Behold, nospam scribed on tube chassis:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:23:08 GMT, Gregg wrote:

IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one
to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX
equipment.

We have far to many appliance ops.

The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral
purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or
"radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction.

That exists already/

Here in the USA:

Tech limited to bands starting at 6M (50mhz) and up to whatever. Power
is 1500 max, any mode, build, modify or buy. No CW required. All modes
permitted unless restricted by band use, SSB, FM, Fastscan TV,
Data/digital, and even CW. Even if you have not taken the CW test and
you think you can do it you can use it.

Tech+ same as above with code, limited access to some of the HF bands.

General same as Tech(all permitted modes per band), required 5wpm code
and grants access to the MW and HF bands (160 thru 10).

Extra all of general privledges plus acces to some of the subbands.

Allison
Kb1GMX

There you have an advantage on us. Unless the regs changed recently, the
VE/VO no-coder allows only "CB" style Ham ops :-(

--
Gregg "t3h g33k"
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca
*Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines*

Behold, Mike Andrews scribed on tube chassis:

Gregg wrote:
Behold, John Miles scribed on tube chassis:

Somehow, I doubt many of those 20 WPM Extras making equine posteriors
out of themselves on 75 fone are doing so on homebrew rigs.

The idea is the advanced ticket people can buy commercial rigs.

I was reading some of the the history of Ham radio though and it seems
today's ham's rarely fit the bill :-(

What happened?

snip

Nowadays the commercial gear is *SO* much more advanced than anything
the average ham can design and build[1], or even build from a design
someone else worked out, that it's just easier to buy an appliance to
get the performance one wants. Construction is hard, it requires time
and expensive materials, and the overall bill for the appliance most of
the time is less than it would cost (including time) to build a
comparable device.

[1] There are exceptions, and they appear as showcase examples in
the ARRL Handbook and other places.

Point taken. Myself, I am a tubehead, but I would love to design a
PLL-PIC based VFO for my tubes. After all the readin' and studyin' I did
on the subject, I have come to the conclusion to let a dedicated
solid-state-aholic mate design one and I just build it.

Are we just too old?

--
Gregg "t3h g33k"
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca
*Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines*

Gregg ) writes:
Behold, nospam scribed on tube chassis:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:23:08 GMT, Gregg wrote:

IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one
to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX
equipment.

We have far to many appliance ops.

The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral
purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or
"radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction.

That exists already/

Here in the USA:

Tech limited to bands starting at 6M (50mhz) and up to whatever. Power
is 1500 max, any mode, build, modify or buy. No CW required. All modes
permitted unless restricted by band use, SSB, FM, Fastscan TV,
Data/digital, and even CW. Even if you have not taken the CW test and
you think you can do it you can use it.

Tech+ same as above with code, limited access to some of the HF bands.

General same as Tech(all permitted modes per band), required 5wpm code
and grants access to the MW and HF bands (160 thru 10).

Extra all of general privledges plus acces to some of the subbands.

Allison
Kb1GMX

There you have an advantage on us. Unless the regs changed recently, the
VE/VO no-coder allows only "CB" style Ham ops :-(

Once again, you're misreading the rules.

As I told you last summer, whether someone has passed the code test
or not has no relevance. It's whether someone has passed the advanced test.
Since it's a mix and match system, people can pass the advanced test
without taking a code test. They can build all the transmitters all
they want at that point, but since they haven't passed the code test
they have no HF privileges.

There is no "no code license" in Canada. There are two levels of license,
and either one can be no-code.

Michael VE2BVW

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:44:12 GMT, Gregg wrote:

Nowadays the commercial gear is *SO* much more advanced than anything
the average ham can design and build[1], or even build from a design
someone else worked out, that it's just easier to buy an appliance to
get the performance one wants. Construction is hard, it requires time
and expensive materials, and the overall bill for the appliance most of
the time is less than it would cost (including time) to build a
comparable device.

Elecraft has several kits that build an advaned transceivers with
microprocessors and digial pannels. The average hams do build them
and when done can even fix them.

Point taken. Myself, I am a tubehead, but I would love to design a
PLL-PIC based VFO for my tubes. After all the readin' and studyin' I did
on the subject, I have come to the conclusion to let a dedicated
solid-state-aholic mate design one and I just build it.

There is an outfit that has kits to do exactly that. Also there
was/is the Amqrp [http://www.amqrp.org/] DDS VFO daughter board.
That with the PIC-el kit was a quick means for me to bootstrap into
using PICs and DDS for my Rf perojects. In the past I've used micros
but ahving the tools and a a really nice course on a specific one was
a useful assist.

