N3CVJ wrote:
That was back when you were on my side, before you found out that I'm one of those "evil" capitalist loving conservatives who still believes in personal responsibility. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Your "side" indicates an intentional adversarial position. Everything isn't right or wrong and this side or that side of an issue...seeing everything as black and white is myopic. Stop looking for "sides" in which to take and stand on your own feet....for once. |
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:30:50 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote in : snip did you not read what i wrote twisty? (I did, and don't call me Twisty. Are you saying that you made a mistake by claiming you were referring to an illegal modification instead of a factory design feature?) Insertion of a fact, here........he didn't write twisty anything. No you most certainly are starting to become twistys clone I actually thought he might have been forging you. Illustrating that you really are incapable of acquiring new knowledge, even when it's given freely to you. Webtv can't forge. Webtv can not change the user name for usenet without changing it across the board, and even then, the webtv headers remain and so does their IP number. You may now re-immerse yourself forging mopar and forging my headers to suit your agenda. You have been effectively and permanently reduced, Dave. Actually I was confused (There shouldn't be any confusion -- Twisty defends illegal radio* and I oppose it. But that doesn't answer the question: Did you make a mistake? ) *Too much of a blanket statement. I share my feelings only when asked of such actions...I guess some can view that as a defense, but a defense can come only when one is on the receiving end of another who brought confrontation or attack. Let there be no doubt of what constitutes "illegal radio" in my world.... talking dx and the occasional freebanding on select frequencies located in the freeband, only. No other unlawful activity is "defended" or participated. ----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News=3D=3D---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---=3D East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =3D--- |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:01:29 -0600, "Chad Wahls"
wrote: I have read the about the amazement of acceptance while including adjustable power. Dunno, it is bone stock 4/12 watts. I have heard form others that it is a BEAR to get more channels out of, etc. It IS a good CB RADIO though. I think it sounds great, really natural and has excellent receive. Sideband performance is suprising for a Galaxy although it did need a frequency allignment from the get-go and am modulation was low (limiter slammed with a tone and only doing about 80%) That's typical of most out of the box CB radios. The limiters are usually set conservatively at 85% max. Microphone preamp is very sensitive, no NEED for a power mic but a better sounding dynamic is in order to get the best fidelity. With the stock mic I keep the mic gain at about 1 o'clock to keep the limiter from pumping. They are not cheap but it has been a good, robust radio thus far. For the record I would trade my roger beep for an unlocked clarifier in the law books, anyday, hands down :) I'm with you on that one. Until they can find a way to phase lock everybody's transmit frequency to an exact standard, there will always be a slight variation in frequency, which you will have to adjust to every time a different station transmits, if everyone has a "locked" on transmit receive-only clarifier. When running a roundtable on SSB, it becomes very annoying in short order. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:58:53 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:48:36 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:30:31 GMT, SideBand wrote: itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: You should thank Chad, and yes it is there , but using your excuse the FCC agent who certifys radios ****ed up and let this one slip by, it also has adjustable rf power which again is not allowed as per fcc rule. Which Part 95 CB rule disallows adjustable RF power? I would think that if the radio was only capable of 4W RMS AM Carrier / 12W SSB PEP at the MAX power setting, and was adjustable downward, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, nor would it make the radio "illegal" or uncertifiable... Educate me. I can't find any reference to a specific rule that either allows or prohibits adjustable power. On the one hand, if it were legal...... Oh brother. Once again you demonstrate your attitude that you are willing to convict based on an absence of evidence. It would be helpful for you to read my entire point before snipping the parts that change the context. If you had, you would have seen that I had "convicted" nothing. I was only bringing up two sides of the issue. You are adopting Twisty tactics. You really are sore aren't you? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:52:04 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote: Could not find them using the C2R prefix but there is a bunch. That board is used in a bunch of radios and has a PLL that does not like to be modded, I think that made the FCC happy. Iroic that there IS spots on the board for another final and support components, a simple call to Galaxy and you can have a dual final radio in less than an hour. OOPS!!!!! Correct. This was rather pricey. I think upwards of $60, but not sure. It was almost more economical to get a small amp. In cases like this, it's almost always better to get a small amp over modifying a radio beyond its limits.. