Phil Kane wrote in
:

Of course the use of "first personal is...." still grates on my ears
but give them time....they'll learn eventually.


My own personal pet peeve is when someone speaks "HI HI". In Morse it does
sound kind of like laughter, but when spoken it sounds quite strange.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 11, 11:20?am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Bill Horne, W1AC wrote:
Fellow hams,
You're pretty much right there Bill, although I would not quite agree
on tekkie folks going to the internet. I don't think we're producing
many tech folks at all. But that's another issue.

I am convinced that what we need a

Kind and friendly folk who are willing to take the newbies under their
wing and teach them.

Ahem...most of the "newbies" recently getting on HF aren't "new" at
all but
have now been able to administratively change their class as a result
of
FCC 06-178. [I am a relatively rare extra-out-of-the-box who has been
IN
radio longer than most here, but I'm cheering for the recent
'upgraders.']

BTW, I've never had any "Elmer" since my Army active duty time ended
in
1956. The closest to that I've gotten since is to silently observe
others
operating their rigs and, once in a while, get to say a few words as a
guest third-party. First-hand observation can teach much and the
'teacher'
doesn't have to explain anything, certainly not lecture.

Folk who do not judge other Hams by their favorite mode of operation.

Whoa! BIG issue from what I've heard. Usually its against DSB AM as
if it
is some cardinal sin! I don't understand it even though I've heard
all the
rationales of "limited bandspace" and all that for years.

The very last time hams got more bandspace on HF was 28 years ago at
WARC-79. Lately the FCC gave out a few channels at "60m" instead
of the ARRL-requested band of frequencies. Nobody in any position of
amateur leadership seems to be doing anything about getting more band-
space in HF, yet HF is much less used overall now than it was 28
years ago.

Folk who are willing to go after the jammers and riff raff and follow
through with that RDP.

I don't know about all this "riff-raff" stuff since I've not heard
much, yet I
can receive fairly good over HF, same as most others. So far, I've
only
had one UNIDENTIFIED Raddio Kopp try to flash his badge about my
using the phrase "roger that" instead of just 'roger.' :-)

How does one follow up on the Unidentified riff-raff without having a
trio
of DF-equipped hams all taking bearings at the same time? Shout and
holler in newsgroups and other forums and demand somebody do
something?!? Listening to 10m here I just don't get all that
"jamming"
and "riff-raff" supposedly done by CBers, just hams doing their ham
thing with a few complaining about that CBer riff-raff. :-(

I like the sound of DSB AM. Saves having to retweak tuning for a
network
of SSB users, none of which are exactly on-frequency.

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:20?am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Bill Horne, W1AC wrote:
Fellow hams,
You're pretty much right there Bill, although I would not quite agree
on tekkie folks going to the internet. I don't think we're producing
many tech folks at all. But that's another issue.

I am convinced that what we need a

Kind and friendly folk who are willing to take the newbies under their
wing and teach them.

Ahem...most of the "newbies" recently getting on HF aren't "new" at
all but have now been able to administratively change their class as a result
of FCC 06-178. [I am a relatively rare extra-out-of-the-box who has been
IN radio longer than most here, but I'm cheering for the recent
'upgraders.']

True enough, but I'm not really addressing admin upgrades. There is a
new group of Hams who are interested in radio, but may not know all that
much. In our area we nave new Hams who haven't used a soldering iron. We
teach 'em how to use one.

There are some Hams who would hold these unpolished gems in contempt
for their lack of knowledge.



Folk who do not judge other Hams by their favorite mode of operation.

Whoa! BIG issue from what I've heard. Usually its against DSB AM as
if it is some cardinal sin! I don't understand it even though I've heard
all the rationales of "limited bandspace" and all that for years.


There is some contention here. The enhanced bandwidth SSB crowd is
pretty roundly panned for their use of bandwidth. Theey might point out
that the AM'ers also use a lot.

My thoughts are that the AM is a legacy mode, and there really aren't a
lot of practitioners, so I am willing to put up with that bit of extra
use. Wide band SSB on the other hand, is just a mode that doesn't serve
much purpose.


