halogen rf?
 

just wondering i bought a 120vac halogen lamp(no transformer) do these
bulbs typically put out 'rf' that would interfere w/either my hf rig or
my hf/uhf??


tnx

just wondering i bought a 120vac halogen lamp(no transformer) do these
bulbs typically put out 'rf' that would interfere w/either my hf rig or
my hf/uhf??

If it's a dimmable lamp (triac-type dimmer) it could quite easily put
out RF hash which might interfere with HF operations.

If it's non-dimmable, I think it's no more likely than an ordinary
incandescent fixture to emit RFI.

Dimming a halogen bulb is a bad idea, really - it can greatly shorten
the life, because the tungsten/halogen scavenging cycle doesn't work
well (or at all) at lower filament temperatures.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"ml" wrote in message
...
just wondering i bought a 120vac halogen lamp(no transformer) do these
bulbs typically put out 'rf' that would interfere w/either my hf rig or
my hf/uhf??


No RF problems. Halogen lamps have tungsten filaments (like normal
incandescent lamps).
The difference is that they are filled with halogen gas, which allows them
to last longer and glow a bit brighter than their normal incandescent
cousins.
The tungsten in regular lamps slowly condenses over time into a darkish
coating inside the bulb which cuts down on lumens output. The halogen gas
prevents this, and results in a little brighter lamp for a little longer
time.

The 'HID' High Intensity Discharge lamps may be the ones you're thinking
about that may give some RFI.
Mercury Vapor, Metal Halide, and 'HPS' (High Pressure Sodium) lamps fall in
this category. They all use ballasts.

I just put in a set of under cabinet halogen 20 watters ..... boy what a
bunch of crap RF wise. There is a 12 V supply that virtually eliminates the
AM band and somewhat less on HF. This is at distance of 20 plus feet. Of
course they were made in Hang Chow ... no doubt somewhere east of Ft.Wayne.

God Bless 73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa.

"garigue" wrote
I just put in a set of under cabinet halogen 20 watters ..... boy what a
bunch of crap RF wise. There is a 12 V supply that virtually eliminates
the
AM band and somewhat less on HF. This is at distance of 20 plus feet. Of
course they were made in Hang Chow ... no doubt somewhere east of
Ft.Wayne.

God Bless 73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa.

Tom, I have the same awful interference from new under-cabinet halogens.
Similar to your report, mine create terrible interference only through MF,
and limited hash on HF also. Mine are at least 40' away, and the station
power has its own load center/branch panel. The lamps are the switchable
2-level (not variable) and interference is present both settings.

I noticed a brand of halogens at Home Depot (now, of course) that state "No
Radio interference". Figures.

Jack
Virginia Beach

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:35:15 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:


"garigue" wrote
I just put in a set of under cabinet halogen 20 watters ..... boy what a
bunch of crap RF wise. There is a 12 V supply that virtually eliminates
the
AM band and somewhat less on HF. This is at distance of 20 plus feet. Of
course they were made in Hang Chow ... no doubt somewhere east of
Ft.Wayne.

God Bless 73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa.

Tom, I have the same awful interference from new under-cabinet halogens.
Similar to your report, mine create terrible interference only through MF,
and limited hash on HF also. Mine are at least 40' away, and the station
power has its own load center/branch panel. The lamps are the switchable
2-level (not variable) and interference is present both settings.

I noticed a brand of halogens at Home Depot (now, of course) that state "No
Radio interference". Figures.

Jack
Virginia Beach

You have the same disorder I do - the stuff you need comes on the
market after you need it 8-} As to the interference, I'll go out on a
limb and say it's the power supply not the lamp - I've hooked up
halogen lamps directly to 12VDC and had no interference. Wall warts
are, as has been mentioned here many times, notorious for RF
interference.
Howard

I have dozens of 120V halogens in my home. There is no interference of any
kind. The low voltage units are powered by switching power supplies and
that's what generates the interference. Take a portable AM radio along when
buying such lights and check for interference from the power supply before
buying.

