|
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
Thanks. I thot no-code was prior to 89 but maybe not. The debate goes way
back. wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 7:51 pm, Lawrence Statton wrote: AJ Lake writes: You need to understand that the FCC really doesn't want to be bothered with Ham Radio at all. I think that the ARRL had more to do with the snafu's of that era. For example incentive licensing. So, I'm a young whippersnapper (42 y/o ... got my Tech+ ticket in 1988): Can someone, without adding TOO much editorial slant, explain what the 1970s push to incentive licensing was, and with as little slant as possible explain why it was a SNAFU (or as one 1x2 in the first club I was in said: Ruined the service). --XE2/N1GAK Here's a history in three parts. It was written in 1999 and so doesn't cover the 2000 restructuring, but you'll find a lot of background in there. Part 1: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source or: http://tinyurl.com/6o8bzf Part 2: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source or: http://tinyurl.com/6lupxx Part 3: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source or: http://tinyurl.com/6dosbw --- A couple of points: 1) "Incentive licensing" came into being in the 1960s 2) It wasn't a new thing, but rather a return to the way things used to be before 1953. Except it was a lot more complicated. 3) ARRL had a big role but wasn't the only one involved. There were at least 10 other proposals given RM numbers by FCC, over 6000 comments at a time before ECFS and the internet, and the result went into effect in 1968. 4) The Tech had a code test until 1991. 5) The ARRL did not want the VE system. FCC pushed it on us to save money. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 15, 1:34*am, msg wrote:
BTW, if anyone knows, I'd appreciate knowing what the grace period after expiration was in 1975 (I was told by a field-office rep that my expired Advanced couldn't be renewed and later I was told that I was probably misinformed and was within a grace period, but I could never confirm that fact). In 1975 the grace period was 1 year. License terms back then were 5 years. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 14, 10:45*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
ken scharf wrote: The LACK of incentive plus the 20wpm code was the reason so few upgraded to the extra class, Correct. Before Incentive Licensing there was not much incentive to go above General since there were no additional privileges. Those who did upgrade to Extra did it for the accomplishment. Actually, the period when Generals-and-above had all privileges was less than 16 years (Feb 1953 to Nov 1968). Before Feb 1953, you needed an Advanced or Extra to use 'phone on the ham bands between 2.5 and 25 MHz. And since it was a real (no answers supplied) exam before an official FCC examiner it did show accomplishment. Hams of the day often listed it on employment applications alongside their commercial licenses. Also applications for college. Actually the extra cw segments were the most prized, Only if you are a CW DXer. And even before the change, by gentlemans agreement the bottom of the CW band was left for DXers and casual CW operation was higher, pretty much like now. so the cw requirement made sense IMO the only justification for the code test (at that time) was for possible emergency use. As an example a ship in distress, since many ships were still using CW at the time. But other than that making a ham take a special code test made about as much sense as making him take a special soldering test.. That was finally recognized recently... * There were three reasons for it back then: The first reason was the ITU treaty, which required Morse Code testing. The second reason was that the FCC considered Morse Code skill to be part of what it meant to be a qualified radio amateur, particularly one that had full HF privileges. That view has changed since the 1970s but it was a big thing to them in those days. The third reason was that before the 1980s amateur radio was quite different in terms of equipment and mode/band choices. There were no WARC bands (30, 17 and 12 meters) before 1979, and 160 was full of LORAN and hams only had limited use of it. The only data mode was RTTY, done with big heavy electromechanical teletype machines. SSTV existed but required special equipment. So most hams on HF used either Morse Code, SSB or AM. SSB and AM use a lot more spectrum than Morse Code so the total carrying capacity of the HF ham bands would be much less if everybody used voice. As far as techs are concerned... Well I knew quite a few techs who were very much into home brew radios. * As it should be. The Tech license was supposed to be for technical use, not just another operators license. But of course that was a laugh. Most Techs bought their equipment and set up shop on the nearest local repeater... That depends on what era you're talking about. The Technician was created as part of the 1951 restructuring, and originally did not include 6 or 2 meters. Repeaters did not become common in ham radio until the 1970s. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 13, 7:56*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
My moaning was because of the *unfairness* of the incentive licensing frequency changes. I passed an examination for General and I expected to be able to use those General frequencies. Then they took away half the General frequencies. Even these many years later (even after having regained those lost frequencies) I think it was an unfair change. They took away half of the General *phone* frequencies on 75, 40, 20 and 15 meters. And 25 kHz of the 80, 40, 20 and 15 meter CW/data frequencies. I remember the moaning back then. Basically it came down to the idea that many hams felt they'd earned the right to full privileges forever by passing the General test, and shouldn't be required to pass any more tests. btw, I earned my Advanced in the summer of 1968 and had full privileges for a few weeks until the rules changed in November 1968. Some may moan that the FCC now gives advanced licenses with no code test and modern hams don't have to work as hard for the license as hams in years past. Which is true. And some may moan that people can now get an advanced ham license by memorization without knowing the advanced electronics pretended in the testing. Which is true. But not me because it takes nothing away from privileges already earned. The problem is that changes in the requirements change the nature of the ARS. Not right away, but over a long time. I have an idea (analogy). How about we institute an Extra Plus license. Forget the code test because it's obsolete. But hams still use Morse Code... But to make sure that the applicant is really qualified he must pass a *real* electronics/digital test, one that can't be passed by memorization. No answer sheets. At the FCC office like in the old days. Won't happen because FCC won't take on that job again. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 9, 1:52*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote: The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that required no code, The Technician required 5 wpm from its creation in 1951 until 1991. Interestingly in the 50s the Technician (and Novice) was given by mail. And any ham friend could give you the code test. Anyone else could proctor your exam and certify that you were honest. However I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that there were many Techs who never took a code test and had open book exams. From 1951 until about 1953 or 54 the Novice and Tech were given at FCC offices unless you lived beyond a certain distance from an FCC exam point. But the new licenses made so much work for FCC that they changed the rules and made both those licenses "by mail". There was also the by-mail equivalent of the General license, called the Conditional. In the mid-1970s it was merged with the General. I remember that when it was announced that the Conditional was being phased out, there was a false rumor that FCC would require all Conditionals to retest. You should have heard the cries of anguish! I found that puzzling because the tests weren't *that* hard. Now I have a little better understanding... I always wondered why if the Tech was an experimenters license as the FCC claimed it was, why they required a code test. Because the international treaty required it. Over time that changed, but in the 1950s any license that allowed a ham to use the bands below 1 GHz required a code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 8, 10:58*pm, "JB" wrote:
