Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 12:22 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

On Apr 19, 11:47�pm, AF6AY wrote:
xxx wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:41:27 EDT:


Due to time limitations, this post will comment on just one of Len's
claims:

* *1. *"Discovery of 'shortwaves' enabling worldwide communications:
* * * Already known by non-hobbyist technologists.


Which ones? And why weren't they *using* those shortwaves before
amateurs led the way?

*Radio amateurs
* * * were forced upwards in frequency use by politics, not
* * * pioneering. *It was fortuitous for amateurs, yes, but not
* * * necessarily of their own and objected-to at the time by
* * * amateurs.


The conventional wisdom of the early professionals in radio was that
the longer the wave, the farther it would go along the earth's
surface.
The shorter waves were considered useless, or at least unreliable, for
long-distance communication, because ionospheric propagation was not
known at the time. Long-distance non-amateur radio used waves
thousands or tens of thousands of meters long for communications
across oceans and beyond. This required enormous antennas and
high power levels, all of which were developed for the purpose. The
Alexanderson-alternator station SAQ, now a museum that operates a few
times per year, is a prime example of the professional state of the
art at the time. SAQ operates at 17.2 kHz

After 1912, amateurs were required to use waves no longer than 200
meters. They were further restricted to 1000 watts input, which was
very low power by professional long-distance-radio standards.

Most anateurs stayed right at that wavelength, following the
professionals' statements that shorter waves were less effective. Some
amateurs and non-amateurs conducted experiments at shorter wavelengths
but the results were not promising. The radio developments of World
War 1 did not materially change the situation.

In those days the "gold standard" of communication was whether the
Atlantic Ocean could be crossed. Marconi's claim of transatlantic
reception of the single letter "S" was considered a major
accomplishment at the time.

In December of 1921, the ARRL sent Paul Godley to the UK to listen for
American amateurs on 200 meters. He heard several, and not just
coastal stations. But two-way transatlantic communication eluded
amateurs on 200 meters.

In November of 1923, documented two-way transatlantic radio
communication was achieved on approximately 110 meters by
two American and one French amateur, using less than 1000 watts input.
This success led to others, with transpacific and antipodal shortwave
amateur communications following in short order.

If the effectiveness of shortwave radio was known by nonamateurs,
why didn't they use it until after amateurs pointed the way and proved
it by their pioneering success?

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #42   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 04:39 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 828
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:47�pm, AF6AY wrote:
xxx wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:41:27 EDT:


� �1. �"Discovery of 'shortwaves' enabling worldwide communications:
� � � Already known by non-hobbyist technologists.


Which ones? And why weren't they *using* those shortwaves before
amateurs led the way?

�Radio amateurs
� � � were forced upwards in frequency use by politics, not
� � � pioneering. �It was fortuitous for amateurs, yes, but not
� � � necessarily of their own and objected-to at the time by
� � � amateurs.


The conventional wisdom of the early professionals in radio was that
the longer the wave, the farther it would go along the earth's
surface.
The shorter waves were considered useless, or at least unreliable, for
long-distance communication, because ionospheric propagation was not
known at the time. Long-distance non-amateur radio used waves
thousands or tens of thousands of meters long for communications
across oceans and beyond. This required enormous antennas and
high power levels, all of which were developed for the purpose. The
Alexanderson-alternator station SAQ, now a museum that operates a few
times per year, is a prime example of the professional state of the
art at the time. SAQ operates at 17.2 kHz


I think you two are both correct. 8^) It looks like a difference of
basic versus applied knowledge. That the shortwaves and much much higher
frequencies were known is not in doubt. Scientists were doing research
in GHz range frequencies surprisingly early on.

Amateurs were forced to use frequencies that unknown to them or the
best minds of the time (could be both at once) discovered a lot of
unexpected characteristics of those higher frequencies.

I think that we'll find that time and again, restrictions lead to
innovation.


In November of 1923, documented two-way transatlantic radio
communication was achieved on approximately 110 meters by
two American and one French amateur, using less than 1000 watts input.
This success led to others, with transpacific and antipodal shortwave
amateur communications following in short order.

If the effectiveness of shortwave radio was known by nonamateurs,
why didn't they use it until after amateurs pointed the way and proved
it by their pioneering success?


A combination of ignorance (thinking that the higher frequencies were
of no use) and simply "betting on the wrong horse". is the answer AFAIAC.

The Amateurs were confined to that area, and the experimentally
inclined did their experiments, and viola, a lot of discoveries and
advancements were made. It is a great story, and Hams should be proud of
that part of their history.

As a more mature technology today, I wouldn't expect many more earth
shaking discoveries from Hams.

What is more likely is technological applications, such as my proposed
"texter" radio. A VHF (UHF?) text and voice enabled HT like instrument.
Text goes out using PSK31, and voice is traditional FM. Seems like an
interesting use of a certain almost unused band we all know and love
(loathe?)

