Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

Dave wrote:
This bull**** has nothing to do with ham radio.

Exponents used in such terms as P = I^2R have
nothing to do with ham radio?

That's a really sad statement about the present
technical level of amateur radio.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:49:04 +0000, Dave wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

I've always suspected that some hams hated math and other technical
subjects. While it is conceivable that you could build a ham antenna
without using math, I don't think the results would be optimal. There
are also those that advocate converting ham radio from a technical
hobby, to a sport, where the technical aspects are diminished to the
point of extinction, and the operational exercises of contesting, DX,
CW, and rag chewing are predominant. No math required. Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:34:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Unfortunately, the common justification these days is that ham radio
is a service hobby. When was the last time that ham radio advanced
the state of the art? I have some examples, but they're sufficiently
obscure that none would be sufficient to justify ham radios continued
existence. There is some logic in using the ham bands as a proving
ground for new technologies. Metricom did exactly that, but rapidly
switched to commerical operation. It seems that such advanced
experimentation is discouraged by Part 97. Most of the progress today
is in HF digital modes. These have their own sub-bands by convention.
Also QRP operation, spacecom, CW, and weak signal sub-bands. Various
nets also operate on specific frequencies. It wouldn't be much of a
stretch to unofficially allocate a sub-band to the technically
challenged, such as the old Novice class sub-bands.

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Yer crocked! 1296 is fully utilized here and so was 220. People like YOU
who underutilized it and TOLD everyone it was underutilized are to blame for
US losing it!! Did you get a Ham license just so you could use 802.11/g on
channel 13?

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Bendict Arnold! Anarchist!! Anti-Ham!! Your web domain says it all!!
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:09:57 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Yer crocked! 1296 is fully utilized here and so was 220. People like YOU
who underutilized it and TOLD everyone it was underutilized are to blame for
US losing it!! Did you get a Ham license just so you could use 802.11/g on
channel 13?

Been licensed since about 1964. There was about a 7 year period where
I let my license lapse. Hmmm... I should probably let it lapse again
as I was profitable, happy, and optimistic during those 7 years.

About 8 ago, I setup several scanners and a computah to run long term
statistics on channel utiliziation for a variety of services. For
fun, I threw in some local VHF and UHF repeaters. For 14 daytime
hours (I used 6am to 8pm) median utilization on public safety
frequencies ran about 20%. Somewhat less for various shared
commerical repeaters. However, of the 5 or so ham repeaters I
monitored, utilization was well below 1% (less than 1.5hrs per day). I
didn't bother to do any 1.2GHz repeaters, but I'll guess from one that
I have in my scanner, it's probably even lower. I had no way to count
users per channel per day, but if I did it manually, I suspect ham
radio would also be scraping bottom. Many ham repeaters have only one
user.

For what it's worth, I consider myself party responsible for educating
at least one ARRL director on the realities of the FCC balancing the
300 million wi-fi users against perhaps a handfull of hams on 2.4GHz.

I don't use Channel 13 for Wi-Fi. It's an unlucky number (and not
legal in the US).

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Bendict Arnold! Anarchist!! Anti-Ham!! Your web domain says it all!!

Guilty as charged. If I can't be a part of the solution, I'll become
part of the problem.

Incidentally, the LearnByDestroying.com has nothing to do with ham
radio. A college I attended has the motto "Learn by Doing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_University
That morphed into "Learn By Destroying" which seemed to be the
practice in the engineering department. Since graduating with a
rather substantial damage fee, I have adopted it as my personal motto.
If you haven't destroyed and later repaired it, you don't understand
how it works.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:35:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Incidentally, the LearnByDestroying.com has nothing to do with ham
radio. A college I attended has the motto "Learn by Doing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_University
That morphed into "Learn By Destroying" which seemed to be the
practice in the engineering department. Since graduating with a
rather substantial damage fee, I have adopted it as my personal motto.
If you haven't destroyed and later repaired it, you don't understand
how it works.

Oops. Wrong Cal Poly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Polytechnic_University,_Pomona
The San Luis Obispo motto of "Discere Faciendo" which is Latin for "To
Learn by Doing" was once the motto for both skools. The motto and
seal for Pomona changed when the skools split in the 1960's to
"Instrumentum Disciplinae" which is Latin for "Application of
Knowledge". This was often incorrectly interpreted as "Instrument of
Discipline" as indicated by the hammer and mace like weapons in the
logos.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sep 18, 1:40*pm, Jeff Liebermann

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. *Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. *With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

I could go along with that. Let them use amateur power amps as well;
at least that would legalize their power amp hardware. Also, I think
CBers do have something to contribute in the construction of some of
those antennas those guys use; some are trash but others are fairly
imaginative at maximizing output power at that frequency. Also those
cheap Galaxy amps. Ise use one myself when I put 10m in my car.

wrote:

...
I could go along with that. Let them use amateur power amps as well;

Look at those 18 wheelers out there with 10/11 meters on 'em, which one
don't you think is running one?

at least that would legalize their power amp hardware. Also, I think

Yeah, it'd make 'em feel better, huh? Let's ask 'em what they would
thing about it!

CBers do have something to contribute in the construction of some of
those antennas those guys use; some are trash but others are fairly
imaginative at maximizing output power at that frequency. Also those
cheap Galaxy amps. Ise use one myself when I put 10m in my car.

Yeah, mass production tends to lower the price.

Regards,
JS