"Lawrence Statton" wrote in message ... AJ Lake writes: You need to understand that the FCC really doesn't want to be bothered with Ham Radio at all. Not any more. But in the past it was very different. I think that the ARRL had more to do with the snafu's of that era. For example incentive licensing. Which was not really an ARRL idea - nor a new one in the 1960s. I am not sure what the ARRL had to do with events previous to 73 and some of the chronology from memory. The 11 meter ham band was taken away to make the Citizens Band in 58? * It didn't turn out anything like the FCC expected. Yup. Actually FCC had created UHF cb where FRS/GMRS is now a decade earlier, but 1950s technology was such that a good UHF radio was big, heavy and expensive. So they reallocated 11 meters (which wasn't a ham band by treaty) because decent sets would be a lot cheaper to make. FCC never imagined that so many people would just ignore the rules. *Previously there were fewer ham license classes and everyone was on the same page. Also privileges were taken away from the highest class to make a higher ones. *Ticked off a lot of Hams to lose. Before 1951 there were three license classes, A, B and C. The 1951 restructuring renamed them to Advanced, General and Conditional, and added the Novice, Technician, and Extra. That 1951 restructuring was not an ARRL idea, btw. The Technician License split ham radio into two factions by offering a license class that had little incentive to upgrade and actually made it much more difficult to, by limiting the opportunities for on-the-air training. People who took the Novice ticket were upgraded to General in less than 2 years or never got around to get on the air and let it lapse. There were always lots of factions. There were the 'phone folks and the CW bunch, the traffic handlers and the DXers, the homebrewers, kit builders and factory-made groups, the mobileers, the VHF/UHFers, the ragchewers, etc. Few of the divisions you see today are new. *Hams (in my area anyway) were expected to build something as a right of passage. Building a code practice oscillator would get you a pat on the back from everyone and you were in with the simplest project there was. *I built that and the power supplies for my mil surplus rigs. *Some guys built a whole Novice station. Some folks still do. Google my call, for example... *Techs at that time were expected to retune or modify a rig or some project as well but would go straight to CB like intercom operations not conducive to learning the HF skills for upgrade. I think the real problem was that there wasn't much casual CW operation on VHF, and many low-cost VHF rigs wouldn't even do CW. *In my day we were aware of a difference but we were all brother hams then. *I had Elmers that were Techs and beyond. *Most all were technically inclined enough to have built something. *People were generally civilized and knew that we were all on the same team. *If there was irritation between individuals, and there were oddballs, it was downplayed for the good of amateur radio, because it was a small world and people were listening. *And you would run into each other again and again, so no sense carrying a grudge. Agreed! There were other forces at work, too. For one thing, equipment was expensive compared to today and you needed to know something just to tune it up and get on the air. For another, getting a license required that you invest some time and effort into learning code and theory. The FCC was also a respected and almost feared entity before the cb boom. Hams knew FCC was listening, and would find them if they misbehaved. In the late 70's there was a push by ARRL to get CBers interested, and over the counter 2 meter radios were first becoming available. I don't recall that at all. ARRL pushed repeaters and FM because they were new technology, for hams anyway, and were already popular with hams in some parts of the country. ARRL didn't seem to understand that CB was a different service with a different mindset and many were already set in their ways. * They seemed to be willing to get people to hang outside of RS stores and lure CBers under false pretenses about amateur radio in order to pump up the license roles and subscriptions to QST. I don't recall that at all. * Wayne Green was one of the ticked off ones and started 73 magazine to rag about the ARRL and QST. Wayne Green was a lifelong gadfly. He's still around, btw. Says the Apollo moon landings were faked, among other things. *ARRL also convinced the FCC (easily) to set up the volunteer examiner program. Nope, not true. FCC did that in the early 1980s to reduce their workload. Their funding wasn't keeping up with their costs and they had to reduce costs somehow. ARRL had no choice. *Novice exams were already given by volunteer Extras. Actually a General or Advanced could give Novice exams. *FCC wanted to lighten their work load since Ham testing and licensing was taking up most of a day at the field offices. The office in Philly where I took my tests was busy three days a week with exams. License renewals were then made easier and for longer. *ARRL liked it because the rolls didn't drop out so fast and FCC didn't have to bother as often. It was FCC's idea. Less administrative work. The volunteer examiner program gave seminars to get people licensed but because of the accellerated pace, *people got licensed before they got a chance to learn the realities of getting on the air and keeping a station up and meeting the people. *Some people would find it not their cup of tea and leave but their license was now good for 10 years pumping up the rolls. Yup. The no-code Tech license 83? further divided amateurs and even further sidetracked Techs from upgrading. 1991, not 1983. Don't forget code waivers, created in 1990 as a favor of then-president Bush to ham who was also a King. *Lead time for getting a ticket was shortened from the 2 to 6 months or so to learn the code to as little as 6 weeks, then 2 weeks as the process refined. * It was notable that in the 80s, there were many who learned the code anyway and upgraded but the whole thing by and large tended to split Ham Radio into those who upgraded and those who couldn't very well.and were often frustrated. There were also folks who got into ham radio back then to use it as a personal communications system without all the headaches of cb. Sometimes whole families got licensed and got HTs just to keep in touch. We had a lot of them in the 80s and 90s. Cell phones killed that. *Many would tell themselves they just weren't interested and resented the others. *Way too sad. *I finally came to grips with the idea that they should do away with the Tech class license at all costs, even getting rid of code testing for the General to do it, just so we could mend the split. * I was stunned when they dropped the code requirement for Extra though. *I really haven't kept track of all the current structure since I got my Extra in 93. The changes have been a little here and a little there. It was FCC, not ARRL, who has pushed for reduced requirements since the late 1970s. In any case, the "incentive" licensing structure was anything but incentive. So much for good intentions. Consider this, though: In 1951 there were about 100,000 US hams. By 1962 or so that number had grown to about 250,000. But then the growth slowed to a trickle and by 1969 there were only a few more than there were in 1962. Some said the incentive licensing changes would kill off ham radio, but instead the numbers grew all through the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s. Not just Techs but Generals and above too. btw, I got my Novice in 1967 (age 13), Advanced in 1968 (age 14) and Extra in 1970 (age 16). I didn't think any of the tests were very hard. Would have gotten the Extra sooner but in those days you needed 2 years experience as a General or Advanced just to try the Extra test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
|
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 17, 8:33�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote: the FCC considered Morse Code skill to be part of what it meant to be a qualified radio amateur... Even if there was no treaty, the ham employees in the FCC didn't want no-code. Nor did the non-ham employees, until the mid 1970s. And there *was* a treaty that FCC wouldn't ignore. The ARRL didn't want no-code. If you mean the membership didn't want it, you're right. And the average (already) code tested ham didn't want no-code. It's not surprising therefore that as a political body the FCC just agreed with it's constituents. Because the constituents made themselves heard. Yet as early as 1975 the FCC was trying to create a nocodetest ham license. The opposition was clear and they backed down. FCC tried again in 1983 and the opposition made them back down. But in 1991 FCC did it anyway. I remember the moaning back then. Basically it came down to the idea that many hams felt they'd earned the right to full privileges forever.... I think the moaning was over the basic unfairness of *removing* privileges already earned. That's what I said - many hams felt they'd earned the privileges *forever*, no matter how much things changed. IMHO one of the driving forces was Sputnik and its cousins. Up until October 1957, the USA had been confident that we were way ahead of the Soviets in technology. We had jet planes, they were still using props. We had transistors, computers, color TV, they were way behind. Etc. Then Sputnik went up, and the USSR got a first in the history books. It was soon followed by a bunch of other firsts - first animal in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon, first interplanetary probe, and then the first human in space. It was a shock that had repercussions in a lot of ways, one of which was more emphasis on math and science in schools. Another was raising the expectations of ham operators. Of course it took time to change the rules. Over the years there has been many unpopular (to some) license changes but virtually all (maybe all?) involved giving new applicants easier privileges, not taking away already earned privileges. Since 1969 that's been the case, because nobody wants to be blamed for "incentive licensing version 2". btw, I earned my Advanced in the summer of 1968 and had full privileges for a few weeks until the rules changed in November 1968. And you didn't moan at all?? Nope. I just went and got an Extra the first time it was legal for me to try for it. Summer 1970. Give me a break... I won't lie to you and say I complained when I didn't. I was a new ham in 1968 and I knew the rules were going to change, so I just upgraded. It was a challenge, not something to complain about. Haven't regretted it since. I think what bothered a lot of hams back then was that they'd let themselves get really rusty on both code and theory, and the thought of having to pass more tests was really daunting. On top of that, the Advanced and Extra tests couldn't normally be done "by mail" like the Novice, Tech and Conditional, so they'd have to face The Man From FCC rather than another ham for the exams. All ancient history now. The VE system has been in place for a quarter of a century, Generals now have at least as much 'phone space as they had in 1968, and we're effectively down to three license classes (almost). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
