Message-ID: <017701c0961a$cfbb2b40$0a00a8c0@ThreeLakes.ca>
From: "Larry Kayser" <kayser@sympatico.ca>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org, 
 "\"Mike Dennison\"" <mike.dennison@rsgb.org.uk>
References: <3A87D5BC.3808.4FD5B5@localhost>
Subject: Re: LF: DDS Frequency setting requirement
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:04:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>


Greetings:

> > .......................I suggest the time has come to make
> > this a requirement for all of us experimenting on LF.
> > Comments etc.
> > Larry
> > VA3LK
>
> I am sure you meant to say recommendation. As soon as we make
> something a requirement, I am out of here.
>> Mike, G3XDV

Yes, well it took some effort to see your perspective of "requirement" but I
guess you are offering a regulatory perspective.  No I would never have even
considered or thought of government not now, not when I was a child and not
in my dotage would I have thought of requirement in that context.

My intent was to make it a "requirement" on DDS VFO replacement suppliers -
and I note Brian Rogerson has a new DDS from S&S engineering and their only
offering of a solution is to divide a higher number by 100 which is what one
gets when one doesn't make the issue a "requirement" on the DDS unit
manufacturer.

Larry
VA3LK