"arthur c. grindhouse" wrote in message
...

for a start evans there are no classes in amateur radio only 3 grades of
licence.
dress it up whatever way you want your snide comments are clear and who
they are directed to.
if we use your argument that applies to amateurs self-building their own
tx and maintaining them why on earth would you purchase a Yaesu ft-101
radio ?
can you please explain that to everyone.
why would a technical genius like yourself buy an off-the-shelf radio.
it goes against everything you exhort you two-faced *******.

With regard to my concern expressed about the gratuitous abuse originating
from, and lack of
technical acumen apparent in, the CBer-masquerading-as-a-radio-amateur, the
childish outburst quoted above illustrates my point very well.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/14 12:54, Jeff wrote:
Manufacturers certainly can be licensed to operate their own gear!!
I have operated many times under a G9 callsign, and there are other ways
as well.
Indeed Jeff.
Plus it depends on where the manufacturer is located. UK rules do not
apply in Japan for example.
At times I wonder if some people are remotely familiar with licence terms,
conditions and limitations.

Setting aside the habitual venom from the latter poster quoted above,
it is equivocation to claim that testing manufactured goods is on a
par with operating.

On 12/02/2014 14:44, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/14 12:54, Jeff wrote:
Manufacturers certainly can be licensed to operate their own gear!!
I have operated many times under a G9 callsign, and there are other ways
as well.
Indeed Jeff.
Plus it depends on where the manufacturer is located. UK rules do not
apply in Japan for example.
At times I wonder if some people are remotely familiar with licence terms,
conditions and limitations.

Setting aside the habitual venom from the latter poster quoted above,
it is equivocation to claim that testing manufactured goods is on a
par with operating.

Who claimed that it was?

OFCOM's "Non-Operational Licence" is precisely what it says on the tin.
Non-Operational.

"arthur c. grindhouse" wrote in message
...

ah the master-baiter becomes evasive.
what is wrong...have you been outed as the cber who buys his radios off
the shelf, a radio that apparently tx's on 11m as well.
shame on you evans.

With regard to my concern expressed about the gratuitous
abuse originating from, and lack of technical acumen apparent
in, the CBer-masquerading-as-a-radio-amateur, the childish
outburst quoted above illustrates my point very well.

"arthur c. grindhouse" wrote in message
...
there are large
numbers of people who wish to be thought of
as Radio Hams when, in fact, they are nothing
of the kind! Usually such people are a
variation of the CB Radio hobbyist; they buy their
radios off the shelf.
please explain your OFF-THE-SHELF purchase.

If you wish to engage me in conversation, then please start
by reposting each article of yours over the last month that
has contained abusive remarks directed at me, and retract
and apologise for such remarks.

Really, it ought to be every such post since the year dot,
but just the last months' worth will be enough to prove
a change of your heart from being a CBer-masquerading-as-a-radio-amateur
to someone who respects the gentlemanly traditions of amateur radio.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
If memory serves, the legendary FT101 even included 27MHz coverage. It
was
certainly reported to be used by more CBers than licensed amateurs.
As you suggest, CBers may have been able to compensate for the antenna
impedance over their limited bandwidth by using the Pi network.
Which demonstrates that some amateurs are put in the shade in technical
skill by CBers.

Once again that is a an interjection of childish venom by you; I had been
using
valve PA stages for 24 years before I picked up in 1995 a museum piece of
an FT101e

Correction ... 25 years

"arthur c. grindhouse" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 4:10:04 PM UTC, gareth wrote:
"arthur c. grindhouse" wrote in message
...

there are large
numbers of people who wish to be thought of
as Radio Hams when, in fact, they are nothing
of the kind! Usually such people are a
variation of the CB Radio hobbyist; they buy their
radios off the shelf.
please explain your OFF-THE-SHELF purchase.

If you wish to engage me in conversation, then please start
by reposting each article of yours over the last month that
has contained abusive remarks directed at me, and retract
and apologise for such remarks.

Really, it ought to be every such post since the year dot,
but just the last months' worth will be enough to prove
a change of your heart from being a CBer-masquerading-as-a-radio-amateur
to someone who respects the gentlemanly traditions of amateur radio.

ha ha ha,
ok please yourself and duck the question.
so the gentlemanly traditions and technical pursuit involves buying an off
the shelf radio.
thank you for clearing that up as i seem to recall someone posting that
a CBer-masquerading-as-a-radio-amateur would only do such a thing.

