Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[theliq]

If the placement of the forgery....

It is idiotic to call dystopian literature a "forgery".

We do not know the author of this dystopian novell (the author had chosen to write it as "protocols"), but he could predict the future.

Which author as the protocols has had many authors over the years, the original is lost in time, but the Russian intelligence re-wrote the protocols with different people being involved with different chapters.

Much like Zionist Propaganda,so maybe you would know.Boy...but then I dunno,maybe you are just THICK.

 

[theliq]

400 watt receivers? Now that's novel. LOL

By the way, you should call them transceivers. You mean the UHF band, not range. You designed nothing, low noise receivers in nearly any band are cheap and available off-the-shelf.

A full wavelength VLF antenna would be about 60 miles long, so it better be electrically short. LOL

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Love it Roudy when your asleep.

 

[aris2chat]

If the placement of the forgery....

It is idiotic to call dystopian literature a "forgery".

We do not know the author of this dystopian novell (the author had chosen to write it as "protocols"), but he could predict the future.

Which author as the protocols has had many authors over the years, the original is lost in time, but the Russian intelligence re-wrote the protocols with different people being involved with different chapters.

Maurice Joly and later Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky chief of the Okhrana

 

[Phoenall]

400 watt receivers? Now that's novel. LOL

By the way, you should call them transceivers. You mean the UHF band, not range. You designed nothing, low noise receivers in nearly any band are cheap and available off-the-shelf.

A full wavelength VLF antenna would be about 60 miles long, so it better be electrically short. LOL

You really do have a problem reading don't you, I wrote transmitter/receivers because that is what they are separate items . No the UHF range as it is not all in one band. No noisy receivers are available of the shelf because they are broadband and so noisy, mine have a noise floor of -60db down on the wanted signal. Not really as a quarter wave at the usable frequencies is less than 1 mile, and helically wound verticals or dipoles an be made less than 5 metres each leg. Better still is an EH antenna that is short but still electrically full size.

A receiver has no output you clown, it is not 400 watt. The UHF band is a band of frequencies you idiot, above VHF and below SHF.

You don't even know what the figure of merit is for receivers you fool. -60 dB down means nothing, would be redundant if it meant anything and shows your ignorance and bullshitting. Receiver performance determined by noise factor, gain and bandwidth.

You idiot by definition a quarter wave antenna for VLF would be a quarter of the length of a full wavelength antenna at the same frequency. What do you think quarter wave means. Stop bullshitting, you are embarrassing yourself.
Have you been a bullshitter all your life?

Shows you lack of understanding if you don't understand that a receivers sensitivity is related to the level of noise present on weak signals. Say a 600 milliwatt transmitter orbiting the earth at 200 miles up on a frequency of 435mhz using left handed circular polarisation. No good having a receiver that could not resolve the signal because it was below the noise threshold of the receivers circuitry, no amount of amplification would make the signal readable as it would only amplify the noise as well. My design uses band pass, low pass and high pass filters, this results in the 3db passband being -60db down on the resulting slope. Using a mixture of 7 element chebyshev , PI and T filters to achieve the desired response. The passband is only just wide enough to take into effect the Doppler on the signals as the cubesat travel past its AOS and LOS points. Do not need hi-fi quality sound just intelligible data and let the computer software do the rest.


As for quarter wave antennas the math is simple it is ((frequency/speed of light) x velocity factor)/ 4. So for as frequency of 30mhz fed via rg58 the length of a quarter wave antenna is 2.4 metres

 

[Phoenall]

If the placement of the forgery....

It is idiotic to call dystopian literature a "forgery".

We do not know the author of this dystopian novell (the author had chosen to write it as "protocols"), but he could predict the future.

Which author as the protocols has had many authors over the years, the original is lost in time, but the Russian intelligence re-wrote the protocols with different people being involved with different chapters.

Much like Zionist Propaganda,so maybe you would know.Boy...but then I dunno,maybe you are just THICK.