K8AC


"ml" wrote in message
...
just wondering i bought a 120vac halogen lamp(no transformer) do these
bulbs typically put out 'rf' that would interfere w/either my hf rig or
my hf/uhf??


tnx

Halogen lamps are nothing but incandescent lamps, in a Halogen
(florene/chlorene/other halogenic gas), rather than in a vacuum.
(at least to my understanding)-- NOT to be confused with the R.F.
excited (and they excite the hams!) lamps that have been disgussed.
Just HOW many articles have you seen in ham publications about
removeing Halogen Headlamps in cars to reduce interference?
I rest my case! Jim NN7K


Floyd Sense wrote:
I have dozens of 120V halogens in my home. There is no interference of any
kind. The low voltage units are powered by switching power supplies and
that's what generates the interference. Take a portable AM radio along when
buying such lights and check for interference from the power supply before
buying.

K8AC


"ml" wrote in message
...

just wondering i bought a 120vac halogen lamp(no transformer) do these
bulbs typically put out 'rf' that would interfere w/either my hf rig or
my hf/uhf??


tnx

"Howard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 11:35:15 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:


"garigue" wrote
I just put in a set of under cabinet halogen 20 watters ..... boy what
a
bunch of crap RF wise. There is a 12 V supply that virtually eliminates
the
AM band and somewhat less on HF. This is at distance of 20 plus feet.
Of
course they were made in Hang Chow ... no doubt somewhere east of
Ft.Wayne.

God Bless 73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa.

Tom, I have the same awful interference from new under-cabinet halogens.
Similar to your report, mine create terrible interference only through MF,
and limited hash on HF also. Mine are at least 40' away, and the station
power has its own load center/branch panel. The lamps are the switchable
2-level (not variable) and interference is present both settings.

I noticed a brand of halogens at Home Depot (now, of course) that state
"No
Radio interference". Figures.

Jack
Virginia Beach

You have the same disorder I do - the stuff you need comes on the
market after you need it 8-} As to the interference, I'll go out on a
limb and say it's the power supply not the lamp - I've hooked up
halogen lamps directly to 12VDC and had no interference. Wall warts
are, as has been mentioned here many times, notorious for RF
interference.


There are two classes of warts. A simple transformer will convert 120 VAC to
maybe 12 VAC. As long as the transformer core does not go into saturation,
then this wart produces zero EMI. OTOH, a wart that rectifies the AC to DC
has the potential to create considerable EMI. Hams should always consider
the possibility of RF pollution from anything they install in or around
their shack. Variable speed fans, adjustable lighting devices, arc-discharge
lighting, battery chargers, wireless network modems and other personal
electronics all need to be evaluated for their EMI potential. As a ham, you
shouldn't be surprised to find that fluorescent or HID lighting causes RF
noise!!

You can partially protect your shack by always looking for an FCC or CE
compliance marking. Assuming that the devices are legally marked, FCC & CE
marking is a bit of evidence that the product will be limited in RF
emissions. But remember, the standards are based on "average consumer"
conditions, NOT on a special consumer sticking the product in proximity to a
sensitive receiver. As a ham, you place yourself in the position of an
"expert user" of consumer electronic devices; you are no longer a clueless
appliance buyer, but someone who understands RF energy and the vagaries of
its creation and propagation.

You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby, or go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN

"Floyd Sense" wrote in message
...
I have dozens of 120V halogens in my home. There is no interference of any
kind. The low voltage units are powered by switching power supplies and
that's what generates the interference. Take a portable AM radio along
when buying such lights and check for interference from the power supply
before buying.

K8AC


Very practical and good advice!


