Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In . net, "Jim Pennell"
wrote: ----- Original Message ----- "Frank Gilliland" Wrotee: Is this band still allocated for low power experimental use without a license? Yep, limited to 1 watt power input to the final, and the total antenna/ground system is limited to 50 feet. Yes, the Transmit is limited to that power and antenna. However, the Rx is not and I'd use a fairly large antenna or tuned antenna loop with a FET follower at these frequencies. For the rest of the Rx, a converter is a good way to go and the FET will give a low enough output impedance for a regular mixer of some sort. Jim Pennell N6BIU I've played around on this band for a few year now, and I've noticed a few things. It doesn't seem to matter what receiver you use because the noise on the band is almost always much higher than the receiver's front-end noise. Increase the receiver's sensitivity and you increase the noise. Instead, work on the receiver's selectivity. Or send the audio output from the receiver into your computer's sound card and use one of those great FFT programs designed for weak-signal work. Do that and you can see signals well below the noise floor. As far as antennas are concerned, loops are popular but there are plenty of other options. Remember that the band is for experimentation, and part of the fun comes from experimenting with different antennas. But even with all the noise on the band, you can still work 20+ miles CW with nothing more than a wire in the tree and any old receiver that will tune the band. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In . net, "Jim Pennell"
wrote: ----- Original Message ----- "Frank Gilliland" Wrotee: Is this band still allocated for low power experimental use without a license? Yep, limited to 1 watt power input to the final, and the total antenna/ground system is limited to 50 feet. Yes, the Transmit is limited to that power and antenna. However, the Rx is not and I'd use a fairly large antenna or tuned antenna loop with a FET follower at these frequencies. For the rest of the Rx, a converter is a good way to go and the FET will give a low enough output impedance for a regular mixer of some sort. Jim Pennell N6BIU I've played around on this band for a few year now, and I've noticed a few things. It doesn't seem to matter what receiver you use because the noise on the band is almost always much higher than the receiver's front-end noise. Increase the receiver's sensitivity and you increase the noise. Instead, work on the receiver's selectivity. Or send the audio output from the receiver into your computer's sound card and use one of those great FFT programs designed for weak-signal work. Do that and you can see signals well below the noise floor. As far as antennas are concerned, loops are popular but there are plenty of other options. Remember that the band is for experimentation, and part of the fun comes from experimenting with different antennas. But even with all the noise on the band, you can still work 20+ miles CW with nothing more than a wire in the tree and any old receiver that will tune the band. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Gilliland wrote in
: "Transmitter for the Neglected Band" and "Tuner for the Neglected Band", both written by Jim White/W5LET, were in the Jan and Feb 72 editions of Popular Electronics, respectively. You can probably find those issues on film at your local public library. Both are tube projects. The tuner (receiver) is some kind of funky TRF/superhet hybrid, and is tuned by adjusting four compression trimmers (IOW, the tuning is virtually fixed). Ah, that's the one. I remember it well. With the plethora of digital radios that tune down to 150 kHz these days, the rx wouldn't even be a consideration. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Gilliland wrote in
: "Transmitter for the Neglected Band" and "Tuner for the Neglected Band", both written by Jim White/W5LET, were in the Jan and Feb 72 editions of Popular Electronics, respectively. You can probably find those issues on film at your local public library. Both are tube projects. The tuner (receiver) is some kind of funky TRF/superhet hybrid, and is tuned by adjusting four compression trimmers (IOW, the tuning is virtually fixed). Ah, that's the one. I remember it well. With the plethora of digital radios that tune down to 150 kHz these days, the rx wouldn't even be a consideration. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Lewallen wrote in
: You can get information about copyrights at http://www.uspto.gov. There's no doubt that the original copyright is still in force, since the term of a copyright is much longer than 30 years. (They've changed it recently -- I think it was from 75 to 125 years, under the urging of Disney, whose early copyrights were expiring.) Unless sold, a copyright owned by an individual becomes part of a deceased's estate, so if the author held the original copyright, it's probably owned by the author's heirs. If it was held by Ham Radio magazine, it might be owned by CQ, who took over Communications Quarterly, the successor to Ham Radio; or the ARRL, who took Communications Quarterly over from CQ. Or possibly Craig Clark, who bought the Ham Radio Bookstore from Ham Radio years ago. Or, the author might have had an agreement with the publisher to have the copyright revert back to him from the publisher after some period, in which case the heirs have it. Of course, you can copy small portions for various uses under the "fair use" doctrine. But copying the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation. If you're really interested, I'd recommend seeing a qualified attorney before you proceed. I'm not one, and what I say shouldn't be taken as legal advice. Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from profit? I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is applied these days. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Lewallen wrote in
: You can get information about copyrights at http://www.uspto.gov. There's no doubt that the original copyright is still in force, since the term of a copyright is much longer than 30 years. (They've changed it recently -- I think it was from 75 to 125 years, under the urging of Disney, whose early copyrights were expiring.) Unless sold, a copyright owned by an individual becomes part of a deceased's estate, so if the author held the original copyright, it's probably owned by the author's heirs. If it was held by Ham Radio magazine, it might be owned by CQ, who took over Communications Quarterly, the successor to Ham Radio; or the ARRL, who took Communications Quarterly over from CQ. Or possibly Craig Clark, who bought the Ham Radio Bookstore from Ham Radio years ago. Or, the author might have had an agreement with the publisher to have the copyright revert back to him from the publisher after some period, in which case the heirs have it. Of course, you can copy small portions for various uses under the "fair use" doctrine. But copying the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation. If you're really interested, I'd recommend seeing a qualified attorney before you proceed. I'm not one, and what I say shouldn't be taken as legal advice. Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from profit? I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is applied these days. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Need to apply the "Reasonable Man" theory. If it would be reasonable for