I am not ducking the question but before I answer it, I seek some
reassurance
from you that you are going to behave in the manner that is expected from a
grown-up
in an international debating forum.

You seem to be ducking such a reassurance.

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:36:12 +0000, Kafkaësque
wrote:

On 12/02/2014 00:32, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:12:14 -0000, "gareth"
wrote:

With the onset of automatic ATUs, is the the final technical
skill that disambiguates the radio amateur from the CBer
being lost?

However, you are correct that the ATU is a dying art. I've been
zapped by the high voltages produced by antenna tuners often enough to
suspect that dying might be involved in the tuning process. If it's
not science, it must be art.

Art - most definitely.

Science = Does the necessary calculations. Understands how it works.
Art = Cut and try. Tune for maximum smoke. No test equipment.

But where's the "technical skill" in adjusting a
pi network of two capacitors and one inductor?

The technical skill is hidden in the initial decision to *NOT* use an
overpriced antenna tuner in order to match a narrow band antenna over
a narrow frequency range. Additional skill is required at the front
end to *NOT* select a random length antenna, that is likely to be
difficult to match and not have any gain. Of course, some technical
skill will be required in order to build, measure, and verify the
performance of the matching network.

CBers may not need to worry about ATUs, but many are quite capable of
using the pi networks on the PAs of their valved rigs which have been
re-crystalled for 6.5 and/or 27 MHz.

Extra technical credit for electing not to use an ATU or a Pi section
network in order to match a 50 ohm transmitter to a 50 ohm antenna.
The technical skill is not in the construction or testing. It's in
the decision as to whether a tuner is needed. In most cases for CB,
neither an ATU or a Pi section is inappropriate.

I could argue that technical expertise in an obsolete technology, such
as tubes (valves) might contribute to the premature death of the art
of antenna matching, but I don't want to start yet another endless
non-technical discussion.

--
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 Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:36:21 +0000, Kafkaësque
wrote:

Just to add, I wasn't condoning the use of such radios on 6.5 or 27MHz.
However, there's no point in denying that it happened.

I should probably mot mention this, but since the company has been
defunct for about 20 years, I think it's safe to leak a few stories.

I used to work for a US marine radio manufacturer. We have various
marine operator licenses and ham radio operator licenses. We had STA
(special temporary authority) licenses and an FCC first class
radiotelephone license (now known as a GROL). The problem was that
few of the licenses were issued to the company. Most were all held by
individuals. As employees came and went, so did the licence. The
final inspection and compliance certificate included my FCC first
class license number, which was used for many years after I had left
the company, because nobody found it necessary to order a new rubber
stamp.

One of the radios I worked on was a 2-30 Mhz marine SSB transceiver.
While the output lopass filter limited the operating frequency range
to the normal marine bands, it was easy enough to build a filter that
would work on CB frequencies. This was used for occasional air checks
as the commercial HF radiotelephone operators did not appreciate our
interruptions asking for air checks. So, we got our signal and
modulation reports from a variety of local CB'ers. CB was also useful
for testing how our receiver responded to off frequency, over
modulated, and problematic transmitters.

Some of our dealers were also buying replacement 150w PEP power
amplifiers and repackaging them as CB linears. All I knew was that my
power amp had an apparently high failure rate and that dealers claimed
that they fixed the blown amps themselves (to avoid returning the
original amp). Eventually, someone returned one of these linears to
the factory for repair and the secret was out. We put an end to that
nonsense rather quickly.

Later, I worked for a company making radios for the electric utility
industry. I soon discovered that I was the only engineer with an FCC
license. When we submitted paperwork for type certification, all that
was necessary was for one responsible and licensed individual to sign
on the dotted line. That was me. I also worked for other companies
with similar licensing arrangements.



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

"gareth" wrote in message
...

snipped

It is not a question of baiting, but of a serious concern, that amateur
radio / ham radio
is a technical pursuit and is slowly frittering away such that many radio
amateurs are
indistinguishable from CBers.

I'm with you.

I know electronics well -- ET School in the Navy + 20 years; FCC First
Class Commercial in 1982 with no study; another 25 years working in the
field; a B.S. in 1989. I passed all my ham exams on the first shot, Extra
with no study. I love this stuff and I'm grateful to have a gift for it.
It was a great career.

I'm at one end of the ham-knowledge scale and it makes me sad to see that
the population at the other end of the scale is growing. We have one local
ham who just kept taking the exams until he eventually passed them. He's
nominally an Extra but knows NOTHING about electronics and cares not to
learn. It's sad to see.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)