Ed
WB6WSN

You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby, or
go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN


Ya know Ed I have never met you so I can't say for sure if you are a
pontificating idiot or not. I have never been on CB and the cable TV is
mostly the History Channel and such. A "teaching post" , albeit boring,
would be acceptable but the above zinger is not funny nor complimentary of
the guys on this thread. My installing of the halogens were from the point
of my back 9 of life eyesight when connecting things in back of the
equipment not to be on when I was working quasi land with 5 watts. The
condescending attitude displayed in your pontification is like many hams I
have run across in the last 40 years of this endeavor and causes our service
to loose valuable young people. Unfortunately I am not young but on the
other hand I have been around enough to recognize those who would lord over
others from a "technical" standpoint. Yep there Ed I have used bypass caps,
torroids, made brute force filters etc. to make my operating a bit more
enjoyable ...now if they only had a filter for your type of letter and
attitude we all would be ahead.

73 Tom Popovic KI3R

"garigue" wrote in message
...


You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby, or
go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN


Ya know Ed I have never met you so I can't say for sure if you are a
pontificating idiot or not. I have never been on CB and the cable TV is
mostly the History Channel and such. A "teaching post" , albeit boring,
would be acceptable but the above zinger is not funny nor complimentary of
the guys on this thread. My installing of the halogens were from the
point
of my back 9 of life eyesight when connecting things in back of the
equipment not to be on when I was working quasi land with 5 watts. The
condescending attitude displayed in your pontification is like many hams I
have run across in the last 40 years of this endeavor and causes our
service
to loose valuable young people. Unfortunately I am not young but on the
other hand I have been around enough to recognize those who would lord
over
others from a "technical" standpoint. Yep there Ed I have used bypass
caps,
torroids, made brute force filters etc. to make my operating a bit more
enjoyable ...now if they only had a filter for your type of letter and
attitude we all would be ahead.

73 Tom Popovic KI3R




Tom:

You can tell if I'm "pontificating" by reading my text and determining the
validity of my advice. OTOH, I am getting weary of people who choose a hobby
that involves RF propagation, and then get all whiney when they add an
obviously noisy RF source to their environment. If you want to be a ham,
then I'm going to hold you to a higher standard. And what should be an
example of not meeting that standard?

As for "losing valuable young people"; well, if some guy tells me his
arc-welding hobby interferes with his DX contesting, well, that's just too
pathetic for futher comment.

As a self-declared "old guy", I would expect you to understand the concept
of minimum standrds of performance. Remember when FCC exams really meant
something? You sound all "new-age touchy-feely", finding personal insult in
a general comment about performance standards. Now I'm truly sorry that you
interpreted my post that way, and it's too bad you couldn't say something
about the technical content. I will apologize to any technically apt CB'ers
and TV viewers who also may share your sadness, but reasons of visual
ability, dexterity and age don't excuse lack of basic RF understanding.

BTW, there IS a filter for my type of post. (True, the best filter would be
your ability to understand a post.) You can simply ignore my postings, as I
always post from the same account and I clearly identify myself. You could
also set up an automated filter process, but then that would require
technical competence in software operation, and that brings up a whole new
area in which you may find offense. Best we not go there.


--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

"garigue" wrote in message
...


You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby, or
go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN


Ya know Ed I have never met you so I can't say for sure if you are a
pontificating idiot or not. I have never been on CB and the cable TV is
mostly the History Channel and such. A "teaching post" , albeit boring,
would be acceptable but the above zinger is not funny nor complimentary of
the guys on this thread. My installing of the halogens were from the
point
of my back 9 of life eyesight when connecting things in back of the
equipment not to be on when I was working quasi land with 5 watts. The
condescending attitude displayed in your pontification is like many hams I
have run across in the last 40 years of this endeavor and causes our
service
to loose valuable young people. Unfortunately I am not young but on the
other hand I have been around enough to recognize those who would lord
over
others from a "technical" standpoint. Yep there Ed I have used bypass
caps,
torroids, made brute force filters etc. to make my operating a bit more
enjoyable ...now if they only had a filter for your type of letter and
attitude we all would be ahead.