While the above is only an example, in fact one that many might
consider derivative anyhow , I just offer it as a way that Amateurs
might get credit for a bit of innovation.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

  #43   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 07:07 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

"xxx" wrote:

Once upon a time, ham radio was a great source of innovation. I
remember hearing about how this or that essential device that we now
take for granted was invented / improved upon / perfected / etc. by hams
who did that sort of thing as part of their hobby. It has been a very
long time since I last heard that said. Ham radio ceased to be forward
looking and innovative and has devolved into something more akin to
stamp collecting - interesting to practitioners, useless to the world at
large.


Yes, well, the world was a very different place 50 years ago.

Neither of my parents were required to sign an employment contract which
contains a clause to the effect of "anything you invent, even if its on your
own time, we own". Yet, such clauses are routine these days in virtually
every employment contract I've signed, or seen.

Perhaps we have the lawyerification of America to partially blame?

I'm not really sure. Maybe people are less altruistic today than they were
30+ years ago. Folks today seem to be less likely to invent something and
give it away. Instead, they want to invent it, package it, sell it, and make
a living/fortune. Can't say there's anything wrong with that, really, most
people today would (I think) do the same thing.

Perhaps the popularity of ham radio is declining not because of anything to
do with ham radio itself, but instead simply a matter of the changing
society in the world as a whole.

73
kh6hz

  #44   Report Post  
Old April 20th 07, 11:56 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 229
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

Michael Coslo wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:39:39 EDT

wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:47?pm, AF6AY wrote:


? ?1. ?"Discovery of 'shortwaves' enabling worldwide communications:
? ? ? Already known by non-hobbyist technologists.


Which ones? And why weren't they *using* those shortwaves before
amateurs led the way?


I think you two are both correct. 8^)


Regardless of the question marks added into my quotation (which
I never wrote with leading question marks), I will cite two
references which are obtainable:

1. Thomas H. White's early radio history web pages which include
many references and references with direct links. [try Searching
since Mr. White's website has had different names although his
content remains intact and expanded]

2. Hugh G. J. Aitken, "The Continuous Wave, Technology and
American Radio, 1900-1932," 1985, Princeton University Press.
My soft-cover copy is courtesy of Al Walston, W6MJN. In
particular Chapter 5. [University libraries might have this]

There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of
electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi-
weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980,
a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp)
which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from
before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980.

From those three I've come to the conclusion that the forcing
of radio amateurs in the USA to "below 200 meters" (above 1.5
MHz) was purely and simply politics of the day. It should be
no surprise to know that radio use insofar as frequencies was
little more than chaotic before 1920, little more than that
during the entirety of the 1920s decade. Broadcasters wanted
what we now know as the "AM broadcast band" for their exclusive
use. Actually, that was a legitimate desire since broadcasters
would serve millions of citizens, not just a few thousands of
radio amateurs at the time.

Politics of the times did not stop with broadcasters versus
amateurs. For almost two decades the United States Navy
wanted to have regulatory control over all radio use! Marconi
desired a monopoly on worldwide radio use, including inroads
to control of all United States radio production and services.
The latter led a circuitous route to the establishment of the
Radio Corporation of America, originally as a sort of "patent
controller" or "quasi-repository" about radio in the USA. It
was a chaotic decade those 1920s, including many patent fights
in courts, and not much standardization in theory, components,
use, or services to citizens. See the proposal of President
Franklin Roosevelt to Congress to establish the Federal
Communications Commission to consolidate radio and telegram
regulations of 1933 and 1934, found on the FCC website.

It looks like a difference of
basic versus applied knowledge. That the shortwaves and much much higher
frequencies were known is not in doubt. Scientists were doing research
in GHz range frequencies surprisingly early on.


Heinrich Hertz did his basic research on radio waves using
what now appears to be VHF and UHF. He had no equipment to
measure such frequencies to any great precision. Lee de Forest
did some early work on transmission lines in an attempt to get
"a handle on" the behavior of higher radio waves on them. James
Clerk Maxwell postulated some physical laws and equations which
are applicable to all radio frequencies today, but he had almost
NO "test equipment" other than very simple experimental kluges
and brilliantly-applied logic to his "Laws."

The first radar experiments and first working radars worked on
VHF-UHF. It took a coordinated, consolidated group, forced by
needs of winning WWII at the "Radiation Laboratory" to really
get into the GHz frequency region.

Amateurs were forced to use frequencies that unknown to them or the
best minds of the time (could be both at once) discovered a lot of
unexpected characteristics of those higher frequencies.


As I originally wrote, it was fortuitous for radio amateurs to
be forced upward in frequency beyond 1.5 MHz. Those documented
demonstrations "got the ball rolling" for academicians and
researchers to study the ionosphere in detail. With scientific
proof, the commercial and government users took to HF in great
numbers by the 1930s.

I think that we'll find that time and again, restrictions lead to
innovation.


That's too broad a statement. Innovation and invention comes
from those individuals who dare to "push the [performance]
envelope" of most anything. The Wright Brothers weren't
exactly "restricted" in anything but laws of physics concerning
aerodynamics...so they built their own "wind tunnel" and got
basic information for themselves. But, could anyone have
thought ahead 50 years past their first heavier-than-air flight
in a wood-wire-fabric biplane, to trans-sonic speed metal
aircraft carrying more than two people?

