In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

Tsk, tsk.

It's true, true.

The "whizzing" is almost entirely one way, nursie
"whizzing" on anyone who disagrees (in the slightest) with
him. [that's all archived in Google, go live in the past and see
it...:-) ]

All three of you do about the same amount of whizzing. You whizz on anyone who
disagrees in the slightest with you.

It's a plain, simple fact.

Tsk, wrong again. Error. Mistake.

What's the mistake?

Worse yet, you use "fact" interchangeably with Your Personal
Opinion. Not correct.

How is it not correct?

Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

Very very little.

Actually, quite a bit.

Wrong again. Quite wrong.

Your opinion.

1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency.

No, that's not true. Radio was regulated by the US and by international
treaty
before 1912. The regulations were very vague and loose, but they did exist.

Tsk.

It's true.

What agency had the official power of law in the United States
prior to 1912?

Depends on which law.

"Loose and vague" apply to your specious "arguments" there.

Not at all, Len. Was there *no* regulation of radio in the USA before 1912?

That's
about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very
tenuous one...if at all. :-)

Wrong again, Len!

No. Not "wrong" in the real world.

Were you there, in the real world, in 1912?

You need to sever your imaginary ties of emotion to a pet subject
of yours in order to examine the bigger picture.

There was NO REAL RELATION of the Titanic disaster event to U.S.
amateur radio policy, regulations, or laws.

Sure there was. You just won't admit it because I brought it up.

If you notice the
chronology, all that can be said is that the creation of the first U.S.
radio regulating agency and the Titanic sinking took place in the same
year, 1912.

The Department of the Navy and the Department of Commerce did not exist before
1912?

Because of the Titanic disaster, the existing loose regulations were
tightened
up and much more closely defined. Licenses were required of all transmitting
stations, new procedures set up, new treaties and agreements put in place.

That's an absurd mental elastomeric stress breaking point. :-)

Not really.

I would suggest that anyone who really cares about the very early
history of radio to study Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave,
Technology and American Radio, 1900-1932." Princeton University
Press, 1985, softcover 561 pp. At the time of writing, Aitken was
a professor at Amherst College and the work was supported by the
National Science Foundation.

Was he there in 1912? Were you? I wasn't.

There was considerably more involved in the decision of the United
States to create its first radio regulating agency PRIOR to the
Titanic sinking. [agencies aren't created overnight by some
disaster even and the start of the first radio agency in the U.S.
began considerably before the infamous sinking]

There were more than a dozen "wireless" bills before Congress in the two years
preceding April 1912. All failed to be enacted. There was no urgency to
enacting US wireless regulation at all. Then the Titanic sinking and the
resulting investigations led to quick govt. action.

And it was because of the Titanic disaster that amateurs were limited to
"200
meters and down" and 1 kW input to their transmitters. Those limitations
caused
amateurs to organize themselves into groups like ARRL (1914), to push for
legislative protection, and to explore what could be done with those
supposedly "useless" wavelengths.

Tsk. You aren't in line with the ARRL's own bio of its creation. :-)

How would you know, Len?

The way the league wrote themselves up,

Where?

they began as a local
club using their ham sets to what was essentially hacking on the
services of commercial telegraph providers.

"hacking on the services of commercial telegraph providers"?

Nope.

Amateur radio message handling of those days did not "hack" anyone else's
facilities. Nor was it done for money.

[see the details on the
league's web site and in other published works by them]

Try actually reading them yourself, Len.

ARRL did not spring into national prominence until AFTER World
War 1, at least 8 years AFTER the Titanic sinking.

Wrong again, Len!

The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before WW1. That's a
documented fact. The League and amateur radio all but disappeared during WW1,
then were reorganized soon after Armistice Day.

Even so, the
league was very busy with competition from OTHER wannabe
national amateur organizations.

Such as?

Note: The Radio Club of America
began 5 years before the creation of the little New England club,
and "RCA" (as they call themselves) is still in existance.

The Radio Club of America exists as a small organization today. It is not
devoted entirely or even seriously to amateur radio. It's a tiny shadow of what
it once was.

One of the most influential of the early wireless organizations was the
Wireless Association of Pennsylvania. Two of its organizers, Charles Stewart
and David Rittenhouse, defended the interests of amateurs in 1910, 1911, and
1912. For example, it is because of their efforts that attempts to require the
licensing of *receivers* were not successful.

Had there been no Titanic or similar disaster, it's very probable that the
loose state of radio regulatory affairs would have continued until the
outbreak of WW1.

Tsk. World War One (in Europe) began in 1914. The ARRL was
created in 1914. :-)

And the US did not get involved until 1917.

And it's also very possible that without the Titanic disaster, amateur radio
would not exist today, or even after WW1.

Yes, yes, "The Old Man" Went To Washington To Save Ham Radio!
AFTER the end of World War 1. Six years AFTER the Titanic
sinking.

You can't deal with a hypothetical situation.

Perhaps that's why Len gets so worked up over mention of the Titanic.

Tsk. Here begins Rev. Jim's "fire and brimstone" demonizing. :-)

Noooooo. The Titanic sank in 1912. That is NINETY-TWO YEARS
AGO.

Why are you shouting, Len? You must be very upset.

Or perhaps it's the fact that the rescue was effected by Morse Code used on
radio that gets Len so upset.

Tsk. Way back then (92 years ago) ANYONE using radio for
communications HAD TO use on-off keying of some kind.

Fessenden and his workers didn't "HAVE TO"...