NAH! I am niether Islamic nor Australian

 

[Roudy]

400 watt receivers? Now that's novel. LOL

By the way, you should call them transceivers. You mean the UHF band, not range. You designed nothing, low noise receivers in nearly any band are cheap and available off-the-shelf.

A full wavelength VLF antenna would be about 60 miles long, so it better be electrically short. LOL

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Love it Roudy when your asleep.

 

[montelatici]

400 watt receivers? Now that's novel. LOL

By the way, you should call them transceivers. You mean the UHF band, not range. You designed nothing, low noise receivers in nearly any band are cheap and available off-the-shelf.

A full wavelength VLF antenna would be about 60 miles long, so it better be electrically short. LOL

You really do have a problem reading don't you, I wrote transmitter/receivers because that is what they are separate items . No the UHF range as it is not all in one band. No noisy receivers are available of the shelf because they are broadband and so noisy, mine have a noise floor of -60db down on the wanted signal. Not really as a quarter wave at the usable frequencies is less than 1 mile, and helically wound verticals or dipoles an be made less than 5 metres each leg. Better still is an EH antenna that is short but still electrically full size.

A receiver has no output you clown, it is not 400 watt. The UHF band is a band of frequencies you idiot, above VHF and below SHF.

You don't even know what the figure of merit is for receivers you fool. -60 dB down means nothing, would be redundant if it meant anything and shows your ignorance and bullshitting. Receiver performance determined by noise factor, gain and bandwidth.

You idiot by definition a quarter wave antenna for VLF would be a quarter of the length of a full wavelength antenna at the same frequency. What do you think quarter wave means. Stop bullshitting, you are embarrassing yourself.
Have you been a bullshitter all your life?

Shows you lack of understanding if you don't understand that a receivers sensitivity is related to the level of noise present on weak signals. Say a 600 milliwatt transmitter orbiting the earth at 200 miles up on a frequency of 435mhz using left handed circular polarisation. No good having a receiver that could not resolve the signal because it was below the noise threshold of the receivers circuitry, no amount of amplification would make the signal readable as it would only amplify the noise as well. My design uses band pass, low pass and high pass filters, this results in the 3db passband being -60db down on the resulting slope. Using a mixture of 7 element chebyshev , PI and T filters to achieve the desired response. The passband is only just wide enough to take into effect the Doppler on the signals as the cubesat travel past its AOS and LOS points. Do not need hi-fi quality sound just intelligible data and let the computer software do the rest.


As for quarter wave antennas the math is simple it is ((frequency/speed of light) x velocity factor)/ 4. So for as frequency of 30mhz fed via rg58 the length of a quarter wave antenna is 2.4 metres

Oh shut up, You are just making a fool of yourself. I have an MSEE and have been a member of the IEEE for over 30 years, you are a an idiot. A quarter wave antenna is one quarter of the full wave length of the frequency in question. You are writing nonsense that you pull from google searches, but you make no sense. If you have a band pass filter why would you need a low or high band pass filter you moron.

 

[Phoenall]

400 watt receivers? Now that's novel. LOL

By the way, you should call them transceivers. You mean the UHF band, not range. You designed nothing, low noise receivers in nearly any band are cheap and available off-the-shelf.

A full wavelength VLF antenna would be about 60 miles long, so it better be electrically short. LOL

You really do have a problem reading don't you, I wrote transmitter/receivers because that is what they are separate items . No the UHF range as it is not all in one band. No noisy receivers are available of the shelf because they are broadband and so noisy, mine have a noise floor of -60db down on the wanted signal. Not really as a quarter wave at the usable frequencies is less than 1 mile, and helically wound verticals or dipoles an be made less than 5 metres each leg. Better still is an EH antenna that is short but still electrically full size.

A receiver has no output you clown, it is not 400 watt. The UHF band is a band of frequencies you idiot, above VHF and below SHF.

You don't even know what the figure of merit is for receivers you fool. -60 dB down means nothing, would be redundant if it meant anything and shows your ignorance and bullshitting. Receiver performance determined by noise factor, gain and bandwidth.

