RadioBanter - View Single Post - Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

Dave Heil · October 8th 06, 12:52 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:

It was not only PRACTICAL, Len, it was the ONLY way known at the time.
I don't think they used "the antenna lead-in", old boy. They probably
used the feedline. Think of it as more of a "lead-out". You should get
the lead out.
The modulation was done in the ground lead, not the aerial lead. (They
used the term "aerial" in those days).

It was practical enough to be heard across the pond.
That sounds pretty practical.

For its time. Then triode vacuum tubes came along and changed things.

Yep, it didn't take very long.

You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio
control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting...
...that you know of.

I have, Len. What of it?
Len keeps trying to find out about my work.
So he thinks he can find out by guessing which things you don't do?

It appears that Len expects me to reply to his "you have never..."
statements by saying what I have done in non-amateur radio. Old trick,
doesn't work.

It hasn't stopped him from trying. He has never become a radio amateur
despite his several decades of self-declared "interest" in amateur radio.

The other reason for Len's antics is so he can tell us, once again, the
different things he's done.

He should just number them. Instead of typing all of those words over
and over, he could just type something like "62."

Have you noticed that Len doesn't ask about what other people have done
in *amateur* radio? And this is an *amateur* radio newsgroup!

If he tries a "you have never" and someone refutes it with details, Len
simply clams up. If they voluntarily post material describing something
they've done, Len uses that as an opportunity for insulting the poster.

For a double-degreed education in things electrical you
just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and
definite misunderstanding of the real definition of
"practical."

Note the dig at my BSEE and MSEE degrees.

The profile predicts that behavior.

What Len doesn't realize is
that, in the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of
now-incredible things were once considered practical.

....and things once considered impractical or impossible are now mundane.

For example, the very first operational general-purpose electronic
digital computer was the ENIAC, which was built at one of my alma
maters here in Philadelphia. Its design and construction were paid for
(some would say "subsidized") by the U.S. Army (some would say "the
taxpayers"). Its original stated purpose was for the calculation of
artillery aiming information.

Some may point to machines like the Colossus, Mark 1 or even the ABC as
the "first computer". But they all lack something that ENIAC had. Some,
like the ABC and even Babbage's Difference Engine, were never fully
operational. Some, like the Mark 1, used relays and mechanics for
calculation, and were not really electronic. Some were built for a
specific task, such as breaking codes, and were not really general
purpose. Some were partly or entirely analog, such as the Differential
Analyzer. ENIAC was the first to do it all.

ENIAC took up an enormous amount of space and power, used over 17,000
tubes and required programming in machine language to do anything
useful.

Its complexity and sheer size meant that breakdowns were frequent. One
solution was to never turn it off, because many failures occurred
during turn-on and turn-off.

Part of the problem was that the parts used in the original
construction were not the most reliable possible. ENIAC was built under
wartime restrictions, and they had to use what they could get. The
quality of some parts, particularly common octal tubes, noticeably
decreased over the war years because they were being made by a variety
of companies, using inexperienced people and whatever facilities were
available. The experienced tube companies and people were needed for
radar and proximity fuse work, not the manufacture of 6SN7s.

The reliability of ENIAC was such that it would typically run for 1 to
2 days before something needed fixing. Its record was only about 5 days
of continuous operation. The folks using it got very very good at
identifying and fixing the problems.

ENIAC was never duplicated. During its development, so much was learned
that newer machines like EDSAC, EDVAC and ultimately the UNIVAC were
designed, rather than repeat the ENIAC design.

The points of this little bit of history are these:

By modern standards, or even those of 20, 30, or 40 years ago, ENIAC
is/was totally impractical.

But by the standards of its time, it was a tremendous advance.
Calculations that took *weeks* using pre-ENIAC methods could be done in
*seconds* using the machine. The boundaries of "numerically hard"
calculation were pushed back enormously.

