Article: 96609 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Daniele" Subject: TEN TEC KIT 1253 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:54:36 GMT Hi all, i've recently acquired this funny box, assembled by the previous owner. I'd like to add a digital frequency counter (i've a couple waiting on the bench) and a tuning indicator, anyone tried this before and having schematics or hints of where to take the correct signal? Thanks in advance, -- Daniele ^___^ http://www.tuberadio.it Article: 96610 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: TEN TEC KIT 1253 Message-ID: References: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:49:06 GMT On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:54:36 GMT, "Daniele" wrote: >Hi all, >i've recently acquired this funny box, assembled by the previous owner. >I'd like to add a digital frequency counter (i've a couple waiting on the >bench) >and a tuning indicator, anyone tried this before and having schematics or >hints >of where to take the correct signal? >Thanks in advance, Digital dial is easy, pick off a sample of Rf from the VFO at the buffer stage. Tuning indicator? For TX or RX? If RX you mean some form of "S" meter. There is a crude AGC in that and it's possible to measure the signal. If you dont have schematics/assembly manual TenTec can provide it. Allison Article: 96611 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Dale Parfitt" References: Subject: Re: TEN TEC KIT 1253 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:35:45 GMT "Daniele" wrote in message news:M68If.92818$eD5.1554510@twister2.libero.it... > Hi all, > i've recently acquired this funny box, assembled by the previous owner. > I'd like to add a digital frequency counter (i've a couple waiting on the > bench) > and a tuning indicator, anyone tried this before and having schematics or > hints > of where to take the correct signal? > Thanks in advance, > > -- > > Daniele ^___^ > http://www.tuberadio.it > > Isn't that a regen receiver- don't think you'll be adding a counter to that. Dale W4OP Article: 96612 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Steve Silverwood Subject: Re: Radio Shack Electronic Kits Message-ID: References: <1137287851.160900.117570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:10:48 GMT In article <1137287851.160900.117570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, too_many_tools@yahoo.com says... > I like many of you had my first experience with electronics through the > electronic kits that Radio Shack has had over the years. The versions > that spanned the 50, 100, 200 electronic experiments all come to mind. > > My question is...how many versions and types of these kits have they > had over the years? > > I would be interested in hearing which ones you recall. I don't know how many they've had, but I remember being overjoyed one Christmas when I got the 50-in-1 kit. It was the one with the wooden case, and all the components were on the main board with spring connections. I just bought one for my grandson for last Christmas. This one was 200- in-1 and had several ICs for mounting on a breadboard system. Some components were mounted on the main board with spring connections, like the various potentiometers, LEDs and such. VERY nice system. We spent several hours going through some of the projects. He's having a great time with it! Thank you, RS! -- -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: kb6ojs@arrl.net Article: 96613 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "2greedy" Subject: NEW WEBSITE UPDATE Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:33:49 GMT For those that cant access via flash page http://www.vkcorner.com the alternate url is http://www.vkcorner.com/forum/index.php. Article: 96614 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: TEN TEC KIT 1253 Message-ID: References: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:14:48 GMT On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:35:45 GMT, "Dale Parfitt" wrote: > >"Daniele" wrote in message >news:M68If.92818$eD5.1554510@twister2.libero.it... >> Hi all, >> i've recently acquired this funny box, assembled by the previous owner. >> I'd like to add a digital frequency counter (i've a couple waiting on the >> bench) >> and a tuning indicator, anyone tried this before and having schematics or >> hints >> of where to take the correct signal? >> Thanks in advance, >> >> -- >> >> Daniele ^___^ >> http://www.tuberadio.it >> >> >Isn't that a regen receiver- don't think you'll be adding a counter to that. > >Dale W4OP > Your right, I crossed that up with the 1340 and similar. Had to dig in my collection of tentec to see what it was. It's regen and both a counter and tuning indicator are not likely. Fun radio though. Allison Article: 96615 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Emanuela" Subject: Test Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:54:31 +0100 Message-ID: <43f25113$0$29097$5fc30a8@news.tiscali.it> Do not disturb W l' Italia Article: 96616 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Ed" References: Subject: Re: Dead bugs! