[Milsurplus] Receiver Filter Adaptor and Thoughts on Projects In General

[Clare Owens]

I agree 100% Dave.  My problem (along with getting old, eyesight, etc.) is
being able to spend enough hours at a project to be able to complete it
before some other thing comes along to distract me.

Clare

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:36 AM, David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Taking all the good points into consideration and working on a "version
> 1.1" of the filter adaptor for the TCS receiver.  The hard part is not the
> circuit; it's figuring out where to put the parts on the board so it can be
> wired most efficiently and with least feedback/leakage between the two
> stages.  Will pass that along once I puzzle it out, Bill.  I'd be
> embarassed for your readers to see photos of this cobbled-up "Version 0.9
> Beta" of the thing. ;-)
>
> Also looking for alternatives.  Yes, I know- I feel a little like a
> prostitute for even thinking of a "sand state" solution, but dang-it
> Mechanical filters can be expensive.   Saving money is a good cure for
> uneasy feelings ;-).
> Come on "smart people:"  By now there ought to be some single-chip active
> filter thingie that can do this without trying to build a mini-computer in
> that space.
>
> Some thoughts on these projects in general:
>
> I do them for my own curiosity and satisfaction.  I write them up to share
> the idea and hope some generous person smarter than me will suggest
> improvements (and they almost always do, Lord bless them).  I also write
> them in hopes someone else will build the thing and, together, we can make
> it work even better.
>
> There's an important reason I try to keep any solution very simple and
> basic.  It's an iron, unbreakable law of ham radio tinkering.
>
> ****
> The Law of Pernicious Parts Count:
> For every additional part in a project beyond eight,
> the number of people building the project will be halved.
> ****
>
> IMHO, there's no point in writing-up some mini-computer DSP thing with 100
> parts and needing a Masters in digital engineering to understand, just to
> address the bandwidth issue in a boatanchor receiver;  no one is going to
> build the thing or even read to the end of the piece once they see the
> diagram.  No matter how great a solution it might be, it's a waste of
> precious time and effort to write-up such a contraption.  If you want to
> build one for your own satisfaction, that's great.  Go for it.  Just don't
> expect anyone else in our community to build one.  Most of us are older
> now.  Our time, patience and resources are very limited. We aren't going to
> attempt a college course in digital engineering this late in the game just
> to improve a vintage radio.   "If it ain't easy, it ain't happening."
> Just one man's musings.  YMMV of course.
>
> GL OM ES 73 DE Dave AB5S
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20160216/37fe6a27/attachment.html>