|
CW Bands
Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will
happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt |
CW Bands
"julian814" ) writes:
Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt This is not a question related to building amateur radio equipment. It belongs elsewhere, such as rec.radio.amateur.misc or rec.radio.amateur.policy Michael VE2BVW |
CW Bands
"julian814" wrote in message ups.com... Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt The use of CW on the bands has nothing to do with testing requirements. CW will live undoubtedly under the category of CW, RTTY/Data And did you know that CW can be legally used on the "Phone Bands" ? Example from ARRL URL: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg.../allocate.html General class: 14.025-14.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data 14.225-14.350 MHz: CW, Phone, Image Advanced class: 14.025-14.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data 14.175-14.350 MHz: CW, Phone, Image Amateur Extra class: 14.000-14.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data 14.150-14.350 MHz: CW, Phone, Image |
CW Bands
And also two meters.......
-- Regards, Gary... "Caveat Lector" wrote in message ... "julian814" wrote in message ups.com... Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt The use of CW on the bands has nothing to do with testing requirements. CW will live undoubtedly under the category of CW, RTTY/Data And did you know that CW can be legally used on the "Phone Bands" ? Example from ARRL URL: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg.../allocate.html General class: 14.025-14.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data 14.225-14.350 MHz: CW, Phone, Image Advanced class: 14.025-14.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data 14.175-14.350 MHz: CW, Phone, Image Amateur Extra class: 14.000-14.150 MHz: CW, RTTY/Data 14.150-14.350 MHz: CW, Phone, Image |
CW Bands
I would have to say yes, since CW has always been allowed on ALL amateur
bands, from the bottom end to the top end of each. Scott N0EDV julian814 wrote: Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt |
CW Bands
Scott wrote: I would have to say yes, since CW has always been allowed on ALL amateur bands, from the bottom end to the top end of each. Scott N0EDV julian814 wrote: Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt FYI - THat is no longer 100% true since the spot frequencies on 60M are USB only. And 6 and 2 are the only places with CW only bands. |
CW Bands
Oops, forgot about 60M. Not sure about 6 and 2 being the only bands
with a CW only portion. Maybe a better choice of words would be "non-voice portions" since it appears that the HF bands still have segments designated for rtty and data. ??? Scott John Siegel wrote: Scott wrote: I would have to say yes, since CW has always been allowed on ALL amateur bands, from the bottom end to the top end of each. Scott N0EDV julian814 wrote: Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt FYI - THat is no longer 100% true since the spot frequencies on 60M are USB only. And 6 and 2 are the only places with CW only bands. |
CW Bands
Scott wrote:
Oops, forgot about 60M. Not sure about 6 and 2 being the only bands with a CW only portion. Maybe a better choice of words would be "non-voice portions" since it appears that the HF bands still have segments designated for rtty and data. ??? IMHO that was a mistake. It was because the U.S. voice portions of 80m and 40m where inacessable to ITU zone 1 hams. So putting the data and rtty in them would have slowed down their growth. Tune across the high end of the old 80m and 40m CW bands, and you can see what I mean. from 7100 down, it's almost unusable due to digital signals, some nights as low as 7050. The same thing with 3850 which is the top end of my 80m band. Yes, we now have 7100-7200, but it's not much good for DX yet. It's still filled with high power SWBC stations who have no intention of moving. When they are off the air, there is no propigation. :-( To veer this discussion anywhere near the topic. If you asked because you are thinking of building a CW only rig, don't worry, it will be usefull for a long time to come. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
CW Bands
On Feb 14, 4:21 am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