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:52:04 -0500, Vinnie S. wrote: Could not find them using the C2R prefix but there is a bunch. That board is used in a bunch of radios and has a PLL that does not like to be modded, I think that made the FCC happy. Iroic that there IS spots on the board for another final and support components, a simple call to Galaxy and you can have a dual final radio in less than an hour. OOPS!!!!! Correct. This was rather pricey. I think upwards of $60, but not sure. It was almost more economical to get a small amp. In cases like this, it's almost always better to get a small amp over modifying a radio beyond its limits.. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj It's not really beyond the DX2547's limits. There's an ample power supply in there and the board is already punched, labled and wired for another final, just needs support components and biased up. But as stated earlier the gain in power is not really worth the hasle, and not enough to drive a high drive amp. More of a bragging right I guess. Btw, for the technician it is a wonderful radio to work on. The top and bottom comes off like most mobiles and it's wide enough to sit on it's side and work on both sides. Only have to clip 2 nylon ties holding the speaker cable in. There's plenty of room and the super razor sharp edges are kept to a minimum. I was pleasantly suprised when working on it, the manual is also very easy to understand and comprehensive. Chad |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:37:43 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:09:08 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip I see that -you- aren't talking about politics anymore because you refuse to accept any facts; What you consider "facts" is the whole point of contention. They are facts sourced from the very same source that says Bush got an honorable discharge. Care to dispute the source? I didn't think so. So why do all the libs cry that Bush's honorable discharge was somehow "bought"? See, both sides can make up all sorts of stories to explain the "facts". But I digress, this thread is not about politics. e.g., the fact here is that you are looking at the wrong rule: Am I? This is where the controversy is. Your assessment is valid, and it would seem that since the FCC has allowed ETS signals on FRS radios, (which also fall under part 95) that it would also stand to reason that they would allow them on class "D" CB as well. The question is why have they not made their position clear in the form of a rule modification? FRS radios have such tones because they are permitted by this rule: "Sec. 95.193 (b) The FRS unit may transmit tones to make contact or to continue communications with a particular FRS unit....." CB radio has an identical rule: "Sec. 95.412 (b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications....." But you failed to print the entire rule subpart. Why this is significant I will explain after I post it in its entirety: "(b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications. (Examples of circuits using these signals are tone operated squelch and selective calling circuits.) If the signal is an audible tone, it must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the signal is a subaudible tone, it may be transmitted continuously only as long as you are talking." Now, when you look at the rule, it becomes clear what the intent of this rule is. They are defining selective calling units, that operate either with CTCSS or dual tone (paging style) squelch systems. Lafayette used to sell them from the 1960's into the early 70's. You might be able to infer that this rule also applies to roger beeps, but you have to remember that this rule was written long before roger beeps were even heard of on CB radio communications. Bull****. Roger-beeps have existed, legal or not, on the CB since the band was barely a few months old. I NEVER heard a roger beep on CB until the early 80's. They certainly were not around in 1970 when I first got on the band. Now, I'm not saying that some clever tech type didn't invent one, and used it in some local pocket somewhere. But their use was not widespread, or I would 've heard them it, especially when the skip rolled in. I will concede that the rule is open to a wide variety of interpretation. It is conceivable that you MIGHT be ok if you use the roger beep strictly as an ETS signal. The minute you start making multiple tones, musical notes or otherwise, you fall into the category spelled out by 95.413, prohibited transmissions subpart 6 and 7: (6) To transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to amuse or entertain; (7) To transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention; Damn liberals. You really have become consumed with politics. Have I rattled you that much? So it should be obvious that if any radio with a "roger-beep" is accepted, the tone is considered to be a tool that is used to -facilitate- communications, a purpose which is consistent with the above rule(s). The question remains, with the exception of the Galaxy, there are no other domestic radios with this built in feature. If the rule was so cut and dry, then why not add another selling point? How about because the service was intended to be a cheap-&-easy way to get 2-way radio comm? There were literally hundreds of models WITHOUT a control for RF gain, delta-tune, SWR, etc, etc. And the FCC used