Most important of all, the ENIAC was considered "practical" enough by
the US Army. Soon after it was publically announced in 1946, the Army
moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where it was used
for its intended purposes until 1955.

....and like ENIAC, Fessendon's feat was an advancement over what had
previously been possible.

Practicality had to be defined by the time in which something took
place. Otherwise you're left playing a game of "what if the U.S. had
the atomic bomb in 1917?"

That's why I wrote the above ENIAC story. ENIAC was practical in its
time.

How many computers made today have a useful life as long as ENIAC?

Not many. I recall running Miniprop on an XT with no math copressor.
Forecasting took hours. I'd enter the solar flux and come back after a
movie. Now, similar programs run on a modern machine in a second or two.

btw, in 1976, ENIAC was returned to where it was built, and a museum
display set up with parts of it. In the 1990s, part of it was restored
to operating condition, and some calculations done as a demonstration.

I got to see and touch parts of ENIAC. Also read the papers on it. A
machine that changed the world, made from very ordinary parts and
techniques, assembled in a new way.

I'm glad we don't need that sort of thing today. I don't have room for
an ENIAC. I wonder if Len ever saw or touched ENIAC. Surely we'd have
heard about it by now--several times.

AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.
Superfluous minutae.
...is your specialty, Len, but I spell it "minutia".
Webster's spells it "minutia" for singular, "minutiae" for plural.
Len's should have chosen the singular. He made an error.

Typical.

The main point is that it's not superfluous. Voice radio was
"practical" enough for MW broadcasting by 1920 - that's not an opinion,
it's a demonstrated fact.
Yes. There is nothing currently underway to move toward anything in the
near future to change amplitude modulation for medium wave broadcasting.

There are AM BC receivers from the 1920s that, if restored, will
perform admirably today in their intended purpose.

....and a high quality, tube-type BC set from the 1950's sounds every bit
as good as its modern, LSI counterpart.

Some NTSC TV sets from 60 years ago, if restored, can still be used to
watch VHF TV. There's a website showing a 1954 RCA color set in
operation - today. Of course HDTV will eventually replace NTSC.

Those HDTV tuner boxes are quite common. If one uses one of them ahead
of an old analong set and puts the tuner in the 480 interlaced mode, the
analong TV is useful for many more years.

YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting.
Len keeps trying to find out about my work. Now he's reduced to posting
untruths in an effort to get more information.
So he doesn't actually know if you've worked in broadcasting or not and
he has resorted to wild speculation?

He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and
untruths for a long time.

I'm sure you have an idea of his reasons for digging for information.

I have, Len. What of it?

Your amateur radio
license does NOT permit broadcasting.
I know that. That's why I don't use it for broadcasting.
Did you know that most people in broadcasting don't have any kind of
license?

Howard Stern.

That's either a really good or a really bad example, but yes.

Are you sure?

Ever hear of "loop modulation"?
There might not be anything about it on the White's page.

White's is very good - for what it covers. It essentially stops long
before WW2. Its treatment is heavy on broadcasting, light on amateurs
and nonbroadcasting commercial operation. IMHO.

But Len refers to it as if it is the Bible. He usually follows one of
those references with some sniping at the American Radio Relay League.

Do you think there's any chance that other, more efficient techniques
were developed?

Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph
operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who
pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century.

PR bull**** you fantasize.

No, it's a fact. Look up the ages of pioneers like Armstrong,
Fessenden, Beverage etc. in 1920. They were young men.

The wireless operators on the Titanic weren't even 25 years old. They
were the best Marconi could supply.

Remember this classic quote?:

"I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a
primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity." (Len
Anderson, Sept 2, 1996)
I remember it well. He has written similar things more recently, though
they were a tad more insulting.

I'm still looking for a definition of "morsemanship"

Len hasn't told us exactly what that term means. It might be a very
good thing, Jim.

Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version.

Len don't *do* documentation, Dave.