|
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
AJ Lake wrote:
I predict it will be only one license eventually. It (effectively) is over here in the UK. We do have a limited "novice" licence, but there's little point in going for that. Most people just go for the full licence. We used to have "A" and "B" licences - the "A" was all bands, all modes, and the "B" was limited to above 50 MHz and didn't require the Morse Test. The requirement for the Morse was removed, so now it's all amalgamated into one licence. C. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
Bob wrote:
We used to have "A" and "B" licences - the "A" was all bands, all modes, and the "B" was limited to above 50 MHz and didn't require the Morse Test. The requirement for the Morse was removed, so now it's all amalgamated into one licence. Was there much moaning over there over the loss of the code test? In any of your license changes have practicing hams ever lost frequency privileges they had previously earned? |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 18, 2:21�am, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote: But in 1991 FCC did it [a no-code license] anyway. I always thought it was silly having a code test for an 'experimenter' license anyway. Had there not been a treaty requirement, FCC might have not had a Morse test for Tech from the beginning. We'll never know. I never used CW as a Tech. Heck I was too busy working 6M DX (on AM) during that best of all cycles during the late 50s. But I suppose could have told the FCC I was experimenting with the ionosphere... A lot of VHF/UHF experimenting in those days did use Morse Code and still does today. EME (moonbounce), meteor scatter, aurora, troposcatter and other "weak signal" work was almost all CW. Most of it still is. Of course those were specialized things back then. Then Sputnik went up, and the USSR got a first in the history books. Yes, remember it well. I listened to Sputnik on my S40. Then you may remember the reactions. All of a sudden we were #2 and that wasn't good enough. It [Russian technology] was a shock that had repercussions in a lot of ways, Yup. Got me many years of employment (government contracts). And convinced FCC to be dissatisfied. nobody wants to be blamed for "incentive licensing version 2" Can't blame em. One screw up was enough. Was it really a screw up? I think the real mistake was back in 1952. What happened was that in 1951 the FCC restructured the ham radio license classes and added a whole bunch of new license classes. That restructuring was in part due to proposals from two small groups (membership a couple of thousand each) who argued that the then- current US amateur license requirements, even for Class A, were too easy. In those days it took an Advanced (old Class A) for full privileges. Which meant taking another 50 question written test for hams with Generals. The new Extra also had full privileges but had more requirements like 20 wpm code, a 100 question written, and 2 years experience. But as part of the 1951 restructuring, FCC announced that at the end of 1952 they'd stop issuing new Advanceds. So if a ham didn't have an Advanced by the end of 1952, s/he'd have to go for the much more involved Extra. A considerable number of hams rushed to get the Advanced before the door closed at the end of 1952. But then, in a surprising about-face, in mid-December the FCC announced that as of Feb 1953 all Generals, Conditionals, Advanceds and Extras would have full operating privileges. You can just imagine the reaction from hams who'd worked hard to get their Advanceds or Extras, then suddenly found the HF 'phone bands flooded with Generals and Conditionals who had the same privileges. I don't know why the FCC suddenly reversed their plan, which they'd taken several years to develop. Or why they didn't just leave things the way they were in 1952, and left the Advanced open to new issues. Nobody I have talked to, nor any reference I have read, gives any reason for that Great Giveaway. And most of the hams licensed after 1952 that I have encountered have no idea of that piece of history. When I first got interested in getting a ham license I bought the ARRL License Manual for fifty cents. I clearly remember opening it up and seeing the chart of license classes and privileges. I thought that it was incredibly odd that there were six license classes, but four of them (General, Conditional, Advanced and Extra) all carried exactly the same operating privileges. What was up with that? I thought then (and still do) that it made no sense at all. Generals now have at least as much 'phone space as they had in 1968, I could have just kept my old General (or even Tech) license. That's all I really need these days for CW ragchewing. The circle is complete. I remember in the 1960s thinking that the incentive license idea was good but the application was bad. I thought what should have been done was to increase the privileges of Advanceds and Extras rather than taking anything away. For example, in those days on 80/75 the Novice subband was 3700 to 3750 and the 'phone subband was 3800 to 4000. 3750 to 3800 was where the foreign 'phone stations hung out to get away from US QRM. Why not make 3750 to 3800 a phone band for Extras only? And make 3775 to 3800 a phone band for Extras and Advanceds? Similar things could be done to other bands. Another incentive would be increased power. The old rule was 1000 watts input; I thought a lot of hams would have upgraded if Extras were allowed, say, 2500 watts input. Sure it's only a couple of dB but that never stopped anybody. I also thought that optional distinctive callsigns for various license classes would be a good incentive too. (That one actually happened, but it was many years later). and we're effectively down to three license classes (almost). I predict it will be only one license eventually. Maybe, but it will take a very long time. In seven years we've lost only about 1/3 of the Advanceds. And the FCC doesn't seem inclined to give automatic upgrades nor to merge license classes except by renewal. I've come across Advanceds who say they like their license because it supposedly proves they passed 13 wpm code. But in fact it doesn't, because from 1990 to 2000 one could get any class of license with 5 wpm and a medical waiver. The first license class to disappear completely will be the Tech Plus, because FCC has been renewing them as Technician since April 2000. In another 19 months the last Tech Plus should disappear. The Novice license totals are now well under 20,000 (from 50,000 in 2000) and is also dwindling. Who will be the very last Novice? The very last Advanced? How long will it take for those license classes to disappear? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
AJ Lake wrote:
Was there much moaning over there over the loss of the code test? Some of the "old timers" complained, but most accepted it. In any of your license changes have practicing hams ever lost frequency privileges they had previously earned? There are occasional changes, but they are mostly in our favour (like when we got 50 and 70 MHz bands, previously used for VHF TV). Bob |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
|
