wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 7 2006 6:39 am
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate.

Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice
communication as early as 1900, and had practical long-distance
radiotelephony by 1906.

"PRACTICAL?!?"

Yes.

What is "PRACTICAL" about inserting a
single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
lead-in to 'brute force' modulate a CW carrier?!?

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.

The first triode vacuum tube (deForrest called them "audions"
in those days) was invented in 1906...same year as Reggie's
"Christmas" broadcast. :-)

DeForest spelled his name with only one "r".

Vacuum tubes that could be used in 'practical' transmitters were not
available in 1906. Nor an oscillator circuit. Those things took a few
years to develop.

At NO TIME did any OTHER broadcaster or voice transmitter
adopt the Fessenden brute-force amplitude modulator. NO ONE.
Not in the USA, not in Canada, not anywhere in the world.

How do you know for sure, Len? Did you visit every transmitting station
in the world?

The truth is that you don't know - you're just making things up. Maybe
others adopted Fessenden's idea and failed. Or maybe they succeeded,
but after a time lost interest and went on with other things.

You don't know for sure. All you know is that you haven't come across
any documentation that someone else adopted Fessenden's idea.

So much for your redefinition of "practical."

You seem to think that a thing cannot be practical unless it is copied.
That's simply not true.

...and the insistence of "amateur only" subject matter in
this newsgroup. :-)

Who insists on that?

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.

Tsk, tsk, you've TOLD ME what I should have done in the
military,

When did I write that? You are telling an untruth, Len.

yet you've never served in the military or in
the US government.

How do you know for sure who served and who didn't?

I served 8 years in the US Army.
You can see and read what I did for three years there via:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

If I had a dollar for every time you've mentioned your Army experience
on rrap, I'd probably have enough for a brand new Orion II with all the
filters.

6 MB in size, takes about 19 minutes download on a dial-up
connection.

Are you still using dial-up, Len? I'm not.

Why do you live in the past?

Twenty pages with many photo illustrations.
High-power HF transmitters. 1953 to 1956.

How does anyone know for sure that it's all accurate, Len? You didn't
even get the distance from the USSR to Tokyo correct - maybe you made
other mistakes?

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

"It ain't braggin' if ya done it!" :-)

How do we know for sure that you did it?

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

Tsk, I have done so.

No, you haven't.

All that you've displayed (via links)
is an old 70's era receiver, supposedly built for less than
$100, on Kees Talen's website "HBR" pages (HomeBrew Receiver,
after the various "HBR" articles in QST of decades ago).

Actually it cost about $10.

I've discussed much more of my amateur radio activities here. You
weren't paying attention.

Have you forgotten the picture of my current station on my website? (I
have several - AOL gives them out free. Len hasn't taken advantage of
that AOL feature, even though he has several screen names).

Didja know Fessenden's 1906 "broadcast" used an alternator transmitter?

I surely did.

Of course that limited his voice-radio operations to below 100 kHz
(3000 meters)

Tsk, tsk, that was before 1920. 1920 is 86 years ago.

Why do you live in the past so much?

1956 was 50 years ago. Why do *you* live in the past?

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

Tom Edison thought for sure that Direct Current would be
The Way for widespread electrical power distribution. :-)

Is NOT practical now.

So Edison made a mistake on that. I wasn't talking about him.

In the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible
things were once considered practical. That's a fact.

Academics once insisted that "current flow" was opposite
that of electron flow.

Current flow *is* opposite electron flow, Len. It's an engineering
convention.

Was written up in lots of textbooks.

Still is. Current flows from positive to negative. Electrons go the
other way.

Is NOT practical now.

Then why is it still the conventional representation in electrical
engineering?

Some insist that "Greenlee Chassis Punches" are necessary
for homebuilt radio construction.

I don't. btw, the resceiver on the HBR website was built without them.

Is ONLY "practical" for knocking out conduit attachment
holes in electrical power distribution boxes or some
70s-era boatanchor construction project (i.e., using
vacuum tubes and needing socket holes for same).

No, that's not true at all, Len.