Right. I think he sees those as "DEMANDS". Len don't do "DEMANDS".
So far we have from him only wild speculation, guesses and undocumented
claims.

Not "only", Dave. There's a lot more, like Godwin-ready commentary....

He usually waffles on Waffen and sez he doesn't refer to those he
obviously means.

Do you need to review the profile?

Len needs to review the profile. He seems powerless to avoid fulfilling
its predictions.

You were NOT among the
"pioneers of radio" and you have NO demographics to
prove the ages, let alone a poll or listing showing
that.

Neither were you, Len.

...but you must have found the ages of the Titanic ops from somewhere, Jim.

It's pretty easy to look up the ages of those folks. Of course Len will
not. Would ruin his rant.

Len seldom lets the truth get in the way of one of his monologues.
Witness his frequent references to the MARS assignment I never had in
Vietnam, despite the fact that I've corrected him each and every time.
That behavior is predicted in the profile.

Have you noticed that he has suddenly clammed up about my working with
NASA? He tripped over the facts I strew in his path.

All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited
versions of radio history from the ARRL.

More untruths from Len.

I give him some wiggle room in referring to them as factual errors.

It's an untruth. My history sources go far beyond ARRL publications.
And ARRL history isn't "bowdlerized".

Agreed. I have numerous books on the history of radio in general and on
the history of amateur radio.

That's your story and you're sticking with it.

Landline telegraphy
was already changing from manual to teleprinter by
the year 1900. That changeover continued until the
middle of the 1900s until ALL the landline telegraph
circuits were either shut down or replaced by
electromechanical teleprinters.
Actually, there were still some landline telegraph operations in
operation in 1969. They may have continued beyond that year.

I'm sure the guys in a landline telegraph newsgroup would be fascinated
by your account.
The important point was that the use of Morse Code in radio continued
long past the middle of the 20th century.

To be factually correct, it would have to be said that the use of Morse
Code in radio continues into the 21st century.

Both are true. I was writing about non-amateur use of Morse Code in
radio.

The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.
Superfluous minutae.
Not superfluous at all. A landline operator knew the wrong code.
Though to be fair, there were a number of landline telegraphers who were
familiar with both codes.

Yep.

In fact, here in the USA, there were at least *three* codes in use
until 1912. Besides "American" and "Continental", the US Navy had its
own code.

Even though the Berlin conference of 1906 had specified Continental for
radio use, the USA did not universally adopt it. That all changed with
the new radio laws of 1912.

That's how I like to think of your ADA tales of better than a
half-century back, except I use "minutia"

Notice how Len doesn't mention any HF experience of his after ADA,
except cb? He does still have one of the most compact Johnsons ever
produced, too!

Ah, the tiny, dusty Johnson. I've not noticed any HF stories after what
Len calls "BIG TIME". We'd surely have remembered because they'd had
been repeated often.

Manual telegraphy consisted of
closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed.
Superfluous minutia.

Except it's not really true.

Duplex and quadruplex telegraph circuits used polarity reversal and
other methods beyond on-off. Carrier was used as well - often
frequency-shift.

Ahhhh! I should have remembered. My 9L1US 50 MHz beacon used frequency
shifted Morse in 1990-91.

And the most modern communications today - fiber optics - is really
nothing more than on-off keying of a light beam.

That's right.

Packet switching is just the old telegram model reinvented.

....with a form of collision avoidance and numerous retries when the
collision avoidance doesn't work. It'd be clunky if it wasn't done at
speed.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different versions
of on-off telegraphy which have been developed, NONE of
them modeled on either "International" or "Continental"
AMERICAN morse code or any English-language
representation.

Superfluous minutia.

Jim has more patience with you than I can muster.

I think you're missing the point, Dave.

Len has spent more than a decade here on rrap. He's barraged rrap and
the FCC with torrents of words about a simple license test - even
though he is not a radio amatuer and will probably never be one.
Oh, I've not missed *that* point.