You idiot by definition a quarter wave antenna for VLF would be a quarter of the length of a full wavelength antenna at the same frequency. What do you think quarter wave means. Stop bullshitting, you are embarrassing yourself.
Have you been a bullshitter all your life?

Shows you lack of understanding if you don't understand that a receivers sensitivity is related to the level of noise present on weak signals. Say a 600 milliwatt transmitter orbiting the earth at 200 miles up on a frequency of 435mhz using left handed circular polarisation. No good having a receiver that could not resolve the signal because it was below the noise threshold of the receivers circuitry, no amount of amplification would make the signal readable as it would only amplify the noise as well. My design uses band pass, low pass and high pass filters, this results in the 3db passband being -60db down on the resulting slope. Using a mixture of 7 element chebyshev , PI and T filters to achieve the desired response. The passband is only just wide enough to take into effect the Doppler on the signals as the cubesat travel past its AOS and LOS points. Do not need hi-fi quality sound just intelligible data and let the computer software do the rest.


As for quarter wave antennas the math is simple it is ((frequency/speed of light) x velocity factor)/ 4. So for as frequency of 30mhz fed via rg58 the length of a quarter wave antenna is 2.4 metres

Oh shut up, You are just making a fool of yourself. I have an MSEE and have been a member of the IEEE for over 30 years, you are a an idiot. A quarter wave antenna is one quarter of the full wave length of the frequency in question. You are writing nonsense that you pull from google searches, but you make no sense. If you have a band pass filter why would you need a low or high band pass filter you moron.

Then your training was lacking in the simplest respects, when you design any antenna you must take the velocity factor of the transmission line into account or you will create a mismatch. The finals I use do not like even a 5ohm mismatch so I use L/C networks calculated to match the PA to the line and the line to the antenna. Printed onto copper clad double sided board they are small and lossless.
To achieve the spot frequency with ultra low noise reception. A band pass filter is inherently broadband and so no use as a low noise reception filter, so couple the 3 together and you get a very narrow pass band with very high attenuation out of the pass band. A minus 60db down at the 3db point of the slope. Look at the band pass filter plot and you see a medium attack and decay with a medium centre, then look at the low pass and high pass filters and see a fast attack/decay and a flat topped response. Couple all three together and use high stability crystals matched to 1hz in frequency and you get a filter that is less than 5khz wide, ultra low noise and a spot frequency +/- 2.5khz to accommodate any mode of transmission. ( PSK is down to .5khz wide and so I am working on a filter of that order )

 

[montelatici]

Copying sections of application notes and internet RF learning sites and adding some bullshit that together does not make any sense, does not make you any less of a bullshitter. The only thing worse than a bullshitter is an old bullshitter. You've been bullshitting all your life it seems. The clearest indication of your stupidity (to any EE) is in your statement:

"A band pass filter is inherently broadband and so no use as a low noise reception filter, so couple the 3 together and you get a very narrow pass band with very high attenuation out of the pass band."

A band pass filter is the combination of a low pass and high pass filter you idiot.

 

[Phoenall]

Copying sections of application notes and internet RF learning sites and adding some bullshit that together does not make any sense, does not make you any less of a bullshitter. The only thing worse than a bullshitter is an old bullshitter. You've been bullshitting all your life it seems. The clearest indication of your stupidity (to any EE) is in your statement:

"A band pass filter is inherently broadband and so no use as a low noise reception filter, so couple the 3 together and you get a very narrow pass band with very high attenuation out of the pass band."

A band pass filter is the combination of a low pass and high pass filter you idiot.

Try again as a band pass filter allows all frequencies over a wide band to pass through. To achieve a narrow pass band you need to combine a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through, a high pass filter to allow the low side frequencies through and a central band pass filter to steepen the slope and cut of at a preset frequency. I am now using digital filters that tailor the response to less than 1hz passband. They do this by converting the signal to digital and then converting back after rework to analogue

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Queen Rania

 

[montelatici]

No, you are a real idiot and continue making a fool of yourself through your bullshitting. The size of the band that a band pass filter allows to pass is dependent on the low pass filter and high pass filter used. The low pass filter blocks frequencies that are higher than desired and the high pass filter blocks frequencies that are lower than desired and the combination becomes a band pass filter and the narrowness of the band is dependent upon the frequencies passed by the low and high pass filters. You are so foolish.

