|
Forty Years Licensed
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 14:20:30 EDT, Klystron wrote:
If the size of the pool were increased, would that satisfy your objection? Given a finite body of information, there are only so many questions that can be formulated from it to test an applicant's knowledge. The national Multistate Bar Exam, one element of each state's bar exam, is composed of 200 multiple choice questions. Half of those come from the published "Green Book", a compilation of 500 Q&As, the equivalent of the Question Pool Study Guide. The other half are composed on the fly by a "faceless committee" for each semi-annual exam (all given on the same day nationwide). Thus, 20% of the Q&As on each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested. The answer choices of each question usually consist of two that are obviously incorrect and two more that appear to be very close, and the process is really to identify the better of the two. A score of 130 = 65% or better is the minimum required in most states. In California, acknowledged to have the toughest test, a score of 152 = 76% is an absolute pass where performance on the other elements of the exam are not even taken into account. Granted that the level of knowledge required for passing the Bar exam is greater than the level of knowledge required for passing an amateur exam, the key factor in both is not the size of the published pool, but should be the knowledge of the examinee. As we were told in Bar Exam review courses, the correct answer is right there in front of you, and all you really have to know is "a", "b", "c" , or "d". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 16:00:50 EDT, Phil Kane
wrote: Thus, 20% of the Q&As on each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested. Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of those published. The ratio of published to non-published questions is, of course, 50%/50%. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
Phil Kane wrote:
[...] Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of those published. [...] Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive. I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100 questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over 10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an acceptable solution? -- Klystron |
Forty Years Licensed
"Klystron" wrote
Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive. I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100 questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over 10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an acceptable solution? Objection overruled. Now sit down at your rig and "work" someone in the cw portion of the band... at 25 wpm. You already have your license; enjoy it. ;-) |
Forty Years Licensed
for my part I prefer the flexibility of using my equipment how I want to,
not how a computer tells me I should. Well put Ivor. I feel the same way. My most recent 2m radio (Yaesu FT1802) has automatic repeater shift, which I have been forced to turn off as it tries to shift the TX on a few frequencies which due to local convention, I require to use simplex. Automatic features are great, especially if you can switch them off :o) -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS #9666 CW Ops QRP Club #753 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck " wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In . com writes: The classic 'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work? Another angle on the same challenge would be who would be motivated to develop a vendor-independent standard, that would actually be widely adopted by vendors, to implement this? Witness the various permutations of DC power connectors (with amateur radio emergency groups driven to distraction trying to establish at least local standards). Witness the inability to develop working, vendor-independent, interoperable standards for high-speed radio modems (9600 baud and above) that could be found in commonly-available commercial amateur radio gear. Amateur radio equipment manufacturers appear to prefer to differentiate their products by unique, and unfortunately incompatible, means of interfacing and control, with few economic incentives to standardize with other brands. I think there are a couple of reasons for that: 1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig. 2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it means less sales the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and Elecraft, do this already. Will your amateur radio that is programmed to recognize band edges and allowed modes be able to be modified via reasonably available tools and techniques for the indefinite future? Examples that may cause me to think otherwise include: - Most amateur radio equipment in the past couple of decades, for economic reasons, tends to use custom bit-masked EEPROM's to implement their internal programming, something that would not be economical to duplicate by third-party manufacturers. Though amateur radio equipment would seem to be covered by the Magnuson Moss Act (i.e., availability of parts on the open market for some period of time after the end of manufacture, preservation of warranty even if third party parts and service are used, etc.), I also recall letters to QST complaining about repair depots simply being unable to fix amateur radio equipment, some of which was less than 10 years old. Isn't that true of almost any consumer electronics? We hams are the exception that proves the rule. We tend to keep rigs in working