I don't think has changed the mind of even one person about Morse Code.

I think he may have, but not from pro-code testing to anti-code testing.
It'd be the reverse.

After the restructuring of 2000, it seemed like a "slam dunk" that the
FCC would just drop code testing as soon as it could. Len even said he
would "go for Extra right out of the box" back in January of that year.
But he didn't.

That box was never opened. Len counted on the code test being
eliminated at that point.

But that was illogical.

Sure it was.

The FCC would not violate the treaty about code testing. They said so
in the R&O for the 2000.

It didn't happen and it left him holding
the--box.

In July 2003 the treaty requirement went away, and it really seemed
like a "slam dunk" that code testing would soon go away in the USA.

But now it's 3-1/2 years later, and despite 18 petitions and an NPRM,
the rules haven't changed. FCC won't even say when they will make a
decision.

...and Len is not only still holding the box, he has a mug full of dried
egg.

Len claimed he was once up to about 8 wpm with Morse Code, before he
quit - gave up - trying to learn it.

If that were true, why wouldn't he be able to relearn it enough to pass
Element 1? Maybe that claim wasn't entirely true?

Or maybe it's the *written* tests that are the problem?

Either way, he didn't even attempt going for the most basic license
class, much less the Extra. The echoes of his boast are all that's left.

In fact, the old "omnibus" NPRM (04-140, IIRC) is still working its way
through the system. That NPRM will almost certainly yield an R&O before
the Morse Code one does. But there's no indication from FCC when the
"omnibus" R&O will show up, let alone the Morse Code changes.

Of course FCC will probably just drop Element 1 eventually. But they're
in no hurry to do so. By the time FCC gets around to announcing its
decision, Len may not have anybody to rag on about it.
I'm not particularly worried about Len Anderson showing up on the ham
bands with a shiny new Extra which he'll have obtained from a very worn
and tattered box.

To do so would require not only a license, but assembling a station.
Note that while Len talks endlessly about places he has worked and
projects he has worked on, there's almost nothing about radio projects
he has done himself, with his own money, at home.

I've noticed the talk of his workshop, but nothing about what comes out
of it.

There's the one-tube unlicensed oscillator transmitter of 1948, his
conversion of some ARC-5s and their sale, the store-bought ICOM
receiver and the compact Johnson....and not much else.

Len was certainly quick to insult your homebrew gear though. I'm
interested in the little 40m receiver described in this month's QST. I
may have to build one of those.

My latest workshop efforts weren't difficult. I bought a Heathkit
HL-2200 HF amp--an SB-220 in brown clothing a couple of years back.
I got it expressly for the purpose of converting it to 6m. I had to
throw together a circuit for reducing the amplifier keying circuit from
125v to 12v at about 2ma. After that, I modified the amp plate circuit
and tuned input per a Hints and Kinks article. It didn't work as well
as I thought it should have so I disconnected the entire 80/40m coil
assembly and unwound all but 2 turns of the 20/15/10m coil. I tapped
that at 1 1/4 turn with wide copper strap and threw it back together.
It delivers 900 watts on Six.

Plus if FCC *does* drop Element 1, what will Len do? There won't be
anything left for him to argue about, and nobody to argue with. So he's
working on some new angles - which are really just old ones warmed up
again. Meanwhile, he's obviously upset, worried and angry.

How is that different from the way he has always acted here?

Good question.

....with an obvious answer.

Len could have had an Extra with just a 5 wpm code test way back in
1990. But he didn't. That says it all.

Len could have had a no-code tech ages ago.

The code waivers actually preceded the Technician's loss of its code
test.

It would have provided him
with access to the VHF/UHF bands--the ones he says are where the action
should be.

Says it all. All talk, no action. All hat, no cattle.

All vine, no fruit.

See you on the air, Dave.

For sure. SS is coming up fairly soon.

Dave K8MN