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 18, 7:30�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote: Had there not been a treaty requirement, FCC might have not had a Morse test for Tech from the beginning. The treaty applied to 30MHz and below. No, it applied to 1000 MHz and below, back when the Technician was created. Originally the treaty required Morse Code testing for all amateurs. Then in the late 1940s (1947 Atlantic City conference, IIRC), additional wording was added that removed the requirement for licenses that only allowed operation above 1000 MHz. Over time that 1000 MHz limit was lowered, until it finally reached 30 MHz. And then in 2003 the whole code test thing was made optional. Techs couldn't go there. The treaty wouldn't apply to them. The treaty in effect in 1951 applied to them. A lot of VHF/UHF experimenting in those days did use Morse Code Techs only had 220 and up. Why require a 5 WPM test for moon bounce?? What mode would a 1950s or 1960s ham use for moonbounce? Aurora? Meteor or tropo scatter? Satellite comms? and still does today. EME (moonbounce), meteor scatter, aurora, troposcatter and other "weak signal" work was almost all CW. If Techs do all that CW work today *without* a code test, what justification is there for requiring the code test back then? 1) The treaty 2) Those modes were new back then. The big question is, how many Techs actually did that stuff? Was it [incentive licensing] really a screw up? I think the real mistake was back in 1952. My old boss used to moan bitterly about the 52 license change when I worked for him in the 50s. He had been a Class A. And he still was, only they called it Advanced and it made no difference in privileges. But the difference is that in that change he *didn't lose* any privileges. Instead, a lot of hams got them for free. He did lose privileges with the later Incentive Licensing change though. Which change do you think he felt worse about? Sounds like a sense of entitlement to me. You can just imagine the reaction from hams who'd worked hard to get their Advanceds or Extras, then suddenly found the HF 'phone bands flooded with Generals and Conditionals who had the same privileges. Probably like having the HF frequencies flooded by no-coders... 8-O No, much worse. The FCC has been reducing license requirements for almost 30 years, so the final dropping of the code test should have been no surprise for anyone. In fact I am still amazed that it took FCC 3-1/2 years to do it after the treaty changed. I figured six months, tops. But in the late 1940s the FCC went through a long process of developing a new license structure that was a lot more complex than the old ABC system. And when they rolled it out, one of the big features was that the all-privileges license would be harder to get. Then at the last minute they tossed away most of the idea and went in a completely different direction. Another incentive would be increased power. If I were made boss, the maximum power allowed for any class would be 100W. And if used as an incentive, start at say 25 W for the entry license. How's anybody gonna work EME with that? Just think of the reduction in neighbor complaints. Just think of the increase in operator skill... But to do it you'd have to take privileges away from almost every ham. Worse, they could not get those privileges back. You'd also make a lot of expensive gear practically worthless. Who will be the very last Novice? The very last Advanced? How long will it take for those license classes to disappear? They will likely disappear when they change to one license... (Like the Class A disappeared.) But the Class A didn't disappear. In the 1951 restructuring, it was renamed "Advanced", and survives to this day. When it was first closed to new issues at the end of 1952, FCC still kept it on the books. That made a big difference in 1968 and 1969 when the IL changes happened, because Advanceds had a lot more 'phone space than Generals after those changes. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
|
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
|
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 19, 2:03*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote: AJ Lake *wrote: The treaty applied to 30MHz and below. No, it applied to 1000 MHz and below back when the Technician was created Do you have the sources? Look up the results of the various World Radio Conferences down through the years. A good starting place would be the 1947 Atlantic City conference. The QST archives are useful if you're a member of ARRL. I couldn't find anything but 30MHz. You need to look further back than the 1980s. But I'll stand corrected since you're certainly the undisputed historian here. Works for me! What mode would a 1950s or 1960s ham use for moonbounce? Aurora? Meteor or tropo scatter? Satellite comms? CW was the best weak signal mode in those days. Your point? That if a license is supposed to be about experimenting, and Morse Code/CW is the best mode to use for much of that experimenting, it made sense to require a basic Morse Code test for that license. You can just imagine the reaction from hams who'd worked hard to get their Advanceds or Extras, then suddenly found the HF 'phone bands flooded with Generals and Conditionals who had the same privileges.. Probably like having the HF frequencies flooded by no-coders... 8-O No, much worse. Ouch. I guess you don't like no-coders on your HF bands. Actually I don't think the 5 wpm Morse Code test was too much to ask. But that's ancient history now. What I was saying was that the Class A/Advanceds, and the Extras, of 1952 had been led to believe that the investment they had made in earning those licenses would continue to be paid off by having more privileges. All the FCC actions up to that time indicated it. But at the last minute the FCC did the opposite. If I were made boss, the maximum power allowed for any class would be 100W. How's anybody gonna work EME with that? EME is possible with a 100 watts. But CW ain't up to it. It takes digital signal processing... Actually that's not true. Hams have done EME on microwave frequencies with less than 100 watts and CW. But it takes a high gain antenna. But the Class A didn't disappear. In the 1951 restructuring, it was renamed "Advanced", In a prior post you said the Tech+ will "disappear" because it will be renewed (and thus renamed) a Tech. That's right. It's been happening since April 2000. Now you say the Class A *didn't disappear* when it was renamed as the Advanced. Can't have it both ways... There's a difference between a class disappearing and being renamed. When the last Tech Plus either expires or is renewed as a Tech, the Tech Plus class will have disappeared, having been merged with the Tech. Just like what happened to the Conditional class back in the late 1970s. But the Class A/Advanced folks were and continue to be kept as a separate license class. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
N2EY wrote:
AJ Lake wrote: Do you have the [treaty] sources? Look up the results of the various World Radio Conferences down through the years. A good starting place would be the 1947 Atlantic City conference. So you don't have a source. Maybe I gave in too quickly... 8-O The QST archives are useful if you're a member of ARRL. I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days. You need to look further back than the 1980s. I tried hard to find a source to prove me right, but no luck. That's why I wanted to see your source that proved me wrong. That if a license is supposed to be about experimenting, and Morse Code/CW is the best mode to use for much of that experimenting, it made sense to require a basic Morse Code test for that license. Wouldn't it be better to give a solder test to an experimenter? Actually I don't think the 5 wpm Morse Code test was too much to ask. But that's ancient history now. Is that the old 'weeder' reason or the old 'I had to do it' reason? EME is possible with a 100 watts. But CW ain't up to it. It takes digital signal processing... Actually that's not true. Hams have done EME on microwave frequencies with less than 100 watts and CW. But it takes a high gain antenna With digital processing it can be done with a Yagi. You think we ought to add a separate digital processing test to the Tech? |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 19, 7:16�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
N2EY wrote: AJ Lake wrote: Do you have the [treaty] sources? Look up the results of the various World Radio Conferences down through the years. A good starting place would be the 1947 Atlantic City conference. So you don't have a source. No, I do have a source. Here are the facts: Amateur radio was first officially recognized as a separate radio service at the Paris radio conference of 1927. As part of the regulations/treaty, all amateurs had to be Morse Code tested. At the Atlantic City radio conference of 1947, the Morse Code test requirement was modified so that a Morse Code test was not required for amateur licenses that only allowed operation above 1000 MHz. This rule was in effect when the Technician Class license was created by FCC in 1951. There's an article explaining all this in QST for October, 1947. At the Geneva radio conference of 1959, the requirement was modified so that a Morse Code test was not required for amateur licenses that only allowed operation above 144 MHz. This is explained in a QST article in the issue for March, 1960. At the radio conference of 1979, commonly called "WARC-79", which resulted in the 30, 17 and 12 meter bands, the requirement was modified so that a Morse Code test was not required for amateur licenses that only allowed operation above 30 MHz. This is explained in a QST article in the issue for February, 1980. So the USA could not have created the Technician license in 1951 without a code test unless that license had not allowed any operation below 1000 MHz. The QST archives are useful if you're a member of ARRL. I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days. When were these "dark days"? You need to look further back than the 1980s. I tried hard to find a source to prove me right, but no luck. That's why I wanted to see your source that proved me wrong. It's not about "luck", it's about knowing the history. That if a license is supposed to be about experimenting, and Morse Code/CW is the best mode to use for much of that experimenting, it made sense to require a basic Morse Code test for that license. Wouldn't it be better to give a solder test to an experimenter? No. The license is for operating, not building. Anyone can build whatever equipment they want with no license at all, but to put it on the air legally requires a license. Actually I don't think the 5 wpm Morse Code test was too much to ask. But that's ancient history now. Is that the old 'weeder' reason or the old 'I had to do it' reason? Neither. It's the "reasonable requirement to know what you are doing" reason. The basic argument against the code test comes down to this: Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it? Those who want to use it will learn it on their own, and those who don't will learn it and not use it. That same argument can applied to almost anything in the written tests, though. For example: Why should anyone have to learn about VHF/UHF if they only intend to use HF? Why should anyone have to learn about solid-state if they only intend to use tubes? Why should anyone have to learn about FM, SSTV, RTTY, etc., if they only intend to use CW, AM or SSB? Why should anyone have to learn about theory if they only intend to use manufactured gear? Why should anyone have to learn about RF exposure safety if they only intend to use low power? Etc. What happens is that the argument, taken to its logical conclusion, says there should be no real test at all. FCC tried having a radio service with no test - it didn't work out too well. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