You wrote the nonsense below in italics.

"To achieve a narrow pass band you need to combine a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through, a high pass filter to allow the low side frequencies through and a central band pass filter to steepen the slope and cut of at a preset frequency."

The low pass filter blocks the "high side frequencies" (as you call them you moron), it doesn't "let them through" as you claim. The high pass filter blocks the "low side frequencies" (as you call them) to pass it doesn't let them through. The opposite of what you wrote above you idiot. bullshitter. This is not an I/P discussion where your bullshitting goes unnoticed by most, this is basic RF engineering.

You are such a bullshitter. Unbelievable that you continue to try to bullshit a professional

By the way, since you are sampling and digitizing an analog signal, then applying digital filtering then doing a D/A conversion. I guess you are no longer concerned with data latency.

 

[Phoenall]

No, you are a real idiot and continue making a fool of yourself through your bullshitting. The size of the band that a band pass filter allows to pass is dependent on the low pass filter and high pass filter used. The low pass filter blocks frequencies that are higher than desired and the high pass filter blocks frequencies that are lower than desired and the combination becomes a band pass filter and the narrowness of the band is dependent upon the frequencies passed by the low and high pass filters. You are so foolish.

You wrote the nonsense below in italics.

"To achieve a narrow pass band you need to combine a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through, a high pass filter to allow the low side frequencies through and a central band pass filter to steepen the slope and cut of at a preset frequency."

The low pass filter blocks the "high side frequencies" (as you call them you moron), it doesn't "let them through" as you claim. The high pass filter blocks the "low side frequencies" (as you call them) to pass it doesn't let them through. The opposite of what you wrote above you idiot. bullshitter. This is not an I/P discussion where your bullshitting goes unnoticed by most, this is basic RF engineering.

You are such a bullshitter. Unbelievable that you continue to try to bullshit a professional

By the way, since you are sampling and digitizing an analog signal, then applying digital filtering then doing a D/A conversion. I guess you are no longer concerned with data latency.

Wrong as low pass filters pass frequencies below a set frequency, high pass filters pass frequencies above a set frequency. As an example a 455khz I.F. filter passes only those frequencies centred on 455khz at a set bandwidth. The USB filter passes only those frequencies above where the carrier would be, the opposite is true of a LSB filter. Although I prefer the phasing method to give a cleaner signal.



Nope why should I be as it is infinitely small.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Nathalie Handal

 

[montelatici]

No, you are a real idiot and continue making a fool of yourself through your bullshitting. The size of the band that a band pass filter allows to pass is dependent on the low pass filter and high pass filter used. The low pass filter blocks frequencies that are higher than desired and the high pass filter blocks frequencies that are lower than desired and the combination becomes a band pass filter and the narrowness of the band is dependent upon the frequencies passed by the low and high pass filters. You are so foolish.

You wrote the nonsense below in italics.

"To achieve a narrow pass band you need to combine a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through, a high pass filter to allow the low side frequencies through and a central band pass filter to steepen the slope and cut of at a preset frequency."

The low pass filter blocks the "high side frequencies" (as you call them you moron), it doesn't "let them through" as you claim. The high pass filter blocks the "low side frequencies" (as you call them) to pass it doesn't let them through. The opposite of what you wrote above you idiot. bullshitter. This is not an I/P discussion where your bullshitting goes unnoticed by most, this is basic RF engineering.

You are such a bullshitter. Unbelievable that you continue to try to bullshit a professional

By the way, since you are sampling and digitizing an analog signal, then applying digital filtering then doing a D/A conversion. I guess you are no longer concerned with data latency.