Are we just too old?

Never!

Allison

On 16 Feb 2005 04:07:30 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

As I told you last summer, whether someone has passed the code test
or not has no relevance. It's whether someone has passed the advanced test.
Since it's a mix and match system, people can pass the advanced test
without taking a code test. They can build all the transmitters all
they want at that point, but since they haven't passed the code test
they have no HF privileges.

There is no "no code license" in Canada. There are two levels of license,
and either one can be no-code.

I wasn't sure if the countries involved but my understanding was
Canadian rules are similar to US in style and form. Other countries
are beyond my knowledge. I'd expect from articles I've read
and the calibar of those authors there are many that allow home built
equipment and may even encourage it.

Allison
Kb1GMX

wrote in message
...
Elecraft has several kits that build an advaned transceivers with
microprocessors and digial pannels. The average hams do build them
and when done can even fix them.

I'm not so sure I'd call someone building an Elecraft an 'average ham.'
Especially with the K2, there are enough parts in there that most people who
build it are probably already seasoned kit builders. Indeed, there are even
lists of hams out there who will assemble Elecrafts for other hams who
_don't_ have the skills or desire to put the things together!

Still, I think there are plenty of homebrewing opportunities available to
hams (the ARRL's publication of "Experimental Methods in RF Design" last
year bolsters this argument), just that a smaller percentage of hams than in
prior years chose to avail themselves of the option.

There will always be folks out there experimenting with radio -- look at how
popular WiFi 'hacking' is and even low power FM!

----Joel Kolstad

) writes:
On 16 Feb 2005 04:07:30 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

As I told you last summer, whether someone has passed the code test
or not has no relevance. It's whether someone has passed the advanced test.
Since it's a mix and match system, people can pass the advanced test
without taking a code test. They can build all the transmitters all
they want at that point, but since they haven't passed the code test
they have no HF privileges.

There is no "no code license" in Canada. There are two levels of license,
and either one can be no-code.

I wasn't sure if the countries involved but my understanding was
Canadian rules are similar to US in style and form. Other countries
are beyond my knowledge. I'd expect from articles I've read
and the calibar of those authors there are many that allow home built
equipment and may even encourage it.

Allison
Kb1GMX

When things were restructured here back in 1990, the basic test/license
specifically forbade the use of homebuilt transmitters. It's only
after one passes the advanced test that one can use homebuilt transmitters
(and it allows for 1000watts input versus 250W for the basic license,
and the control of repeaters).

But his error is in reading the rules to mean that you have to have code
to pass the advanced test, and thus to build transmitters. The code tests
(back then there were both a 5 and 12wpm tests, now it's only 5wpm) were
independent of the written tests. With no code test, but the advanced
license, one has full privileges, though it all has to be above 30MHz.
The code test(s) only add HF capability, whether you have the basic
or advanced license.

This is in contrast to the US model, where advancing did require a code
test at some point.

Up till 1990, of course anyone with a ham license here could build their
own transmitter (and the only thing the advanced license gave was
voice on HF). When I was licensed back in 1972, it was still called
the Amateur Experimental Service, though that full name was dropped
at some point without comment.

The impression people had was that since few were building things,
then this wouldn't affect many. But by making the written test
simpler, it would "make it easier" for people to enter the hobby.
I've not realy looked over what the test is like, but I sure had no
problem passing the test back in 1972, when I was twelve. But ironically,
if few are building things, those few won't be doing much damage even
if they don't know what they are doing. Indeed, it's likely that only
people who know what they are doing would be building, hence the state
of the test shouldn't matter.

I don't like the rule, since it does change the hobby, and institutionalizes
a perception of the hobby.

But like I said, code has nothing to do with whether or not someone can
build their transmitter.

Michael VE2BVW

I have several homebrew QRP rigs that fit in the palm of my hand.

They're all HF...a couple even exceed 3w output.

They make the FT817 seem like a bowling ball in the backpack. g

73


"Airy R.Bean" wrote in message
...
Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes
from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes
that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and
Kenwood.

But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in
technical
performance?

I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham
when
you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and
when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have
been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks?

How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of
about
3"?

That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item
of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de
rigeur - again
pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB.

In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to
experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley
"Solon"
soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're
currently dealing with.

Well done, that man!

I bet it's difficult, though, to experiment with the circuit
configuration of any of them!

"Brian - KB9BVN" wrote in message
ink.net...
I have several homebrew QRP rigs that fit in the palm of my hand.

They're all HF...a couple even exceed 3w output.

They make the FT817 seem like a bowling ball in the backpack. g