For homebrew radio construction, they have a lot of uses:

- Holes for meters and displays
- Holes for connectors, ranging from SO-239 to DB-25
- Holes for chassis-mount components such as large electrolytic
capacitors and flush-mount transformers
- Holes for ventilation

And much more. Of course those holes can be made other ways - Greenlee
punches have never been essential tools. They're just nice to have and
use.

Greenlee is still a corporation in Rockford, IL, but they
seem to have stopped making "chassis punches" for radio
hobbyists.

That's incorrect. They make a wider line of chassis punches than ever
before.

btw, the classic Adel nibbling tool is still in production.

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.

"Firing Tables" those are called,

That's nice, Len.

Is "artillery aiming information" somehow incorrect?

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 "broke codes?" Really? "Did it all?" :-)

ENIAC had all the features needed to be the very first operational
general-purpose electronic
digital computer. And it was.

Ever hear of 'the BSTJ?' That's the Bell System Technical
Journal. Before the Bell break-up it was published
(mostly) monthly. They had a nice write-up in it on the
three electromechanical 'computers' that Bell Labs made
for making Firing Tables during WWII.

They were slow - at least an order of magnitude slower than ENIAC. They
were not general purpose, either. Their technology led nowhere.

Good old "amateur radio subject in an amateur radio
newsgroup!" :-)

You mean like your constant rehash of ADA?

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.

ever do any "programming in machine language?"

Yes.

At any
time? I have. Want me to list them? :-)

No.

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.

Good old tube filaments!

They're called heaters, Len.

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.

People reproduce without any experience. :-)

Fortunately, some do not.

The experienced tube companies and people were needed for
radar and proximity fuse work, not the manufacture of 6SN7s.

Tsk, in the history of the War Production Board, the
number 1 priority went to the Manhattan Project. Second
priority was the manufacture of quartz crystal units (a
million a month total between '43 and '45). The company
that would change its corporate name to MOTOROLA (Galvin
Manufacturing) was the center of quartz production control
but Galvin also designed and built wartime radios...one
(the first handie-talkie) being done before the USA was
drawn into WW2. Heck, Lewyt Vacuum Cleaner Company built
high-power transmitters (BC-339) during WW2.

What does that have to do with ENIAC?

The point is that the ENIAC folks got the machine to work with the
parts available.

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.

ENIAC flunked.

No, it passed.

The Army accepted ENIAC, moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
used it until 1955.
If it were not a 'practical' device, they would have simply abandoned
it or scrapped it.

The US Army abandoned and/or scrapped a lot of things in those days.
For example, a lot of material was destroyed or abandoned in place
because it wasn't practical to bring it back to the USA. Projects were
simply stopped. WW2 "surplus" was sold for pennies on the dollar just
to get rid of it.

If ENIAC "flunked", why did the Army use it for at least 9 years?

It went defunct.

After 1955, yes.

One of a kind.

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.

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

Try 51 years, not just 40 years ago.

51 years was 1955. ENIAC served the Army for at least 9 years (1946 to
1955). Say, that's longer than *you* claim to have served, Len! ;-)
;-) ;-)

But by the standards of its time, it was a tremendous advance.

According to Moore School PR and the Eckert-Mauchley company
that also went defunct afterwards... :-)

Bought out by a larger company.

ENIAC *was* a tremendous advance. And it was practical, by the
standards of its time.

Calculations that took *weeks* using pre-ENIAC methods could be done in
*seconds* using the machine.

Now, now, you are comparing pomegranites and pumpkins.

Nope. I'm comparing calculating speeds.

Quit

You're telling me what to do, Len. You frequently tell people what to
do, when they prove you wrong. What is wrong with live and let live?

trying to compare humans operating Monroe or Friden desk
calculators for those Firing Table data tabulations with
the MINUTES it took using ENIAC.

Why? Did you ever see a firing table calculation (not tabulation) done
on ENIAC? Or do one by hand? Ever see the machine itself? Ever read the
original papers on it?

The boundaries of "numerically hard"
calculation were pushed back enormously.

Tsk. It's a given that mechanical means, then electrical
means has been acknowledged as making mathematical
calculations faster since LONG before ENIAC existed.