Scott wrote: Oops, forgot about 60M. Not sure about 6 and 2 being the only bands with a CW only portion. Maybe a better choice of words would be "non-voice portions" since it appears that the HF bands still have segments designated for rtty and data. ??? IMHO that was a mistake. It was because the U.S. voice portions of 80m and 40m where inacessable to ITU zone 1 hams. So putting the data and rtty in them would have slowed down their growth. Tune across the high end of the old 80m and 40m CW bands, and you can see what I mean. from 7100 down, it's almost unusable due to digital signals, some nights as low as 7050. The same thing with 3850 which is the top end of my 80m band. Yes, we now have 7100-7200, but it's not much good for DX yet. It's still filled with high power SWBC stations who have no intention of moving. When they are off the air, there is no propigation. :-( To veer this discussion anywhere near the topic. If you asked because you are thinking of building a CW only rig, don't worry, it will be usefull for a long time to come. Well, some of the schematics I've been looking at are for CW rigs. (Glowbug rigs, in particular.) You have me wondering, though - I thought digital radio used the same bands as commercial radio? Ralph Glatt |
CW Bands
"julian814" wrote in message ups.com... On Feb 14, 4:21 am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: Scott wrote: Oops, forgot about 60M. Not sure about 6 and 2 being the only bands with a CW only portion. Maybe a better choice of words would be "non-voice portions" since it appears that the HF bands still have segments designated for rtty and data. ??? IMHO that was a mistake. It was because the U.S. voice portions of 80m and 40m where inacessable to ITU zone 1 hams. So putting the data and rtty in them would have slowed down their growth. Tune across the high end of the old 80m and 40m CW bands, and you can see what I mean. from 7100 down, it's almost unusable due to digital signals, some nights as low as 7050. The same thing with 3850 which is the top end of my 80m band. Yes, we now have 7100-7200, but it's not much good for DX yet. It's still filled with high power SWBC stations who have no intention of moving. When they are off the air, there is no propigation. :-( To veer this discussion anywhere near the topic. If you asked because you are thinking of building a CW only rig, don't worry, it will be usefull for a long time to come. Well, some of the schematics I've been looking at are for CW rigs. (Glowbug rigs, in particular.) You have me wondering, though - I thought digital radio used the same bands as commercial radio? Ralph Glatt Nope, amateur radio digital transmissions use amateur radio bands. Dee, N8UZE |
CW Bands
John Siegel wrote:
Scott wrote: I would have to say yes, since CW has always been allowed on ALL amateur bands, from the bottom end to the top end of each. Scott N0EDV julian814 wrote: Now that code has been dropped from the license requirement, what will happen to the CW frequencies? Will people still be able to use Morse Code on them? Ralph Glatt FYI - THat is no longer 100% true since the spot frequencies on 60M are USB only. And 6 and 2 are the only places with CW only bands. Wonder if A2 operation with USB tone modulated code would be legal on these bands? |
CW Bands
ken scharf wrote:
Wonder if A2 operation with USB tone modulated code would be legal on these bands? Probably not. Unless of course, you retitled it "pentature encoded tone shift digital modulation". Morse code is really 5 different bits of information, dit, dah, between character space, between letter space, and a between word/empty space. If you count the space between messages as a seperate data point, then it becomes hexature encoded. Bear in mind Morse code was designed to be used in a mechanical punched tape sending device. It was never meant to be sent or received by hand. It was just by accident that an operator found out he could copy the message directly into his head by listening to the sound of the pen. Vail, not Morse, replaced the tape sender with a hand key, and dropped the pen from the receiver. Like "diHydrogen monOxide", it could become popular on the Internet. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
CW Bands
On Feb 16, 2:00?am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
ken scharf wrote: Wonder if A2 operation with USB tone modulated code would be legal on these bands? Bear in mind Morse code was designed to be used in a mechanical punched tape sending device. It was never meant to be sent or received by hand. It was just by accident that an operator found out he could copy the message directly into his head by listening to the sound of the pen. Ahem...small disagreement there. Morse's original "code" was all numeric and the receiver was an inked trace on paper tape. Vail, not Morse, replaced the tape sender with a hand key, and dropped the pen from the receiver. Alfred Vail's family was Morse's financial benefactor. The Vail locomotive works tried to get the ink pen receiver to work reliably and couldn't. At the same time Morse was having trouble organizing his all-number "code" to cover enough English language common phrases. According to the Vail family website information, Alfred Vail suggested to Morse that the whole English alphabet should be part of the "code." Alfred suggested copying the frequency of letters of a printer's type case as a way to make the most-used characters take the least time to send. Eventually, long after the hand key and acoustic "sounder" were in common use, the ink-printed-on-paper-tape (or drum) came back for very long circuits such as under-ocean lines. Like "diHydrogen monOxide", it could become popular on the Internet. Good stuff! I have a couple glasses of dihydrogen monoxide every day! :-) I even shower with it! :-) |