order for a very long time, compared to, say, VCRs, computers or TV sets. Note also that hams like N4PY have come up with aftermarket software improvements for rigs like Ten Tec. - I recall a legal dust-up from some years ago, discussed on the newsgroups, where Motorola was cracking down on efforts to reverse-engineer radio interfaces and the software that is used to modify the configurations of their radios. Regardless of whether Motorola was taking a legally defensible position, if the software is proprietary, or unable to run on current computers, or otherwise unavailable or unusable in some way, you may be left holding the bag. The idea is that you're either supposed to pay Motorola prices, or replace the radios. Consider the problem with VCR's and the recent change in the start of Daylight Savings Time in the U.S., and no way to modify them. That reminds me, I have a bunch of things to reset.... Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature would be part of the user interface. This would appear to offer more promise of future compatibility and programmability, though might still run afoul of legal problems with regard to reverse engineering or otherwise developing openly-published specifications and third-party software tools. Whether or not these positions would be legally defensible might not prevent manufacturers from attempting to chill the open market for these tools via intimidation tactics. Also, how long would it take for software-defined radios to propagate out to the amateur radio community in significant enough numbers to make a meaningful impact? Good point! But the ability to add and change filters by firmware/ software methods is a major reason to go SDR. I think it depends on the intent. It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since 1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating. That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it has probably saved me from a few problems along the way. It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to know things, like the subband edges. IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection. I think that's the important distinction. It's also related to a classic conundrum in developing safety systems in other fields. Yup - been there, done that. I would welcome an amateur radio that had fault protection to keep me from blowing the finals if I accidentally transmitted into no load or an infinite load. I'm not so sure about an amateur radio that would keep me from transmitting out of band or in an unauthorized mode if assumptions about what constituted "out of band" or "authorized mode" changes, or if I find myself in a true, bona-fide, communications emergency. One way to implement such protection is to have an override switch that must be activated for each exception. Or just a "feature off" switch. The Usenet newsgroup comp.risks (aka, "Risks Digest") has touched on many of these types of issues. For example, while a rev-limiter on a motor would increase safety by preventing a blown engine, putting speed limiters on automobiles to keep them within speed limits may increase accidents by denying the necessary amount of power to get you out of a reasonably unanticipated emergency situation while passing or merging. I can't think of a reasonable real-world situation where an RPM limiter would cause problems. Speed limiters, though, have practical problems. The max speed would have to be set higher than the highest legal speed limit in the country, so we're talking about 80-85 MPH. Since the car doesn't know if it's on a superhighway or in a school zone, the practical effect would be rather small. An airplane whose controls would keep you from overstressing the airframe, or flying into restricted airspace, might also keep you from making appropriate emergency maneuvers, where landing alive with your crew and passengers, but with an airframe you have just end-of-lifed, or under fighter escort to be whisked off to a friendly interview with the authorities, might be far preferable to the alternatives. There's also the problem of what happens if the protection system fails. It seems to me that the best implementation for ham rigs would be a firmware feature that you could turn off, and update as needed by downloads. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
Posted by on Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:23:33 EST
On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck " wrote: 1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig. STANDARDIZATION, nearly all of it industry standards, make up nearly everything in the component parts of any manufactured and nearly every home-built radio equipment for at least the last half century. Everything from fasteners (nuts and bolts) made to English and metric industry standards, vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, inductors, transistors and diodes (of the 'registered' 2N and 1N prefixes). There's industry standards on aluminum and magnesium alloys, even some on castings of same. There's industry standards on rack panels even though that was once started by AT&T for the telephone infra-structure. There's industry standards on wire (American Wire Gauge ruling through the market demand)...although those standards v. government specifications blur for heavier guages. The 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10% logarithmic-sequence of parts values has become a de facto standard because of its ease in equating the parts' tolerances. The 'UHF' series of common RF connectors on amateur radios was originally a military specification but has become a de facto standard through its incorporation; the military doesn't use it now, hasn't for years, the patents on it have run out and it is a relatively cheap coaxial connector compared to other, better coaxial connectors. 