Reginald A. Fessenden was using amplitude-modulated voice radio almost a dozen
years before the Titanic sank. By November 1906 he had two-way transatlantic
*voice* radio communication working on a regular basis. Your historic
references probably mention Fessenden, too. Look him up.

92 years later, hardly anyone (except for a few amateurs, a minority)
use on-off keying communications modes.

So what? If that fact has any significance it all, it points to the need for
testing knowledge of those "on-off keying communications modes" for an amateur
license.

Also, repeated surveys and polls of today's radio amateurs show that, of those
who operate on the HF amateur bands, a *majority* use Morse Code at least some
of the time.

Len laughed at the disaster when I wrote that hitting the iceberg head-on
would have probably saved all aboard. And he refuses to show any respect
for those who perished.

Tsk. Sneaky implied pejorative. :-)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001133%40mb-m0
1.aol.com&output=gplain


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001131%40mb-m0
1.aol.com&output=gplain

I don't claim to be a mariner at all

Nor do I.

despite having crossed the Atlantic
and Pacific twice by ship and gone sailing on a friend's 35-foot
something or other (forget the class of sailboat), all as a passenger.

Then why do you mention it?

I WILL laugh and laugh at the thought of "expert seamanship" involving
"hitting an iceberg (or anything else) head-on in order to save it"!

Then you're laughing at the expert mariners who have said doing so would have
saved Titanic. And you're laughing at what happened to the liner Niagara, April
11, 1912.

IOW, you're laughing at reality.

Ain't nobody going to get "respect" for stating such alleged "safety
measures" to stay afloat at sea as "going head-on into a berg."

Tell it to the experts who say it was a better choice than sinking the ship.

Defies common sense. :-)

So does the theory of relativity. But it's true.

I don't show any "respect" for ANYONE stating that "hitting anything
head-on will save a ship."

In the case of Titanic, it's true.

It sure seems to. You're obsessed by it.

Tsk. Persistence is not obsession.

You're obsessed.

I'm not in here every day. :-)

Nor am I. But that's not the point.

I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-)

That's a good thing!

Why is that "good?"

Because it's better that your behavior is confined here, rather than on the
amateur bands.

Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right
out of the box".

Did I do that in church?

No - right here.

Tsk. I've seen what Being An Extra makes of some amateurs and
such is not for me.

Then whay are you here?

I'm of the opinion that radio and electronics is terribly fascinating,
interesting, and makes an enjoyable field of both avocation and
occupation. To me. So much so that I made a major shift in my
formal education long ago, changing from illustration art to
electronics engineering. That despite a natural talent in
illustration and some prior work experience as an illustrator.

How is that at all relevant to amateur radio policy?

That was personally successful, not the "lackluster career" you
stated.

People's standards of "success" vary.

I do electronics hobby work in my home workshop to please me,

Me too!

not some raddio kopps demanding a certain formal Way To Do
Things, nor worshipping the old traditional ways as they were
done long ago, trying to re-enact a past that was before I was
born. The future happens right after now and I keep looking forward
to new things, to enjoy them.

Yet you still have an old R-70 receiver, and use software kluges like MS Paint
to do PC board layouts when much newer, better methods exist.

What person are you referring to, Len?

Whomever. :-)

Can't call people by name, I see.

Note how Len avoids the question about why the code test bothers him so
much.

It doesn't "bother me." :-)

Sure it does. Whenever anyone says anything good about the test - or even Morse
Code itself - you come out swinging with shouting and insults.

You've long since run out of valid arguments to retain the U.S. amateur
radio regulation requiring passing a code cognition test for operating
privileges in amateur bands below 30 MHz.

In *your* opinion. Others (including FCC) disagree.

You've resorted to the
usual PCTA demonizing of any NCTA who dares to talk back to a
member of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS).

"Demonizing"? How? All I do is point out your mistakes and offer commentary on
your behavior here. Is that not allowed?

It seems that you take *any* differing opinion, or facts that you don't like,
as personal insults to you.

As predicted, you've gotten all emotional and upset about being
(in the slightest) corrected on certain (actual) facts (not your
opinions although you use fact-opinion interchangeably).

Not me, Len. I'm not the one making up nicknames, shouting, etc. I leave that
stuff to you.

You want to keep the ARS in your version of pure, pristine, and
prissy-literally

What in the world does that mean?

and don't (now) hesitate to pejorate others and
make some mild perjerous remarks to "reinforce" your opinions
(which you call "facts").

"Peforate others and make some mild perjerous remarks"?

What *are* you talking about?

Besides, it wouldn't matter what sort of homebrew rig I produced - Len would
have lots of disparaging things to say about it.

Tsk. You took your rig's photo. You put it on an AOL home page.

Is that wrong? Is it somehow not allowed?

One photo.

There are more out there. You haven't found them yet, have you?

Doesn't go into much detail.

Why should it? Your reaction is predictable regardless of the detail provided.

Six and a half cabinet-less
chassis with lots of vacuum tubes.

Six and a half chassis? Count again.

And what's the obsession with cabinets?

No schematics. No descriptions
in detail that you claim visitors are astounded about. :-)

I've already described that rig elsewhere. I've outlined its basic principle
here, but you couldn't even solve the heterodyne problem, so it's pointless for
me to go further.

What homebrew HF radio transceivers have *you* produced since the mid
1990s, Len, using only your own time and resources?

No transceivers on HF. :-)

Exactly. You criticize others, but have nothing to show of your own work.

As usual, you've wasted my time.

How? You choose to read the postings here, and you choose to answer.