| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#102
October 7th 06, 06:19 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
wrote:
wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. What "formalism" do you mean, Len? 1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL for use in "official" message relay by amateurs. Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was by "official" means a la Western Union or similar REAL telegraphic message. :-) Why must the format be sold? The format isn't sold at all. I'd think anyone who'd been a ham for a year or two would have known that. I read the words "formalism" and "form". I saw nothing about a format. Is it copy righted? The format? Why no, Brian. Use it all you like. If I send a message using THE FORMAT without purchasing the form, am I guilty of copyright infringement? Why no, Brian. I'd think just about any radio amateur would know that. There are even software programs incorporating the radiogram format so that you needn't write anything with a pencil or pen. Other than reading about the amateur radio service in WWII, what does Jim know about THE Service? Jim knows nothing of military radio. I suspect that Jim was an Extra in "Pump Up The Volume." When you was LMR, Jim was VFR. Maybe Jim wasn't VFR. Jim is on CH16. Jim is on CH19. You can reach Jim at XXX-XXX-XXXX. Yowsa! Jim isn't involved in Gov't Radio. But he reads about it. Jim's Giga Hurts. I prefer smooth. Jim once incorrectly calculated the distance to the moon. I think maybe Coslo aided him with the calculations. You should have gotten a QSL manager and with the greenstamps earned, bought both sides of the QSO. I suspect that Jim is subsidized in many ways. Perhaps Jim will loan you some tube-type equipment ... Jim insulted me. Jim insulted Hans. Jim insulted Mark. Jim insulted Len. Jim did not insult Dave who apparently thinks little of his service. But, but, but he has greenlee punches... Jim is a follower. Owch!!! I guess that was before the days of instant gratification. Do they require greenlee punches? Plans from a Ham Radio magazine. He can post attrition numbers on hobby radio. It is apparent that your red-hatted monkey routine survives. Dave K8MN |
|
#103
October 7th 06, 06:20 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tell it to Robesinner: Was: Formalism
|
|
#104
October 7th 06, 06:40 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
|
|
#105
October 7th 06, 07:05 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice communication as early as 1900, and had practical long-distance radiotelephony by 1906. "PRACTICAL?!?" What is "PRACTICAL" about inserting a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead-in to 'brute force' modulate a CW carrier?!? It was not only PRACTICAL, Len, it was the ONLY way known at the time. I don't think they used "the antenna lead-in", old boy. They probably used the feedline. Think of it as more of a "lead-out". You should get the lead out. The modulation was done in the ground lead, not the aerial lead. (They used the term "aerial" in those days). It was practical enough to be heard across the pond. That sounds pretty practical. You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting... ...that you know of. I have, Len. What of it? Len keeps trying to find out about my work. So he thinks he can find out by guessing which things you don't do? ...yet you DEFINE "practicality" in such things as inserting a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna for broadcasting. Tell us what other way was known when it took place, Len. What would have been practical in 1900? Didja know Fessenden's 1906 "broadcast" used an alternator transmitter? I surely did. For a double-degreed education in things electrical you just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and definite misunderstanding of the real definition of "practical." Practicality had to be defined by the time in which something took place. Otherwise you're left playing a game of "what if the U.S. had the atomic bomb in 1917?" AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920. Superfluous minutae. ...is your specialty, Len, but I spell it "minutia". Webster's spells it "minutia" for singular, "minutiae" for plural. Len's should have chosen the singular. He made an error. The main point is that it's not superfluous. Voice radio was "practical" enough for MW broadcasting by 1920 - that's not an opinion, it's a demonstrated fact. Yes. There is nothing currently underway to move toward anything in the near future to change amplitude modulation for medium wave broadcasting. Yet the use of Morse Code in *non-amateur* radio communications continued for many decades after that. The maritime communications folks were still using it less than a decade ago. Correct and it remains the second most used mode for HF amateur radio. There are thousands and thousands of morse QSOs taking place on the ham bands daily. YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting. Len keeps trying to find out about my work. Now he's reduced to posting untruths in an effort to get more information. So he doesn't actually know if you've