|
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
The basic argument against the code test comes down to this: Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it? Gee, if you don't plan on using the ham license, why bother taking a test? An old Tech class Elmer that first taught me the code, told me you need it so you will know what repeater you are talking on. I find Morse code useful but I can see how someone who doesn't know it might not find any use for it. Even I can't tell you what it's good for if you don't plan on using it. DUH. I still have some Vinyl records and even a couple of 45s still. I like some Classical music too even though the people that wrote it are dead, I guess that makes it obsolete. So what's with these Heavy Metal bands where they are still using a Tube guitar amp and half of those guys have one foot in the grave anyway. Even the newest bands are old guys in their 30s with 15-20 year olds freaking all around them. Except for the Girl bands all but doing strip shows. That's kind of entertaining, but everytime they open their mouths, bubble gum and bullsqueek comes out. But then you have all these teen girls who idolize them and dress like strippers and everyone wonders why their teen daughters have all gone astray, but NOOO, they tell us we're OLD and don't know what were talking about because all their girlfriends are pregnant and had 15 abortions when they were 15, so why can't they have fun too. Just because they say the 50 yo migrant worker is cute and says he loves her, why can't she have him for a sleepover. ARGGGGHHE... but I digress. What is it with these NEWBIES telling us - We who know better - That Morse Code is useless. I'll tell you one thing, E-mail isn't even faster than Morse Code. In fact they should do away with E-mail because it's slower than Morse Code. The fact that someone actually marketed a Blackberry smaller than a full size keyboard must have been tasked to find out how many idiots there are trying to push their lives through a microscopic keyboard when a Straight key you don't even have to look at to find the alphabet. Shouldn't cell phones have made them all obsolete? Come to think of it, these computers should be obsolete too because they are so much slower than cell phones. Or maybe because you can't even talk to people on the phone anymore because they are stuck sifting through their SPAM lists. Just a few Wild-A** thoughts. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
"JB" wrote:
I still have some Vinyl records and even a couple of 45s still. Hopefully you still have the antique/obsolete equipment to play them. I like some Classical music too even though the people that wrote it are dead, I guess that makes it obsolete. Classical music isn't obsolete. But the technology used to store it can be obsolete (such as wire spool recording) or modern (such as computer mp3 files). So what's with these Heavy Metal bands where they are still using a Tube guitar amp... *Tube* guitar amps are supposed to sound better. Hard for me to tell with all that intentional distortion they introduce into the music. My old *tube* receivers still work fine even though they're antiques (and quite obsolete). But in serious QRM/QRN I have to switch to my modern rig with the receiver digital processing if I want to complete the QSO. We who know better - That Morse Code is useless. CW is *not* useless. It's fun. It's all I ever use these days. Unfortunately the phone bands are often R rated so I left there years ago. CW is still a gentlemans band and great place to enjoy the CW *hobby*... |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
AJ Lake wrote:
So what's with these Heavy Metal bands where they are still using a Tube guitar amp... *Tube* guitar amps are supposed to sound better. They generally do. They introduce concordant (even order) harmonic distortion, so are nicer to listen to. My old *tube* receivers still work fine even though they're antiques (and quite obsolete). But in serious QRM/QRN I have to switch to my modern rig with the receiver digital processing if I want to complete the QSO. My valve (tube - U.S.) receivers far out-perform /any/ semiconductor receiver. I don't need any digital processing at all. We who know better - That Morse Code is useless. CW is *not* useless. It's fun. I can "work the world" on tiny power using CW, whereas I'd have to use stupid amounts of power to get similar results with SSB. Also, the people you meet on CW tend to be much more friendly! C. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
Bob wrote:
My valve (tube - U.S.) receivers far out-perform /any/ semiconductor receiver. Your tube receivers outperform *any* semiconductor (solid state - U.S.) receiver? I guess that would mean in all ways. That's a big claim. What receivers might those be? I don't need any digital processing at all. Ah, I'm getting the picture now. You are firmly rooted in the past. Not unusual with old timers. The problem often is that we think everyone else should be the same. That's why it took so long to kill the code test. I can "work the world" on tiny power using CW, whereas I'd have to use stupid amounts of power to get similar results with SSB. Less power needed is an advantage of CW. Also less antenna needed. I run 50 watts to a random wire 8' high (HOA stealth antenna) with quite satisfactory results. It's not a DX antenna, though I do snag one every now and then. CW ragchewing's my game, and I seldom fail to complete a QSO. Also, the people you meet on CW tend to be much more friendly! Yes CW is a gentlemans band. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
AJ Lake wrote:
Bob wrote: My valve (tube - U.S.) receivers far out-perform /any/ semiconductor receiver. Your tube receivers outperform *any* semiconductor (solid state - U.S.) receiver? I guess that would mean in all ways. That's a big claim. What receivers might those be? Yes. In every way. Intermodulation, noise floor, selectivity, ultimate sensitivity, every parameter you can think of! The receivers were very carefully designed and constructed by me, (though taking advice from some of the "classic" designs), and have been widely tested against some really serious, exotic receivers! I don't need any digital processing at all. Ah, I'm getting the picture now. You are firmly rooted in the past. Not at all. I'm a professional electronics designer, and use the very latest technology when applicable. I haven't seen /any/ digital processor that assists me in actually picking signals out of QRM. I'd rather use tight filtering (RF, IF and AF), and synchronous demodulation when needed. The real trick is a receiver with extreme selectivity (not the bogus pseudo-selectivity given by digital filters with all their nasty artifacts) and a really low noise floor. Not unusual with old timers. The problem often is that we think everyone else should be the same. That's why it took so long to kill the code test. Absolutely not - I'm happy for you if you're happy with your digital Rice Box - I'd rather use something *I* made and get results that often astonish my friends and colleagues. I can "work the world" on tiny power using CW, whereas I'd have to use stupid amounts of power to get similar results with SSB. Less power needed is an advantage of CW. Also less antenna needed. I run 50 watts to a random wire 8' high (HOA stealth antenna) with quite satisfactory results. I have a loop over my garden (backyard - U.S.), which is (just) resonant on 7 Mhz and has a reasonable match on other bands. It's basically two long wires above each other, connected by a vertical section at the far end and with a transformer coupling at the house end (the transformer is 6 metres of UR 67, and the horizontal sections are about 9 metres long). It's not the world's greatest antenna, but works surprisingly well for its small size. It's not a DX antenna, though I do snag one every now and then. Me too! CW ragchewing's my game, and I seldom fail to complete a QSO. My latest game has been working on a /really/ simple and cheap frequency synthesiser and SSB generator that's not too critical in component values and easy to align. It's entirely digital! Also, the people you meet on CW tend to be much more friendly! Yes CW is a gentlemans band. Certainly is! Bob |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
Also - I seldom run more than 10 Watts on any band (unless conditions are
really bad) and I seldom fail to complete a QSO! Bob |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
CW is *not* useless. It's fun. It's all I ever use these days.