73 Tom Popovic KI3R


Tom

Although I can see your point about Ed's sharp tongue, he is likely a
techincally bright guy who is as intolerant of old guys like you and me who
make more mistakes than we'd like.
I'm 74 and used to be a fairly active antenna making ham in the 1960s.
But, I dont know crap compared to the guys who currently study about
antennas and electronics. I'd bet that you and I will have more comfort if
we dont get overly excited when we get yelled at for writing things that
dont quite fit with the current level of 'technical knowledge'.
There is so much really good technical guidance available within this news
group that it doesnt make any sense for us old guys to get upset when we get
insulted. I've found it alot easir to read around most criticism. That way
I can continue to enjoy this nifty way of keeping aware of antenna
development (without having to go back to books and class rooms).
You are welcome to tell me to F888 off if this post offends. I only offer
it as a way of showing that even though I see your point, I also consider it
so unimportant that you and I get yelled at occasionally.

Jerry

"Jerry Martes" wrote in message
news:Xe44e.23340$k66.15439@trnddc03...
"garigue" wrote in message
...


You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby,
or
go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN


Ya know Ed I have never met you so I can't say for sure if you are a
pontificating idiot or not. 73 Tom Popovic KI3R


Tom

Although I can see your point about Ed's sharp tongue, he is likely a
techincally bright guy who is as intolerant of old guys like you and me
who make more mistakes than we'd like.
Jerry


Things are getting too fuzzy here, so I'll try to sharpen the focus a bit.

First, you self-declared "old guys" have only about a decade and a half
seniority on me. I have always tried to respect ability, regardless of the
age of its holder. OTOH, old jerks are still jerks.

Second, I have met myself, and I can assure you that I can be considered an
idiot (having already progressed through the grades of imbecile and moron) .
But I try mightily to never pontificate.

Third. silver-tongued, omniscient orators sometimes close with a zinger
that's a bit too barbed, so I again apologize if my karma ran over your
dogma.

--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

Gee Ed, I don't even have a dog in this hunt, and read this newsgroup only
in hopes of learning something every now and then. But, your responses ARE
offensive and your comments generally negate any wisdom you bring to the
subject. I'll tell you how I try to keep things civil in one of these
conversations. In every case, I try to respond and conduct myself as if the
other fellows were standing in front of me eye to eye. Most of us would try
to be diplomatic, even to a complete stranger, in that situation. In some
parts of the country, or in another time, doing otherwise would earn you a
punch.

Anyway, I DO know how to filter out your posts and you've certainly earned
your position on that list.

73, Floyd - K8AC

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:57:59 -0700, "Ed Price" wrote:



You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby, or go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN


Well, I've got a buzz at my qth, and unplugging the warts, outdoor
lights, florescents and damn near everything else in the house hasn't
solved my buzzzzz -- oh well, onward in understanding rf energy and
the vagaries of its creation... maybe I need to buy a bb gun and start
shooting out the streetlights... :-)

bob
k5qwg

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:57:59 -0700, "Ed Price" wrote:



You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby, or
go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN


Well, I've got a buzz at my qth, and unplugging the warts, outdoor
lights, florescents and damn near everything else in the house hasn't
solved my buzzzzz -- oh well, onward in understanding rf energy and
the vagaries of its creation... maybe I need to buy a bb gun and start
shooting out the streetlights... :-)

bob
k5qwg




Bob:

You are on the right track; a process of elimination is often the fastest
way to identify the noise source. But don't underestimate the wonders of
seemingly prosaic household systems. Microprocessor controllers are
everywhere, from your washing machine to your sprinkler controllers to your
furnace controls. And that's just YOUR house, your neighbors all have their
own sources to add to the general noise level.

Try a battery-powered AM radio, tuned between stations. See if you can
locate the noise with the built-in directional loopstick antenna. Even if
the noise is being radiated from a number of powerlines, you can still try
cutting power for your entire house. OTOH, some gadgets will have battery
backup, so, like my sprinkler controls, the microprocessor keeps right on
running even when I cut off the power.