In comparing "radio sets" of various times, examine the size,
weight, function, and features of today's amateur radio
transceivers with those of 1957. Or antennas, or test
equipment for measuring both. The advancement on both
technology and use is hand-in-hand and driven by market
forces more than anything. It is all interconnected and
one innovation can lead to others. James Burke's "Connections"
PBS-TV series is an excellent showing of the interconnection
of innovation and invention that can lead to surprising
improvement in improbably-related activies.


If the effectiveness of shortwave radio was known by nonamateurs,
why didn't they use it until after amateurs pointed the way and proved
it by their pioneering success?


A combination of ignorance (thinking that the higher frequencies were
of no use) and simply "betting on the wrong horse". is the answer AFAIAC.


The following is a quote from "Single Sideband, Principles and
Circuits" by Pappenfus, Bruene, Shoenike (Collins Radio), McGraw-
Hill 1964, paragraph 1-4, page 10:

"Since 1923 when the first r-f transatlantic SSB link was
established to England, there has been widespread use of pilot-
carrier and suppressed-carrier SSB by communications companies.
The severe static that prevailed at low frequency limited the
usefulness of the early radio links; but until the installation
of a v-f cable, no other communication circuit to Europe
approached the day-to-day reliability of the 55-kc ground-wave
signal. The frequency range below 500 kc because of its
freedom from propagation variation and signal "blackout," has
a consistency of received signal desireable in maintaining
telephone communication. However a number of disadvantages
are present that offset the signal reliability of the l-f
range. Disadvantage include high power, and need for large,
expensive antennas. The problems of vlf communications links
and l-f bands forced the expansion into and the development of
radio-communication links in the so-called short-wave bands
above the [AM] broadcast band."

Page 234 of the "Collins SSB Book" state that one of the
first applications of SSB to the HF bands was by the
Netherlands Telegraph Administration in 1934. This was
the Netherlands to the Netherlands Antilles (off the coast
of South America). [diagram of receiver on page 235]

Note: Commercial and government SSB is basically on the
USA telephony model C "carrier" frequency-multiplexed
four-voice-bandwidth system using 12 KHz bandspace.
Single-channel, 3 KHz bandspace SSB did not see great
numbers until the USAF SAC requirements were made after
WWII's end. "Pilot carrier" is in reference to a between
channel tone frequency deliberately sent as an early AFC.

Commercial and government communications users generally
plan for long service life, such service having reliability
and with known characteristics. While those may appear
conservative, those major players in communications aren't
in there for fun or experimentation. They are there for
the "long haul," both in distance and in time. Such long-
lived expectancy must be based on known information
supporting its development.

The Amateurs were confined to that area, and the experimentally
inclined did their experiments, and viola, a lot of discoveries and
advancements were made. It is a great story, and Hams should be proud of
that part of their history.


It is fine to be proud. However, history is the past.

As a more mature technology today, I wouldn't expect many more earth
shaking discoveries from Hams.


I disagree. The state of the art of all communications is
continually advancing. Radio development didn't stop prior
to WWII nor at any time up to now. For example, look at
PSK31 by G3PLX, D-Star by the JARL with support of Japanese
industry, APRS utilizing GPS downlink, all examples of post-
1980 innovation in amateur radio, done by radio amateurs for
radio amateurs.

The first reference I have to "repeaters" in radio (other
than specific radio relay sets) is in the TM for the
military AN/PRC-6 HT (includes a special cable set for
that purpose) printed about 1952. The U.S. military has not
used "repeatering" of that kind afterwards but look at the
large installation of ham repeaters in the USA of today!
Adoption and innovation of existing schemes and technology
in other radio services is no crime nor moral flaw. I think
that should be rewarded and praised equally well; some of
those adoptions/innovations are more complex and intellectual
(at least to me) than most of the early radio "pioneering" of
pre-WWII times.

With today's evidence of explosive growth in all electronics
there is a blurring between "who uses what in where" as to
both technology and use of radio. Both seem to circulate
in most radio services without regard to who was "first" but
rather can "I" [in a radio service] use it? Better yet, can
"I" adapt it for "my" radio service? Maybe, maybe not. It
might be worth a try. Falling back on "tried-and-true"
methods and holding fast to those seems counterproductive...

73, Len AF6AY

  #45   Report Post  
Old April 21st 07, 03:45 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
xxx xxx is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

AF6AY wrote:
xxx wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:41:27 EDT:


Once upon a time, ham radio was a great source of innovation. I
remember hearing about how this or that essential device that we now
take for granted was invented / improved upon / perfected / etc. by hams
who did that sort of thing as part of their hobby. It has been a very
long time since I last heard that said.


"Once upon a time" is approximately the time period prior to
World War II...the first 44 years of "radio" as a communications
medium.



I would have extended that time frame into the 1960's or even the
1970's when moonbounce experiments still made the news.


Trying to judge progress in a technology area involving
hobbyists solely by the information contained in hobbyist
publications is inaccurate, if not outright braggadocio by
hobbyists.