Unfortunately the phone bands are often R rated so I left there years ago. CW is still a gentlemans band and great place to enjoy the CW *hobby*... Which completely proves the point that resistance is not futile. That having the patience to learn a skill will in fact tend to protect a valuable resource from degradation by being flooded with impulsive personalities. The mentality that wants the FCC rules changed so that they can play music, false signals, profanity, deliberately interfere and act out in public, can't really petition for that, but they can petition to make it easier to have that capability and let nature take it's course. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
Bob wrote:
have been widely tested against some really serious, exotic receivers! If you only tested your tube receiver against *some* receivers then your claim about outperforming *all* SS receivers would be invalid. 'Absolute' statements will get you in trouble most of the time. I haven't seen /any/ digital processor that assists me in actually picking signals out of QRM. *You* not having seen any doesn't mean there aren't any. pseudo-selectivity given by digital filters with all their nasty artifacts) Selectivity is not usually my problem. With close neighbors and a low wire antenna, it's man made noise that is my problem. Digital does well with this. I'm happy for you if you're happy with your digital Rice Box Yes we have hams here that are also 'Rice Box' prejudiced. Prejudice for everything produced in Asia is silly these days. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
"JB" wrote:
having the patience to learn a skill will in fact tend to protect a valuable resource from degradation by being flooded with impulsive personalities. The old having to learn the code will keep the whacko's out just doesn't stand up. The biggest offenders on the SSB 75M mess are code tested Extras... |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
AJ Lake wrote:
If you only tested your tube receiver against *some* receivers then your claim about outperforming *all* SS receivers would be invalid. I've tried them against the *very* *best* receivers available today, and they win in /every/ respect. They're actually hybrid receivers - I happily use semiconductors where they're more appropriate (like in synchronous demodulators, audio filters, audio amplifiers, local oscillators and so on), but the really crucial parts - the RF amplifier, first mixer, IF amplifiers and product detectors all use bottles. There's one crucial parameter that's carefully omitted by most manufacturers, which is the behaviour of their receivers in the presence of strong adjacent frequency interference. The intermodulation, de-sensing and other disasters inherent with semiconductor designs mean that I'll get better results /every/ time. I've designed /commercial/ solid-state receivers, and there's just *no* *way* to get results as good as can still be obtained from valves in crucial parts of them! I haven't seen /any/ digital processor that assists me in actually picking signals out of QRM. *You* not having seen any doesn't mean there aren't any. I've tried most of the stuff on the market, and /none/ of it can really enhance a truly good receiver. They /might/ compensate for the obvious shortcomings of some of the more average receivers! pseudo-selectivity given by digital filters with all their nasty artifacts) Selectivity is not usually my problem. With close neighbors and a low wire antenna, it's man made noise that is my problem. Digital does well with this. I'm in the happy situation that I don't suffer from too much of that, despite living in a city (London). There are some really effective noise-cancelling methods that have been published over the years - one approach I used successfully in my old QTH was the counterpoise method that was published years ago in RADCOM. I'm happy for you if you're happy with your digital Rice Box Yes we have hams here that are also 'Rice Box' prejudiced. I'm not prejudiced at all - as soon as Far East Asia produces something even half as good as I can build, I'll save time and effort and buy them! In the interim, I'll continue with what I consider to be the real essence of our hobby, and build the gear myself! Prejudice for everything produced in Asia is silly these days. Not at all - they /still/ can't make a good mobile phone! 8-) Bob |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
having the patience to learn a skill will in fact tend to protect a
valuable resource from degradation by being flooded with impulsive personalities. The old having to learn the code will keep the whacko's out just doesn't stand up. The biggest offenders on the SSB 75M mess are code tested Extras... Sure it does. You can't keep all the nuts out but you could make a big dent in the problem. The fact that so many nuts were whining and crying to be let in was proof of that. Some figured ways around the system. A VE team around here got busted selling licenses. Took their licenses away and called everyone in to retest elsewhere or lose their license too. Most of them got booted out. Yay! Some of the nuts just blew a head gasket and learned from the other monkeys. Monkey see monkey do. Birds of a feather flock together. I suppose you think the fact that the nonsense is worse now is just society imploding It would probably be even worse but I suspect the only thing in the way of complete animal regression was Riley and the Ham Call Sign. If everybody quit using callsigns though there would be a bloodbath. They have the technology now to get a fix within a few seconds. If there were ever a push it would be an easy roundup. When they got tired of that they would just outlaw ham radio entirely. Up till now they have only made a real effort when vital services are jeopardized. They don't really consider ham radio a vital service anymore because ham radio is losing credibility. Maybe you can think of some test or hoop besides CW to discourage the people that act out like morons because they lack self-control. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
"Bob" wrote in message ... AJ Lake wrote: If you only tested your tube receiver against *some* receivers then your claim about outperforming *all* SS receivers would be invalid. I've tried them against the *very* *best* receivers available today, and they win in /every/ respect. They're actually hybrid receivers - I happily use semiconductors where they're more appropriate (like in synchronous demodulators, audio filters, audio amplifiers, local oscillators and so on), but the really crucial parts - the RF amplifier, first mixer, IF amplifiers and product detectors all use bottles. There's one crucial parameter that's carefully omitted by most manufacturers, which is the behaviour of their receivers in the presence of strong adjacent frequency interference. The intermodulation, de-sensing and other disasters inherent with semiconductor designs mean that I'll get better results /every/ time. I've designed /commercial/ solid-state receivers, and there's just *no* *way* to get results as good as can still be obtained from valves in crucial parts of them! I haven't seen /any/ digital processor that assists me in actually picking signals out of QRM. *You* not having seen any doesn't mean there aren't any. I've tried most of the stuff on the market, and /none/ of it can really enhance a truly good receiver. They /might/ compensate for the obvious shortcomings of some of the more average receivers! pseudo-selectivity given by digital filters with all their nasty artifacts) Selectivity is not usually my problem. With close neighbors and a low wire antenna, it's man made noise that is my problem. Digital does well with this. I'm in the happy situation that I don't suffer from too much of that, despite living in a city (London). There are some really effective noise-cancelling methods that have been published over the years - one approach I used successfully in my old QTH was the counterpoise method that was published years ago in RADCOM. I'm happy for you if you're happy with your digital Rice Box Yes we have hams here that are also 'Rice Box' prejudiced. I'm not prejudiced at all - as soon as Far East Asia produces something even half as good as I can build, I'll save time and effort and buy them! In the interim, I'll continue with what I consider to be the real essence of our hobby, and build the gear myself! Prejudice for everything produced in Asia is silly these days. Not at all - they /still/ can't make a good mobile phone! 8-) Bob The biggest issue is manufacturing costs. DSP can do a few neat tricks, but most of those were doable with analog circuits. DSP also adds to the noise floor. What they are really doing is saving money on quality physical components like filtering. I had my TS2000 right next to my TS830 and the 830 sounded so much better I almost took the 2000 back. There seemed to be some high frequency noise that I really couldn't hear but I could sense it and it gave me a headache after a while. It actually FELT noisy. It wasn't until I hooked it up to my SP230 that I honestly couldn't tell the difference in the audio and performance of the 830 and all was well. BUT the TS830 had better adjacent frequency performance because of the 8 pole crystal filters. I would still have that radio but I had to move and made the choice for general coverage. I still have a TS130, and I use that at Field day to swap out those new high dollar big shot radios that can't hack the signal overload. It seems the TS130 uses Bandpass filters in the front end, injection and exciter stages in addition to the 8 pole crystal filters. There are RF tubes that can do up to 10 meters with plenty of gain and much better overload capabilities than what's out there now. It might cost a fortune to use that quality of filtering in a general coverage receiver, but you COULD build a really first class hybrid that blows away what's out there. |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