Folk who are willing to go after the jammers and riff raff and follow
through with that RDP.

I don't know about all this "riff-raff" stuff since I've not heard
much, yet I can receive fairly good over HF, same as most others. So far, I've
only had one UNIDENTIFIED Raddio Kopp try to flash his badge about my
using the phrase "roger that" instead of just 'roger.' :-)

There is a fair amount of interference out there. It isn't really too
many people, much less than 1 percent, but that small group can wreak
some havoc.

And as I have said before, there is altogether too much worry about
saying the exact correct words. If more hams worried about actual
problems, and less about speech patterns, it would be FB... ;^)


How does one follow up on the Unidentified riff-raff without having a
trio of DF-equipped hams all taking bearings at the same time?

More or less just that, Len. There are a lot of Hams who love
Fox-Hunts. This would be different from most fox hunting, but would
serve an actual useful purpose. We have Hams who travel to some pretty
awful places to DXpedition. Seems a few might want to do some direction
finding.

Sometimes this isn't even needed, as some of the miscreants aren't too
secretive about their callsigns.

Shout and holler in newsgroups and other forums and demand somebody do
something?!?

Hehe, people have tried that for some time, and it doesn't work too well.




Listening to 10m here I just don't get all that
"jamming"
and "riff-raff" supposedly done by CBers, just hams doing their ham
thing with a few complaining about that CBer riff-raff. :-(

I don't spend a lot of time on 10 m, but what time I have spent there,
the inhabitants have been pretty well behaved. Most of my experience
with the bad guys has been on 75 meters, and a little on 20.


I like the sound of DSB AM. Saves having to retweak tuning for a
network of SSB users, none of which are exactly on-frequency.

On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters.

Minor point:

For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97
as if they were different bands.


My
reasons for doing so are probably typical: I do it because it reminds
me of the first transmitter I owned, and of other rigs and earlier
times, before I had the money to buy new equipment and linear
amplifiers. I also have many good friends who operate AM, and I like
to talk to them as well as to my friends who use CW or SSB.

I used to do some 75 meter AM - because it was fun. I hope to do more
soon. But the fun was definitely reduced by the behavior of a few bad
apples.

I'm writing this to ask that hams who don't favor AM make allowances for us:
it seems that the "AM Window" on 80 meters is being taken over by hams
operating SSB, sometimes with blunt, on-the-air comments to the effect that
those running AM aren't entitled to use the space. There have been skirmishes,
complaints, acrimonious debates, and even outright jamming lately, and I'm
afraid it will escalate to the point that FCC action will be needed.

Long history of that. I don't know why, because AM activity is
concentrated on a few well-known frequencies.

I'm going to be blunt he I'm not a psychologist, but I think those who
oppose AM are making a big mistake by not treating AM operators with the
same standard of on-air behavior that they show to other hams. I'm not sure
why this "range war" has started, but it's only logical endpoint is with
reduced privileges for ALL hams, not just those who use AM.

Our hobby is at a crossroads: with young technophiles gravitating to the
Internet, and military forces needing neither CW operators nor technicians,
the future we face at the frequency-bargaining table and in the public's mind
is no longer in the hands of benevolent government agencies eager for
trained personnel who can be pressed into service quickly. In fact, the
future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and unless we start working together
and stop sniping at each other over minor things like the modes we use, we're
going to fade away without anyone noticing.

I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)
even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:37:38 EDT, wrote in .com:

I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

I seem to remember reading something yesterday about a defense contractor
getting an experimental permit for something right spang in the middle of
1.8-2.0 MHz. I need to review the bidding on that, and will write more once
I find it.

What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

The ARRL is holding the FCC's collective feet to the fire, and that sort of
action is one of the very few reasons that the ARRL still gets any of my
money.

As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)
even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

Apparently not. But there's certainly plenty of room for the Hi-Fi SSB
crowd. *sigh*

--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO

Tired old sysadmin

wrote in
oups.com:

On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters.