Neighbors are notoriously uncooperative when you suggest cutting off the
power to their house while you search for RF noise.


--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

"Floyd Sense" wrote in message
...

Gee Ed, I don't even have a dog in this hunt, and read this newsgroup only
in hopes of learning something every now and then. But, your responses
ARE offensive and your comments generally negate any wisdom you bring to
the subject. I'll tell you how I try to keep things civil in one of these
conversations. In every case, I try to respond and conduct myself as if
the other fellows were standing in front of me eye to eye. Most of us
would try to be diplomatic, even to a complete stranger, in that
situation. In some parts of the country, or in another time, doing
otherwise would earn you a punch.

Anyway, I DO know how to filter out your posts and you've certainly earned
your position on that list.

73, Floyd - K8AC




I am surprised that you would favor the person-to-person model, since you
appear to be willing to ignore my two attempts at conciliation and appear to
enjoy remaining in a self-aggreived condition. As you point out, certain
attitudes in certain places can earn you the flat-face award, and you seem
to be a determined candidate.

One of the hallmarks of wisdom is knowing when you are being insulted and
when you are being presented with an uncomfortable reminder of your
condition. As an Extra, do you really think that a ham should be surprised
to find that an arc-discharge luminary, placed in proximity to his rig,
causes RFI? I hold a ham to a slightly higher standard of understanding of
RFI than I would expect of the general populace. RF noise is a very basic
part of the RF communication hobby known as ham radio, so just how low
should the bar be set for understanding of the basics of your hobby? If the
basics are too challenging for you, then perhaps you should either get
smarter or live within a less demanding cohort. And just what electronics
hobbies could those be? CB radio certainly comes to mind; a venue of zero
examinations and largely technically incompetent appliance operators. And
below that, cable TV, where the two big challenges are finding the power
button and a channel.

Your functional competence in communicating within Usenet is also deficient,
as you sent a redundant copy of your post to my personal address. Please try
to learn the difference between replying to a post in a newsgroup and
replying to the poster's address (especially when the poster affords you the
courtesy of a non-spoofed address). I find it amusing that you deem I should
get TWO copies of YOUR post, while you publicly declare that my posts are
unfit for your attention. Further, your declared existence in this group,
that you "read this newsgroup only in hopes of learning something every now
and then", is selfish and parasitic. Usenet is a participatory forum, and
you should try to find satisfaction in contributing as well as in taking.

Finally, I don't know if you intended pithy sarcasm, or simply displayed
further evidence of senility, by signing your missive with a "73". After
insulting my intentions, you close with the generally accepted icon for
"best wishes" or "cheers". Thank you for the complete reversal of your
entire thought process in the space of one line! I must assume that the
closing salutation must have been appended AFTER you took your daily meds.


--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

You can either accept the responsibility to control EMI in your hobby, or
go
back to 11 meters and cable TV.


Ed
WB6WSN


Well, I've got a buzz at my qth, and unplugging the warts, outdoor
lights, florescents and damn near everything else in the house hasn't
solved my buzzzzz -- oh well, onward in understanding rf energy and
the vagaries of its creation... maybe I need to buy a bb gun and start
shooting out the streetlights... :-)

bob
k5qwg

Hi Bob ...... wherein lies the "nut" in this whole conumdrum. These RF
generating devises should not even be on shore. I think that Great Britian
still has, or in the past, a very strict set of rules regarding devises.
Proper engineering, with I venture to say minimal cost, would clean up
things significantly. Even if every ham had an EE and thoroughly understood
every detail of this problem ..... what would we do with Mrs. Jones next
door or better yet in the next apartment. As Ed had mentioned some are not
too responsive to having us bypass the speakers on their new 5K$ electric
organ.

73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa.

