[hpsdr] FW: Star-10 Transceiver article in QEX

[John Miles]

Forwarded at Constantin's request (below).  I'll bow out of the debate at
this point, seeing as how the issue is technically off-topic for the SDR
list and I don't have a dog in the fight.

I've uploaded the photos to ftp://manuals@ftp.ko4bb.com , password 'manuals'
(without the quotes), filename KG6NK.zip (1.1 MB, 8 .jpgs in all).

-- john, KE5FX

-----Original Message-----
From: constantin popescu [mailto:res1fz2o at verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:15 AM
To: John Miles
Subject: Fw: [hpsdr] Star-10 Transceiver article in QEX


 Hello John,
 Can you please  post it for me in your forum until I became member?
Bob already posted his comments.
Thank you

 73 de Constantin KG6NK

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "constantin popescu" <res1fz2o at verizon.net>
> To: "Robert McGwier" <rwmcgwier at gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 10:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [hpsdr] Star-10 Transceiver article in QEX
>
>
>> Hello Bob,
>>
>> I am Constantin, KG6NK...
>>
>> I was involved in building and testing that radio for about 5 years. I
>> will
>> sent you some picture for you to have a idea of what we discuss about.
>> First, Star 10 was a technical/technological  challenge to ourselfs.
>> Cornel
>> and I  do not intended to compete with anybody nor deny anybody any merit
>> of
>> advancing ham radio hardware performances you imply in all your
>> comments..Matter of fact Star 10   RX _if one don't hear them can't work
>> them_was tested per ARRL procedure against the best ham radios on market
>> including IC7800 but I do not made public the result. The goal was to
>> confirm Star 10 performances not  to  shadow or not  another radios,
>> commercials or home made.
>>
>> Also there are 2 radios, Cornel's and mine you do not know about.There
>> are
>> slightly different , including the front panel, but as performance are
>> the
>> same. You will find out about it in future QEX issue.
>>
>> Unfortunatly jury had a verdict before the trial.  All the
>> characteristics
>> of radio, measurements methods, documented result will be published in
>> next
>> 2 issue of QEX, so will be fair that one to wait to read all the
>> description
>> before jumping to conclusions. It is in Ham spirit.
>>
>> You are perfectly right! Radio is not cheap and very few components are
>> consumer grade. It  was the goal: the best performance not the cheapest
>> radio. As in  ham radio market there are $600 radios and $11K radios.
>>
>> I think your comments of denying that radio has a composite 150 db
>> dynamic
>> range is because of your misinterpretation of data or misunderstanding of
>> what it is.Cornel explained it on QEX including presenting grafic
>> interpretataion of what it means.. He may clarifies it in other issue of
>> QEX..
>>
>> Also, in ham spirit a critique based on facts will bring progress.
>> Gossip,
>> personal attacks and miss representation not.It is not in ham spirit.
>> Goodwill advance our goal of perfect hardware /software ham radios ,
>> personal attacks not.Star 10 is not perfect but we tried the best.
>>
>> Any way ,If you have any question I gladly clarify them for you regarding
>> the project Cornel and I spent over 5 years and not only us, a lot of
>> people
>> made a contribution as was recognized by Cornel in QEX paper.
>>
>> I sent for your clarification,my version of star 10 front panel overlay
>> unfinished yet,  my lab settings, , myself assembling Cornel version of
>> Star
>> 10, a plot of Star 10 sysnt from 500 Hz to 20 kHz @-137 dbc/hz and for
>> comparation, second plot with STAR 10  sysnt pll noise lower trace and
>> upper
>> trace pll noise of a new Agilent sig gen. ThePLL  plot is for a freq. of
>> 89.2MHZ, 14,2 MHz on Star 10 dial.
>> If you are interested I can provide you with more documented tests of
>> front
>> end amps, mixers, etc, if what will be published in QEX need more
>> explanations.
>>
>> 73 de Constantin, KG6NK
>>
>>
>>