the copyright holder to profit, then he has been damaged. A copy, distributed to a limited audience, for scientific use probably would fall under a "fair use" exception. A "I have found this wonderful item, and here it is" distributed to persons who would have purchased the item had it not been distributed would be infringement. The subtle differences is why we have courts, and a legal system. -- 73 es cul wb3fup a Salty Bear "donut" wrote in message ... Roy Lewallen wrote in : You can get information about copyrights at http://www.uspto.gov. There's no doubt that the original copyright is still in force, since the term of a copyright is much longer than 30 years. (They've changed it recently -- I think it was from 75 to 125 years, under the urging of Disney, whose early copyrights were expiring.) Unless sold, a copyright owned by an individual becomes part of a deceased's estate, so if the author held the original copyright, it's probably owned by the author's heirs. If it was held by Ham Radio magazine, it might be owned by CQ, who took over Communications Quarterly, the successor to Ham Radio; or the ARRL, who took Communications Quarterly over from CQ. Or possibly Craig Clark, who bought the Ham Radio Bookstore from Ham Radio years ago. Or, the author might have had an agreement with the publisher to have the copyright revert back to him from the publisher after some period, in which case the heirs have it. Of course, you can copy small portions for various uses under the "fair use" doctrine. But copying the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation. If you're really interested, I'd recommend seeing a qualified attorney before you proceed. I'm not one, and what I say shouldn't be taken as legal advice. Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from profit? I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is applied these days. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Need to apply the "Reasonable Man" theory. If it would be reasonable for
the copyright holder to profit, then he has been damaged. A copy, distributed to a limited audience, for scientific use probably would fall under a "fair use" exception. A "I have found this wonderful item, and here it is" distributed to persons who would have purchased the item had it not been distributed would be infringement. The subtle differences is why we have courts, and a legal system. -- 73 es cul wb3fup a Salty Bear "donut" wrote in message ... Roy Lewallen wrote in : You can get information about copyrights at http://www.uspto.gov. There's no doubt that the original copyright is still in force, since the term of a copyright is much longer than 30 years. (They've changed it recently -- I think it was from 75 to 125 years, under the urging of Disney, whose early copyrights were expiring.) Unless sold, a copyright owned by an individual becomes part of a deceased's estate, so if the author held the original copyright, it's probably owned by the author's heirs. If it was held by Ham Radio magazine, it might be owned by CQ, who took over Communications Quarterly, the successor to Ham Radio; or the ARRL, who took Communications Quarterly over from CQ. Or possibly Craig Clark, who bought the Ham Radio Bookstore from Ham Radio years ago. Or, the author might have had an agreement with the publisher to have the copyright revert back to him from the publisher after some period, in which case the heirs have it. Of course, you can copy small portions for various uses under the "fair use" doctrine. But copying the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation. If you're really interested, I'd recommend seeing a qualified attorney before you proceed. I'm not one, and what I say shouldn't be taken as legal advice. Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from profit? I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is applied these days. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Every once in a while I point out what the copyright or patent law says.
I almost always get responses from people who feel they should be able to do something other than the law states -- for example, a lot of people feel that they should be able to build a patented item for their own personal use, while the law specifically forbids it. Or photocopy a book that's out of print. And so forth. I think most people don't really want to know what the law says -- they'd rather keep their notion of what they think it should say. I don't make the laws. I don't enforce them. And, shoot, I'm not even qualified to say what they are or what they mean. Anyone really interested in learning what the laws say can go to http://www.uspto.gov or a bunch of other authoritative sources. Better yet, see a qualified attorney, who can also tell you how they're enforced. Then do whatever it is your conscience (or rationalization) lets you do. Most people are probably going to do what they want anyway, no matter what the laws say, and come with reasons to justify it. Want to know why the law says what it does? Ask your congressperson. Have a complaint? Tell your congressperson. But be warned -- people who like sausages or have respect for the law shouldn't look too closely at how either is made. And it ain't pretty. Roy Lewallen, W7EL donut wrote: Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from profit? I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is applied these days. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Every once in a while I point out what the copyright or patent law says.
I almost always get responses from people who feel they should be able to do something other than the law states -- for example, a lot of people feel that they should be able to build a patented item for their own personal use, while the law specifically forbids it. Or photocopy a book that's out of print. And so forth. I think most people don't really want to know what the law says -- they'd rather keep their notion of what they think it should say. I don't make the laws. I don't enforce them. And, shoot, I'm not even qualified to say what they are or what they mean. Anyone really interested in learning what the laws say can go to http://www.uspto.gov or a bunch of other authoritative sources. Better yet, see a qualified attorney, who can also tell you how they're enforced. Then do whatever it is your conscience (or rationalization) lets you do. Most people are probably going to do what they want anyway, no matter what the laws say, and come with reasons to justify it. Want to know why the law says what it does? Ask your congressperson. Have a complaint? Tell your congressperson. But be warned -- people who like sausages or have respect for the law shouldn't look too closely at how either is made. And it ain't pretty. Roy Lewallen, W7EL donut wrote: Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from profit? I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is applied these days. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SWR meter vs TLI | Antenna | |||
SWR meter kaput? | Antenna | |||
10 meter ant impedance at 15 meter | Antenna | |||
Smith Chart Quiz | Antenna | |||
NEED METER FOR HEATHKIT QM-1 Q METER | Boatanchors |