N2EFrom: on Sun, Oct 8 2006 5:29 am


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:



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?

No. There is NO historical record of ANY broadcasting
station USING that single-high-power-special-carbon-
microphone "modulator" that you claim is "practical."

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.

The "truth" is that you are ****ed, want to rationalize
your previous claim of "practicality" and are trying to
side-pedal onto some area where you can rail at the
challengers, saying the challengers LIE.

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.

All I know is that NO ONE seems to have documented it...
and there has been LOTS of documentation about broad-
casting for all of its existance...from manufacturers
to users.

Feel free to post ANY source that claims to have used
Reggie's brute-force modulator of a single-high-power-
special-carbon-microphone "modulator" that you say is
"practical."

Why don't you write some of the 50 KW AM broadcasters
and suggest this "practical" idea? Try KMPC here in San
Fernando Valley. 50 KW RF output into three towers.
Do you know of any carbon microphone maker that sells a
FIFTY KILOWATT MICROPHONE? Can you engineer one?

How about the studio people at KMPC? Would you like to
tell them that, for "practical" reasons, they all have to
cluster around a SINGLE microphone that is passing 50 KW
of RF energy? Hmmm? The studio MUST be moved to the
transmitter site unless you can figure out some way for
the SINGLE microphone to exist in present studios yet
handle the 50 KW RF from the transmitter and back out to
the antenna.

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.

I think (no "seem" about it) that you dribbled out some
nonsense about your radio hero's "practical" thing and
are trying (vainly) to get the hell out of it through
a lot of NON-thinking.



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?

YOU did NOT serve in ANY military. Period. You don't
have the attitude for anything but being elitist, you-
are-better-superiority.


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.

NOT enough. Not enough to cover the costs of your HBR
clone pictured on Kees Talen's website.


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?

It was already reviewed by three who were THERE, plus
a civilian engineer who worked there for both the USA
and USAF. Several others who were THERE, including a
USAF MSgt who worked at Kashiwa after the USAF took it
over have looked at the final copy FIRST. A draft
copy went with the CD containing photos about Hardy
Barracks to a Pacific Stars and Stripes journalist in
Tokyo. That journalist supplied some extra data which
was incorporated into the final version.

I was in the Army at the time, NOT the USAF. Didn't
need to compute any air distances of possible enemy
aircraft directions. Are you going to say there was
"no danger" from the USSR in the early 1950s?!? Go
tell that to the Far East Command folks...now the
USARPAC based at Fort Shafter, HI.

Speaking of "distances," want to give the distance
to the moon again like you did the first time? :-)

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

How do we know for sure that you did it?

You don't...because you NEVER CHECK. All you do is
say I am "in error" (LIE). I have the third-party
documentation, was there.

You were never there. You never served in any
military.


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.

Oh, so now YOU just said what you claimed you didn't say
earlier in your post! [can you say 'hypocrite?']


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.

Ten dollars is LESS THAN $100.

If it only cost "$10" then I've only mentioned a large
HF communications station ten times... :-)

You have to get your money for that Orion somewhere else.

You can't design an Orion clone by yourself? :-)


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

Yawn.


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

The engineering convention I go to is called 'WESCON'
the WEStern electronics show and CONvention. Alternates
years between Anaheim, CA, and San Francisco, CA. One-
week combination trade show and technical talks.


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?

Is it? :-) Have you cracked a NEW text published after
two decades ago? :-)

Are you going to explain "current flow" from the faceplate
of a CRT back to the cathode? :-)




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.

ENIAC broke codes?

Don't waffle. Either it did or it didn't.


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.

Tell that to Bell Labs. :-) Tell that to Claude
Elwood Shannon. :-)



ever do any "programming in machine language?"

Yes.

Which processor or CPU?


Good old tube filaments!

They're called heaters, Len.

Tsk. Out came the knuckle-spanking ruler again! :-)

I have lots of old engineering texts which refer to
the glowing part of vacuum tubes as 'filaments.'

More than I have old engineering texts which talk
about "current flow."

Are you now going to whip out some hydro engineering
texts and explain that "current flow" goes uphill in
a stream? :-)



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

What does ENIAC have to do with amateur radio policy?


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.

Tsk, you are an amateur extra pro-coder and KNOW what
the US Army thinks-knows-does!

Marvelous! All from NEVER serving in any military!

Yawn.



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).

Predicted all by itself? No programmer did anything?

Amazing!

But, UNIVAC was not ENIAC. :-)


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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yawn.



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

Oh, my, not to Alfred Boole? :-)

Not to Von Neuman? Not to hundreds of thousands
like Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley? Or Jack Kilby?
Or the innovator of the floppy disk mass storage
device (whoever did that first)?

Right you are, Mr. Computer Guru. Nothing about "Harvard"
architecture, "pipelining", bilateral digital switching,
standardized logic levels, RAM, ROM, EPROM, or BINARY
registers instead of the BCD variant ENIAC used. Modern
computers "trace their design right back to ENIAC?"
Nooooooo.

Try as hard as I can, I can't find ANY relatively modern
computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base),
not even 12AU7s. The last vacuum tube used with computers
was the CRT and that's quickly going away...



ENIAC is defunct. Liberty is NOT.

"Liberty is not a bell".

Whatever you say, Mr. Patriot.

I think of LIBERTY and FREEDOM in the larger sense, but
if all you can think of is some 'bell' go for it.

Ring your own chimes, Mr. Never Served.



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

Still stuck on that religious object at Moore? Tsk.



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

Real veterans KNOW this, Jimmie. You don't because you will
never be a military veteran.




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

No problem, ENIAC served the ARMY an infinity more
than YOU did. You NEVER served...any military.

BTW, what did it say on ENIAC's DD-214? :-)




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

Practical for its time.

Is it like the "ENIAC" of CB?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[damn, it's hard to keep a straight face with your postings]


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

It's just a SURNAME, Jimmie, for "E. F. Johnson."

E. F. Johnson made a LOT of different radios. Which one
do you think I have?

Have you seen the E. F. Johnson mobile transceivers they
have now? Much more compact than the Viking Messenger.



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.

Here's a plain and simple fact: You LIE, Jimmie.

I have explained what I will do many times. So many
times that I might juggle a few words to make it look
a bit different. The INTENT and MEANING is still the
same.

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

Golleee, Gomer, you finally figured that out all by
yourself?

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



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

What "obsession?" :-)

Changing federal laws and regulations is a POLITICAL
matter. I am active in politics, many things, but none
are "obsessions." ["obsessions" like the religious
affection for a defunct computer]



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

How about that? :-)

Elimination of the morse code test was NEVER "simple." :-)

To do so would mean the End of the World As Morsemen
Knew It!

Morse code testing is practically a Religious Rite to all
morsemen, ending it is like defaming God, a Heresy with
a capital H. :-)


But, as always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.