RadioBanter - View Single Post - BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth

June 25th 04, 10:39 AM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to
sell
it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of
the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

Then educate them.

I tried, Len. They just don't get it. I'm just a poor dumb old amateur anyway.
You've told me time and time again how unqualified I am, how I "live in the
past", how I don't know anything about "big time radio" and such, and how
you're a "professional in radio". I still work regular hours and then some -
I'm not retired like you. I'm not a wordsmith like you. I don't even make up
names to call other people in newsgroups like you. I'm only 50 years old. If
they won't listen to you, why should they listen to me?

My main interests in HF amateur radio are operating Morse code and building ham
radio equipment - either from kits or from my own designs. Three years ago I
bought a kit from a little company in California and built it. Rest of my
projects are what we hams call "homebrew". You've made fun of them so many
times that they must be of no account, right?

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL.

That's different from saying "BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF
communications in urban areas."

They're the professionals and the regulators and the military, Len. I'm just a
poor dumb old amateur anyway. What do I know? Who am I to contradict
professionals who know what's best for me?

FCC has said a Morse code test "serves no regulatory purpose". FCC has reduced
the requirements for a ham radio license again and again for more than 25
years. The same FCC now refuses to interpret Part 15 the same way I do.

Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL.

I gave them plenty. I also contributed to the ARRL fund to fight BPL.

NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!"

Does it say "acceptible" or "acceptable", Len? How do you know it isn't
acceptable? How much communicating on the HF amateur bands have you done in the
past month?

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA?

No. I'm just commenting on you lack of receiver knowledge and skill. That's
understandable - professionals gave up on regenerative receivers decades ago.

My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative.

Couldn't get it to work, huh? Here's a hint: The tickler coil has to be
connected the right way to get the detector to regenerate. Even I know that.

What did you build in 1947, senior?

Nothing, Len. I wasn't around. I wasn't bootlegging an unlicensed transmitter,
either.

But 20 years later, in 1967, I got an amateur radio license. And began to use
it. Today it's 57 years later than 1947 and you haven't done any of that. .

Senior? Guess what - yesterday I got an application to join AARP. They want me
as a member. So I guess I'm a senior citizen now, huh? Maybe I'll join.

I've built regenerative and superheterodyne receivers. Also transmitters,
transceivers, power supplies, antennas, antenna tuners, station control
systems, test equipment and much more. Most of it from scratch, some kits. But
none of that counts for anything, does it, Len? Homebrewing is "living in the
past", according to you, isn't it? We hams all just buy our factory made
equipment, right?

Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in
1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too.

Then it wasn't "one tube". was it?

Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their
ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other
strong signals adjacent.

Poorly designed and built, then. Or maybe you couldn't get that one to work
either, huh? Too 'primitive' for you, I suppose.

Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad,
made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed).

So you lied to a child. That must be the "professional" thing to do, eh?
Couldn't you do anything to improve it? You're a "professional in radio".

Here's a hint, Len: It's possible to build a very good regenerative receiver
and possible to build a very bad one. And everything in between. A regen that
can't hear the noise level is very bad indeed.

Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL,
Rev. Jimmie Who?!?

I don't know anyone by that name. To whom do you refer, Len? It can't be me -
Reverends are professionals in religion. I'm just an amateur.