From: "tack" on 21 Feb 2007 09:56:32 -0800

Here is an example of my second biggest peeve of these groups (the
first being spam). It's ego posts. LenAnderson seems to be intent on
demonstrating that he is the final authority; with an encyclopedic
knowledge of all he is typing about.

If that is your perception as "the truth," then I submit
that "truth" is not correct.

REC.RADIO.AMATEUR.HOMEBREW is chartered for designing,
building radio equipment in the hobbyist's workshop; i.e.,
away from work in radio-electronics. You can read the
FORMAL definition of it all you want and not come away
with a much-different opinion.

What seems to be at question is whether or not KNOWLEDGE
should be shared. Plus, who is the "qualified" judge of
such knowledge. I've never claimed to be any ultimate
judge or lawgiver of historical data. However, I've
accumulated a number of decades of both professional
(paid for services) and hobby experience (no pay for
anything unless negative money outflow is a value) that
stretches back to 1947. It is my personal opinion that
radio-electronics is a totally-fascinating field of
technology...so much so that I changed my career goals
in life to electronics engineering after release from
my US Army service. I've never been disappointed in that
decision.

NO ONE here has any life experience in anything (including
telegraphy) prior to the year 1900. ALL that any of us
have for information on such long-ago times is historical
descriptions. One of the problems with such historical
information is WHO (or which organization) wrote it. An
example is "morse code." Samuel F. B. Morse's "code" was
originally all-numeric. That included the famous first
message communicated by the Morse-Vail Telegraph Company
from Washington, DC, to Baltimore, MD, in 1844. Morse's
financial "angel" to the development of the telegraph
system was the Vail family who got their money from rail-
way equipment building. Alfred Vail would, according to
the Vail descendents' website information and several
other sources including the Radio Club of America, later
suggest changing from an all-numerica code to one which
included representation of the letters and common
punctuation of the English language as well as Arabic
numerals. This was pivotal in the success of the Morse-
Vail telegraph system since, in effect, the code could be
generated-sent-received and near-immediately transcribed
into a common language.

There was no need of phrase books to translate phrases
and words into a numeric code, then re-translate it on
reception. But that was only the second of two
innovations. The real first was described in the Morse-
Vail Telegraph Patent as the "relay." That relay was
quite similar to what is in wide use in electrical and
electronic equipment today...a 'sensitive' (low-power)
electromagnet mechanically and magnetically coupled to
an electrical contact. That contact could substitute
for the transmitting key/switch and thus power a second
telegraph line through a local battery and extend that
telegraph line farther than the original circuit. Up
to three such relays could be used given the
technological limits of early electrical apparatus.
It is my opinion (not "ego") that the telegraph Relay
was the primary key to the success of the Morse-Vail
Telegraph system. That basic telegraph system spread
throughout the world during all of the later 1800s.

Let's consider INNOVATION and its relation to "radio" and
this morse code. The first radio-as-a-communications-means
was demonstrated in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. Morse
code was used in the on-off "radio wave" switching. Why
that? For one thing, that on-off code was already so
mature (52 years) and widespread that many "dialects" of
that representational code existed worldwide. Early radio
was so technologically-primitive that simple on-off
switching was the only PRACTICAL means to communicate.
On-off switching. That is what the Morse-Vail Telegraph
used in its RELAY contacts. The only technological
difference was that "radio" eliminated the wires using
electromagnetic wave propagation to carry the
communication. That was a revolutionary step for mariners
and quickly adopted. They could now 'signal' beyond the
visible horizon, something they were never able to do
quickly before this revolution.

But, in the midst of this revolutionary step of over-the-
horizon near-instant communications, the Mythos developed
about the Mode of "morse." Few could grasp the basic
principles of this new "radio" but they could identify
with the human-sensed on-off patterns and seeming magic
of the patterns translatable to human-understood speech.
Was the morse code the essential element to success of
early radio? Not precisely. Those early damped-wave
(spark-induced) "RF generators" and the gigantic rotary
alternators (operating at VLF) were still turned all-on
or all-off. What was essential for the speed of early
radio was in using an on-off representation for the
characters of a written language. The Morse-Vail
Telegraph used English. They were the first success
even though many had tried by various means prior to
1844. Had someone else in another country (and other
language) been first and innovative enough, the name
of the code could have been entirely different.

Innovation. Sometimes a necessity in hobby work. Some
parts may not be available yet their type would enable
simple operation and building. The hobbyist must
innovate to find substitutes. Sometimes that can be
done by others and thus worthy of spreading information
around. That's what newsgroups like this are good
for...informing others of something useful in the
hobby of designing-building-repairing of radio-
electronics.

Yes, there ARE diversions in this newsgroup into non-
hobby subjects. Especially so in the USA amateur radio
"revolution" of the elimination of morse code testing
for a US amateur radio license. Many are emotionally
wounded by that decision but that is just unfortunate
for them. Progress goes on, innovation continues, the
technology and ways to use that are evolving, changing.
But, some want to "rewrite" history (or selectively
use certain parts while omitting other parts) to make
their own personal point about something dear to their
hearts. James Miccolis is one of those over in RRAP.
He has an archived decade of experience in "correcting"
others in RRAP who do not agree with his one-sided
views of amateur radio.

For my part, I like to contribute information on
designing-building-repairing of radio-electronics. I
try to be accurate when doing so. No, I'm not
presumptuous about "knowing everything" since I don't.
I'm still learning things and eagerly do that...in
between trying to keep up with the constantly-
changing-state of the electronics art. We are all
diverse and many of us in here come from differing
occupations involving electronics. Yet I think that
ALL who really like to get involved in the technology
of radio-electronics DO want to contribute when we
can. It IS a fascinating field of technology.


By the way, I despise flaming and I came a bit close to flaming
Anderson, but couldn't help but say something about a monologue like
his.

"Flaming" happens. It is the nature of the beast.
You've already done what you despise but that doesn't
bother me. After 23 years of doing computer-modem
communications, I've seen much worse. :-)

"Monologues?" :-) Yes, others get that impression.
Sometimes one has to spend time "connecting the dots"
(so to speak) in order to prove a point to one-sided
others. Note: Explanations sometimes require more than
three sentences in a paragraph. I was influenced by the
enjoyable PBS series "Connections" by James Burke. There
is a huge MASS of inter-related technology that has been
developing among humans for centuries. I think it worthy
to examine as much of that as it applies as possible.
Others do not. shrug

Regards,
Leonard H. Anderson (real person, not a pseudonym)

ex-RA16408336