Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default The AM varicap


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.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default The AM varicap

On Aug 16, 4:09*am, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner





wrote:

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.


Not even close and inconsistent to boot. If the, so called, 'nerd'
were so obsessed with 'themselves' they'd be eager to take advantage
of "what could be gained."

'Nerd' is a pubescent term used by social cliques to disparage those
they perceive as 'smarter', usually accompanied by an image of
unattractive, socially awkward and/or withdrawn; a self fulfilling
description since the point of the derision is to socially ostracize
them.

The 'nerd' allegedly brings this upon themselves by being interested
in the 'wrong things', like study (science in particular) instead of
fashion and boot licking an appropriate social class.

Contrary to your 'narcissism' claim it's the social clique that is.
Nerds aren't 'cool', meaning the nerd doesn't 'fit' with the clique's
inflated image of themselves, which they partially maintain by
deriding non subservient ego threats as 'inferior'.

The Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism are (from wikipedia):

1.Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy
narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.

*2.Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect using
distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use
projection to dump shame onto others.

*3.Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by
diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.

*4.Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of
another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other
person.

*5.Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of
particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they
consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack
on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward"
or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury
that can trigger narcissistic rage.

*6.Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the
exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests.
Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be
difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so
much real as assumed.

*7.Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have
boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of
themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not
exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist
are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to
live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no
boundary between self and other.

All of which are exhibited by the social clique and mimicked by
wannabes.





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.


All of which is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if the Armstrong 600 was
sprinkled with pixie dust and called the John Wayne 600. The point was
you tried to imply none existed because you "never ever seen" so I
showed you three.

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.


Look in the mirror when you say that, Mr. Ain't Built One Either.





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.


So now, plagiarizing 60 years worth of synchronous detector techniques
is tantamount to formulating the Turing machine and building the
Hubble telescope.

I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky you didn't throw in
"going to the moon."





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,


So do I. Whether it's what 'you like', or anything to do with tubes,
is at my discretion and not yours.

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


I don't care whether you build one or not, nor why, nor would I say
anything so patently stupid as it meaning you "don't give a **** about
what you are talking about."



The reasons why Mr Flipper would flap about saying all that stuff
just because I used a couple of big words like nacisism and nerd
informally may not be easily understood.
None of the dissertation led to anyone building a better radio.

Patrick Turner.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"