I'm not sure how you got the idea that I had done that.


"Radio" as a communications medium is now 111 years
old. The innovation, invention, and quantum-jumps in increases
of the communications (and radio) arts of the last 67 years have
totally eclipsed those early pioneering days done by everyone
involved with any RF emission activity. Some of the highlights:



[... deleted in the interest of brevity]


Your point is not clear. Are you claiming that since those
technologies originated with other radio services that the
contribution by hams was small or are you claiming that since hams
developed and popularized those technologies that hams' contribution
was large?


[...]
Ham radio ceased to be forward
looking and innovative and has devolved into something more akin to
stamp collecting - interesting to practitioners, useless to the world at
large.


"Xxx," to paraphrase Hans Brakob, I would "throw that out with
great force."

The activity of amateur radio is basically a hobby, an activity
done primarily for personal enjoyment...worldwide, I might add.
It is a fascinating one, a technically-challenging one, one of
use in communicating with like-minded enthusiasts, local to
worldwide. Hobbies are FUN for their participants. There is
nothing at all "wrong" with having FUN doing anything, whether
stamp collecting, rebuilding classic cars, flying model aircraft
by radio control, or being advisors for Scouts.


Radio amateurs, by and large, are not into amateur radio for the
sake of being inventors, scientific researchers, manufacturers
of radio-electronics devices, or being emergency and disaster
volunteers. They CAN, of course, as can any citizen without an
amateur radio license.



If you look at the foundational documents of ham radio (FCC Part
97, current test question pools), it is made quite clear that ham
radio exists for the primary purpose of having trained radio
operators available in case of emergency. Contributing to the
advancement of the radio art comes next. Having an enjoyable hobby is
not even mentioned.

[...]

Ham radio will not grow until and unless it is seen to provide value
to the larger community. Once, it was considered to be a source of
competitive advantage to the economy by contributing to the
technological base (a post-Sputnik point of view).


Please feel free to document all those "advantages to the
economy." I see very few such cases of the last 111 years of
"radio." What I have seen are a number of claims for same
that very conveniently "sin by omission" [of incorrect
attribution to the overall world of radio and electronics]...
something that marketeers know by the simple acronym of "PR."

My guess is that the
FCC was willing to ignore the complaints of the ARRL and the old Morse
code cultists because they (the FCC) see it that way, as well.


I must disagree with that as well. Since the FCC must regulate
ALL United States civil radio RF emissions, they are chartered
to be aware and informed of almost everything in regards to
"radio." They DO that on a technical level, including having an
Office of Engineering and Technology for their own advisement.
The FCC is aware of nearly ALL radio use, not only in the USA
but worldwide (we are globally interconnected in many
communications ways). The FCC also asks for advice on use and
technology and, as chartered by law, input from ALL citizens.
Such "input" is made available to the public at large, freely.

Anyone can fault the FCC for some alleged political bias. That
is frequent and also many-sided. Such is normal in politics,
but it is not per se some "truth." The ARRL ("my" club) is
no more a paragon of truth than any membership organization
and the FCC is not bound to 'obey' the ARRL 'advice' than any
other special-interest group.



Nevertheless, they have 'outsourced' most of the administrative
overhead of ham radio to the ARRL. If you want to talk about the
political aspects of the subject, I recently wondered, after looking
at some VE testing schedules, what the presidential candidates would
say about a situation where the work of a federal agency is performed
by a group of volunteers who work out of church basements. The
separation of church and state issue alone would provide a basis for
a great deal of debate.



The FCC made a decision on a contentious subject in amateur
radio license examinations. The FCC has the final say on who
is licensed and who is not. The public comment period was long
and over 3,700 citizens commented. The FCC took about a year
to reach a decision on the matter, then made it law by legal
means. Let us accept that and go forward.



Your comments don't follow from mine. I stated that the FCC, in
effect, 'overruled' the ARRL and the old hams when it eliminated the
code test. The key question is 'WHY did the FCC do that.' I am
convinced that the FCC perceived the code requirement as being at the
root of ham radio's failure to innovate or provide training to
subsequent generations. The FCC killed it in order to end ham radio's
decades-long stagnation.



  #46   Report Post  
Old April 21st 07, 03:46 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 20
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

AF6AY wrote in news:1177108945.448470.193430
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of
electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi-
weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980,
a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp)
which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from
before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980.



Keep a sharp eye out on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.technical for these
kinds of books, mostly in pdf format. It is an amazing source of ebooks
on all kinds of neat subjects.

(PS - Best not read the nuclear stuff and reports posted there if you're
"in range". I didn't know there were so MANY Little Chernobyls!)

Larry
--
We're all "in range", you know....
..

  #47   Report Post  
Old April 21st 07, 06:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 229
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

On Apr 20, 6:46�pm, Larry wrote:
AF6AY wrote in news:1177108945.448470.193430
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of
* *electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi-
* *weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980,
* *a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp)
* *which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from
* *before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980.


Keep a sharp eye out on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.technical for these
kinds of books, mostly in pdf format. *It is an amazing source of ebooks
on all kinds of neat subjects.