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 06:30:36 GMT The next frontier? Hell Frank, I built my first Doug DeMaw preamp 30 years ago "dead bug style"! "Frank" wrote in message news:Frank.2393l1@news.radiobanter.com... > > I'm going to attempt to build one of my ghost receievers dead bug style. > The goal being to take something that I usually mount in an old PC case, > and fit it into a cigar box. I've never tried dead bug, or ugly > construction, but figure it should be the most spacerous mehtod, and I > cany use both side of a board for seperate functions. > > As far as my ghost receivers, just remember those proclaiming > something is impossible are interupted by someone doing it. Believe > it or not, like it or not, the dead talk! This IS the next frontier in > electronics! > > http://franksumption.tripod.com/ > > I still haven't quite gotten the LNM3820 to work the way I want it to. > It works on the bread board, but not on a PCB. > > Frank > > > -- > Frank Article: 96617 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "John A" Subject: Re: Dead bugs! Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:03:39 -0000 Message-ID: References: Gosh, you must have been in short trousers then, Ed! "Ed" wrote in message news:gUzIf.56845$PL5.9763@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > The next frontier? Hell Frank, I built my first Doug DeMaw preamp 30 years > ago "dead bug style"! > "Frank" wrote in message > news:Frank.2393l1@news.radiobanter.com... > > > > I'm going to attempt to build one of my ghost receievers dead bug style. > > The goal being to take something that I usually mount in an old PC case, > > and fit it into a cigar box. I've never tried dead bug, or ugly > > construction, but figure it should be the most spacerous mehtod, and I > > cany use both side of a board for seperate functions. > > > > As far as my ghost receivers, just remember those proclaiming > > something is impossible are interupted by someone doing it. Believe > > it or not, like it or not, the dead talk! This IS the next frontier in > > electronics! > > > > http://franksumption.tripod.com/ > > > > I still haven't quite gotten the LNM3820 to work the way I want it to. > > It works on the bread board, but not on a PCB. > > > > Frank > > > > > > -- > > Frank > > Article: 96618 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Skipp Subject: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Hello there, I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just to read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles into pdf files and making them available to others for free. Many of you have already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page. If you'd like to donate or sell cheap your old mags, I'd like to have them. Where practical, I'll pay the shipping/postage and a bit for your time. Please take the NOSPAMPLEASE from my email address below and drop me a line if you'd like to part with some old magazines... 73's skipp skipp025 at yahoo.com skippNOSPAMPLEASE025@yahoo.com Article: 96619 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: New Program : OP_ANGLE Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: New Program - OP_ANGLE.exe This program assists with understanding, choosing and setting the operating angles of Class-B and Class-C RF power amplifiers. The operating angle underlies all performance characteristics. Although RF operating conditions for tubes can be set up using manufacturers' data sheets, the program refers to use of a tube's Operating Characteristic Curves. Download program OP_ANGLE in a few seconds from website below. Not zipped up. Run immediately. File size = 39 kilobytes. ---- ........................................................... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp ........................................................... Article: 96620 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:40:42 -0800 Message-ID: <11v6tdf5irev054@corp.supernews.com> References: Skipp wrote: > Hello there, > > I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just to > read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles into pdf > files and making them available to others for free. Many of you have > already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page. > . . . Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this? Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 96621 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Ken Scharf Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:46:08 -0500 Skipp wrote: > Hello there, > > I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just to > read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles into pdf > files and making them available to others for free. Many of you have > already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page. > > If you'd like to donate or sell cheap your old mags, I'd like to have > them. Where practical, I'll pay the shipping/postage and a bit for your > time. > > Please take the NOSPAMPLEASE from my email address below and drop me a > line if you'd like to part with some old magazines... > > 73's > skipp > > skipp025 at yahoo.com > > skippNOSPAMPLEASE025@yahoo.com > > I have