2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it means less sales Aeronautical Radio, Inc (ARINC) was once solely a commercial company engaged in providing air-ground communications with aircraft before our government got its act together and created the air traffic control system. They still do that but ARINC is better known to commercial avionics equipment makers as an industry Standards Group that, by common agreement of members, establishes standards on all civilian avionics equipment. Those cover everything from cases, their mounting equipment, even the control wiring with specified connectors and specific connections for control functions. ARINC standards have been acceptable to manufacturers and users for fifty years. The civilian avionics market is smaller than the USA amateur radio market. The 'D-Star' VHF-UHF standard, currently under large promotion by Icom, may or may not become a standard. A lot of opposition to that standard is from US amateurs because it originated in Japan and was conceived and tested there. shrug 'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use' standard and a recommendation by the IARU. Yet most are under the impression that all S Meters are calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-) Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers, are designed and made for stand-alone use. Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna- connector devices or different speaker boxes and other audio processing things. The external connections are standardized as to power input (AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure or DC power from the auto industry), computer interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those are included for read-out or computer control, and 'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker, morse key connections still aren't standardized fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-) I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting. Allocations of amateur frequency and modes for same aren't locked to any standard but the common-agreement terms of the ITU-R. Sub-band allocations are always at the discretion of the national radio regulating authorities and may change at any time dependent on that nation's politicking for sub-band use. :-) I've seen a LOT of different human factors documents and guides, but have yet to see a specific arrangement for manual control functions on any consumer electronics product. The 'need' for that seems to be no different for remote control via computer. Computer interfaces are very standardized now but that industry has had a quarter century to work those out; they evolved in the same manner as all standards did. Some have disappeared such as the 5 1/4" floppy and the 'Centronics' connector (Amphenol Blue-Ribbon); the 8" floppy and CP/M OS disappeared so early that few computerists of today know they once existed. :-) PC operating systems are standardized on the MS Windows package through agressive marketing and buyers agreeing to that despite the 'Linux' alternative. De facto 'standards' will come about through a combination of manufacturer's marketing efforts and public acceptance...plus other manufacturers offering 'compatible' things to work with the apparent market-leader that started the de facto standard. That's how it was "forty years ago" and that's how it will continue to be. shrug AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
wrote in message oups.com... The idea is that you're either supposed to pay Motorola prices, or replace the radios. Motorola just announced the intent to purchase Yaesu Musen. The Man in the Maze QRS at Baboquivari Peak, AZ -- Iitoi |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 5, 4:03?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, wrote: (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or keyboard). Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online now: www.elecraft.com You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the Morse into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device. That is pretty darn clever. Yup. Of course it means you have to know how to send Morse Code in order to do PSK31 or RTTY without a keyboard, but still..... Does it have any special characters for backing up/corrections? Check the manual. It's interesting reading. I don't know if you've ever done it or not, but I suspect that it would be really easy to drop into "cw speak", which might be a little strnge for us native psk'ers. O RLY? In any event, props go out to Elecraft for an innovative solution. They've got a lot of them. Their manuals are worth a read just for the ingenuity that went into the rig designs. I got a chance to use a KX1 on Field Day this year. Amazing little rig. Complete with accessory paddles, it's about the size of a stack of QSL cards. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 5, 10:08?pm, "Iitoi" wrote:
Motorola just announced the intent to purchase Yaesu Musen. Actually, they are buying Vertex, which owns Yaesu - and a lot more. Which raises the question - will they keep Yaesu as a major amateur radio manufacturer, sell off the amateur division, or shut it down? Interesting times! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
AF6AY wrote:
'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use' standard and a recommendation by the IARU. Yet most are under the impression that all S Meters are calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-) Ain't that the truth! There is so much ambiguity in S-meters that they are more for self comparison than anything else. I calibrated my S-meter during an antenna comparison a year or so ago, and they wen't in agreement, and they weren't linear - which is to say that while S-7 might be a bit high, and S-5 mogt be a bit low, and S-2 something else altogether. Coupled with what I understand was a change in how many db were considered an S-unit to boot makes the S meter more of an entertainment device, or more likely one of the less important functions of the meter we use ot adjust power, alc, SWR and the like. Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers, are designed and made for stand-alone use. Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna- connector devices or different speaker boxes and other audio processing things. The external connections are standardized as to power input (AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure or DC power from the auto industry), computer interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those are included for read-out or computer control, and 'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker, morse key connections still aren't standardized fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-) I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting. Certainly those who have the most need for the lock outs wouldn't program them in anyhow. But I find it just an interesting thought exercise. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Forty Years Licensed
wrote:
On Nov 5, 4:03?pm, Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, wrote: (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or keyboard). Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online now: www.elecraft.com You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the Morse into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device. That is pretty darn clever. Yup. Of course it means you have to know how to send Morse Code in order to do PSK31 or RTTY without a keyboard, but still..... Indeed! My Morse code shortcomings are all on the receiving side. I can send fairly well, but I have to have a pretty clean signal to hear it easily. Does it have any special characters for backing up/corrections? Check the manual. It's interesting reading. I don't know if you've ever done it or not, but I suspect that it would be really easy to drop into "cw speak", which might be a little strnge for us native psk'ers. O RLY? I've always said that Hams are probably the origin of leet. In any event, props go out to Elecraft for an innovative solution. They've got a lot of them. Their manuals are worth a read just for the ingenuity that went into the rig designs. I got a chance to use a KX1 on Field Day this year. Amazing little rig. Complete with accessory paddles, it's about the size of a stack of QSL cards. Well so is my IC-761, as long as you can stack up a few thousand in maybe 30 piles..... Seriously, the KX-1 is a nice little Xceiver. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 5, 7:23 pm, AF6AY wrote:
Posted by on Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:23:33 EST On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck " wrote: 1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig. STANDARDIZATION, nearly all of it industry standards, make up nearly everything in the component parts of any manufactured and nearly every home-built radio equipment for at least the last half century. Everything from fasteners (nuts and bolts) made to English and metric industry standards, vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, inductors, transistors and diodes (of the 'registered' 2N and 1N prefixes). The standardization being discussed was about things like power connectors and the possible feature of the rig not transmitting outside the licensee's privileges (such as no 'phone in the CW/data subbands). btw, many of the parts in consumer and amateur electronics today are "house numbered", particularly ICs, and replacements can be a real problem. 2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it means less sales Aeronautical Radio, Inc (ARINC) was once solely a commercial company engaged in providing air-ground communications with aircraft before our government got its act together and created the air traffic control system. They still do that but ARINC is better known to commercial avionics equipment makers as an industry Standards Group that, by common agreement of members, establishes standards on all civilian avionics equipment. Key factor there is "common agreement of members". 'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use' standard and a recommendation by the IARU. Even if S meter readings were standardized, differences in antenna systems would make the readings meaningless on an absolute scale. Yet most are under the impression that all S Meters are calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-) Who are "most", Len? None of my homebrew receivers or transceivers has ever had an S meter. Yet I give signal reports as part of most QSOs. Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers, are designed and made for stand-alone use. Most are, but not all. For example, the Kachina 505DSP, introduced about a decade ago, requires connection to a computer. Same for the Ten Tec Pegasus, introduced about a year after the 505DSP. The inexpensive PSK31 transceivers commonly known as the "Warbler" is another example. More recently, some software-defined rigs have been produced that require computer connection to operate. Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna- connector devices or different speaker boxes and other audio processing things. Isn't being "outside" the definition of "peripheral"? Many rigs nowadays have numerous *internal* options as well, such as filters and firmware upgrades. These are almost always manufacturer-specific if not model-specific. At least one company (Elecraft) makes their transceivers available with a wide variety of internal options that can be added at initial construction, or later. For example, their basic K2 transceiver is a 10 watt CW-only 80/40/30/20/17/15/12/10 rig. Options include an antenna tuning unit, SLA battery, analog and DSP audio filters, SSB, 160 meters/second receiver antenna input, noise blanker, 60 meters, 100 watt amplifier, and serial port. Their other products offer similar options. But they are all specific to the manufacturer. www.elecraft.com The external connections are standardized as to power input (AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure or DC power from the auto industry), Not on amateur gear. Some use Molex, some use PowerPoles, some use other connectors for DC power. computer interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those are included for read-out or computer control, and 'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker, morse key connections still aren't standardized fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-) My point exactly. I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting. What's the puzzlement? It's just a proposed feature. Allocations of amateur frequency and modes for same aren't locked to any standard but the common-agreement terms of the ITU-R. Sub-band allocations are always at the discretion of the national radio regulating authorities and may change at any time dependent on that nation's politicking for sub-band use. :-) The idea was that the rig could prevent an amateur from accidentally transmitting where s/he wasn't supposed to. Not just out-of-band but out of subband, even when the handy frequency chart isn't available, or the operator doesn't look at it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 6, 8:17?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Of course it means you have to know how to send Morse Code in order to do PSK31 or RTTY without a keyboard, but still..... Indeed! My Morse code shortcomings are all on the receiving side. I can send fairly well, but I have to have a pretty clean signal to hear it easily. IMHO the circle game is complete. I recall an article in QST (March 1964) where, by using the right key sequences, a 60 wpm RTTY machine could be made to send Morse Code. This was particularly useful because in those days amateurs using RTTY had to ID in Morse Code. A few years later came the first CW keyboards, which permitted someone with no Morse Code sending skills to generate near-perfect Morse Code. Now we have a rig that will permit a person with no typing skills to send perfect RTTY or PSK31. O RLY? I've always said that Hams are probably the origin of leet. Naw, the landline telegraphers started it. - 73 de Mike N3LI Congrats on the new call! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
Now we have a rig that will permit a person with no typing skills to send perfect RTTY I thought that was the punch tape reader Jeff |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 9, 6:57 am, "Jeff" wrote:
I thought that was the punch tape reader BWAAHAAHAAA - good one! -- Another neat RTTY trick involved paper tape. By using certain sequences of letters, the holes in the paper tape could be made to form letters and numbers. What was printed on the page looked like gibberish-with-a-pattern but if you looked at the tape the message was clear. Of course since it took several characters to make one letter, the effective speed on a 60 wpm machine was about 15-20 wpm. And there was no going back if you made a mistake. But the effect could be impressive to the uninitiated. 73 de Jim, N2EY ....remembering the smell of hot machine oil in the W3ABT room... |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 9, 11:12 am, wrote:
On Nov 9, 6:57 am, "Jeff" wrote: I thought that was the punch tape reader BWAAHAAHAAA - good one! -- Another neat RTTY trick involved paper tape. By using certain sequences of letters, the holes in the paper tape could be made to form letters and numbers. What was printed on the page looked like gibberish-with-a-pattern but if you looked at the tape the message was clear. Of course since it took several characters to make one letter, the effective speed on a 60 wpm machine was about 15-20 wpm. And there was no going back if you made a mistake. But the effect could be impressive to the uninitiated. 73 de Jim, N2EY ...remembering the smell of hot machine oil in the W3ABT room... I remember back-spacing and nulling out the mistake, then continuing. But I wasn't 10 years old, either. |
Forty Years Licensed
posted on Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:12:59 EST:
On Nov 9, 6:57 am, "Jeff" wrote: Another neat RTTY trick involved paper tape. "Trick?" TTY p-tape was standard practice among the big guns in communications of the 1940s. Back then it was 60 WPM on a 24/7 basis...just keep them fed with paper, ink, and once in a while, some lubricant. Teletype Corporation made a fine piece of goods. Of course since it took several characters to make one letter, the effective speed on a 60 wpm machine was about 15-20 wpm. And there was no going back if you made a mistake. But the effect could be impressive to the uninitiated. TTY p-tape makes it possible to do an immediate re-send of the SAME message if a wire or radio circuit is blitzed by something. During WWII and afterwards it was the standard way at big hubs of networks that spread around the globe...be they military or commercial, the 'torn tape relay' rooms were big and efficient. ...remembering the smell of hot machine oil in the W3ABT room... I can easily remember an entire second floor at ADA's control center tape relay room of the early 1950s. Over 200 teleprinter machines busy working away 24/7. Impressive all by itself. And that was only the third-largest hub (RUAP) in the Army network then. 73, Len AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:25:12 -0500, N2EY wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:17?pm, Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: some snippage Now we have a rig that will permit a person with no typing skills to send perfect RTTY or PSK31. Like they say, "It's all good". I don't know anyone nearby that has a K@, but at Dayton next year I'm going to haunt the Elecraft booth. I've always said that Hams are probably the origin of leet. Naw, the landline telegraphers started it. Point conceeded! ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI Congrats on the new call! Thanks. I was toying around, not too serious, looking for something a little shorter, and found this one. I like it both for Morse and Voice. And N5EE was taken already, hehe -73 de Mike N3LI - |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 10, 8:29?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:25:12 -0500, N2EY wrote: On Nov 6, 8:17?pm, Michael Coslo wrote: Now we have a rig that will permit a person with no typing skills to send perfect RTTY or PSK31. Like they say, "It's all good". I don't know anyone nearby that has a K@, Did you mean "K2" or "K3"? I have a K2 and at least one other regular here does too. Great rigs. I've used the KX1 and K1 as well. but at Dayton next year I'm going to haunt the Elecraft booth. You and a lot of others... Elecraft has shipped a few dozen K3s so far. The first two production runs sold out long ago, if you order now, expect a few weeks' wait as they catch up on backlog. Some reviews have started to appear on the 'net, and eventually there will be QST and Sherwood measurements of the truly amazing numbers. I worked a couple of stations using K3s in CW SS last weekend, so they *are* on the air. From the descriptions, assembling a K3 is more like building a PC than it is assembling a Heathkit. The boards and modules are all preassembled; you simply put it together and configure it. Which is not a trivial job! And like a PC, you have a choice of which options to add to the basic unit. Options can be added at initial build or later. This helps keep the price down - if you don't need things like general coverage receive or a second receiver, you don't have to pay for them. I don't work for Elecraft and my only interest is as a stisfied customer and builder. - 73 de Mike N3LI Congrats on the new call! Thanks. I was toying around, not too serious, looking for something a little shorter, and found this one. I like it both for Morse and Voice. And N5EE was taken already, hehe Yup, one of the shortest possible US CW calls that's not a 1x1. It's tied with AE5E. Compare with a call like KQ0JJJ.... Besides, "N3LI" has the same rhythm as "N2EY"... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
|
Forty Years Licensed
wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 21, 10:54?pm, Mike Coslo wrote: Klystron wrote : Snipped Novice (back then) was also a one-year, nonrenewable, one-time license with extremely limited privileges. So its test could be very basic and still cover the needed material. Snipped 73 de Jim, N2EY Novice's back then were also limited to 75 watts plate input power and rock bound (No VFO) operations. Ace - WH2T .. |
Forty Years Licensed
Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4).
I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving imaginary numbers, for example). -- Klystron When I started studying for the Advanced or maybe it was the Extra class exam I was somewhat intimidated by the section on imaginary numbers, J operator, etc. I studied it in college to get my electronics degree but that was quite a while ago. My first thought was I can just guess at these questions and if I miss them all I will still pass the test. Then I decided to just memorize the (Radio Shack) study material, not the formulas or the math to solve the problem. I passed first try. Ace - WH2T .. |
Forty Years Licensed
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a class, I try to emphasize this. Dee, N8UZE Many times as an Official Observer or OO I have seen people operate LSB 1 Khz from the lower phone band edge. Even after I quoted the law to the (not on that freq) they would still argue that they were operating in the band ! Ace - WH2T .. |
Forty Years Licensed
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:53:40 EST, "Dr.Ace Ratliff"
wrote: Many times as an Official Observer or OO I have seen people operate LSB 1 Khz from the lower phone band edge. Even after I quoted the law to the (not on that freq) they would still argue that they were operating in the band ! "Wishing won't make it so!" The monitoring stations used to call that "shooting fish in a barrel" back in the days when they did spectrum cruising (proactive enforcement). -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com