wrote:
N2EY Wrote: From: 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.

Then you don't really know. You're just guessing, and passing off your
uneducated guess as a fact.

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

Incorrect.

There is no historical record *that you can find*.

Also, note your original claim: (direct quote - see above to be sure)

"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."

"broadcaster or voice transmitter" - that means you claim that not only
did broadcasters not use Fessenden's method, but that no experimenters,
amateurs, commercial users or military units did, either.

The fact that *you* can't find an historical record doesn't mean you
have proof it didn't happen.

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,

Not me, Len. You're the one shouting and calling names because your
claim has been shown to be unfounded.

You claim to be a "professional writer", but your logic and use of
words is very sloppy.

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.

Totally incorrect, Len.

I haven't said that you or anyone else here on rrap lied.

What you have done is to tell untruths, make mistakes, promulgate
errors. That's not the same as lying.

For something to be a lie, the person stating it has to know it is
untrue, and then state it as if it were true, with the intention of
deceiving the reader or listener.

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 that's true.

But it's not the same as:

"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."

and there has been LOTS of documentation about broad-
casting for all of its existance...from manufacturers
to users.

That doesn't mean every attempt at voice radio from ~100 years ago was
documented so that you could find it, Len. There are lots of things you
don't know.

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?

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.

Now you're just ranting. You're all angry and upset because, once
again, you've been shown to be mistaken in your claim.

Here it is again:

"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."

No mention of high power. No mention of "practicality", "studios" or a
limit to just broadcasting.

Ever hear of loop modulation, Len?

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.

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

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.

How do you know for sure, Len?

You don't
have the attitude for anything but being elitist, you-
are-better-superiority.

Now you're just making stuff up. What attitude should a veteran have?
I've known plenty of military veterans, Len - from WW2, Korea, Vietnam,
and more recent conflicts. None of them display an attitude or behavior
like yours.

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.

More than enough, probably.

You've been posting here to rrap for over ten years, Len. That's more
than 3650 days. Probably more than 4000 days.

If you mentioned your Army days here just once a day, that would be
over 3650 dollars. While you don't post here every day, there have been
days when you mentioned your Army experience more than once. In fact,
you sometimes mention it more than once per post!

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

Heck, Len, that receiver only cost me $10. You've probably mentioned
your Army experience ten times this month!

And my "Silver Receiver" (aka Southgate Type 4) on the HBR website is
not a clone of anything. It's a unique design. Perhaps I should
describe that receiver - it had some unusual features. Like the ability
to use a wide variety of tubes without being modified.

You don't...because you NEVER CHECK.

How can I be sure that the information you give is correct, Len? You
can't both give the info and the check method.

All you do is
say I am "in error" (LIE).

Nope. You're in error - again!

Being in error and lying are two different things, Len.

I haven't said that you or anyone else here on rrap lied.

What you have done is to tell untruths, make mistakes, promulgate
errors. That's not the same as lying.

For something to be a lie, the person stating it has to know it is
untrue, and then state it as if it were true, with the intention of
deceiving the reader or listener.

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

Is NOT practical now.

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.

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

It's not me who said it. The Army did.

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.'

Filaments are used in directly heated cathodes.

Heaters are used in indirectly heated cathodes.

The tubes in ENIAC were mostly indirectly heated types. Therefore, the
term "heaters" is more accurate than "filaments".

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?

What does ADA 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!

On the issue of ENIAC - yes, I do.

Just take a look at this (if you have the guts):

ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS

HISTORICAL MONOGRAPH FROM 1961

Karl Kempf
Historical Officer
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
November 1961

Available online at:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/index.html

That's official Army history. Do you know more about ENIAC than the
Historical Officer at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds?

Here's the chapter on ENIAC:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

Read what the official Army historical officer wrote, and you'll see
I'm right. They specifically mention the relay computers as taking all
night to perform a computation, and to being outmoded by ENIAC and its
successors.

ENIAC was a bargain, too - cost less than a million dollars.

and btw:

ENIAC did not used BCD (binary-coded-decimal). It was a true decimal
machine, with decimal ring counters and ten data lines for each digit.
The use of decimal rather than binary architecture was the only
fundamental part of ENIAC's structure that was not copied in later
machines.

Now be a big boy and admit your mistakes, Len.