Tom

Although I can see your point about Ed's sharp tongue, he is likely a
techincally bright guy who is as intolerant of old guys like you and me
who
make more mistakes than we'd like.
I'm 74 and used to be a fairly active antenna making ham in the 1960s.
But, I dont know crap compared to the guys who currently study about
antennas and electronics. I'd bet that you and I will have more comfort
if
we dont get overly excited when we get yelled at for writing things that
dont quite fit with the current level of 'technical knowledge'.
There is so much really good technical guidance available within this
news
group that it doesnt make any sense for us old guys to get upset when we
get
insulted. I've found it alot easir to read around most criticism. That
way
I can continue to enjoy this nifty way of keeping aware of antenna
development (without having to go back to books and class rooms).
You are welcome to tell me to F888 off if this post offends. I only
offer
it as a way of showing that even though I see your point, I also consider
it
so unimportant that you and I get yelled at occasionally.

Jerry

Hi Jerry ....there would be absolutely no reason to tell you do anything
concerning the above post. I look upon the newgroups in a positive way to
share information. I have drawn ire from some in the past but maybe those
individuals will think the next time they hit the send key. There are
plenty of people who follow these groups who don't send messages and I feel
a good part of them are young people who are interested. I remember those
times as a teenager just starting out and being treated quite poorly by some
OTers. We really need to remember what we were like starting out and the
errors we made. As for getting yelled at ......you must be married .....
as my dad once told me ...the best 2 words are yes dear .... and boy he was
right.

73 Jerry ....... Tom KI3R

In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
Ed Price wrote:

#snip#

As an Extra, do you really think that a ham should be surprised
to find that an arc-discharge luminary, placed in proximity to his rig,
causes RFI?

What "arc-discharge luminary"? The OP referred to a 120-volt halogen
lamp, "no transformer". The standard, commonly-available consumer
device which fits this description uses a tungsten filament in a
halogen atmosphere - it's a simple spin on an ordinary incandescent
bulb. There's no arc discharge involved in the operation of such
bulbs, and in the absence of a switching regulator or dimmer I know of
no reason why such lamps would be more likely to generate RFI than a
standard incandescent lamp.

I see nothing in the OP's query to suggest that he was referring to a
high-intensity discharge bulb, which would require a ballast of some
sort and which could certainly generate RF.

Your functional competence in communicating within Usenet is also deficient,
as you sent a redundant copy of your post to my personal address. Please try
to learn the difference between replying to a post in a newsgroup and
replying to the poster's address (especially when the poster affords you the
courtesy of a non-spoofed address).

In defense of the gentleman to whom you are responding, I would point
out that the convention of "post a reply to the public newsgroup or
mailing list, and send a courtesy copy to the individual's mailbox"
has been in use on the Internet for at least 15 years, and probably
more. Some people like receiving courtesy copies, some dislike it,
and I agree that one should respect the individual recipient's choice
when it is known.

I do not agree that the poster was out of line or "deficient" in
sending you a courtesy copy of his posting.

For what it's worth, Ed, my own immediate reaction to several of your
postings was to conclude that they were unnecessarily contemptuous. I
think that your advice would be more successfully received, and thus
more effective, if it were delivered in a tone which was, shall we
say, less snotty?

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"Leonard Martin" resurrecting an old thread
In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
"Ed Price" wrote:



I hold a ham to a slightly higher standard of understanding...

Oh for Christ's sake, who are you to "hold anyone" to anything? Most of
us have to put up with teachers, bosses, wives, etc., who are in the
routine habit of "holding us" to one standard or another. When we
interact as equals we expect to escape such stuff.

Unless you get elected head of this newsgroup, I suggest you confine
your standard setting to your kids, your dog, or, if there are any such
truly unlucky persons, your employees.

Leonard

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor

Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone misunderstood
his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to PhD's
of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not been
a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining about
achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.

Jack Painter

When you are reduced to dragging out your degrees, licences, results of your
last "IQ Examination", results from your three-day observation, etc...

