AJ Lake wrote:

Believe me, I've tried most of them, [Rice Boxes]

You've tried *most* of hundreds of models and brands? That seems to be
another unsupportable exaggeration.

Not at all - I used to examine equipment for a well-respected ham magazine.
Most of the Asian gear is junk.

We also have a lot of QRP operators (mostly
under 1 Watt) that simply won't be heard by those equipped with the Asian
black boxes!

Now you're being funny. Cause you can't be serious, can you...

Funnily enough, I worked a Canadian last night on 14 MHz, with each of us
using less than 5 Watts. His signal was entirely inaudible on the
extremely expensive Rice Box I've just repaired for a friend, but was
clearly audible despite fierce adjacent Italian QRM on my hybrid RX (and on
the Plessey).

C.

On Sep 23, 1:53�am, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
Consider all the testing that doctors and lawyers go through to get
their licenses. Yet there are still some doctors and lawyers who are
"bad apples".

Exactly. Passing a license test does not prevent bad behavior.

Not exactly. Passing a license test does not prevent *ALL* bad
behavior. Just because a test isn't perfect doesn't mean it has no
effect.

Most of all, note that the bad behavior you cite was all on voice, not
CW/Morse Code. The bad apples may have passed a code test at one time
or another, but they weren't *using* the mode!

Exactly. Passing a code test does not prevent bad behavior.

Not exactly. Passing a code test does not prevent *ALL* bad behavior.
Just because a test isn't perfect doesn't mean it has no effect.

The exam procedure varied over time, and by the mid-1950s the person
giving both code and written tests had to be an FCC licensed amateur
or commercial operator. But it was all on the honor system.

Mid 1960s, not mid 1950s.

The following could give the mail order code test:
An Extra, Advanced, or General Class licensee, or
a Commercial Radiotelegraph Operators licensee, or
a Government employee of a manually operated radio telegraph station.

Yep.

And as I said before *any* adult (at least 21 then) licensed or not
could give the written exam.

And the person had only to sign the form saying the test had been on
the up-and-up.

What Bash did was to ask people leaving the exam sessions to recall
whatever they could about the questions.

Another piece of history I lived. I used Bash for my Advanced.

Why? The Advanced wasn't very hard.

Then budget cuts in the early 1980s forced FCC to
create the VE system, and the Q&A became public.
Which put Bash out of business.

Interesting how what was called cheating then is now a legit exam...

Been that way for more than 25 years. Complain to FCC; *they* changed
it.

Now, why were hams so well-behaved compared to cbers,

Because the hams had to ID?

CBers had to ID too. They had licenses, callsigns and everything.
Didn't stop them from misbehaving. Shall we eliminate callsigns and
licenses because they don't prevent all bad behavior?

If people know who you are many act
better. And if they didn't ID no one would talk to them.

Why didn't cbers do the same thing?

�Some did
bootleg though with false calls. I'll admit to bootlegging on CW
before my Novice ticket came.

Why? Couldn't you wait?

My buddies name was Kent, so I used
K7ENT. It wasn't issued yet so no harm no foul...

It was wrong nonetheless.

The way something goes bad is often not by massive changes but a
little here and a little there. That's how cb went downhill - a little
extra power here, a non-ID there, a cussword here, a skip contact
there, and pretty soon playing by the rules was extinct.

73 de Jim, N2EY

AJ Lake wrote:
..

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work. I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

When I was still in the USAF, we had our EC-135 and RC-135 aircraft that
still had some tube type radios on at least HF and UHF bands, ie 618-T
and ARC-34...but...they also had modern radios such as the ARC-190 HF
set. I loved the ARC-190 (Collins). It was a nice radio to use and
work on. Still see them installed on at least National Guard KC-135s
when I get aboard at airshows.

Scott wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:
.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work. I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

I did some work on simulated EMP back in the 80's (when I was wearing a
different engineering hat), and we found that there's /nothing/ that will
protect semiconductor equipment against it.

We used very high voltage discharges (at the City University High Voltage
Lab in London), and we destroyed all sorts of gear! The original plan was
to examine resilience against lightning discharges, but later on the
experiments were expanded to cover EMP. We found that "hollow-state" gear
could withstand quite a lot of abuse and continue to work, whereas the
solid-state equipment would die at the slightest provocation. This
had /very/ serious ramifications for the "defence industry".

