not tuner?

If it was locked on one frequency I'm guessing it could then be
optimised for that (a nice high to our 'Q'?). ;-)

Cheers, T i m



Perhaps I wasnt clear.

It had an €˜auto tune which worked surprisingly well. When you used it the
first time, you pressed a button and it scanned for the first station and
stopped. If that was the one you wanted, fine. If not you pressed the
button again and it scanned for the next one and so on. The pain was you
needed to cycle through a €˜list and there wasnt a display. However, as I
recall, it stored the last station listened to.

When I typed the first post we were on the A1, XYL was driving. Im now
home and have looked where I thought the radios where (well one of the
places). Ill keep looking and, if I find one, see if there is a part
number on the IC.

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:08:28 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:

snip

The only niggle, you had to scan through stations to find the one you
wanted,

And that was the rub and what I was trying to avoid with 'set' tuning
jobby.

although I think I remained tuned to the last one used when turned
off and back on.

Well that would be ok, as long as it didn't also autotune, if it lost
signal for a second (as I think the one I had did).

snip

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

No, I think you were.

It had an ‘auto tune’ which worked surprisingly well. When you used it the
first time, you pressed a button and it scanned for the first station and
stopped.

Yup.

If that was the one you wanted, fine. If not you pressed the
button again and it scanned for the next one and so on.

Yup, like my Yupiteru MVT-7100 scanner or my car radio come to that.

The pain was you
needed to cycle through a ‘list’ and there wasn’t a display.

Yup ...

However, as I
recall, it stored the last station listened to.

Yup ... and I said as long as that was the case, it wouldn't be a
dealbreaker. ;-)

When I typed the first post we were on the A1, XYL was driving. I’m now
home and have looked where I thought the radios where (well one of the
places). I’ll keep looking and, if I find one, see if there is a part
number on the IC.

Thanks.

The problem will be if it turns out it re-scans (on it's own) if it
loses sufficient signal strength to stay locked on (which is what I
said I think the one I had did).

I assume all that sort of thing would be built into the IC itself as
from what I've seen, they just have up / down (or just up) scan
buttons but not much else that might influence the start of a re-scan,
if the signal was lost (other than that's inside the IC etc).

If it still relied on an external tuning capacitor then we could still
be in business. ;-)


Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 20:11:51 +0000, Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:15:25 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:

From your original challenge and also the replies to you
from other contributors and your responses to them, you
do seem to be taking an interest in some electronic construction, so I
am warmly encouraging you in
your endeavours.

You're wasting your time; the bloke's a MORON.

At least I'm a bloke, not a coward hiding behind a killfile [1] (and
another country, name and email address).

Cheers, T i m

[1] You had better get that fixed as it seems you are *still* reading
everything I type.

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 3:11:19 PM UTC, Gareth Evans wrote:
In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

What a ****in load of utter ******** this is just big boys ****en CB. Why don't you all just grow up and get a ****ing life!!!

On 31/01/20 20:00, Gareth Evans wrote:
On 31/01/2020 19:27, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:10:51 +0000, Gareth Evans
wrote:
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridgesÂ* :-(
Should they be connected:
c) Between the low pass filter and the antenna?

You'd be quite lucky to have an installation where there
was no ATU after the LPF because of an extraordinarily
well matched antenna, butÂ* if you were so equipped then
the SWR bridge could be used as an emergency indication
that something was at fault on the feeder or the antenna
itself, otherwise a pretty pointless installation.

e) At the antenna output socket?

Usually between the TX and the ATU; ie the TX antenna output
socket and not that of the ATU.

We all know that ATU is a misnomer because it does not tune the
antenna but acts as an impedance transformer. The RSGB seems
to prefer the name ASchew. (which seems medically undesirableÂ* :-)Â* )




Would you consider the description Impedance Matcher rather than
Impedance Transformer please ?

On 31/01/20 13:43, Gareth Evans wrote:
On 31/01/2020 13:34, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 31/01/2020 07:08, John wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:35:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might be
considered to
be the bell-wethers of amateur radio are bemoaning the decline in
technical standards, especially among USA Extra class licensees who
know not where to connect their SWR bridgesÂ* :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.


There is also the elitist aspect to be considered.

...and most of the elete are professionals and not true hobbyists

There is no elitism. _ A L L _Â* without exception are
encouraged to study for the qualifying exams and to take
an interest in electronics.

Perhaps there is a misuse of language here, with
elitism being equivocated with qualified?

For, example, your local GP is not being elitist if
he does not treat asÂ* equal someone whose only medical skill
is to apply a Bandaid.

I was sent on a Re cross workplace first aider course many years ago and
they said avoid sticking band aids and plasters of folks in case they
allergic to the adhesive.

I seem to recall the best policy was put victims in the recovery
position and call for an ambulance.

Do Raynet members and the similar organisations have compulsory first
aid training ?

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:04:22 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:

snip

There are several ICs designed for something similar. I have, or had (IÂ’m
not sure where they are) a couple of cheap ‘Chinese’ radios someone gave me
which were about the size of a match box.

That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.

They had a couple of buttons to
control the volume to a pair of ear phones and a couple to scan.

Yup.

FM only.

All that's needed / wanted in this case. ;-)

I
think the ear phone cable doubled as the antenna.

Yeah, that sounds familiar and was mentioned elsewhere.

I used then while walking
before I bought an iPod.