CW Bands
From: ken scharf on Sat, Feb 17 2007 9:17 am
wrote: On Feb 16, 2:00?am, (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: ken scharf wrote: Wonder if A2 operation with USB tone modulated code would be legal on these bands? Bear in mind Morse code was designed to be used in a mechanical punched tape sending device. It was never meant to be sent or received by hand. It was just by accident that an operator found out he could copy the message directly into his head by listening to the sound of the pen. Ahem...small disagreement there. Morse's original "code" was all numeric and the receiver was an inked trace on paper tape. Vail, not Morse, replaced the tape sender with a hand key, and dropped the pen from the receiver. Alfred Vail's family was Morse's financial benefactor. The Vail locomotive works tried to get the ink pen receiver to work reliably and couldn't. At the same time Morse was having trouble organizing his all-number "code" to cover enough English language common phrases. According to the Vail family website information, Alfred Vail suggested to Morse that the whole English alphabet should be part of the "code." Alfred suggested copying the frequency of letters of a printer's type case as a way to make the most-used characters take the least time to send. Eventually, long after the hand key and acoustic "sounder" were in common use, the ink-printed-on-paper-tape (or drum) came back for very long circuits such as under-ocean lines. Also the "Morse" code invented by the man of the same name is NOT the same cypher (it's NOT really a code!) that we hams use over the air. Irrelevant in the historical context of 1844 (163 years ago) and the beginning of the Morse-Vail Telegraph Company...or the period of 52 years of landline telegraphy before the first demonstration of radio as a communications medium in 1896 (in Italy and Russia). In that period between 1844 and the "turn of the Century" (1899-1900) landline telegraphy became a mature financial success and was duplicated (in "technology") around the world, partly on the Morse-Vail innovation-invention of the "relay." That "relay" enabled a single telegraph circuit to extend over three times its un-relayed length and reduced the capital investment of the telegraph companies. Underwater telegraph lines proved a financial success despite the high cost of such telegrams. But, technically, such under- water lines suffered high line losses, necessitating the return to galvanometer-like ink pens at the receiving end... the original intent of Morse's telegraph system. The word "code" is a very, very general descriptor of any system that uses a REPRESENTATION of a language or communication data. Other examples are the so-called Baudot code (5-level) or ASCII, the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (8-level) in teleprinting systems. The word "cypher" also has many meanings (including old references to mathematical operations) but, in the modern sense becomes more allied with cryptographic methods of obscuring the meaning of communications. See 'crypto' references to differences of "cyphertext" and "cleartext." In the half-century prior to 1900 ("turn of the century" in the phrase of older times), a great number of different "dialects" of the "morse code" were generated, mostly to fit the languages of its users. By that turn of the century time land and sea telegraph systems had multiplied and were confounded by all the various languages and dialects of the telegraphic code. That was resolved somewhat by an international standards group called by the French acronym CCITT. The CCITT resolved a great number of communications means, protocols, tariffs, and methodologies to enable a quicker 'throughput' of communications between countries. What eventually came out of the CCITT telegraph standards work as the "international telegraph code" was based on the English alphabet, numerical notation, and punctuation. That wasn't because English was a "better" language but simply that it was the MOST USED language for international telegraphy AT THE TIME. Note that the teleprinter codes were also standardized on the 5-level system. Teleprinter systems would eventually dominate and succeed telegraphy systems for international communications. Geoffrey and I were communicating on the OLD technology of (largely) manual telegraphy systems. It is not demeaning to say that such pre-1900 technology was PRIMITIVE. It was. There were no vacuum tubes to amplify anything and certainly no "radio" (until 1896 public demonstrations). Exactly what the early manual telegraphers did is relatively unimportant to the modern-day radio-electronics amateur radio world. Whatever they did was a relative success over a half-century of use and