Thanks for the tip.

As a paid subscriber to McGraw-Hill's Electronics, I have
my own copy. I've seen it in a couple of technical libraries
but do not expect anyone to do an Acrobat trick of scanning
all those pages. I mentioned it as an overview of the entire
electronics field and think it did its job very well.

I neglected to mention Aitkins previous history, "The
Syntony of Spark." While it was good, it neglected to
cover as much of the politics of the 1920s in regards to
radio in general...in my opinion, at least.

73, Len AF6AY

  #48   Report Post  
Old April 21st 07, 04:05 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

On Apr 20, 6:56�pm, AF6AY wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:39:39 EDT

wrote:
On Apr 19, 11:47?pm, AF6AY wrote:
1. "Discovery of 'shortwaves' enabling worldwide communications:
Already known by non-hobbyist technologists.


Which ones? And why weren't they *using* those shortwaves before
amateurs led the way?


* * * *I think you two are both correct. 8^)


* *Regardless of the question marks added into my quotation (which
* *I never wrote with leading question marks),


The question marks are an artifact of posting through Google
Groups. I did not add them. Sometimes Google Groups adds
them, sometimes not. They have appeared on some other
postings to you by others.

I will cite two
* *references which are obtainable:

* *1. *Thomas H. White's early radio history web pages which include
* *many references and references with direct links. *[try Searching
* *since Mr. White's website has had different names although his
* *content remains intact and expanded]

* *2. *Hugh G. J. Aitken, "The Continuous Wave, Technology and
* *American Radio, 1900-1932," 1985, Princeton University Press.
* *My soft-cover copy is courtesy of Al Walston, W6MJN. *In
* *particular Chapter 5. *[University libraries might have this]

* *There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of
* *electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi-
* *weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980,
* *a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp)
* *which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from
* *before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980.


If the worldwide communications capabilities of 'shortwaves' was
"Already known by non-hobbyist technologists", as you claimed,
why weren't those "non-hobbyist technologists" actually *using*
those wavelengths?

Is there any record of non-amateur transatlantic one-way communication
on wavelengths of 200 meters or shorter with less than 1000 watts
before December of 1921? Any record of two-way
transatlantic communication on wavelengths of 200 meters or shorter
before November 27, 1923? That's when amateurs achieved those
distances.

And they weren't isolated one-time results, either. The Atlantic and
Pacific were spanned by amateurs in those years. For example, in
the Transatlantic Tests of 1922, over 300 American amateur stations
from every US radio district were heard in Europe. In the fall of
1923, over 100 American amateur stations were heard in Australia and/
or New Zealand. All on 200 meters or shorter, all with power less than
1000 watts. Where were the "non-hobbyist technologists" when all this
was going on?

* *From those three I've come to the conclusion that the forcing
* *of radio amateurs in the USA to "below 200 meters" (above 1.5
* *MHz) was purely and simply politics of the day.


Yes, it was politics. Or rather, regulation. In fact, about 1920 there
was a proposal to expand the amateur limit *downward* to 275 meters,
but early broadcasting put an end to that.

Amateurs were limited to "200 Meters And Down" because the
professionals thought those frequencies to be useless for long
distance communications. The driving force was to eliminate
interference (real or imagined) to commercial operations. That was
also the reason for the 1000 watt power limit.

*It should be
* *no surprise to know that radio use insofar as frequencies was
* *little more than chaotic before 1920, little more than that
* *during the entirety of the 1920s decade.


How "chaotic" was it, really? The radio laws of 1912 pushed amateurs
to the supposedly-useless short waves. The commercial users were
not excluded from those short waves, however.

*Broadcasters wanted
* *what we now know as the "AM broadcast band" for their exclusive
* *use. *Actually, that was a legitimate desire since broadcasters
* *would serve millions of citizens, not just a few thousands of
* *radio amateurs at the time.


Broadcasting did not really get going until about 1920. Amateurs had
been relegated to "200 Meters and Down" in 1912, eight years and a
World War earlier.

* *Politics of the times did not stop with broadcasters versus
* *amateurs.


It was not the broadcasters who pushed amateurs off the longer waves
in 1912.

*For almost two decades the United States Navy
* *wanted to have regulatory control over all radio use! *Marconi
* *desired a monopoly on worldwide radio use, including inroads
* *to control of all United States radio production and services.
* *The latter led a circuitous route to the establishment of the
* *Radio Corporation of America, originally as a sort of "patent
* *controller" or "quasi-repository" about radio in the USA. *It
* *was a chaotic decade those 1920s, including many patent fights
* *in courts, and not much standardization in theory, components,
* *use, or services to citizens. *See the proposal of President
* *Franklin Roosevelt to Congress to establish the Federal
* *Communications Commission to consolidate radio and telegram
* *regulations of 1933 and 1934, found on the FCC website.


That's all very interesting, but it has little to do with the fact
that it was
amateurs who pioneered the "shortwaves", not "non-hobbyist
technologists".

It looks like a difference of
basic versus applied knowledge. That the shortwaves and much much higher
frequencies were known is not in doubt. Scientists were doing research
in GHz range frequencies surprisingly early on.