worked in broadcasting or not and he has resorted to wild speculation? I have, Len. What of it? Your amateur radio license does NOT permit broadcasting. I know that. That's why I don't use it for broadcasting. Did you know that most people in broadcasting don't have any kind of license? I have been IN broadcasting, still have the license (now lifetime). That's what I should have written earlier. I have been IN broadcasting, Len. Are you still in broadcasting? I'm not. NO, repeat NO amplitude-modulation broadcaster uses your so-called "practical" means of modulating a CW carrier. NONE. Not any more. Other methods replaced it by 1920. Had Fessenden's EXPERIMENT been at all practical, others would have used that technique. No, that's not necessarily true. For one thing, Fessenden held the patents. (He had at least 500 patents, btw). For another, new techniques appeared so fast in those days that there wasn't a need to copy Fessenden's method. NONE did. Are you sure? Ever hear of "loop modulation"? There might not be anything about it on the White's page. Do you think there's any chance that other, more efficient techniques were developed? Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century. PR bull**** you fantasize. No, it's a fact. Look up the ages of pioneers like Armstrong, Fessenden, Beverage etc. in 1920. They were young men. The wireless operators on the Titanic weren't even 25 years old. They were the best Marconi could supply. Remember this classic quote?: "I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity." (Len Anderson, Sept 2, 1996) I remember it well. He has written similar things more recently, though they were a tad more insulting. Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version. Len don't *do* documentation, Dave. Right. I think he sees those as "DEMANDS". Len don't do "DEMANDS". So far we have from him only wild speculation, guesses and undocumented claims. You were NOT among the "pioneers of radio" and you have NO demographics to prove the ages, let alone a poll or listing showing that. Neither were you, Len. ....but you must have found the ages of the Titanic ops from somewhere, Jim. All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited versions of radio history from the ARRL. More untruths from Len. I give him some wiggle room in referring to them as factual errors. That's your story and you're sticking with it. Landline telegraphy was already changing from manual to teleprinter by the year 1900. That changeover continued until the middle of the 1900s until ALL the landline telegraph circuits were either shut down or replaced by electromechanical teleprinters. Actually, there were still some landline telegraph operations in operation in 1969. They may have continued beyond that year. I'm sure the guys in a landline telegraph newsgroup would be fascinated by your account. The important point was that the use of Morse Code in radio continued long past the middle of the 20th century. To be factually correct, it would have to be said that the use of Morse Code in radio continues into the 21st century. The Morse Code used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after 1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse. Superfluous minutae. Not superfluous at all. A landline operator knew the wrong code. Though to be fair, there were a number of landline telegraphers who were familiar with both codes. That's how I like to think of your ADA tales of better than a half-century back, except I use "minutia" Manual telegraphy consisted of closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed. Superfluous minutia. Except it's not really true. Duplex and quadruplex telegraph circuits used polarity reversal and other methods beyond on-off. Carrier was used as well - often frequency-shift. Ahhhh! I should have remembered. My 9L1US 50 MHz beacon used frequency shifted Morse in 1990-91. And the most modern communications today - fiber optics - is really nothing more than on-off keying of a light beam. That's right. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different versions of on-off telegraphy which have been developed, NONE of them modeled on either "International" or "Continental" AMERICAN morse code or any English-language representation. Superfluous minutia. Jim has more patience with you than I can muster. I think you're missing the point, Dave. Len has spent more than a decade here on rrap. He's barraged rrap and the FCC with torrents of words about a simple license test - even though he is not a radio amatuer and will probably never be one. Oh, I've not missed *that* point. After the restructuring of 2000, it seemed like a "slam dunk" that the FCC would just drop code testing as soon as it could. Len even said he would "go for Extra right out of the box" back in January of that year. But he didn't. That box was never opened. Len counted on the code test being eliminated at that point. It didn't happen and it left him holding the--box. In July 2003 the treaty requirement went away, and it really seemed like a "slam dunk" that code testing would soon go away in the USA. But now it's 3-1/2 years later, and despite 18 