.... at that time, you have already lost the argument... you are in denial
and just haven't accepted that fact yet...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced
to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem
to have misplaced some!!!


"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:BCche.4839$It1.518@lakeread02...
|
| "Leonard Martin" resurrecting an old thread
| In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
| "Ed Price" wrote:
|
|
|
| I hold a ham to a slightly higher standard of understanding...
|
| Oh for Christ's sake, who are you to "hold anyone" to anything? Most of
| us have to put up with teachers, bosses, wives, etc., who are in the
| routine habit of "holding us" to one standard or another. When we
| interact as equals we expect to escape such stuff.
|
| Unless you get elected head of this newsgroup, I suggest you confine
| your standard setting to your kids, your dog, or, if there are any such
| truly unlucky persons, your employees.
|
| Leonard
|
| --
| "Everything that rises must converge"
| --Flannery O'Connor
|
| Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone
misunderstood
| his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to
PhD's
| of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
| the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
| wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
| imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
| problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not
been
| a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
| have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
| place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining
about
| achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.
|
| Jack Painter
|
|

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article WZs4e.286004$FM3.125440@fed1read02,
"Ed Price" wrote:



I hold a ham to a slightly higher standard of understanding...

Oh for Christ's sake, who are you to "hold anyone" to anything? Most of
us have to put up with teachers, bosses, wives, etc., who are in the
routine habit of "holding us" to one standard or another. When we
interact as equals we expect to escape such stuff.

Unless you get elected head of this newsgroup, I suggest you confine
your standard setting to your kids, your dog, or, if there are any such
truly unlucky persons, your employees.

Leonard



Whoa Lenny, this is so old you must have been buried really deep! (In what,
I have no idea.)

Maybe I'm using too many big words for you, but I doubt it. You really seem
to have a problem with social interaction, but this group isn't the proper
forum to resolve those issues. However, I'll recap the situation, and maybe
you might be able to sort out your feelings along the way.

The thread had been talking about understanding RF propagation and the
concept of interference. Now, if you brought that subject up to 100 random
people on the street, would you expect them all to be "equals"? If that same
question were posed in an "antennas" group, would you have an expectation
that these people would be slightly more informed about the subject? How
about if you posed that question to a group of hams (people who have
voluntarily sought out a technical hobby and who have even passed
examinations on the technical content of that endeavor)?

It should be clear that, while it's nice to be courteous, we are not all
equals. BTW, my dog doesn't think you're her equal either, although she does
concede to recognize you to the extent that she has blocked your address on
her email account. Hey, what can I say, the dog has high standards.

I'm sorry to hear about all the people you have to "put up with." But as
Sgt. Stryker once said, "Life is tough; it's even tougher when you're
stupid."


--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:36:32 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone misunderstood
his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to PhD's
of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not been
a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining about
achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.

I suspect the poster's objection was not to high standards per
se, so much as to the stuffy, "I hold hams to ...." part of he
pronouncement. A simple suggestion that best practices tend toward ...
or the like would be more accepable than using a tone suggesting that
someone was lecturing others with an authority not recognized.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:36:32 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone
misunderstood
his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to
PhD's
of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities, then
the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not
been
a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man; to
have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a wicked
place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining
about
achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.

I suspect the poster's objection was not to high standards per
se, so much as to the stuffy, "I hold hams to ...." part of he
pronouncement. A simple suggestion that best practices tend toward ...
or the like would be more accepable than using a tone suggesting that
someone was lecturing others with an authority not recognized.


Well, I already apologized for sounding stuffy, but I can do it again. I'll
probably commit that offense again some time, so I better keep my
apologizing muscle well toned. It's sad when a hobby committed to
communication holds precision of expression to be stuffy. And anyone who can
drop the Latin "per se" correctly into a sentence is wise enough to not
misunderstand my usage of "hold."