* *Heinrich Hertz did his basic research on radio waves using
* *what now appears to be VHF and UHF. *He had no equipment to
* *measure such frequencies to any great precision. *Lee de Forest
* *did some early work on transmission lines in an attempt to get
* *"a handle on" the behavior of higher radio waves on them. *James
* *Clerk Maxwell postulated some physical laws and equations which
* *are applicable to all radio frequencies today, but he had almost
* *NO "test equipment" other than very simple experimental kluges
* *and brilliantly-applied logic to his "Laws."


But in terms of pioneering the use of those waves for communication,
amateurs were the leading edge.

* *The first radar experiments and first working radars worked on
* *VHF-UHF. *It took a coordinated, consolidated group, forced by
* *needs of winning WWII at the "Radiation Laboratory" to really
* *get into the GHz frequency region.


Long *after* the 1920s.

Amateurs were forced to use frequencies that unknown to them or the
best minds of the time (could be both at once) discovered a lot of
unexpected characteristics of those higher frequencies.


* *As I originally wrote, it was fortuitous for radio amateurs to
* *be forced upward in frequency beyond 1.5 MHz. *Those documented
* *demonstrations "got the ball rolling" for academicians and
* *researchers to study the ionosphere in detail. *With scientific
* *proof, the commercial and government users took to HF in great
* *numbers by the 1930s.


Amateur use was more than mere demonstrations.

* *In comparing "radio sets" of various times, examine the size,
* *weight, function, and features of today's amateur radio
* *transceivers with those of 1957. *Or antennas, or test
* *equipment for measuring both. *


The basics of many of them are the same in some cases and very
different in others.

The advancement on both
* *technology and use is hand-in-hand and driven by market
* *forces more than anything. *It is all interconnected and
* *one innovation can lead to others. *James Burke's "Connections"
* *PBS-TV series is an excellent showing of the interconnection
* *of innovation and invention that can lead to surprising
* *improvement in improbably-related activies.


Agreed. The transistor, for example, was invented/discovered by Bell
Labs researchers looking to build a switch, not an amplifier.

If the effectiveness of shortwave radio was known by nonamateurs,
why didn't they use it until after amateurs pointed the way and proved
it by their pioneering success?


* * * *A combination of ignorance (thinking that the higher frequencies were
of no use) and simply "betting on the wrong horse". is the answer AFAIAC.


* *The following is a quote from "Single Sideband, Principles and
* *Circuits" by Pappenfus, Bruene, Shoenike (Collins Radio), McGraw-
* *Hill 1964, paragraph 1-4, page 10:


The first two of those were well-known amateurs, too.

* *"Since 1923 when the first r-f transatlantic SSB link was
* *established to England, there has been widespread use of pilot-
* *carrier and suppressed-carrier SSB by communications companies.
* *The severe static that prevailed at low frequency limited the
* *usefulness of the early radio links; but until the installation
* *of a v-f cable, no other communication circuit to Europe
* *approached the day-to-day reliability of the 55-kc ground-wave
* *signal. *The frequency range below 500 kc because of its
* *freedom from propagation variation and signal "blackout," has
* *a consistency of received signal desireable in maintaining
* *telephone communication. *However a number of disadvantages
* *are present that offset the signal reliability of the l-f
* *range. *Disadvantage include high power, and need for large,
* *expensive antennas. *The problems of vlf communications links
* *and l-f bands forced the expansion into and the development of
* *radio-communication links in the so-called short-wave bands
* *above the [AM] broadcast band."

* *Page 234 of the "Collins SSB Book" state that one of the
* *first applications of SSB to the HF bands was by the
* *Netherlands Telegraph Administration in 1934. *


That's 11 years after amateurs showed the usefulness of HF for long
distance communications.

There were amateurs using SSB voice in 1934, too. Ray Moore, W6DEI,
and a handful of others were on the amateur bands with SSB
then.

This was
* *the Netherlands to the Netherlands Antilles (off the coast
* *of South America). *[diagram of receiver on page 235]

* *Note: *Commercial and government SSB is basically on the
* *USA telephony model C "carrier" frequency-multiplexed
* *four-voice-bandwidth system using 12 KHz bandspace.
* *Single-channel, 3 KHz bandspace SSB did not see great
* *numbers until the USAF SAC requirements were made after
* *WWII's end. *"Pilot carrier" is in reference to a between
* *channel tone frequency deliberately sent as an early AFC.

* *Commercial and government communications users generally
* *plan for long service life, such service having reliability
* *and with known characteristics. *While those may appear
* *conservative, those major players in communications aren't
* *in there for fun or experimentation. *They are there for
* *the "long haul," both in distance and in time. *Such long-
* *lived expectancy must be based on known information
* *supporting its development.


So it took amateurs to discover the usefulness of the shortwaves. That
usefulness wasn't "already known to non-hobbyist technologists".

The Amateurs were confined to that area, and the experimentally
inclined did their experiments, and viola, a lot of discoveries and
advancements were made. It is a great story, and Hams should be proud of
that part of their history.