petitions and an NPRM, the rules haven't changed. FCC won't even say when they will make a decision. ....and Len is not only still holding the box, he has a mug full of dried egg. In fact, the old "omnibus" NPRM (04-140, IIRC) is still working its way through the system. That NPRM will almost certainly yield an R&O before the Morse Code one does. But there's no indication from FCC when the "omnibus" R&O will show up, let alone the Morse Code changes. Of course FCC will probably just drop Element 1 eventually. But they're in no hurry to do so. By the time FCC gets around to announcing its decision, Len may not have anybody to rag on about it. I'm not particularly worried about Len Anderson showing up on the ham bands with a shiny new Extra which he'll have obtained from a very worn and tattered box. Plus if FCC *does* drop Element 1, what will Len do? There won't be anything left for him to argue about, and nobody to argue with. So he's working on some new angles - which are really just old ones warmed up again. Meanwhile, he's obviously upset, worried and angry. How is that different from the way he has always acted here? Len could have had an Extra with just a 5 wpm code test way back in 1990. But he didn't. That says it all. Len could have had a no-code tech ages ago. It would have provided him with access to the VHF/UHF bands--the ones he says are where the action should be. Dave K8MN |
|
#106
October 7th 06, 02:39 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice communication as early as 1900, and had practical long-distance radiotelephony by 1906. "PRACTICAL?!?" What is "PRACTICAL" about inserting a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead-in to 'brute force' modulate a CW carrier?!? It was not only PRACTICAL, Len, it was the ONLY way known at the time. I don't think they used "the antenna lead-in", old boy. They probably used the feedline. Think of it as more of a "lead-out". You should get the lead out. The modulation was done in the ground lead, not the aerial lead. (They used the term "aerial" in those days). It was practical enough to be heard across the pond. That sounds pretty practical. For its time. Then triode vacuum tubes came along and changed things. You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting... ...that you know of. I have, Len. What of it? Len keeps trying to find out about my work. So he thinks he can find out by guessing which things you don't do? It appears that Len expects me to reply to his "you have never..." statements by saying what I have done in non-amateur radio. Old trick, doesn't work. The other reason for Len's antics is so he can tell us, once again, the different things he's done. Have you noticed that Len doesn't ask about what other people have done in *amateur* radio? And this is an *amateur* radio newsgroup! ...yet you DEFINE "practicality" in such things as inserting a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna for broadcasting. Tell us what other way was known when it took place, Len. What would have been practical in 1900? Didja know Fessenden's 1906 "broadcast" used an alternator transmitter? I surely did. Of course that limited his voice-radio operations to below 100 kHz (3000 meters) For a double-degreed education in things electrical you just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and definite misunderstanding of the real definition of "practical." Note the dig at my BSEE and MSEE degrees. What Len doesn't realize is that, in the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible things were once considered practical. For example, the very first operational general-purpose electronic digital computer was the ENIAC, which was built at one of my alma maters here in Philadelphia. Its design and construction were paid for (some would say "subsidized") by the U.S. Army (some would say "the taxpayers"). Its original stated purpose was for the calculation of artillery aiming information. Some may point to machines like the Colossus, Mark 1 or even the ABC as the "first computer". But they all lack something that ENIAC had. Some, like the ABC and even Babbage's Difference Engine, were never fully operational. Some, like the Mark 1, used relays and mechanics for calculation, and were not really electronic. Some were built for a specific task, such as breaking codes, and were not really general purpose. Some were partly or entirely analog, such as the Differential Analyzer. ENIAC was the first to do it all. ENIAC took up an enormous amount of space and power, used over 17,000 tubes and required programming in machine language to do anything useful. Its complexity and sheer size meant that breakdowns were frequent. One solution was to never turn it off, because many failures occurred during turn-on and turn-off. Part of the problem was that the parts used in the original construction were not the most reliable possible. ENIAC was built under wartime restrictions, and they had to use what they could get. The quality of some parts, particularly common octal tubes, noticeably decreased over the war years because they were being made by a variety of companies, using inexperienced people