growth. But, that success was based on PRIMITIVE electrical technology. What seems to be overlooked in early telegraphic technology is the remarkable innovation of the RELAY. A simple electro- magnet driving a contact. Make the electromagnet sensitive enough to work with a 30-mile stretch of wires...wires NOT made to uniform standards which had not yet been developed. This simple relay could form an UNATTENDED telegraph station along a route, having its own battery for powering the out- going line to the next station, keyed by the relay contacts. Up to three unattended relays could be used on one circuit...reaching up to 100 miles in length before the circuit characteristics began causing errors in transmission. No real time of transmission ensued, something that had to be considered with attended stations and the operator copying down one telegram, then resending it manually to the next station. Think of the telegraphic relay as a predecessor to the modern-day radio REPEATER. Same unattended method of relaying a communication, almost in real time. WE use what's actually called the "international radio telegraph" cypher (code). True Morse has characters based on dots, dashes, long dashes, and variable spaces! That code is fully described as to dots, dashes, and spacing in the referenced document given in the "Definitions" section of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R., as it applies to USA radio amateurs. I have a copy of that, purchased from the ITU. Interestingly, that same document does not define the equivalent rate-of-transmission...although the USA amateur radio regulations imply that it does. Also as sent over the land line the operator had to listen for the gap between clicks NOT the sound of the clicks! Try that folks! Irrelevant as to what any telegraph operator did prior to 1900...except for historical notation. None of the participants of any newsgroups were alive then and therefore none can be "witnesses" to corroborate methods of early telegraph reception. Perhaps the first appearance of the "BFO" in radio reception was an experiment by early radio innovator Reginald Fessenden. Fessenden ran a low-power Spark transmitter next to his early receiving detector and noted that detector sensitivity was increased (his major area of experimental research at the time. He did not coin any term such as "beat frequency oscillator;" that came later after Armstrong invented the "super-heterodyne" receiver (name in reference to Fessenden's experiment notation) with a fixed-tuned IF. To simulate the "listening between clicks" on a radio, simply turn the BFO OFF with a strong "CW" signal coming in. That isn't a good duplication because there is a slight hiss of the distant carrier when it is on, perhaps a tiny bit of hum. If the distant signal is weak, the spaces between carrier-on dots and dashes would have some random noise. Either way, it is not a good way to "copy CW" without that BFO. --- The start of this thread was a question on whether or not FCC 06-178 that goes into effect on 23 Feb 07 will "eliminate the CW bands." It will not as is noted in FCC 06-178. Let's not deviate into esoteric realms of potential flame-war ignition about "true morse code." USA amateur radio regulations are rather specific on the relative lengths and spacing of International Morse Code as defined by the ITU. As to "homebrew" subjects, I submit that the Morse-Vail telegraph patent was an example of that in their "relay." Electro-magnets were known in 1844. Wire characteristics and early DC batteries were known. The telegraph patent connected them all in that "relay," something that no one else seems to have done at the time. Now, I consider that to be in the best spirit of "homebrewing." Innovation, doing what had not been done before. Others mileage may vary... |
CW Bands
|
CW Bands
Witness is now MM3YNW, and is standing watching me type this. Don't you
all think she should learn Morse to continue the family tradition? ============================= Yes ,I feel she should ,having done the FL primer . Welcome to the AR community. Frank KN6WH / GM0CSZ |
CW Bands
From: Ian White GM3SEK on Sun, 18 Feb 2007
22:23:56 +0000 wrote: Also as sent over the land line the operator had to listen for the gap between clicks NOT the sound of the clicks! Try that folks! Irrelevant as to what any telegraph operator did prior to 1900...except for historical notation. On the contrary, the 'clicker' persisted in some parts of the US railroad system into at least the 1930s. My wife's father had been a telegrapher with the Delaware & Hudson, and on joining the US Army for WW2 he was re-trained to International Morse. He spent the rest of the war still pounding brass, just doing it differently than before. However, he didn't go back to the D&H in 1945, so others must determine exactly when the clicker did die out. What I described was PRIOR to 1900. A few railroad carriers in the USA continued with manual telegraphy until about 