Bob wrote:
I've designed /commercial/ solid-state receivers, and there's just *no* *way* to get results as good as can still be obtained from valves in crucial parts of them! The rest of the transceiver industry (other than you) apparently thinks tube embedded HF transceivers are quite obsolete for a wide variety of reasons. Else they would be manufacturing and selling them. Even ham magazines print mostly solid state articles using modern solid state parts, which is right since hams should learn to use modern technology. When they do print a tube article it's usually described as nostalgia. I'm not prejudiced at all - You used the term "Rice Box" to describe your dislike of a whole range of several hundred ham tranceivers. Different manufacturers. Different models. Pure prejudice. Logically you should judge equipment on its individual merits, not by the race of the people who made it. I'll continue with what I consider to be the real essence of our hobby, and build the gear myself! Building is but *one* facet of the hobby. Professional engineer hams capable of designing and building transceivers are a but very very tiny part of the hobby... Not at all - they [Asians] /still/ can't make a good mobile phone! 8-) As I said prejudiced... |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
"JB" wrote:
You can't keep all the nuts out but you could make a big dent in the problem [with a cose test]. This is an old argument. It is the 'weeder' argument. A code test will weed out all the bad apples. It hasn't worked in the 50+ years I've been a ham. There have always been ham whackos. In the 60's I listened to a daily net called WCARS (West Coast Amateur Radio Service- called Westcars) on 40M SSB in CA. They suffered daily harassment, carriers, unidentified obscenities ect. 75 meters SSB was bad then also. The IDed offenders were all code tested hams, likely the unidentified nuts also. A VE team around here got busted selling licenses. There has always been some cheating on tests. In the 50's you could get a Tech license by mail. Your buddy ham could give you the code test and any adult could proctor your exam. I don't have to tell you there were some no-code open-book Techs licensed. And I think Bash came out in the 70's. That's where they were stealing the FCC exam questions and answers and publishing them in a book. (Questions-answers are SOP now but not then. Maybe you can think of some test or hoop besides CW to discourage the people that act out like morons because they lack self-control. Sure. A psychology test... |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
AJ Lake wrote:
The rest of the transceiver industry (other than you) apparently thinks tube embedded HF transceivers are quite obsolete for a wide variety of reasons. Else they would be manufacturing and selling them. Even ham magazines print mostly solid state articles using modern solid state parts, which is right since hams should learn to use modern technology. When they do print a tube article it's usually described as nostalgia. Except the Russians. They were still using tube gear in their military back in the mid 80s. Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic pulse) from a nuke going off. They may STILL be using tubes...I'm out of the loop since leaving the military in the late 80s... Probably one reason there aren't more tube projects in QST, etc. is that nobody is left who wants to learn an "obsolete" technology and the old timers aren't going to bother writing about them because all they would hear is bitching about how someone wrote an article on old technology and wasted the pages in QST, etc. Just a guess. Scott N0EDV |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
JB wrote:
There are RF tubes that can do up to 10 meters with plenty of gain and much better overload capabilities than what's out there now. It might cost a fortune to use that quality of filtering in a general coverage receiver, but you COULD build a really first class hybrid that blows away what's out there. I did, and it didn't "cost a fortune". I got the crystal filters at a Rally, I had many of the other components in the junk boxes, and I just had to buy a few valves and some coil formers. I built the cases myself, and the internal module boxes are just soldered up PCB material. I found the reduction drive in a junked HRO, and bought the tuning capacitors very cheaply. Frequency indication and relative signal strength are shown on an LCD display. Bob |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
AJ Lake wrote:
Bob wrote: I've designed /commercial/ solid-state receivers, and there's just *no* *way* to get results as good as can still be obtained from valves in crucial parts of them! The rest of the transceiver industry (other than you) apparently thinks tube embedded HF transceivers are quite obsolete for a wide variety of reasons. Else they would be manufacturing and selling them. They still do, in /professional/ receivers, though it's becoming rare due to the component cost. I also find that it's much easier and cheaper to go QRO with valves than it is with semiconductors. TV sweep tubes powered many of my HF amplifiers over the years! Even ham magazines print mostly solid state articles using modern solid state parts, which is right since hams should learn to use modern technology. When they do print a tube article it's usually described as nostalgia. Most of them are scared that they'll get sued when some know-nothing-numpty gets bitten by the HT! I use semiconductors where they're appropriate and use valves when they are the best way to get the results I want. I really don't care about your perception of nostalgic engineering - I get better results with my hybrids than are /possible/ with semiconductors alone. I'm not prejudiced at all - You used the term "Rice Box" to describe your dislike of a whole range of several hundred ham transceivers. Different manufacturers. Different models. Pure prejudice. Logically you should judge equipment on its individual merits, not by the race of the people who made it. Believe me, I've tried most of them, and some are actually quite good. However, they simply don't match up to the performance of the receivers I have here - I've got my own hybrids, a Plessey PR 155 (probably the best of its genre), a couple of Eddystone boxes and a couple of "Sailor" marine rigs. There's /nothing/ that's come from Asia that can match /any/ of them! I'll continue with what I consider to be the real essence of our hobby, and build the gear myself! Building is but *one* facet of the hobby. Professional engineer hams capable of designing and building transceivers are a but very very tiny part of the hobby... Not over here! Many Hams here are disappointed with the high-priced junk that comes from Asia, and find that it's very satisfying to build and operate proper home made gear. 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! Not at all - they [Asians] /still/ can't make a good mobile phone! 8-) As I said prejudiced... Oh dear. Perhaps you can't understand what's been said: The Asians are great at making stuff smaller and cheaper (I used to design for Panasonic), but they're *not* innovators, and everything's made _down_ to a price rather than _up_ to a specification. I find that attitude to be frustrating, and many companies I work for have abandoned that paradigm, and want to produce the best equipment, whatever the cost. That's why Nokia and Motorola make the best mobile phones, and Sony had to buy Ericcson in an effort to play catch-up! There's no actual prejudice involved at all, just a simple statement of facts! Bob |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 22, 8:32�pm, Scott wrote:
