[Patrick Turner]

But that's the nature of the NERD, he has an idea, can express it in
symbols, but the actual product is a damn mess.

Piffle. It is the nature of breadboards and 'DIYers' who are typically
operating with a limited tool set and often, if not usually, don't
care as much about 'aesthetics' as 'getting it to work'.

Why does not it occur to a NERD that what he presents to the real
world and HOW he presents it matters?

Because it usually DOESN'T. It's not a 'product', isn't being 'sold',
they're not getting 'paid' for anything, and couldn't care less if you
are 'pleased'.

The NERD is the person who is personally dysfunctional, and he don't
care about anyone else while totally absorbed by himself, a narcisist,
ie, a selfish ****. He does not see what could be gained by taking the
time to worry about presentation PLUS content essence.


And what does any of that have to do with an MW band varactor?

I've never ever seen an old radio made after veractors were invented
using a pot to vary DC for passive F tuning.

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/600/600page4.html

Now you've seen one.

In this case there are 9 transistors. The original Mr Armstrong who
invented the superhet could not have had much to do with the set you
show.

The circuit with untuned RF input ferrite rod gives food for thought
though. But just how it measures compared to what I might build with
far less active devices is debatable.

The GE SuperRadio III was also direct pot tuning.

Here's a SSB/CW kit with direct pot tuning you can buy today.

http://www.tentec.com/index.php?id=52

http://www.kc5wa.net/1056/56.html

I still like tuning gangs, and I have dozens of them.

..

I suggest you do the R&D, get a synchrodyne circuit working
blamelessly with tubes to meet modern expectations, then let us all
know how you done it.

Perhaps you could inform me how many times someone has to tell you
something, like how I'm not interested in building one, before you
'get it'?

I get it that you don't give a **** about what you are talking about.



The far better minds than yours all took ages to perfect their
gadgets.

Oh really? I supposed that analysis comes from your extensive research
into average 'invention times' and 'minds'.

C'mon, don't you understand that there have been a multitude of better
brains than yours who have invented more and been a thousand times
more prolific than any of us here at this group?

They all took a shirt & trouser load of time to get things right.

Th genious Turing took a heap of time before he got things right. And
then his ideas went up against the limitations of tubes, and computing
really didn't take off until many other minds figured out so very very
much, and invented completely different devices, ie, transistors.

I watched a show last night on TV which explained how th Hubble
Telescope has been up-graded and improved by the NASA missions over
the years, and how the images now explain how little we really know
about existance. Hundreds of people have been involved over many
years, with each and every little step taken often requiring hundreds
of hours of work to ensure things work out in Space.



But there's no reason why discrete transistors need not be be used for
all the donkey tasks of making a very well locked oscillator instead
of having any tubes. One might still need a coil or two, well, not too
hard.

Even easier to just buy a radio chip or, what the heck, a done radio.

Maybe, but then that's all been done lotsa times to escape the work of
doing the challenge. We can always ride the helicopter to the mountain
top, but that's not the same as walking up the hill then down again,
by power of the heart, legs, wits and brain.

That's funny coming from someone who's 'suggested' everyone but
himself do it.

I do suggest I do try all sorts of things, but time ain't on my side.
I look at things from the point of view of "what if I build that?'

Patrick Turner.