1960. But, in fairness to the world of communications, those were rare. The railroad system in the USA is not small and it is also not the biggest carrier of freight over here. Outside of the roll-on containers carried by rail between drop-off and pick-up points, the majority of land freight here goes by truck on our large highway system. Most of the railways over here had begun converting to data communications in various forms prior to 1940. Call the surprise witness... Witness relates that sometime around 1962, she visited Knott's Berry Farm with her Dad, Mom and sister. This was back when it was a working fruit farm, which had expanded into serving home style chicken dinners and berry pies. Knott's Berry Farm is a popular tourist spot in southern California...relatively close to the original Disneyland. It is roughly an hours' drive south from my Los Angeles residence. So it came to pass that the whole family wandered into the office at the railroad station. There was the telegraph, clicking away... Dad froze in intense concentration, and then doubled over with laughter! When he got his breath back, he told Mom and the girls what the clicks were saying: "Eat chicken dinners" No doubt. The Knotts place IS a tourist attraction. But, that reproduction of a railroad station is nothing more than a reproduction. It is not a working communications station. There are several railway station reproductions in the Greater Los Angeles area and parts of them on various motion picture production lots. Perhaps the best one is on the north side of Griffith Park (closest to my southern home) which is also a railway museum. Knotts also has several buggies and a reproduction of an "old west" stagecoach. Neither of which are used in any public transportation outside of the park. In the motion picture industry here (very big) there is a mild contention as to which craftsmen build the "best stagecoaches" (using modern materials having better characteristics). Those can be made to "break apart" safely for the cameras and stunt people riding them. However, stagecoaches have not been used for public transportation here for decades. Witness personally affirms that the message was delivered through the clicking of the telegraph sounder. I have nothing against that. In nearby Anaheim, Disneyland still has a flight to the moon experience (in Tomorrowland) yet it never leaves the ground. One can also take a ride in a "submarine" but not go more than a few feet below the water's surface. Witness is now MM3YNW, and is standing watching me type this. Don't you all think she should learn Morse to continue the family tradition? That is up the family suddenly thrust upon this (non) discussion. I was unaware that "wives and families" suddenly had some impact on what is known about telegraphic communications history in its half century before "radio" was demonstrated as a communications medium. I first "fired up" on HF in February 1953, part of my being assigned to a US Army communications station in Tokyo. That was a small 1 KW HF transmitter using TTY FSK. There were three dozen other transmitters there; six more would be added by 1955. NONE of the radio circuits of this 3rd largest Army station used any OOK CW mode of modulation. In my subsequent career change after service into electronics design engineer I've never had a requirement to use OOK CW on radio. Until 2005 when my wife and I bought a new car having a keyless entry radio-on-a-chain-fob. That fob transmitter is OOK CW. But, its data rate is beyond human cognition, ANY human. In 1969 my father and father-in-law were still alive. Both watched, in widely separated geographical locations (in the comfort of their homes), LIVE video from the moon as the first two humans stepped onto the lunar surface. Both my father and father-in-law were born in the year 1900... one year before Marconi's trans-Atlantic test radio transmission and three years before the Wright Brothers demonstrated the first heavier than air flight. Both astronauts plus Collins in the lunar orbiter were in constant touch with earth by radio...for both communications and telemetry, guided there by computers of several kinds, on earth as well as in the reentry and descent/ascent capsule. I have nothing against telegraphic skills nor anyone using those for personal pleasure. However, in the light of advancement of the electronic arts, communications, radio, methods that ALL of us can share, I think there is an over-much emphasis by radio hobbyists on telegraphic arts. Manual telegraphy IS a historic first but it has been supplanted in practical communications means at our disposal...on land, in the air, on the sea, and in space. I think we should be looking FORWARD to the future, not back to the past. Others disagree. I leave it at that. |
CW Bands
On Feb 18, 11:15�pm, "
