| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#171
January 3rd 04, 03:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Steveo wrote: He scares me. He would only scare me if he started driving in NW Georgia. F#cker better not be driving nextel! (still ain't use to saying nextel) Isn't cross posting great? |
|
#173
January 3rd 04, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message m... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? Oh, I don't know, Bill.let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater.right through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna.that ought to be good enough, right? And none of this would have happened if only he had known code? Give me a break. I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects…no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to remove said offensive task.would certainly be concerned and cognizant of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass that 35 multiple-guess.er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him "ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not CW. ;-) The analogy is a joke. Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.) HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the above scenario may be playing out as you read these words.and that's no joke. The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point. Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. If you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level. Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they have my best interests at heart. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required effort. Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming commence. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20 mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code characters. There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re. squeaking vs. achieving. Do you really want to focus on the code test, Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes for the dangerous scenario…it's the associated mentality of those who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. Quite frankly, Bill…I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however, correct…they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes? Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices. Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really just a ticket to learn. What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of 2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes." The highway, hmm… Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on 7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel encouraged? I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just breezed on by with very little effort or tension. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Cheers indeed. :-) Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
#174
January 3rd 04, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message m... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? Oh, I don't know, Bill.let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater.right through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna.that ought to be good enough, right? And none of this would have happened if only he had known code? Give me a break. I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain about how one never plans on using it. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements... even when a specific requirement no longer has justification. I'm not much into the newer digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem. (Psst, it's a character issue.) No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other mode is set on that pedestal. Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture, many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it. You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already have done so. After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to remove said offensive task.would certainly be concerned and cognizant of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass that 35 multiple-guess.er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him "ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not CW. ;-) The analogy is a joke. Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.) HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the above scenario may be playing out as you read these words.and that's no joke. The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point. Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above, NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point. If you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers, guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level. Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they have my best interests at heart. My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading and new learning will be tied to the end of code testing. You must have really been disappointed when states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes. For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that want to learn will. Trying to claim some great philosophical tie of ending code testing being the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to learn is just bunk. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required effort. So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined, unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be trying to have in place for any license level? Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming commence. It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in the late 50s exactly that way. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20 mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code characters. Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement determinator. There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS today. Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be issued a license. Those that wish to engage in morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it. The issue is solely the test requirement and has no link to actual morse use by anyone. BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re. squeaking vs. achieving. That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one. The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now if code testing goes altogether. Do you really want to focus on the code test, Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm. Yawn. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however, correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes? Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices. What, no motivation? :-) :-) Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room. The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really just a ticket to learn. Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh, I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity of effort for all ham licensing. What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of 2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes." The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on 7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel encouraged? IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of place they'd shift to calmer waters. I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just breezed on by with very little effort or tension. To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse is allowed as long as they do so within the rules. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#175
January 3rd 04, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill, I trimmed the cb and shortwave groups out of this reply. We should
all give those folk a break. Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message e.com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message arthlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message .cv.net... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it. Which standard, should there be separate licenses for 3 speed column, 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, which shift pattern? Apparently there is insufficient state concern to worry about passing a license test with automatic and then getting behind the wheel of a manual gearbox vehicle. It's been that way for decades now with no ill results. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. one of two answers: 1. It's a goofed up rule 2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code. Why wouldn't it be a good way to get anone on HF to practice also if there's no code test at all? No argument there, Bill. That's the point, there is no rational justification for a CW mode skill test. The FCC has addressed and dismissed every known pro-code argument...as has the ITU also since Code is gone now as a mandatory treaty requirment. You know what I think about the rationality of any testing regimen. We are at the point that we can do away with any testing whatsoever. I don't want to tho'. Others may differ. Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all, and there are plenty of goofed up rules. ITU treaty is goofed up too? Who sed that? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#176
January 3rd 04, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL. Steveo wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote: ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone hear how good or bad it is to HF comms? Updates? FEMA has expressed "grave concerns" DERA has noted: "DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful interference to licensed radio services." AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too susceptable to interference. from ARRL site: AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz. back to me: So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out. As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#177
January 3rd 04, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL. Steveo wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote: ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone hear how good or bad it is to HF comms? Updates? FEMA has expressed "grave concerns" DERA has noted: "DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful interference to licensed radio services." AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too susceptable to interference. from ARRL site: AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz. back to me: So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out. As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast. - Mike KB3EIA - I'm in rec.radio.cb, Mike. That's pretty much what I'm hearing about BPL also. Thanks. |
|
#178
January 3rd 04, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL. Steveo wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote: ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone hear how good or bad it is to HF comms? Updates? FEMA has expressed "grave concerns" DERA has noted: "DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful interference to licensed radio services." AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too susceptable to interference. from ARRL site: AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz. back to me: So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out. As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast. - Mike KB3EIA - A test of BPL was run in Alabama. A engineer friend of mine told me it was not coming up to what was advertised in Birmingham. Repeaters were needed way too often, thus jacking up the expense. Unless the FCC is totally braindead I think BPL, as proposed will die by itself. However what they want is INCREASE the power of BPL over and above what is presently allowed under part 15. They may take that route. We shall see. Dan/W4NTI |
|
#179
January 3rd 04, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FamilyNet Newsgate
No No Not George wrote in a message to All: NNNG You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent he has a real problem with NNNG anger first thing you know he is threatening to beat someone LOL. Does that mean he beats people who laugh, or that he laughs loudly when he beats people, or that you think it's hilariously funny when people get beaten up? Steve Hayes WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail: - If its full of spam, see webpage. FamilyNet Internet Gated Mail http://www.fmlynet.org |
|
#180
January 3rd 04, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo says...
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about BPL. Steveo wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote: ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone hear how good or bad it is to HF comms? Updates? FEMA has expressed "grave concerns" DERA has noted: "DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful interference to licensed radio services." AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too susceptable to interference. from ARRL site: AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz. back to me: So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet out. As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast. - Mike KB3EIA - Will it wipe out my 2 meter handheld? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
| BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC | Homebrew | |||
| ARRL FUD about BPL | General | |||
Linear Mode