and whatever facilities were available. The experienced tube companies and people were needed for radar and proximity fuse work, not the manufacture of 6SN7s. The reliability of ENIAC was such that it would typically run for 1 to 2 days before something needed fixing. Its record was only about 5 days of continuous operation. The folks using it got very very good at identifying and fixing the problems. ENIAC was never duplicated. During its development, so much was learned that newer machines like EDSAC, EDVAC and ultimately the UNIVAC were designed, rather than repeat the ENIAC design. The points of this little bit of history are these: By modern standards, or even those of 20, 30, or 40 years ago, ENIAC is/was totally impractical. But by the standards of its time, it was a tremendous advance. Calculations that took *weeks* using pre-ENIAC methods could be done in *seconds* using the machine. The boundaries of "numerically hard" calculation were pushed back enormously. Most important of all, the ENIAC was considered "practical" enough by the US Army. Soon after it was publically announced in 1946, the Army moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where it was used for its intended purposes until 1955. Practicality had to be defined by the time in which something took place. Otherwise you're left playing a game of "what if the U.S. had the atomic bomb in 1917?" That's why I wrote the above ENIAC story. ENIAC was practical in its time. How many computers made today have a useful life as long as ENIAC? btw, in 1976, ENIAC was returned to where it was built, and a museum display set up with parts of it. In the 1990s, part of it was restored to operating condition, and some calculations done as a demonstration. I got to see and touch parts of ENIAC. Also read the papers on it. A machine that changed the world, made from very ordinary parts and techniques, assembled in a new way. AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920. Superfluous minutae. ...is your specialty, Len, but I spell it "minutia". Webster's spells it "minutia" for singular, "minutiae" for plural. Len's should have chosen the singular. He made an error. Typical. The main point is that it's not superfluous. Voice radio was "practical" enough for MW broadcasting by 1920 - that's not an opinion, it's a demonstrated fact. Yes. There is nothing currently underway to move toward anything in the near future to change amplitude modulation for medium wave broadcasting. There are AM BC receivers from the 1920s that, if restored, will perform admirably today in their intended purpose. Some NTSC TV sets from 60 years ago, if restored, can still be used to watch VHF TV. There's a website showing a 1954 RCA color set in operation - today. Of course HDTV will eventually replace NTSC. Yet the use of Morse Code in *non-amateur* radio communications continued for many decades after that. The maritime communications folks were still using it less than a decade ago. Correct and it remains the second most used mode for HF amateur radio. There are thousands and thousands of morse QSOs taking place on the ham bands daily. YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting. Len keeps trying to find out about my work. Now he's reduced to posting untruths in an effort to get more information. So he doesn't actually know if you've worked in broadcasting or not and he has resorted to wild speculation? He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and untruths for a long time. I have, Len. What of it? Your amateur radio license does NOT permit broadcasting. I know that. That's why I don't use it for broadcasting. Did you know that most people in broadcasting don't have any kind of license? Howard Stern. I have been IN broadcasting, still have the license (now lifetime). That's what I should have written earlier. I have been IN broadcasting, Len. Are you still in broadcasting? I'm not. NO, repeat NO amplitude-modulation broadcaster uses your so-called "practical" means of modulating a CW carrier. NONE. Not any more. Other methods replaced it by 1920. Had Fessenden's EXPERIMENT been at all practical, others would have used that technique. No, that's not necessarily true. For one thing, Fessenden held the patents. (He had at least 500 patents, btw). For another, new techniques appeared so fast in those days that there wasn't a need to copy Fessenden's method. NONE did. See above about ENIAC. It was very practical, in its time - but never repeated. Are you sure? Ever hear of "loop modulation"? There might not be anything about it on the White's page. White's is very good - for what it covers. It essentially stops long before WW2. Its treatment is heavy on broadcasting, light on amateurs and nonbroadcasting commercial operation. IMHO. Do you think there's any chance that other, more efficient techniques were developed? Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century. PR bull**** you fantasize. No, it's a fact. Look up the ages of pioneers like Armstrong, Fessenden, Beverage etc. in 1920. They were young men. The wireless operators on the Titanic weren't even 25 years old. They were the best Marconi could supply. Remember this classic quote?: "I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity." (Len Anderson, Sept 2, 1996) I remember it well. He has written similar things more recently, though they were a tad more insulting. I'm still looking for a definition of "morsemanship" Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version. Len don't *do* documentation, Dave. Right. I think he sees those as "DEMANDS". Len don't do "DEMANDS". So far we have from him only wild speculation, guesses and undocumented claims. Not "only", Dave. There's a lot more, like Godwin-ready commentary.... Do you need to review the profile? You were NOT among the "pioneers of radio" and you have NO demographics to prove the ages, let alone a poll or listing showing that. Neither were you, Len. ...but you must have found the ages of the Titanic ops from somewhere, Jim. It's pretty easy to look up the ages of those folks. Of course Len will not. Would ruin his rant. All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited versions of radio history from the ARRL. More untruths from Len. I give him some wiggle room in referring to them as factual errors. It's an untruth. My history sources go far beyond ARRL publications. And ARRL history isn't "bowdlerized". That's your story and you're sticking with it. Landline telegraphy was already changing from manual to teleprinter by the year 1900. That changeover continued until the middle of the 1900s until ALL the landline telegraph circuits were either shut down or replaced by electromechanical teleprinters. Actually, there were still some landline telegraph operations in operation in 1969. They may have continued beyond that year. I'm sure the guys in a landline telegraph newsgroup would be fascinated by your account. The important point was that the use of Morse Code in radio continued long past the middle of the 20th century. To be factually correct, it would have to be said that the use of Morse Code in radio continues into the 21st century. Both are true. I was writing about non-amateur use of Morse Code in radio. The Morse Code used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after 1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse. Superfluous minutae. Not superfluous at all. A landline operator knew the wrong code. Though to be fair, there were a number of landline telegraphers who were familiar with both codes. Yep. In fact, here in the USA, there were at least *three* codes in use until 1912. Besides "American" and "Continental", the US Navy had its own code. Even though the Berlin conference of 1906 had specified Continental for radio use, the USA did not universally adopt it. That all changed with the new radio laws of 1912. That's how I like to think of your ADA tales of better than a half-century back, except I use "minutia" Notice how Len doesn't mention any HF experience of his after ADA, except cb? He does still have one of the most compact Johnsons ever produced, too! Manual telegraphy consisted of closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed. Superfluous minutia. Except it's not really true. Duplex and quadruplex telegraph circuits used polarity reversal and other methods beyond on-off. Carrier was used as well - often frequency-shift. Ahhhh! I should have remembered. My 9L1US 50 MHz beacon used frequency shifted Morse in 1990-91. And the most modern communications today - fiber optics - is really nothing more than on-off keying of a light beam. That's right. Packet switching is just the old telegram model reinvented. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different versions of on-off telegraphy which have been developed, NONE of them modeled on either "International" or "Continental" AMERICAN morse code or any English-language representation. Superfluous minutia. Jim has more patience with you than I can muster. I think you're missing the point, Dave. Len has spent more than a decade here on rrap. He's barraged rrap and the FCC with torrents of words about a simple license test - even though he is not a radio amatuer and will probably never be one. Oh, I've not missed *that* point. I don't think has changed the mind of even one person about Morse Code. After the restructuring of 2000, it seemed like a "slam dunk" that the FCC would just drop code testing as soon as it could. Len even said he would "go for Extra right out of the box" back in January of that year. But he didn't. That box was never opened. Len counted on the code test being eliminated at that point. But that was illogical. The FCC would not violate the treaty about code testing. They said so in the R&O for the 2000. It didn't happen and it left him holding the--box. In July 2003 the treaty requirement went away, and it really seemed like a "slam dunk" that code testing would soon go away in the USA. But now it's 3-1/2 years later, and despite 18 petitions and an NPRM, the rules haven't changed. FCC won't even say when they will make a decision. ...and Len is not only still holding the box, he has a mug full of dried egg. Len claimed he was once up to about 8 wpm with Morse Code, before he quit - gave up - trying to learn it. If that