So I guess I should have dumbed-down my assertion, perhaps saying that I
reckon a ham ought to be a whole bunch more smarter about RF noise than your
average hamster. And, as the OP claimed a lot of years experience, shouldn't
I expect that he learned even more along the way? Is that too much to
expect?

Maybe you hit the real crux of my effront when you say I "was lecturing
others with an authority not recognized." So, by putting some slang and
twang into my prose, can I slip under the definition of a lecture? And as to
my authority, I never drag out the certificates or flash my badge. I try to
speak as plainly as I can, and hope the content has the ring of truth. I
expect those I post to will be able to recognize my thoughts, judge them
accordingly, and realize that I'm the smartest snot they ever met. (g
explicitely added for the humor-impared) I'd never presume to advise on
things like phase-locked loops or digital modulation, of which my knowledge
is woefully deficient. OK, just this once; I've been doing RF noise
(reduction, prevention and creation) for about 37 years. Go ahead, qrz me
and you'll see I'm an old fart. And I always sign my comments, Mister (oh, I
guess you don't do that).

--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

I just hate it when they turn out to be nice guys and apologize (whether or
not they have anything to apologize for).... then ya gotta be nice to
'em!grin

Warmest regards,
John
--
If "God"--expecting an angel... if evolution--expecting an alien... just
wondering if I will be able to tell the difference!

"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:pGzhe.6145$eU.3521@fed1read07...
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:36:32 -0400, "Jack Painter"
| wrote:
|
| Way back when this thread was living, Ed apologized if anyone
| misunderstood
| his tongue in cheek comments. If this was a group that was limited to
| PhD's
| of EE who had all been Chief Broadcast Engineers at major facilities,
then
| the members could all pretend to be equal (which of course they still
| wouldn't be). But this newsgroup is not that, and neither does its name
| imply the lowest level of competence in the field. If you have such a
| problem with standards, perhaps your moniker Flannery O'Conner has not
| been
| a good teacher, as you have missed one of the defining marks of a man;
to
| have high standards. Without them, whatever happens is fine, and a
wicked
| place that will be, besides the dumbing down that results from whining
| about
| achievement being more highly valued than mere existence.
|
| I suspect the poster's objection was not to high standards per
| se, so much as to the stuffy, "I hold hams to ...." part of he
| pronouncement. A simple suggestion that best practices tend toward ...
| or the like would be more accepable than using a tone suggesting that
| someone was lecturing others with an authority not recognized.
|
|
| Well, I already apologized for sounding stuffy, but I can do it again.
I'll
| probably commit that offense again some time, so I better keep my
| apologizing muscle well toned. It's sad when a hobby committed to
| communication holds precision of expression to be stuffy. And anyone who
can
| drop the Latin "per se" correctly into a sentence is wise enough to not
| misunderstand my usage of "hold."
|
| So I guess I should have dumbed-down my assertion, perhaps saying that I
| reckon a ham ought to be a whole bunch more smarter about RF noise than
your
| average hamster. And, as the OP claimed a lot of years experience,
shouldn't
| I expect that he learned even more along the way? Is that too much to
| expect?
|
| Maybe you hit the real crux of my effront when you say I "was lecturing
| others with an authority not recognized." So, by putting some slang and
| twang into my prose, can I slip under the definition of a lecture? And as
to
| my authority, I never drag out the certificates or flash my badge. I try
to
| speak as plainly as I can, and hope the content has the ring of truth. I
| expect those I post to will be able to recognize my thoughts, judge them
| accordingly, and realize that I'm the smartest snot they ever met. (g
| explicitely added for the humor-impared) I'd never presume to advise on
| things like phase-locked loops or digital modulation, of which my
knowledge
| is woefully deficient. OK, just this once; I've been doing RF noise
| (reduction, prevention and creation) for about 37 years. Go ahead, qrz me
| and you'll see I'm an old fart. And I always sign my comments, Mister (oh,
I
| guess you don't do that).
|
| --
| Ed
| WB6WSN
| El Cajon, CA USA
|
|