Minor point:

For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97
as if they were different bands.

Really odd, in that the ARRL lumps them together as 80 meters. The
whole thing is not accurate anyhow, so I guess it is more by convention
than anything else.


I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

Agreed. HF "suffers" from unpredictability, or perhaps more accurately,
it's wildly varying characteristics. One part of the day, a flea power
signal can make its way around the world, the next part it won't. Then
the sunspots can do the same thing. Those are all the characteristincs
that we have fun with, but are really bad for the control that is needed
by other groups. I like to think about what would happen during good
propagation to all those competing signals.


What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all the
battles.


As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)

That would be quite a trick! (joke)

even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

Not for the miscreants! 8^(

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 16, 2:19?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote groups.com:
On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters.

Minor point:

For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97
as if they were different bands.

Really odd, in that the ARRL lumps them together as 80 meters. The
whole thing is not accurate anyhow, so I guess it is more by convention
than anything else.

Yup. Why FCC considers them different bands, even though they are
right next to each other, is a mystery.

I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

Agreed. HF "suffers" from unpredictability, or perhaps more accurately,
it's wildly varying characteristics. One part of the day, a flea power
signal can make its way around the world, the next part it won't. Then
the sunspots can do the same thing. Those are all the characteristincs
that we have fun with, but are really bad for the control that is needed
by other groups. I like to think about what would happen during good
propagation to all those competing signals.

There's also the size of simple, effective antennas on the lower
frequencies, particularly if you want broadband, no-tuner performance.
I saw a neat design for a 40-10 meter discone in the ARRL Antenna Book
- it's not exactly small.

What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all the
battles.

I don't know about politics losing all the time. If the licensed
services are not protected, all kinds of havoc can happen.

In the bad old days, 27 MHz was an ISM band, reserved for things like
diathermy and heat-sealing machines. I remember one case, here in
Philadelphia, where a heat-sealing factory's machines put a strong
harmonic right on the Philadelphia Police dispatcher channel.

Of course FCC was all over them in a big way. But imagine if FCC had
dragged its feet...

Of course amateur radio isn't the same as the police channel, but once
the camel's nose gets in the tent, things get very odd.

As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)

That would be quite a trick! (joke)

Yup. But they did it anyway.

even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

Not for the miscreants! 8^(

'zactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:50:33 EDT, wrote:

In the bad old days, 27 MHz was an ISM band, reserved for things like
diathermy and heat-sealing machines. I remember one case, here in
Philadelphia, where a heat-sealing factory's machines put a strong
harmonic right on the Philadelphia Police dispatcher channel.

The major problem with the 27 MHz heat sealers was the 4th harmonic in
the aviation bands. The local FCC engineer in charge had the legal
authority to shut the plant down immediately without a warning or
hearing and the plant could not resume operation until it certified
by measurement and an FAA overflight that the IX was corrected. The
necessary shielding to accomplish compliance is the reason that the
characteristic "heat sealer buzz" is no longer a problem on 11 or 10
meters.

Of course FCC was all over them in a big way. But imagine if FCC had
dragged its feet...

Even today, FAA complaints take first priority, but in reality that
was a different FCC... g

In my first year with the agency we went out on about a half-dozen
such complaints in the San Francisco area, but 30 years later when I
retired we hadn't received such a complaint in many years.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

wrote in
oups.com:


On Jun 16, 2:19?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:

some snippage

Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all
the battles.

I don't know about politics losing all the time. If the licensed
services are not protected, all kinds of havoc can happen.

Then the politics loses. The world is full of examples where
politicians have decided what the truth is. I'll spare us the details to
avoid going off topic, but BPL, which is one really minor example of that
sort of thought, will almost certainly fail unless Amateur radio is
outlawed in all BPL deployment areas. While it does indeed interfere with
our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting
legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access
for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far,
however.
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:04 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

While it does indeed interfere with
our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting
legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access
for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far,
however.

If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same
"money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to
get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio
services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC
employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws
radar systems.

My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds
if we amateurs can just hold out long enough.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net