Wrong as low pass filters pass frequencies below a set frequency, high pass filters pass frequencies above a set frequency. As an example a 455khz I.F. filter passes only those frequencies centred on 455khz at a set bandwidth. The USB filter passes only those frequencies above where the carrier would be, the opposite is true of a LSB filter. Although I prefer the phasing method to give a cleaner signal.



Nope why should I be as it is infinitely small.

You are nuts. You throw in IF (intermediate frequency) filter, which makes no sense. An RF filter is band pass, low pass, high pass or band stop. Then you try to introduce USB (upper side band) and LSB (lower side band) into the discussion which again has nothing to do with digitizing an analog signal.

You corrected your earlier mistake which is depicted below and then you add more bullshit that has nothing to do with the issue.

You originally wrote:

"a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through"

Now you write:

"low pass filters pass frequencies below a set frequency"

Your complete earlier nonsensical statement complete:

"To achieve a narrow pass band you need to combine a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through, a high pass filter to allow the low side frequencies through and a central band pass filter to steepen the slope and cut of at a preset frequency."

You are unbelievable. But thanks for demonstrating how your bullshitting style works. It's the same when you write about the I/P issue. Only here, I do RF engineering professionally so stop trying to bullshit me.

 

[Phoenall]

No, you are a real idiot and continue making a fool of yourself through your bullshitting. The size of the band that a band pass filter allows to pass is dependent on the low pass filter and high pass filter used. The low pass filter blocks frequencies that are higher than desired and the high pass filter blocks frequencies that are lower than desired and the combination becomes a band pass filter and the narrowness of the band is dependent upon the frequencies passed by the low and high pass filters. You are so foolish.

You wrote the nonsense below in italics.

"To achieve a narrow pass band you need to combine a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through, a high pass filter to allow the low side frequencies through and a central band pass filter to steepen the slope and cut of at a preset frequency."

The low pass filter blocks the "high side frequencies" (as you call them you moron), it doesn't "let them through" as you claim. The high pass filter blocks the "low side frequencies" (as you call them) to pass it doesn't let them through. The opposite of what you wrote above you idiot. bullshitter. This is not an I/P discussion where your bullshitting goes unnoticed by most, this is basic RF engineering.

You are such a bullshitter. Unbelievable that you continue to try to bullshit a professional

By the way, since you are sampling and digitizing an analog signal, then applying digital filtering then doing a D/A conversion. I guess you are no longer concerned with data latency.

Wrong as low pass filters pass frequencies below a set frequency, high pass filters pass frequencies above a set frequency. As an example a 455khz I.F. filter passes only those frequencies centred on 455khz at a set bandwidth. The USB filter passes only those frequencies above where the carrier would be, the opposite is true of a LSB filter. Although I prefer the phasing method to give a cleaner signal.



Nope why should I be as it is infinitely small.

You are nuts. You throw in IF (intermediate frequency) filter, which makes no sense. An RF filter is band pass, low pass, high pass or band stop. Then you try to introduce USB (upper side band) and LSB (lower side band) into the discussion which again has nothing to do with digitizing an analog signal.

You corrected your earlier mistake which is depicted below and then you add more bullshit that has nothing to do with the issue.

You originally wrote:

"a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through"

Now you write:

"low pass filters pass frequencies below a set frequency"

Your complete earlier nonsensical statement complete:

"To achieve a narrow pass band you need to combine a low pass filter to let the high side frequencies through, a high pass filter to allow the low side frequencies through and a central band pass filter to steepen the slope and cut of at a preset frequency."

You are unbelievable. But thanks for demonstrating how your bullshitting style works. It's the same when you write about the I/P issue. Only here, I do RF engineering professionally so stop trying to bullshit me.

So how would you go about achieving a 2khz wide filter to remove noise and adjacent signals that are stronger than the signal you want to process

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Salam Kanaan



Her video.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Rami George Khouri

 

[Mindful]

Hamas seeks to stamp out Isis in Gaza.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d6c49d0-0547-11e5-9627-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3bovyMMoM

 

[P F Tinmore]

Laila El Haddad