wrote: From: Ian White GM3SEK on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:23:56 +0000 * *The railroad system in the USA is not small and it is also * *not the biggest carrier of freight over here. Actually, that depends on how you define "biggest". *Outside of * *the roll-on containers carried by rail between drop-off * *and pick-up points, the majority of land freight here goes * *by truck on our large highway system. Freight transportation professionals measure by the unit of ton-mile. By that measure, rail is the #1 provider of US freight transportation. * *Most of the railways over here had begun converting to * *data communications in various forms prior to 1940. That's true. Some manual Morse telegraphy survived into the 1960s, but in general the use of teletype and voice comms had become standard by the 1950s. Also, much of the need for telegraph communications was eliminated by changes to the dispatching systems in use. * *I first "fired up" on HF in February 1953, part of my being * *assigned to a US Army communications station in Tokyo. * A station that was maintained by several hundred Army personnel. That * *was a small 1 KW HF transmitter using TTY FSK. *There were * *three dozen other transmitters there; six more would be * *added by 1955. *NONE of the radio circuits of this 3rd * *largest Army station used any OOK CW mode of modulation. However, that was one station in one place. It was not necessarily representative of all military radio communications at the time, nor of amateur radio communications, then or now. * *In my subsequent career change after service into * *electronics design engineer I've never had a requirement * *to use OOK CW on radio. * You have also never been a radio amateur. Nor a professional radio operator. Until 2005 when my wife and I bought * *a new car having a keyless entry radio-on-a-chain-fob. *That * *fob transmitter is OOK CW. *But, its data rate is beyond * *human cognition, ANY human. * *In 1969 my father and father-in-law were still alive. *Both * *watched, in widely separated geographical locations (in * *the comfort of their homes), LIVE video from the moon as * *the first two humans stepped onto the lunar surface. *Both * *my father and father-in-law were born in the year 1900... * *one year before Marconi's trans-Atlantic test radio * *transmission and three years before the Wright Brothers * *demonstrated the first heavier than air flight. *Both * *astronauts plus Collins in the lunar orbiter were in * *constant touch with earth by radio...for both * *communications and telemetry, guided there by computers * *of several kinds, on earth as well as in the reentry * *and descent/ascent capsule. Of what relevance is that to amateur radio? * *I have nothing against telegraphic skills nor anyone using * *those for personal pleasure. * Many of your statements elsewhere on Usenet contradict that. However, in the light of * *advancement of the electronic arts, communications, radio, * *methods that ALL of us can share, I think there is an * *over-much emphasis by radio hobbyists on telegraphic arts. IOW, it's OK with you if someone uses it, as long as they don't emphasize it. * *Manual telegraphy IS a historic first but it has been * *supplanted in practical communications means at our * *disposal...on land, in the air, on the sea, and in space. Morse Code is also practical communications. And it is widely used in amateur radio today. * *I think we should be looking FORWARD to the future, not * *back to the past. *Others disagree. *I leave it at that. What does "FORWARD to the future" really mean in that context? Jim, N2EY |
CW Bands
|
CW Bands
On Feb 19, 6:53�pm, "
wrote: On Feb 19, 10:02?am, wrote: (whole lot of stuff that was snipped) * *Policy matters-arguments-discussions belong on * *rec.radio.amateur.policy. Is this a moderated newsgroup? Are you the moderator? * *This newsgroup is for experimentation and building * *radio-electronics in the home workshop. Really? The post of yours that I replied to contained comments on the railroad system, landline telegraph communications, Knott's Berry Farm and other tourist attractions, stagecoaches, wives- and-families, your lack of use of Morse Code in military communications, your parents watching the lunar landings on TV, and keyless auto security systems. I don't see a single word from you in that posting about "experimentation and building radio-electronics in the home workshop." It also contained this personal policy statement from you: "I have nothing against telegraphic skills nor anyone using those for personal pleasure. However, in the light of advancement of the electronic arts, communications, radio, methods that ALL of us can share, I think there is an over-much emphasis by radio hobbyists on telegraphic arts. Manual telegraphy IS a historic first but it has been supplanted in practical communications means at our disposal...on land, in the air, on the sea, and in space. I think we should be looking FORWARD to the future, not back to the past. Others disagree. I leave it at that." Sure sounds like you were having a policy discussion to me! Jim, N2EY * |