Irrelevant. The point is that the use of electronics by ENIAC increased
the speed by *orders* of magnitude. No mechanical or electromechanical
machine could hope to keep up.

Mechanical and electromechanical computing and calculating were
rendered hopelessly obsolete by ENIAC's success. ENIAC caused the focus
to move to purely electronic computing and calculating. Within a few
years, commercial machines like UNIVAC were on the market. (A UNIVAC
correctly predicted the outcome of the 1952 presidential election,
based on just a few percent of the returns).

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.

The government PAID for it and now they were stuck with this
big white elephant.

Yes, the Army paid for it.

No, it wasn't a "white elephant". It was practical and they used it.

The Army accepted ENIAC, moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
used it until 1955.
If it were not a 'practical' device, they would have simply abandoned
it or scrapped it.

The US Army abandoned and/or scrapped a lot of things in those days.
For example, a lot of material was destroyed or abandoned in place
because it wasn't practical to bring it back to the USA. Projects were
simply stopped. WW2 "surplus" was sold for pennies on the dollar just
to get rid of it.

If ENIAC was a "white elephant". why did the Army use it for at least 9
years?

Probably didn't bother declaring it
"surplus" since no one wanted to buy it. :-)

They couldn't decalre it surplus because they were using it.

That's why I wrote the above ENIAC story.

BFD. You went to Moore, "touched" the museum piece that it is.

It's clear you're very jealous, Len.

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

My HP Pavilion box for one. My wife's HP Pavilion for two.
One hellishly FASTER clock rate than ENIAC, enormous RAM,
ROM, and mass storage medium. Built about 4 years ago.

ENIAC was in service at least 9 years, Len.

My Apple ][ Plus for three...built in 1980 sold to me in
1980...been running now and then ever since.

You never turn it off?

Dinky little
clock rate of 1 MHz, a thousand times slower than the HP
Pavilions but still a lot faster than ENIAC could ever do.
A quarter of a century later it still boots up, runs
programs.

But it's not practical any more.

Those machines can all trace their design right back to ENIAC - and not
to any mechanical or electromechanical device.

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.

[big Ben Stein "wowwwww..." here]

Thirty years before 1976 the Rosenwald Museum of Science and
Industry in Chicago had a working interactive tic-tac-toe
calculator made from relays. Was mounted behind glass so the
visitors could see the relays in operation. Interactive,
Jimmie, any visitor could try it without instruction. :-)

Not general purpose, and not a computer.

I got to see and touch parts of ENIAC.

Wowee. I've touched the Liberty Bell at Independance Hall
in Philly.

So did I - several times.

When I ran the Philadelphia Independence Marathon, the finish line was
in front of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.

Between the two, I'd much prefer the Liberty
Bell.

Why must one prefer one over the other?

ENIAC is defunct. Liberty is NOT.

"Liberty is not a bell". And the way things are going, Liberty is
slowly being eroded.

btw, the Liberty Bell *is* defunct for its original purpose (ringing).

Also read the papers on it. A
machine that changed the world, made from very ordinary parts and
techniques, assembled in a new way.

PR minutae you spout.

The word is spelled "minutiae", Len.

Maybe you ought to get on a committee
to build a SHRINE for ENIAC?

There's already a museum. No shrine needed.

"All worship the Machine That
CHANGED THE WORLD!!!" :-)

You really are jealous, aren't you, Len? Fact is, ENIAC *did* change
the world.

Webster's spells it "minutia" for singular, "minutiae" for plural.

Len's should have chosen the singular. He made an error.

Typical.

Tsk, tsk,

lays on the MINUTAE in plural form so much
that I was correct. :-)

"Minutiae" is the plural, Len.

WTF Moore School and ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO POLICY
seems to have vanished

I'll explain it again, Len:

In the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible
things were once considered practical. That's a fact.

ENIAC is just one example of how things that are now considered
incredible were once practical.

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.

Then let the Navy use them. :-) ["perform admirably" :-) ]

??

Some NTSC TV sets from 60 years ago, if restored, can still be used to
watch VHF TV.

Why? Aren't those good for 80m "CW" transceiver parts?
[rock-bound at 3.58 MHz... :-) ]

"Cost less than $100...etc., etc., etc." :-)

Of course HDTV will eventually replace NTSC.