an old 1950 Radio Experiment magazine with all sorts of tube projects. It's yellowed and falling apart. I'm trying to scan it and wanted to post the scans someplace. I started posting on the alt.binaries.photo.radio and rec.antique.radio+phono newsgroups and got lots of good ideas on how to adjust my scanner and what format to save it in. When I have the time to scan all 160 pages I'd like to make this available (I don't have the web space and the binaries news groups only have a life time of a few days). I have lots of old (1966-1973) pop'tronics magazines and some 1970-1980 CQ and assorted 73's someplace. I know I have the very first 2 73 magazines hidden someplace. Also late 60's electronics illustrated magazines. Eventually, I'd like to scan all of them and make them available. Article: 96622 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Ken Scharf Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines References: <11v6tdf5irev054@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:49:02 -0500 Roy Lewallen wrote: > Skipp wrote: > >> Hello there, >> I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just >> to read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles >> into pdf files and making them available to others for free. Many of >> you have already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page. . . . > > > Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this? > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL I think the ARRL now has the rights to Ham Radio and you can buy CD's from them. I don't know who has the rights to 73, but I suspect Wayne never gave that up. Pop'tronics was part of Gensback up to a few years ago (maybe he only got the right to the NAME and not the original magazine contents.) Of the other electronics magazines which are long out of bussiness .... who knows? Article: 96623 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Ken Scharf Subject: Re: Dead bugs! References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:52:08 -0500 Frank wrote: > I'm going to attempt to build one of my ghost receievers dead bug style. > The goal being to take something that I usually mount in an old PC case, > and fit it into a cigar box. I've never tried dead bug, or ugly > construction, but figure it should be the most spacerous mehtod, and I > cany use both side of a board for seperate functions. > > As far as my ghost receivers, just remember those proclaiming > something is impossible are interupted by someone doing it. Believe > it or not, like it or not, the dead talk! This IS the next frontier in > electronics! > Well you are in good company, along with Houdini, A.C.Doyle, and Tesla. Article: 96625 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: New Program : OP_ANGLE Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1140104403.990112.161140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> I would classify as follows - Class A: Operating angle = 360 degrees. Class AB: Operating angle = 180-200 degrees. Class B: Operating angle = 180 degrees. Class C: Operating angle = less than 180 degrees but usually between 150 and 110 degrees. I don't know about the others but they are probably not defined by operating angles. ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 96626 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Skipp Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:58:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <11v6tdf5irev054@corp.supernews.com> Yes, where possible and practical I have. I always try to ask the original authors direct for permission to repost articles and text and we never sell anything. See you at Dayton Roy... cheers, skipp : Roy Lewallen wrote: : Skipp wrote: :> Hello there, :> :> I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and Ham Radio Magazines just to :> read at my pleasure. I'll be scanning some of the better articles into pdf :> files and making them available to others for free. Many of you have :> already seen the www.radiowrench.com/sonic web page. :> . . . : Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this? : Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 96628 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Subject: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter From: JJ Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:37:41 -0500 I am fimilar with Colpitts, Harley, Clapps, Bulter, Piece oscillators? Which configuration with JFET or BJT would yield the highest performance and least jitter? JJ Article: 96629 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: - exray - Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:34:43 -0400 Message-ID: <11vark21ahop255@corp.supernews.com> References: <11v6tdf5irev054@corp.supernews.com> <1140151622.010055.231040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> LenAnderson@ieee.org wrote: > From: Ken Scharf on Wed, Feb 15 2006 9:49 pm > > >>Roy Lewallen wrote: >> >>>Skipp wrote: >>>Have you obtained permission from the copyright owners to do this? >>> Every instance I've had at contacting original writers has said yes and publishers have simply not responded, or responded with unintelligible legalise