I've recently found another application that's best serviced with valves
("tubes" - U.S.). A friend of mine is responsible for the maintenance of a
number or airport NDB units. The ones they had were solid state, and would
quite regularly get fried by static or lightning. Over the last few days
we've begun the design of a valve replacement for the "hot" end of these
things. It's not difficult to get a few tens of Watts at MF with valves!

Bob

On Sep 22, 11:48*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
There are several reasons you don't see much manufactured tube gear,
such as a "modern" version of the TS-520S.
The first reason is cost.

Agreed. Tranceivers of today are generally much less costly (and have
many more features) than the tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

Yes, amateur HF transceivers are generally less expensive to buy new
when you adjust for inflation. But at the same time there is far less
really-inexpensive new gear, and working on it yourself is much more
involved. Plus many "older" SS rigs are difficult to repair because
they used custom parts for which the only source is another rig of the
same model. A ~50 year old tube rig can be easier to fix up than a ~25
year old SS rig for these reasons.

There is also the fact that in many situations it's better to have
good basic performance rather than "features". Many "modern" rigs
include lots of "features" because they are easy and inexpensive to
include, but lack basic performance that was common 40+ years ago.

So while there is progress in cost and features, it comes at a price
in other areas.

The second reason is size.

Agreed. My 100W mobile rig sits on my dashboard. Try that with the
tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

But simply making a rig small isn't always progress. For mobile/
portable, small is good, but in the ham shack it can be a bother
because the displays are hard to read, the controls tiny, and many
functions are buried layers-deep in menus.

I'd rather have a rig with a decent front panel than one that fits in
a shirt pocket.

The third and most important reason is that tubes have
become electro-politically incorrect.

Tubes are electro-politically incorrect?? Now that is funny. The
conspiracy theory? Black helicopters.... *8-O

No, it's a fact. Your response proves it.

As a case in point, look at the Elecraft K2...
it blew away much more expensive rigs in many performance criteria.

How many tubes do they use to get this performance?

None - for the reasons listed above.

You ever use one? I have. They're very good.

But with almost no advertising over 6000 have been sold.

Have you contacted them and suggested your 7360 tube front end idea
for use in the next model of the K2? How long do you think it would
take for them to stop laughing...

See? You're saying tubes are electro-politically incorrect.

---

btw, the all-time DX record for a radio built by humans is held by a
tube transmitter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Scott wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:
.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work.

What was the plan with no radios operational?
Please tell me there was a plan...

I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

I suppose any modern EMP US military countermeasures would be
classified. Maybe Bob in London can tell us...

When I was still in the USAF, we had our EC-135 and RC-135 aircraft that
still had some tube type radios on at least HF and UHF bands, ie 618-T
and ARC-34...but...they also had modern radios such as the ARC-190 HF
set.

I was working in the manufacturing of new tube type military equipment
(such as the APS 94 side looking radar) into the late 60s. I left the
electronics industry in 68 for an unrelated field and never kept up on
military gear after that.

I loved the ARC-190 (Collins). It was a nice radio to use and
work on. Still see them installed on at least National Guard KC-135s
when I get aboard at airshows.

Collins was always nice gear, either in or out of a military skin.

AJ Lake wrote:

Scott wrote:


AJ Lake wrote:


Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work.


What was the plan with no radios operational?
Please tell me there was a plan...


The only plan I knew of was to keep nukes from going off in the first
place. I'd guess that since the EC-135s (Airborne Command Post) had
tube radios for at least HF, they would be able to communicate back to
Washington with those...

On Sep 23, 12:22�am, AJ Lake wrote:
"JB" wrote:
There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. �

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

Yes, they do. However it's one thing to know that cheating exists as a
general rule, and a very different thing to cite specific instances of
cheating. How much actual cheating on the ham license tests went on
back in the pre-VE days? How much actually goes on today? I don't
think anybody really knows.

I do know this, however:

(in this discussion, the "Conditional distance" is how far from an FCC
quarterly exam point you had to live in order to get a license by
mail. Distances cited are "air-line" distances, not driving distances)

Before about 1954, the "Conditional distance" was 125 miles, and FCC
gave Novice and Tech exams at their offices. Plus if you had a by-mail
license and moved to within the "Conditional distance", you had to
retest in front of an FCC examiner within 90 days or lose the
license.