to cite people for nothing more than failure to comply with the time-out rule. So would -you- have included it in a radio? I doubt it. None of this is valid today. Even if you despise the art of marketing and capitalism, the fact remains that bells and whistles sell products. A roger beep is not a difficult thing to add to a radio (and not expensive), yet it will add perceived value as another "feature" to justify an increased price for. Besides, I never said that *all* radios should have it. But yo would think at least the flagship radios from all the big name manufacturers would include this "feature" as another sale item. And another fact: I brought this same issue to your attention almost a year ago..... in -THIS- newsgroup. I remember the discussion. I believe it was Bert who provided the picture of his Galaxy radio with the FCC ID number which you initially looked up and couldn't find, and then claimed that the radio's Roger beep was an "add-on" accessory.. I made no such claim. Look up the thread and read the FACTS, Dave. Oh, how easily you forget Frank. Here, read this: =====START PASTE OF FRANK'S POST========= Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb From: Frank Gilliland - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 06:54:51 -0700 Local: Wed, May 26 2004 6:54 am Subject: N3CVJ claims Roger Beeps illegal Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In , Frank Gilliland wrote: In , "AKC KennelMaster" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT, "Bert Craig" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB radios produced with a roger beep or an echo? Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and was/is FCC type accepted. http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is entirely legal. Dave "Sandbagger" Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio. Search the database yourself if you want: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm Well, by golly, I goofed again. The FCC ID number is C2R-DX-2547, it's a Ranger, and it is legal for CB. But what I didn't see on the Galaxy website was a built-in roger-beep -- instead the board is available as an accessory. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers =====END PASTE OF FRANK'S POST====== Now, what was that you were saying about facts Frank? That was back when you were on my side, before you found out that I'm one of those "evil" capitalist loving conservatives who still believes in personal responsibility. I'm still on your side, Dave. The difference we have is that you refuse to look at -political- issues from both sides of the coin. Sure I do Frank. It's just that I believe that conservatism is the better path to follow, and I will support my side of the coin, and expose the hypocrisy of the other side. Apparently your problem is migrating to CB issues; i.e, your false claim about me stated above. It's not so false as you may think......... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:42:57 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . That was back when you were on my side, before you found out that I'm one of those "evil" capitalist loving conservatives who still believes in personal responsibility. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj OMG!!!! Frank has an attitude, he's sometimes pompous, arrogant, but that doesn't make him "On anyone's side". He was WRT the illegal CB operators and their equipment. I've had issue's with Frank in the past and will have them in the future, that's a give me, but to come out here and say "My side", that's a hoot! Not if it's true. A DD214 is a DD214, no matter how you try to dissect it Dave, so if it says Kerry was discharged, he was discharged. If federal government records show Kerry's service records, then it's up to you to prove they were forged (To which I think no one was contesting they weren't real, just the timeline). Now like you, I don't like Kerry but at the same time I don't think Bush is much better, but "I" felt he was the lesser of three evils, so I voted for Bush. One thing I've seen about Frank as of late, he doesn't seem to let his emotions do his talking. He will say what he believes, without prejudice to which is a very tough thing to do. Who the hell is talking about politics? This is about CB radio legalities. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:40:59 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:45:46 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: Not "one" only *you* have to wonder..the rest of the hammies in the world already know the answer to this. You (and your sock puppet) are the only one crying about a roger beep being illegal. I have no sock puppet. Allow me to place that in context. You also made the false claim you have only accessed this group through the same provider when it was shown you have accessed this group with no less than a dozen different usenet services. Shown by whom? Since that statement is a bold faced lie, I would love to see any "proof" you might have. Bust just like that military newsgroup that you stuck your foot in your mouth over with Frank, I'm sure there will be none forthcoming. I have had two, count 'em (2) isp's in the last 10 years. The first was Worldlynx networks, and my current is penn tele data. You screwed up, Dave. You have comcast...for now. Color it gone. I do not have Comcast. I do not live on a Comcast system. That's WHY I have ptd.net. You won't find competing isp's on the same cable system. YOU are a liar in the first degree. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com