CYA BS. As has been explained to me that published articles become the domain of the publisher and the original writer has no legal say. Who knows what their 'contributing writer' contract says. Given the small niche of reproduction as compared to 'the law'...just do the drill and if someone says stop, then stop. Keep about $3 in a legal escrow for the one asshole guy who would make a case out of it. Article: 96630 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:34:31 -0800 Message-ID: <11vb658r3p40s5c@corp.supernews.com> References: <11v6tdf5irev054@corp.supernews.com> <1140151622.010055.231040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <11vark21ahop255@corp.supernews.com> - exray - wrote: > > Every instance I've had at contacting original writers has said yes and > publishers have simply not responded, or responded with unintelligible > legalise CYA BS. > As has been explained to me that published articles become the domain of > the publisher and the original writer has no legal say. Who knows what > their 'contributing writer' contract says. > Given the small niche of reproduction as compared to 'the law'...just do > the drill and if someone says stop, then stop. Keep about $3 in a legal > escrow for the one asshole guy who would make a case out of it. I suggest keeping more like $20,000. The last time I checked with my lawyer, that was the maximum penalty for willful copyright infringement, in addition to any monetary damages which could be proved. All that's necessary to get the $20k, I was told, is to prove that the infringement was willful, not that any financial damage occurred. But that was quite a number of years ago, and in any case this shouldn't be taken as legal advice or fact. Anyone contemplating willful infringement would be well advised to check with his own lawyer. Tangling with that "one asshole guy" could be an experience to remember. People seem to have less and less compunction against stealing intellectual property, I suppose because it keeps getting easier to do. Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create. The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating anything original. Incidentally, I was told by the ARRL that authors of articles in all their publications are given blanket permission to put a copy of articles they've written on their own web site, with appropriate acknowledgment that the ARRL owns the copyright and reproduction is by permission. That's generous of them. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 96631 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "W3JDR" References: Subject: Re: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:21:19 GMT As a generalization, I think that any circuit that excites the crystal's series resonant mode will probably outperform a circuit that excites the parallel resonant mode, because the series resonance is higher Q and is less affected by external influences. Joe W3JDR "Tim Wescott" wrote in message news:fPidnSRcdK1s-GjenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@web-ster.com... > JJ wrote: >> I am fimilar with Colpitts, Harley, Clapps, Bulter, Piece oscillators? >> >> Which configuration with JFET or BJT would yield the highest performance >> and least jitter? >> >> JJ > > AFAIK a well-designed Butler oscillator will have the lowest jitter, but I > doubt that you could do the "well designed" part without a lot of bench > work. > > Any of the rest (considering a "Clapp" oscillator to mean a crystal > oscillator with rubbering) are good enough for communications work. > > -- > > Tim Wescott > Wescott Design Services > http://www.wescottdesign.com > > Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ Article: 96632 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Subject: Re: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter From: JJ References: <1140191150.483865.272120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:49:06 -0500 > "Highest performance"? Is that output amplitude? Or minimum startup > time? Or startup reliability? Or lowest power requirement? Or what? > > Jitter, that's a little easier to define but it's usually not the most > relevant parameter in radio. It is related to sideband and phase noise > and in fact cannot be completely decoupled from either. tor :-) > > Tim KA0BTD > > Its not for a radio. I want to minimize the cycle to cycle variations in timing and it should be simple enough to make with 1 or 2 transitors. So not looking for NASA spec stuff, just reliable so it starts every time. JJ Article: 96633 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Joel Kolstad" Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:32:52 -0800 Message-ID: <11vc2883qmd7245@corp.supernews.com> References: <11v6tdf5irev054@corp.supernews.com> <1140151622.010055.231040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <11vark21ahop255@corp.supernews.com> <11vb658r3p40s5c@corp.supernews.com> Hi Roy, "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11vb658r3p40s5c@corp.supernews.com... > I suggest keeping more like $20,000. The last time I checked with my lawyer, > that was the maximum penalty for willful copyright infringement, in addition > to any monetary damages which could be proved. All that's necessary to get > the $20k, I was told, is to prove that the infringement was willful, not > that any financial damage occurred. This might be better posted at college libraries in the copy rooms where students routinely Xerox entire books ostensibly because they can't afford the real thing (which I suspect is rarely true, and it's usually more a case of wanting to spend the money on an Xbox rather than a book)... rather than at some ham who's scanning old magazines as a form of public service when the originals are difficult to obtain for an audience that generally would pay for them if they were. > People seem to have less and less compunction against stealing intellectual > property, I suppose because it keeps getting easier to do. I agree with you in general, although I think that scanning old magazines and books falls into a gray area where one is -- in all likelihood -- breaking the letter of the law but generally not its spirit. I accept rationalizations along those lines, just as I can't really fault someone who decided so travel 100Mph through some utterly uninhabited random road in Eastern Oregon. :-) Still, anyone who is hauled into court can't really complain, but personally I'd hope that some lawyer hoping to make an example would choose someone posting to alt.binaries.e-book.technical (where 99% of the posts are clear violations of the letter and spirit of copyright law) rather than the OP. > Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create. > The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating > anything original. Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table. Would you rather sell 1,000 copies of a 99% copy-proof program at $10,000 each or 1,000,000 copies of a pretty-readily-copyable program at $100 each? Bill Gates clearly prefers the later. As you're probably aware, Don Lancaster makes a good point that the oft-heralded intellectual property protection device of the patent really doesn't do you much good in the real world, at least until you're a very large company. Tektronix seemed to be using this approach decades back when the comprehensive use of T-coils to obtain wider frequency respones was a well-protected inside secret, no? > Incidentally, I was told by the ARRL that authors of articles in all their > publications are given blanket permission to put a copy of articles they've > written on their own web site, with appropriate acknowledgment that the ARRL > owns the copyright and reproduction is by permission. That's generous of > them. I suppose it is, but these days you can't make any decent money writing for the ARRL or the magazines, and as such publications have to be pretty generous in what they offer because they're effectively asking for significant donations of intellectual property by their authors. ---Joel Kolstad Article: 96634 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:12:33 +0200 From: Risto Tiilikainen Subject: Re: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter References: <1140191150.483865.272120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <43f61f51$0$7485$39db0f71@news.song.fi> JJ wrote: >>"Highest performance"? Is that output amplitude? Or minimum startup >>time? Or startup reliability? Or lowest power requirement? Or what? >> >>Jitter, that's a little easier to define but it's usually not the most >>relevant parameter in radio. It is related to sideband and phase noise >>and in fact cannot be completely decoupled from either. >> >> >tor :-) > > >>Tim KA0BTD >> >> >> >> > >Its not for a radio. I want to minimize the cycle to cycle variations in >timing and it should be simple enough to make with 1 or 2 transitors. So >not looking for NASA spec stuff, just reliable so it starts every time. > >JJ > > Hi ! Any of those oscillators is OK if resonance circuit Q is kept high and oscillation power in average low level. High Q will guarantee easy and fast starting every time Average low level keeps components cool and cycle to cycle variations are reduced Third important question is loading the oscillator. High impedance FET buffer which is not galvanic ally connected to oscillator is very good solution. The gate of buffer FET can be provided with an "antenna" wire collecting tiny energy from the oscillator resonance circuit. This kind of loose coupling guarantees that effects of external variations are minimized. These principles also guarantee that buffer will amplify 1st order and upper harmonics are powerfully reduced (in oscillator and in first buffer) I have experienced superior results with these guidelines when constructing LC oscillators 73, Risto OH2BT Article: 96635 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:17:23 +0200 From: Risto Tiilikainen Subject: Re: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter References: <1140191150.483865.272120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43f61f51$0$7485$39db0f71@news.song.fi> Message-ID: <43f62074$0$7474$39db0f71@news.song.fi> Risto Tiilikainen wrote: > JJ wrote: > >>> "Highest performance"? Is that output amplitude? Or minimum startup >>> time? Or startup reliability? Or lowest power