AJ Lake wrote: The rest of the transceiver industry (other than you) apparently thinks tube embedded HF transceivers are quite obsolete for a wide variety of reasons. Else they would be manufacturing and selling them. 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. Getting tubes and tube-type parts made in the quantities needed would be more expensive than using solid-state. Manufacturers can't use parts found at hamfests/rallys/on eBay, and gearing up to have stuff made custom is expensive and chancy. The complexity of the rig in ways such as needing both high and low voltage supplies adds to the cost, too. The second reason is size. The third and most important reason is that tubes have become electro- politically incorrect. Admitting that an old technology can do something - anything - better than a new one just rubs people the wrong way. Putting a 7360 in the front end of a "modern" transceiver would be an admission that there has been a better solution around for decades, and a lot of folks don't want to admit that. As a case in point, look at the Elecraft K2. When it was introduced back in 1999, it blew away much more expensive rigs in many performance criteria. Yet its hardware design is much simpler than almost anything else on the market that comes close to its performance. Worse, it turns the usual marketing ideas upside down in that the basic rig is QRP and CW only *kit*, with 100W, SSB and many other features as add-on options. The conventional wisdom of 1999 said there was no market for such a rig. But with almost no advertising over 6000 have been sold. And the product line has grown in several directions since 1999, including the K3, which has sold over 1500 units. Even ham magazines print mostly solid state articles using modern solid state parts, How many complete multiband multimode transceiver projects have you seen in US ham magazines in the past 10 or 20 years? which is right since hams should learn to use modern technology. But who decides what is "modern"? Is SSB "modern"? It was first used on the air in the 1920s, first used by hams in the early 1930s, and has been commonly used by hams for 60- odd years. Almost no other service uses SSB anymore. Is AM "modern"? It was first used on the air in 1900, and by 1906 was being heard across the Atlantic. It was common by the 1920s. How about FM? It's only a couple decades newer than AM. Repeaters were in common use in the land mobile services in the 1950s. RTTY dates back to WW2, and although the mechanical teleprinters have been replaced by computers the coding and FSK methods used are basically unchanged for half a century plus. Most of the technologies we hams use have long been abandoned by other services, or are simply kept alive because of the large installed base of users - which is slowly dwindling. When they do print a tube article it's usually described as nostalgia. You mean history. Except the Russians. �They were still using tube gear in their military back in the mid 80s. �Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic pulse) from a nuke going off. �They may STILL be using tubes...I'm out of the loop since leaving the military in the late 80s... EMP was one reason, but there were others. A big one was that they had the industrial capacity to make high quality tubes in huge numbers, but not semiconductors, so the solid-state was reserved for where nothing else would work. Probably one reason there aren't more tube projects in QST, etc. is that nobody is left who wants to learn an "obsolete" technology and the old timers aren't going to bother writing about them because all they would hear is bitching about how someone wrote an article on old technology and wasted the pages in QST, etc. �Just a guess. Not exactly. QST is a general-purpose magazine; the technical stuff largely goes to QEX., which was created just for that purpose because the QST staff got and keeps getting complaints that QST is "too technical" (!). Way back in 1989 a magazine called "Electric Radio" appeared, and is still going strong. It's a small mag that specializes in hollow-state gear, but there's plenty of interest and homebrewing going on. Most of all, the internet has made it possible to put far more info out there than could fit in a magazine, without the cost and bother of printing and postage. Even I have a webpage (google my call) with a picture and description of my shack and rig. The resources out there are incredible; the main problem is getting through it all! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
On Sep 22, 8:24�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
"JB" wrote: You can't keep all the nuts out but you could make a big dent in the problem [with a cose test]. This is an old argument. It is the 'weeder' argument. And it has some validity. A code test will weed out all the bad apples. No test will weed out all the bad apples. Particularly not a test that is given one time only and then is good for life. 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". That doesn't mean the testing should be eliminated since it doesn't do a perfect job! It hasn't worked in the 50+ years I've been a ham. There have always been ham whackos. Of course. No test or screening method is perfect. But it is human nature that people will value something more if they have a personal investment in it. In the 60's I listened to a daily net called WCARS (West Coast Amateur Radio Service- called Westcars) on 40M SSB in CA. They suffered daily harassment, carriers, unidentified obscenities ect. 75 meters SSB was bad then also. But was it as bad as in, say, the 1990s? As bad as the W6NUT repeater, say? The IDed offenders were all code tested hams, likely the unidentified nuts also. But you don't know for sure about the unidentified ones. Plus in those days all US hams were allegedly code tested. 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! A VE team around here got busted selling licenses. There has always been some cheating on tests. In the 50's you could get a Tech license by mail. Your buddy ham could give you the code test and any adult could proctor your exam. 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. I don't have to tell you there were some no-code open-book Techs licensed. More importantly, there was the Conditional license until the mid-1970s. The Conditional was a by-mail version of the General, if you lived far enough away from an FCC exam point. From ~1954 to ~1964 the distance was only 75 miles, and there were a *lot* of Conditionals licensed. One "trick" I heard of, but was never able to verify, was that a would- be ham would give the address of a vacation home, friend or relative in the "Conditional zone" in order to get a Conditional license. Then, after some time passed, the ham would "move" to his/her actual address. One of the big reasons for all the screaming about "incentive licensing" was that in order to upgrade, Conditionals would have to take tests at FCC offices in front of FCC examiners. And I think Bash came out in the 70's. That's where they were stealing the FCC exam questions and answers and publishing them in a book. (Questions-answers are SOP now but not then. Yes, the infamous Bash books appeared in the 1970s. What Bash did was to ask people leaving the exam sessions to recall whatever they could about the questions. He may have even sent folks to exam sessions simply to memorize what they could of the exams. He allegedly paid $1 per question reported. Over time he collected enough bits and pieces to reconstruct the entire exam set. In doing so, Bash revealed the big secret of the FCC exams: There were only a few different versions of the various tests! That was why there was a 30-day wait to retest. Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute Bash, but the FCC leadership overruled them. 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. Maybe you can think of some test or hoop besides CW to discourage the people that act out like morons because they lack self-control. Sure. A psychology test... It should be remembered that one of the factors which drove "incentive licensing" and other testing initiatives was the cb experience. FCC never imagined that huge numbers of people would simply ignore the rules, but within a few years of its creation, 11 meter CB was simply out of FCC's control. Breaking the rules became much more common than keeping them, and to this day FCC has not gotten the upper hand. Now, why were hams so well-behaved compared to cbers, even when FCC spent far less resources to enforce the rules on the ham bands? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com