CW Bands
On Feb 19, 6:24 pm, wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:53?pm, " wrote: On Feb 19, 10:02?am, wrote: (whole lot of stuff that was snipped) ? ?Policy matters-arguments-discussions belong on ? ?rec.radio.amateur.policy. Is this a moderated newsgroup? Are you the moderator? ? ?This newsgroup is for experimentation and building ? ?radio-electronics in the home workshop. Really? The post of yours that I replied to contained comments on the railroad system, landline telegraph communications, Knott's Berry Farm and other tourist attractions, stagecoaches, wives- and-families, your lack of use of Morse Code in military communications, your parents watching the lunar landings on TV, and keyless auto security systems. I don't see a single word from you in that posting about "experimentation and building radio-electronics in the home workshop." It also contained this personal policy statement from you: "I have nothing against telegraphic skills nor anyone using those for personal pleasure. However, in the light of advancement of the electronic arts, communications, radio, methods that ALL of us can share, I think there is an over-much emphasis by radio hobbyists on telegraphic arts. Manual telegraphy IS a historic first but it has been supplanted in practical communications means at our disposal...on land, in the air, on the sea, and in space. I think we should be looking FORWARD to the future, not back to the past. Others disagree. I leave it at that." Sure sounds like you were having a policy discussion to me! Jim, N2EY ? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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. And a few put-downs here and there. Example: Ken Scharf made an interesting comment: "Also as sent over the land line the operator had to listen for the gap between clicks NOT the sound of the clicks! Try that folks!" Professor Anderson had to reply with: "Irrelevant as to what any telegraph operator did prior to 1900...except for historical notation." I applaud Ian White for his gentle rebuttal of Anderson; but of course "Professor" Anderson cannot be treated in such a manner. But I liked Jim, N2EY's "comeback" better. Even though it was a bit off topic, this was a nice discussion before the history lessons. I love history and I believe that it is extremely important (under taught) but I perceive that the spirit here was not to teach and inform. I am rather new to these google groups, usually not having to time to sit here sorting through posts and typing in some myself. But I have recently become somewhat disabled (military service). I have a life-long interest in vintage electronics, collect short-wave radios, and designed and built my own receiver. I came to these Google groups looking to receive and to share. It is distressing to witness ego flare-ups. Does this happen often here? I've seen it a few times on other groups, and on Yahoo. Say, can anyone point me to some information on creating my own filter chokes? Is there a source that anyone knows of for silicon-iron core plates? Thanks 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. |
CW Bands
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 |
Making Filter Chokes
On Feb 21, 12:56�pm, "tack" wrote:
Say, can anyone point me to some information on creating my own filter chokes? What size? Do you mean the type commonly used in hollow-state gear - several henries at a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred milliamps, insulated for hundreds or thousands of volts? If so, there is some info in older ARRL Handbooks and in older versions of "Reference Data For Radio Engineers". I can look up some details if needed. *Is there a source that anyone knows of for silicon-iron core plates? * aka laminations I googled "silicon iron transformer laminations" and found a lot of stuff. Take a look. But I suspect that they may be geared to production quantity orders. One common source is the power transformer from an old microwave oven. These are often welded together, rather than bolted, and it may take a bit of work with a grinder to get the core apart. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Making Filter Chokes
On Feb 21, 6:45 pm, wrote:
On Feb 21, 12:56?pm, "tack" wrote: Say, can anyone point me to some information on creating my own filter chokes? What size? Do you mean the type commonly used in hollow-state gear - several henries at a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred milliamps, insulated for hundreds or thousands of volts? If so, there is some info in older ARRL Handbooks and in older versions of "Reference Data For Radio Engineers". I can look up some details if needed. ?Is there a source that anyone knows of for silicon-iron core plates? ? aka laminations I googled "silicon iron transformer laminations" and found a lot of stuff. Take a look. But I suspect that they may be geared to production quantity orders. One common source is the power transformer from an old microwave oven. These are often welded together, rather than bolted, and it may take a bit of work with a grinder to get the core apart. 