requirement? Or what? >>> >>> Jitter, that's a little easier to define but it's usually not the most >>> relevant parameter in radio. It is related to sideband and phase noise >>> and in fact cannot be completely decoupled from either. >>> >> >> tor :-) >> >> >>> Tim KA0BTD >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Its not for a radio. I want to minimize the cycle to cycle variations >> in timing and it should be simple enough to make with 1 or 2 >> transitors. So not looking for NASA spec stuff, just reliable so it >> starts every time. >> >> JJ >> >> > Hi ! > > Any of those oscillators is OK if resonance circuit Q is kept high and > oscillation power in average low level. > High Q will guarantee easy and fast starting every time > Average low level keeps components cool and cycle to cycle variations > are reduced > Third important question is loading the oscillator. > High impedance FET buffer which is not galvanic ally connected to > oscillator is very good solution. > The gate of buffer FET can be provided with an "antenna" wire > collecting tiny energy from the oscillator resonance circuit. > This kind of loose coupling guarantees that effects of external > variations are minimized. > > These principles also guarantee that buffer will amplify 1st order and > upper harmonics are powerfully reduced (in oscillator and in first > buffer) > I have experienced superior results with these guidelines when > constructing LC oscillators > > 73, Risto OH2BT HI ! Sorry . I read again your subject. You were asking from crystal oscillators and I began to explain LC oscillators Risto Article: 96636 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Paul Burridge Subject: Making up coax connections Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:42:53 +0100 Message-ID: Hi all, I have to make up some highly accurate length RG-214 coax patch leads for network analyzer interconnects up to 1.3Ghz. I have the cable and the male N-type plugs to terminate them with. So how best to trim this cable to maintain its 50 ohm impedance as the plugs are joined to the cable? The plugs' center pins are solder-type; the shielding Otoh is clamped in place. Are there any fool-proof cutting dimensions to get the result right every time? THanks, Paul Article: 96637 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Making up coax connections Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:35:47 -0800 Message-ID: <11vcufknb2092a2@corp.supernews.com> References: There are quite a number of styles of N connector, and each is a bit different. Cable stripping dimensions for a couple of the more common ones are shown in the ARRL Handbook, and you might be able to find instructions for your particular connector on the manufacturer's web site. I'd say the most important thing is to make sure the center conductor pin protrudes the correct distance, and make sure the cable end of the center conductor pin is against the insulation. That is, there shouldn't be any place where air is the only dielectric between inner and outer conductors except along the large diameter portion of the center pin. My advice is based more on extensive experience with time domain reflectometry than on a great deal of experience making precision cables with N connectors. Hopefully someone with more actual connector experience will comment further. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Paul Burridge wrote: > Hi all, > > I have to make up some highly accurate length RG-214 coax patch leads > for network analyzer interconnects up to 1.3Ghz. I have the cable and > the male N-type plugs to terminate them with. > So how best to trim this cable to maintain its 50 ohm impedance as > the plugs are joined to the cable? The plugs' center pins are > solder-type; the shielding Otoh is clamped in place. Are there any > fool-proof cutting dimensions to get the result right every time? > THanks, > Paul Article: 96638 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: Making up coax connections Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:17:22 +0100 Message-ID: <430ev1h9qf3s7dovcj3ngiecdc8hvgoa1j@4ax.com> References: <11vcufknb2092a2@corp.supernews.com> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:35:47 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: >There are quite a number of styles of N connector, and each is a bit >different. Cable stripping dimensions for a couple of the more common >ones are shown in the ARRL Handbook, and you might be able to find >instructions for your particular connector on the manufacturer's web >site. I'd say the most important thing is to make sure the center >conductor pin protrudes the correct distance, and make sure the cable >end of the center conductor pin is against the insulation. That is, >there shouldn't be any place where air is the only dielectric between >inner and outer conductors except along the large diameter portion of >the center pin. > >My advice is based more on extensive experience with time domain >reflectometry than on a great deal of experience making precision cables >with N connectors. Hopefully someone with more actual connector >experience will comment further. Thanks, Roy. This