"Eventually?!?"

Yes, eventually. How many times have they moved the date when NTSC TV
will end? How many NTSC TV sets and other hardware are being sold
today?

Once you watch DTV in operation, side by side with an older
NTSC set, the tremendous difference in DTV can be seen AND
heard. With the truly flat-screen LCD, Plasma, or DLP display
with a wider picture than possible with NTSC, the detail and
expanse is striking with DTV.

Yes - but most of the shows are still JUNK. The quality of the picture
and sound doesn't make up for the lack of quality in the programming.

say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

What's wrong with that?

be the Amish of ham radio.

Do you have a problem with "the Amish"? Do you know anything about them
or their way of life?

Do you know what happened in Nickel Mines, PA last week?

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

Sounds like that USMC Imposter
Robeson's tactic.

How do you know if someone is a "USMC Imposter", Len?

See above about ENIAC. It was very practical, in its time - but never
repeated.

ENIAC defuct.

"defuct"?

Flunked in reliability, flunked in architecture
(BCD accumulators/registers, not binary). NEVER repeated.
A MUSEUM PIECE.

If it were so bad, why did the Army use it for at least 9 years?

ENIAC served the Army longer than *you* did, Len ;-)

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

Poor baby. Can't understand it? Post-graduate degree and
you still can't connect the dots? :-)

It's not in the dictionary.

My history sources go far beyond ARRL publications.
And ARRL history isn't "bowdlerized".

ARRL carefully OMITS certain items of history and IMPLIES
amateurs are 'responsible' for all advances. :-)

More untruths from Len.

Notice how Len doesn't mention any HF experience of his after ADA,
except cb?

WRONG. Civil avionics work included HF...used in US
Aviation Radio Service.

OK

Maritime Radio Service
includes personal use of an HF SSB transceiver
(SGC-2020) two years ago.
Contract work involved
DoD design and evaluation which did not need my
civilian Commercial operator license sign-off.

Somebody else's radio on somebody else's boat, authorized under
somebody else's license.

To do so would require not only a license, but assembling a station.

"Plug and play" nowadays, was that way a half century
ago. :-)

For cb

Collins Radio used to make whole stations,
quit the amateur radio market and still makes money.

Superfluous

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.

This newsgroup is Amateur Radio Policy, not Amateur Radio
Homebrew. :-)

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.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Two complete ARC-5 receiver-transmitters for 40 meters.

Already mentioned.

Conversion earned me some money on resale. I still have
one 6-9 MHz ARC-5 receiver that runs, assorted parts from
both receivers and transmitters. Did that in 1948,
not the "phonograph transmitter" built as a lark in
1947...which worked on the AM BC band and did not violate
any FCC regulations at the time. :-)

Already mentioned.

You are confused with the 1947 HF regenerative receiver
that I suppose DID 'regenerate' a bit much out a 200 foot
long wire antenna at times. :-)

Oh, my, a "store-bought Icom receiver!" Their model IC-R70.
Paid for "in cash" (check, actually) at an HRO in Van Nuys,
CA (later moved to two successive locations in Burbank, CA).
Cost about $600 then. No problem, could afford it.

Already mentioned.

Oh, yeah, the "compact Johnson." The E. F. Johnson
Viking Messenger is small but not necessarily compact.

Practical for its time.

If you need some verification I can get some URLs for
CB nostalgia types for you. On the "compact johnson,"

I wrote about your "compact Johnson", Len - and that's all. See the
capital J? That's a proper name.

Plus if FCC *does* drop Element 1, what will Len do?

Then I will drop the advocacy of eliminating the morse
code test...as I have written many times in here.

First time I've seen you wrote that.

Besides, if the test is gone, there's no reason to advocate for its
elimination.

The question is what will you do without that obsession to fill your
time?

There
would be no NEED for advocacy of eliminating that test
since it had already been eliminated in that case.

Well, duh.

Tsk, you are SO unbelieving, all that FABRICATION about
"reasons" you imagine! Poor baby.

You have advocated far more than simple elimination of the Morse Code
test.