73 de Jim, N2EY Thanks for the reply. I had a "brain fart" at the time I was writing and the term "laminations" escaped me. I have various old transformers of various voltages, I hate to take any apart. I think that I will ohm them out and see if there are any open windings. Yes, hollow state technology, that's what I am in to. Got started at a young age. My grandfather made and repaired radios before and after the war. He is not doing too well now. I have most of his gear and NOS parts and such. Next weekend I'll be picking up his Riders. Got his Drake TR-3 (AC-3 and DC-3 too). I'll be getting that old Drake back on the air! Anyway I'm planning some amp projects in the future (After I clear a backlog of a dozen Transoceanics) I have a few chokes but I just wanted to try my hand at making my own power chokes. Made RF inductors in the past for SW receiver 1930's style. I may be needin' up to 20 hy. I'll be on Google later on researching I suppose. Just thought I'd mention about the choke cores in case someone knew of a small qty source or had some to sell. I'm thinking about taking a bundle of soft iron wires (bailing wire) insulating them individually and corporately, then winding wire on. Fold the ends of the "core" together. Perhaps a nice project with my son; help him to learn. I've got a 15lb spool of 30awg to experiment with. By the way, if Prof. Anderson is looking at this, I refrained in reading your latest long ego post. Except for the first paragraph. I will not react nor acknowledge your presence in the future. It would not be edifying. I do not believe you suit my purpose here on these groups, which is the friendly exchange of ideas and thoughts (when I have the free time to get on the computer) No name calling, no self promotion, no condescending attitudes. No bull. It's too distressing. |
Making Filter Chokes
On Feb 23, 12:24�am, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 21, 6:45 pm, wrote: On Feb 21, 12:56?pm, "tack" wrote: Say, can anyone point me to some information on creating my own filter chokes? What size? Do you mean the type commonly used in hollow-state gear - several henries at a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred milliamps, insulated for hundreds or thousands of volts? If so, there is some info in older ARRL Handbooks and in older versions of "Reference Data For Radio Engineers". I can look up some details if needed. Is there a source that anyone knows of for silicon-iron core plates? aka laminations I googled "silicon iron transformer laminations" and found a lot of stuff. Take a look. But I suspect that they may be geared to production quantity orders. One common source is the power transformer from an old microwave oven. These are often welded together, rather than bolted, and it may take a bit of work with a grinder to get the core apart. 73 de Jim, N2EY Thanks for the reply. * You're welcome! the term "laminations" escaped me. * CRS disease......"Can't Remember......Stuff" I have various old transformers of various voltages, I hate to take any apart. *I think that I will ohm them out and see if there are any open windings. I agree that on not taking apart a good transformer! There are enough bad ones that it shouldn't be necessary, anyway. *Yes, hollow state technology, that's what I am in to. *Got started at a young age. *My grandfather made and repaired radios before and after the war. *He is not doing too well now. *I have most of his gear and NOS parts and such. *Next weekend I'll be picking up his Riders. Got his Drake TR-3 (AC-3 and DC-3 too). *I'll be getting that old Drake back on the air! Anyway I'm planning some amp projects in the future (After I clear a backlog of a dozen Transoceanics) *I have a few chokes but I just wanted to try my hand at making my own power chokes. *Made RF inductors in the past for SW receiver 1930's style. I may be needin' up to 20 hy. *I'll be on Google later on researching I suppose. *Just thought I'd mention about the choke cores in case someone knew of a small qty source or had some to sell. * I will look in my pile of stuff for bad ones that can be dismantled for the iron. I'm thinking about taking a bundle of soft iron wires (bailing wire) insulating them individually and corporately, then winding wire on. *Fold the ends of the "core" together. *Perhaps a nice project with my son; help him to learn. The main problem I see with that is the magnetic properties might not be as good, resulting in fewer henries than desired. *I've got a 15lb spool of 30awg to experiment with. EXCELLENT! You might consider making some sort of winder. Chokes typically involve thousands of turns, and you don't want to just jumblewind them. I will see what sort of basic choke data I can find in my library. Google my call, too..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com