Then for about ten years the "Conditional distance" was only 75 miles
and the retest-if-you-move requirement went away. FCC also made all
routine Novice and Tech licenses by-mail, regardless of distance. A
considerable amount of CONUS was thus Conditional country.

About 1964 the FCC increased the Conditional distance to 175 miles and
increased the number of exam points. Almost none of CONUS was
Conditional country after that change.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. �But if you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

A weeder test can be relevant. And given the number of amateurs
actually using Morse Code on the air, it's a relevant test for an
amateur radio license.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

In a way, a big part of the testing is psychological. If we could
trust everyone to learn the technology, operating practices, rules and
regs as needed, there'd be no need for a test. By testing, we make
people prove they actually learned a few things, even though the
testing is far from comprehensive and doesn't test if the person
understands the material. But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example), testing seems
to be a good idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. �

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

Yes, they do. However it's one thing to know that cheating exists as a
general rule, and a very different thing to cite specific instances of
cheating. How much actual cheating on the ham license tests went on
back in the pre-VE days? How much actually goes on today? I don't
think anybody really knows.

I do know this, however:

(in this discussion, the "Conditional distance" is how far from an FCC
quarterly exam point you had to live in order to get a license by
mail. Distances cited are "air-line" distances, not driving distances)

Before about 1954, the "Conditional distance" was 125 miles, and FCC
gave Novice and Tech exams at their offices. Plus if you had a by-mail
license and moved to within the "Conditional distance", you had to
retest in front of an FCC examiner within 90 days or lose the
license.

Then for about ten years the "Conditional distance" was only 75 miles
and the retest-if-you-move requirement went away. FCC also made all
routine Novice and Tech licenses by-mail, regardless of distance. A
considerable amount of CONUS was thus Conditional country.

About 1964 the FCC increased the Conditional distance to 175 miles and
increased the number of exam points. Almost none of CONUS was
Conditional country after that change.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. �But if
you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

A weeder test can be relevant. And given the number of amateurs
actually using Morse Code on the air, it's a relevant test for an
amateur radio license.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

In a way, a big part of the testing is psychological. If we could
trust everyone to learn the technology, operating practices, rules and
regs as needed, there'd be no need for a test. By testing, we make
people prove they actually learned a few things, even though the
testing is far from comprehensive and doesn't test if the person
understands the material. But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example), testing seems
to be a good idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Psychology has to do with everything pertaining to human behavior.

Back in my creative writing days, I wrote a research paper on peasant
rebellions at the height of the Rodney King beating riots.

In a study of numerous uprisings, rebellions, disturbances and other civil
unrest in old times, the conclusion was that the masses indeed require
authority and pressure in order to avoid self-destruction. It was found
time and again, that these disturbances were most often due to issues of
poor morale reinforced within the affected group rather than a righteous
rising up against persecution, exploitation or to redress some wrong. Most
often the victims were random targets of widespread violent outbursts during
these disturbances rather than any defined enemy. Essentially, the Devil
has his day. This mentality also carries over to individuals, where
perceived pressure or persecution results in school shootings and things
like that, where the self-destructive urge is externalized to random
targets, or targets of opportunity, rather than a defined enemy. So I
suspect this is known to others who can incite such behavior simply by
fomenting dissension or planting seeds of discontent, then backing off to
watch the outcome in complete safety, thus using crowd and individual
Psychology to promote terrorism and destruction as a means to some end.

The whole problem with instituting and maintaining authority though, it how
to keep it on the righteous path. In the final analysis, God is the only
hope, but only if we spread the word.

wrote:

A weeder test can be relevant.

The trouble seems to be that we have different ideas of what a "weeder
test" means. I could find no specific definition in any reference
material, so I'll just no longer use the phrase.

Simply put, there is no reason for a code test in the modern world. If
someone wants to use CW he simply learns it or fires up his computer.
There once were valid reasons to learn the code, but they haven't
existed for decades. That the code test survived so long was simply
ham politics.

By testing, we make people prove they actually learned a few things...

When an 8 year old child can pass the Extra exam, I think you can
safely say that it can be passed without *knowing* the electronics
theory that it pretends to test for.

But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example),

Darn, if only they had started out with a CB code test
all would be well now...