is *totally* uncharted territory for me so any advice is welcome. I guess even if I can't get any cross sectional drawings of the N-types off the net I could perhaps measure the required cut from probing the connectors themselves with a dial caliper depth gauge - which I happen to have. That ought to be the most accurate way of going about it, I guess. Is the amount of braid one clamps up into the plug important? Does it matter if it gets twisted slightly (where it's doubled back down over the outside of the outer insulation)? Thanks, p. Article: 96639 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Making up coax connections Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 06:48:05 -0800 Message-ID: <11vect87gu10p98@corp.supernews.com> References: <11vcufknb2092a2@corp.supernews.com> <430ev1h9qf3s7dovcj3ngiecdc8hvgoa1j@4ax.com> Paul Burridge wrote: > > Thanks, Roy. This is *totally* uncharted territory for me so any > advice is welcome. > I guess even if I can't get any cross sectional drawings of the > N-types off the net I could perhaps measure the required cut from > probing the connectors themselves with a dial caliper depth gauge - > which I happen to have. That ought to be the most accurate way of > going about it, I guess. > Is the amount of braid one clamps up into the plug important? Does it > matter if it gets twisted slightly (where it's doubled back down over > the outside of the outer insulation)? > Thanks, > p. Details of how the braid is clamped will affect the physical ruggedness of the assembly, but it shouldn't affect the electrical characteristics. I don't understand about doubling it back over the insulation, though. Remember that virtually all the current is flowing on the outside of the inner conductor and the inside of the outer conductor. What you're trying to do is maintain a constant impedance as the signal goes through the connector. This means that at places where the dielectric is absent, as in the mating area, the inner conductor has to become larger and closer to the outer conductor. If the dielectric is absent at any point where it should be present, you'll have a high impedance in that region. Any place where the center conductor changes diameter, there has to be a corresponding change in the spacing to the outer conductor and/or a change in the dielectric. The connector is carefully designed to do all this, but as you're well aware, it'll only work out as designed if it's assembled correctly. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 96640 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines From: JJ References: <11v6tdf5irev054@corp.supernews.com> <1140151622.010055.231040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <11vark21ahop255@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:50:53 -0500 Interesting stuff. What are some series resonant oscillators besides the Butler? JJ Article: 96641 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "K" References: <1139538591.400945.45840@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1140240731.474865.35500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: FA: Some nice HP gear from my home lab.... Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:39:42 GMT Would you be so kind as to post the url for your website? I would like to get a copy of your software. Thanks, K wrote in message news:1140240731.474865.35500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Glad to hear it's working well. Agreed, its size and weight is a real > problem, and not just for shipping. I'll definitely own another of > those beasts at some point, when I have more room than I do now. The > important thing is that it's in appreciative hands. :-) > > If you plan to use my GPIB software with it, be sure to download a > recent copy. I hosed the phase-noise app pretty badly in my last > "slipstream" update a few weeks ago, and only heard about it last week. > The version that's up there now is fine. > Article: 96642 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Ken Scharf Subject: Re: Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines References: <1140219676.405349.37750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <7%LJf.16885$jo5.2479@bignews1.bellsouth.net> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:09:18 -0500 laura halliday wrote: > Ham Radio is available by the boxload at every ham radio > flea market I've ever been to. It's also available on CDROM > from the ARRL. Handy, because it's better-indexed than > the paper magazine ever was. > > "Because I'm a cheap screw" has never been an excuse for > copyright infringement. > I would agree with that. Making copies of available magazines for posting on download sites is a clear violation of copyright. HOWEVER, making copies of out of print, rare, un-obtainable magazines that have a value to collectors might be viewed by some in another light. One could even say we are saving a valuable resource from becoming lost forever. Article: 96643 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Subject: Re: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter From: JJ References: <1140191150.483865.272120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43f61f51$0$7485$39db0f71@news.song.fi> <43f62074$0$7474$39db0f71@news.song.fi> Message-ID: <79b09$43f78f26$d135c4af$14797@MDI.CA> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:18:30 -0500 Risto Tiilikainen wrote in news:43f62074$0$7474$39db0f71@news.song.fi: >>> >> Hi ! >> >> Any of those oscillators is OK if resonance circuit Q is kept high and >> oscillation power in average low level. >> High Q will guarantee easy and fast starting every time >> Average low level keeps components cool and cycle to cycle variations >> are reduced >> Third important question is loading the oscillator. > >> 73, Risto OH2BT Good info thanks. What are other crystal series oscillators besides Butler type? JJ Article: 96644 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: Making up coax connections Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:21:22 +0100 Message-ID: <4r3fv1d3salttjcd3e5e5c7p0cub0v0kov@4ax.com> References: <11vcufknb2092a2@corp.supernews.com> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:16:57 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote: >Roy makes some good points. He invariably does! > However, for this application, I think >what is also important is that the cables be identical. > >If you make the same mistake on all of them then they are still >"identical". > >Lay them out and cut them all at the same time. To reinforce what Roy >said, one thing you absolutely -do not- want to happen is to have the >center pin protrude too far. If it bottoms in the mating connector on >your analyzer and damages it you will not be a happy camper. Okay, thanks, guys. I'm taking everything on board. If there's anything else that comes to mind, I'd be keen to hear it. Article: 96645 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1140191150.483865.272120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43f61f51$0$7485$39db0f71@news.song.fi> <43f62074$0$7474$39db0f71@news.song.fi> <79b09$43f78f26$d135c4af$14797@MDI.CA> If it oscillates it doesn't matter about the type of oscillator circuit. There's no need to worry yourself. Performance all depends on the cut of the crystal which you have already decided upon without giving it much thought. Just connect it up in the most simple circuit and away you go. ---- Reg. ====================================== Article: 96646 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: me@where.com Subject: Re: Which Crystal Oscillator circuit has lowest jitter Message-ID: <44jfv1pbkogi1rpcn3gh5cv92dtuae9jlu@4ax.com> References: <1140191150.483865.272120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:41:55 -0500 On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:49:06 -0500, JJ wrote: > >> "Highest performance"? Is that output amplitude? Or minimum startup >> time? Or startup reliability? Or lowest power requirement? Or what? >> >> Jitter, that's a little easier to define but it's usually not the most >> relevant parameter in radio. It is related to sideband and phase noise >> and in fact cannot be completely decoupled from either. >tor :-) >> >> Tim KA0BTD >> >> > >Its not for a radio. I want to minimize the cycle to cycle variations in >timing and it should be simple enough to make with 1 or 2 transitors. So >not looking for NASA spec stuff, just reliable so it starts every time. > >JJ Epson makes a low jitter TTL osc. ~3pSec RMS jitter. ~$5 each. 100 MHz. Article: 96647 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: <43F7CC09.4A34C8F8@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: Making up coax connections References: Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:40:14 GMT Paul Burridge wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have to make up some highly accurate length RG-214 coax patch leads > for network analyzer interconnects up to 1.3Ghz. I have the cable and > the male N-type plugs to terminate them with. > So how best to trim this cable to maintain its 50 ohm impedance as > the plugs are joined to the cable? The plugs' center pins are > solder-type; the shielding Otoh is clamped in place. Are there any > fool-proof cutting dimensions to get the result right every time? > THanks, > Paul See if you can find the datasheet for the connectors you have. they will give you the information needed to assemble the connectors properly. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Article: 96648 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: mroberds@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: seek LED's in "T-5 telephone slide" base References: <1140298330.429517.292930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:52:18 GMT Followups set to sci.electronics.components. In sci.electronics.components dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote: >seek LEDs in above-styled base, for replacement of PSB-120 indicator >lamps. a vendor whose product has been assigned a NSN for ordering >through the Federal Supply System would be optimal.... Using an advanced search technique known as http://www.google.com/search?q=t-5+telephone+slide+led , I found http://www.ledtronics.com/datasheets/Pages/fsn_nsn_qualified_based_leds/67b.htm >from the first hit. Matt Roberds