The case was clearish plastic and, as I recall, there was only one IC and a
few support components inside- plus the batteries.

Ok.

I saw similar ones on sale for a few pounds.

Yup, they are on eBay and the like.

Considering the price/simplicity etc, the performance wasnÂ’t bad- certainly
good enough for casual listening while walking etc.

That's the goal, just for R4 so mostly the spoken word etc.

The only niggle, you had to scan through stations to find the one you
wanted,

And that was the rub and what I was trying to avoid with 'set' tuning
jobby.

although I think I remained tuned to the last one used when turned
off and back on.

Well that would be ok, as long as it didn't also autotune, if it lost
signal for a second (as I think the one I had did).

Try a google for ‘single ic fm receiver’.

I nearly got there when Googling last night but was looking more for
something that was a kit than just a component list, knowing how
'funny' RF can be around component layout.

That said, I was wondering if such a radio could be made stable enough
to stay 'locked' on say 93.2 MHz (R4 off CP?) or would I still need
some sort of user accessible trimmer if not tuner?

If it was locked on one frequency I'm guessing it could then be
optimised for that (a nice high to our 'Q'?). ;-)

Cheers, T i m



You are, possibly, in luck.

Ive found one of the radios. No earphones but I dont think from where it
was it was ever used.

Drop me an Email and Ill pop it in the post.

Email on my website g8osn.net

It is a bit bigger than a match box, takes a couple of AAA batteries and by
the looks of it a 3.5mm jack.

Vol, control (rotary), scan and reset button.

The clip to clip to your coat etc is broken.

On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 12:03:19 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:

snip

You are, possibly, in luck.

That would make a change. ;-)

I’ve found one of the radios. No earphones but I don’t think from where it
was it was ever used.

Ok.

Drop me an Email and I’ll pop it in the post.

Thanks very much for your kind offer (for now at least) etc but 1)
I've ordered a basic FM radio kit (with manual tuning) so I'd like to
see how we get on with that first (and she might prefer (at least the
option of) a small speaker rather than headphones etc) and 2) are we
sure that the radio you have there a) will stay on a previously found
frequency after a power cycle and b) won't start scanning again, if it
looses signal for a bit? If it does either we will both be wasting our
time. ;-(

Email on my website g8osn.net

It is a bit bigger than a match box, takes a couple of AAA batteries and by
the looks of it a 3.5mm jack.

That sounds like what I had before (I think it was a Capital Radio
freebie).

Vol, control (rotary), scan and reset button.

Check.

The clip to clip to your coat etc is broken.

Ok.

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:22:12 -0800 (PST), "Heliotrope Smith."
wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 3:11:19 PM UTC, Gareth Evans wrote:
In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

What a ****in load of utter ******** this is just big boys ****en CB. Why don't you all just grow up and get a ****ing life!!!

That's an unusual name you have there, Heliotrope. What do people call
you for short?

In message , Roger Hayter
writes
Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might
be considered to be the bell-wethers of amateur radio
are bemoaning the decline in technical standards,
especially among USA Extra class licensees who know
not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.


In a 'traditional' HF station (which may require an ATU), the sequence
should be:
TX SWR LPF ATU (FEEDER) ANT

The purpose of the ATU is to convert to 50 ohms resistive the impedance
presented by the antenna (or the 'antenna system', ie the impedance seen
looking into the feeder towards the antenna). This enables a 50 ohm LPF
to be presented with a good 50 ohm termination.

The reason that the LPF should go AFTER the SWR meter is because there
is a slight possibility that the rectifier diodes in the meter will
generate harmonics (albeit usually at a very low level). Normally these
are unlikely to go very far, but in the olden days, when we had VHF
television, they are believed to have been responsible for a few mystery
cases of TVI (especially on Band 1). It therefore follows that the best
place for the SWR meter is BEFORE the LPF - and not after it.

An obvious slight flaw in this arrangement is that the SWR meter will
see inevitable imperfections in the match of the LPF. In practice, these
imperfections will usually be compensated for by a slight mis- (or re-)
tuning of the ATU - but this will not matter provided that the input to
the ATU, as 'seen' looking through the LPF, can be sensibly adjusted so
that the SWR meter (and therefore the TX) sees 50 ohms.
--
Ian

"manuel czech" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/20 13:43, Gareth Evans wrote:
On 31/01/2020 13:34, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 31/01/2020 07:08, John wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:35:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

Gareth Evans wrote:

In the groups.io group, rsgb-workshop, those who might be considered
to
be the bell-wethers of amateur radio are bemoaning the decline in
technical standards, especially among USA Extra class licensees who
know not where to connect their SWR bridges :-(

People who think there is a simple answer to that question probably
don't really understand what they are doing.


There is also the elitist aspect to be considered.

...and most of the elete are professionals and not true hobbyists

There is no elitism. _ A L L _ without exception are
encouraged to study for the qualifying exams and to take
an interest in electronics.

Perhaps there is a misuse of language here, with
elitism being equivocated with qualified?

For, example, your local GP is not being elitist if
he does not treat as equal someone whose only medical skill
is to apply a Bandaid.

I was sent on a Re cross workplace first aider course many years ago and
they said avoid sticking band aids and plasters of folks in case they
allergic to the adhesive.

I seem to recall the best policy was put victims in the recovery position
and call for an ambulance.

Very expensive approach when only a bandaid is needed.

And can take hours to arrive too.

Do Raynet members and the similar organisations have compulsory first aid
training ?