* *It is fine to be proud. *However, history is the past.


It's important to be accurate about the history, though.

*As a more mature technology today, I wouldn't expect many more earth
shaking discoveries from Hams.


* *I disagree. *The state of the art of all communications is
* *continually advancing. *Radio development didn't stop prior
* *to WWII nor at any time up to now. *For example, look at
* *PSK31 by G3PLX, D-Star by the JARL with support of Japanese
* *industry, APRS utilizing GPS downlink, all examples of post-
* *1980 innovation in amateur radio, done by radio amateurs for
* *radio amateurs.


So amateurs continue to innovate and discover, even today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #49   Report Post  
Old April 23rd 07, 02:31 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 229
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

xxx wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:45:26 EDT

AF6AY wrote:
xxx wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:41:27 EDT:


"Once upon a time" is approximately the time period prior to
World War II...the first 44 years of "radio" as a communications
medium.


I would have extended that time frame into the 1960's or even the
1970's when moonbounce experiments still made the news.


The first-ever successful moonbounce was done by the U.S.
Army Signal Corps in the forties right after end of WWII.
The Army dubbed that experiment "Project Diana." That
was two decades prior to the 1960s.

My choice of the first 44 years versus the last 67 years
may seem arbitrary but the Second World War was a decided
changeover time in technology of all electronics, including
that small subset of it called radio.

Your point is not clear. Are you claiming that since those
technologies originated with other radio services that the
contribution by hams was small or are you claiming that since hams
developed and popularized those technologies that hams' contribution
was large?


I do not claim anything. I summarized the major points of
technology untilized in amateur radio during the last 67
years of radio's existance. In the first 44 years of radio,
radio itself was considered the high-tech application of
electronics. The vacuum tube had some applications in audio
amplification and specialized instruments but "radio" for
one-way or two-way communications was favored. Radio then
was noted by the public as primarily for broadcasting but
the public were also aware of the "ham radio operator" in
this high-tech-of-its-day field.

After WWII, based on the necessities of expanding the
technology needs of war, electronics began spreading far
and wide, using circuits and systems rare or unheard-of
by the public prior to WWII: Television, "high-Fi" music
systems, magnetic tape recording (in the home as well as
in entertainment industry), FM broadcasting as an adjunct
to home music systems, electronic flash units for photo-
graphy, photoelectric systems for security and warning,
intercom systems, dictating machines. That was prior to
the invention of the transistor and the true start of the
solid-state era in electronics.

The transistor, various junction diode types, the
integrated circuit, then the large-scale-integrated
circuit semiconductor structures' availability can be
likened to a megaton explosion of applications and
increases in electronics use in our daily lives, from
medicine and health, to accounting and automatic control,
to all manner of consumer electronics not practically
possible prior to WWII. "Radio" per se took a back seat
in applications in the whole of the electronics
industry's design and development efforts. That's
neither good nor bad, simply that the possible number of
applications for all electronics taking advantage of
solid-state components has been almost overwhelming in
quantity and scope. That continues today.

That radio communications equipment design has adopted
many techniques and components used in other areas of
electronics should not be a detriment. Some non-radio
applications "borrowed" from radio design and one even
preceded radio use: Frequency-multiplexed multi-channel
carrier systems for long-distance wired telephony, also
known as Single Sideband. :-)

A microprocessor or microcontroller is entirely digital
in operation, yet is applied to analog radio now almost
universally. That was not possible prior to 1970,
yet amateur radio designs from off-the-shelf today
nearly all use them for a large variety of functions,
everything from HTs to top-of-the-line HF DX machines
down to test equipment. It ENABLES many functions not
available prior to WWII designs and its substitutes for
old design funcions are superior in operation.

Electronics (including radio) does considerable "cross-
pollination" of circuits and subsystems from one
specialty area to another. That is good rather than
bad. "Radio" has lost its specific nature of exclusivity
in structure of all-analog circuits. The vacuum tube is
almost obsolete for new radios, surviving only in high-
power RF amplifiers for amateur, commercial, and broad-
casting use. Even those are getting competition from
high-frequency power transistor modular architectures.
The cathode-ray tube is going that way, replaced with
solid-state LCD, TFT, Plasma flat display screens, not
just in television but also in oscillography and small
instrumentation plus consumer applications like gas
ranges, microwaves, and lawn sprinkler controllers.
About the only area of vacuum tubes not quite (yet)
replaced by solid-state are high-sensitivity photo-
multipliers and night observation devices. Even those
are seeing competition now.

Innovation and invention today depends more on the
adaptation of existing components and subsystems and
putting them together than outright invention-from-
scratch. Even the U.S. Patent Office is aware of that.
My single patent grant in 1974 was #3,848,191. GAP
Antenna Products got one in 1997 as #5,592,183 (reading
from a GAP pamphlet). Nearly 2 million Patents granted
in only about 25 years. :-)

Radio per se is not much involved in just trying to get
a handle on how the whole thing works. That was needed
in its first four decades. Messrs Hartley, Colpitts,
and Pierce gave us basic oscillators necessary to start
generating RF but later came Butler and others with
variations using 3rd, 5th, even 7th overtone crystal
controlled oscillators, plus the Varian brothers'
Klystron and the original Magnetron (from the UK).
Would we have a microwave oven in nearly every kitchen
today if the magnetron had not been invented? :-)

BTW, the most-used oscillator circuit of today is based
on the CMOS inverter with feedback through a quartz
crystal or other resonator. No name associated with it.
Every microprocessor has such a clock oscillator, active
devices usually built-in.


If you look at the foundational documents of ham radio (FCC Part
97, current test question pools), it is made quite clear that ham
radio exists for the primary purpose of having trained radio
operators available in case of emergency. Contributing to the
advancement of the radio art comes next. Having an enjoyable hobby is
not even mentioned.


I have a 1997 complete 5-volume set of Title 47 Code of Federal
Regulations and the current copy of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.
Nowhere is the word "hobby" written in those regulations. That
is de jure. De facto is that amateur radio is, by and large, a
hobby radio activity, done for personal reasons and not for
monetary compensation. The FCC is aware of that, the ARRL is
aware of that, the IARU is aware of that, hundreds of different
nation's administrations are aware of that.

I also have a complete set of the current NCVEC Question Pools,
obtained from www.ncvec.org directly; such are not found in
Part 97...but should be available through any of the many VECs.

It was not clear to me that my amateur radio test taken and
passed on 25 February 2007 was for an Amateur Emergency Radio
Operator. I was already a General Radiotelephone Operator
(Commercial) since taking and passing my First Class Radio-
telephone (Commercial) operator license in 1956. Prior to
that the United States Army had trained me to operate and
maintain radio communications equipment on HF, VHF, UHF, and
microwave bands. I've already used my First 'Phone/GROL in
other radio services. In various Parts of Title 47 C.F.R.,
the FCC specifically states that any emergency situation
involving safety of life, no license is required to use a
radio to seek help. Why would I have gotten an Amateur Radio
license to be an emergency operator? I could have joined
the Los Angeles Auxilliary Communications Service directly
or even the California (state) Auxilliary Communications
Service (they don't require any license at all). The test
session was in an L.A. ACS station building, formerly a
small fire house for the LAFD. I got my Amateur Radio
Operator license for use in a personal hobby. That isn't
against the law or even unpatriotic.


Your comments don't follow from mine. I stated that the FCC, in
effect, 'overruled' the ARRL and the old hams when it eliminated the
code test. The key question is 'WHY did the FCC do that.' I am
convinced that the FCC perceived the code requirement as being at the
root of ham radio's failure to innovate or provide training to
subsequent generations. The FCC killed it in order to end ham radio's
decades-long stagnation.


You are welcome to your opinion. Seventeen years ago the
FCC answered a public request when it issued a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making on the creation of the no-code-test
Technician class license. It said then that the Commission
did not feel a test for Morse Code skill/comprehension was
necessary in its regulatory position of determining whether
or not an applicant was worthy of being granted an amateur
radio license. A copy is available at www.nocode.org as
FCC 90-53. Nine years later in Report and Order 99-412
('Restructuring') the Commission stated nearly the same when
it dropped all Morse Code test rates to 5 words per minute
equivalent. By far, the largest and fastest growing U.S.
Amateur Radio Service license class has been the no-code-test
Technician class. The peak in number of amateur licenses
granted occurred in 2003.

I see all of that as public demand, not to "support" amateur
radio. From the Communications Act of 1934 to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (both Laws of Congress) the
FCC is obliged to regulate civil communications services of
the United States. It is not obliged to support any one
radio service over and above any other.

73, Len AF6AY

  #50   Report Post  
Old April 23rd 07, 06:35 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 828
Default Before and After Cessation of Code Testing

KH6HZ wrote:

Yes, well, the world was a very different place 50 years ago.

Neither of my parents were required to sign an employment contract which
contains a clause to the effect of "anything you invent, even if its on your
own time, we own". Yet, such clauses are routine these days in virtually
every employment contract I've signed, or seen.

Perhaps we have the lawyerification of America to partially blame?


I signed one of those at my first technical job clear back in 1972, and
one for every employer since then. As far as I can tell, all of the
forms are valid forever, and if I invent something profitable enough,
all of my previous employers are going to go after it.

I don't think that we have become more greedy or self serving over the
years. I'm more inclined to think a nostalgia effect is at work.


I'm not really sure. Maybe people are less altruistic today than they were
30+ years ago.


In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I
think how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook.



Perhaps the popularity of ham radio is declining not because of anything to
do with ham radio itself, but instead simply a matter of the changing
society in the world as a whole.



What do you base the thesis of declining popularity on?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
60 Days Since Code Test Cessation Compared AF6AY Policy 18 May 3rd 07 12:08 AM
what Code testing realy does to the ARS an old friend Policy 6 September 24th 06 06:08 PM
what Code testing realy does to the ARS Slow Code Antenna 1 September 19th 06 01:31 AM
what Code testing realy does to the ARS Slow Code Swap 1 September 19th 06 01:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017