were true, why wouldn't he be able to relearn it enough to pass Element 1? Maybe that claim wasn't entirely true? Or maybe it's the *written* tests that are the problem? In fact, the old "omnibus" NPRM (04-140, IIRC) is still working its way through the system. That NPRM will almost certainly yield an R&O before the Morse Code one does. But there's no indication from FCC when the "omnibus" R&O will show up, let alone the Morse Code changes. Of course FCC will probably just drop Element 1 eventually. But they're in no hurry to do so. By the time FCC gets around to announcing its decision, Len may not have anybody to rag on about it. I'm not particularly worried about Len Anderson showing up on the ham bands with a shiny new Extra which he'll have obtained from a very worn and tattered box. To do so would require not only a license, but assembling a station. Note that while Len talks endlessly about places he has worked and projects he has worked on, there's almost nothing about radio projects he has done himself, with his own money, at home. There's the one-tube unlicensed oscillator transmitter of 1948, his conversion of some ARC-5s and their sale, the store-bought ICOM receiver and the compact Johnson....and not much else. Plus if FCC *does* drop Element 1, what will Len do? There won't be anything left for him to argue about, and nobody to argue with. So he's working on some new angles - which are really just old ones warmed up again. Meanwhile, he's obviously upset, worried and angry. How is that different from the way he has always acted here? Good question. Len could have had an Extra with just a 5 wpm code test way back in 1990. But he didn't. That says it all. Len could have had a no-code tech ages ago. The code waivers actually preceded the Technician's loss of its code test. It would have provided him with access to the VHF/UHF bands--the ones he says are where the action should be. Says it all. All talk, no action. All hat, no cattle. See you on the air, Dave. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#107
October 7th 06, 03:26 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mork Moron Making A Fool Out Of Himself Again
wrote: On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, wrote: Opus- wrote: The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only convey the words. Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are skilled in it. bull#### That's the kind of answer that proves you're an uneducated dolt, Morkie. As if we NEEDED more "proof" ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
|
#108
October 8th 06, 12:52 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: It was not only PRACTICAL, Len, it was the ONLY way known at the time. I don't think they used "the antenna lead-in", old boy. They probably used the feedline. Think of it as more of a "lead-out". You should get the lead out. The modulation was done in the ground lead, not the aerial lead. (They used the term "aerial" in those days). It was practical enough to be heard across the pond. That sounds pretty practical. For its time. Then triode vacuum tubes came along and changed things. Yep, it didn't take very long. You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting... ...that you know of. I have, Len. What of it? Len keeps trying to find out about my work. So he thinks he can find out by guessing which things you don't do? It appears that Len expects me to reply to his "you have never..." statements by saying what I have done in non-amateur radio. Old trick, doesn't work. It hasn't stopped him from trying. He has never become a radio amateur despite his several decades of self-declared "interest" in amateur radio. The other reason for Len's antics is so he can tell us, once again, the different things he's done. He should just number them. Instead of typing all of those words over and over, he could just type something like "62." Have you noticed that Len doesn't ask about what other people have done in *amateur* radio? And this is an *amateur* radio newsgroup! If he tries a "you have never" and someone refutes it with details, Len simply clams up. If they voluntarily post material describing something they've done, Len uses that as an opportunity for insulting the poster. For a double-degreed education in things electrical you just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and definite misunderstanding of the real definition of "practical." Note the dig at my BSEE and MSEE degrees. The profile predicts that behavior. What Len doesn't realize is that, in the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible things were once considered practical. ....and things once considered impractical or impossible are now mundane. For example, the very first operational general-purpose electronic digital computer was the ENIAC, which was built at one of my alma maters here in Philadelphia. Its design and construction were paid for (some would say "subsidized") by the U.S. Army (some would say "the taxpayers"). Its original stated purpose was for the calculation of artillery aiming information. Some may point to machines like the Colossus, Mark 1 or even the ABC as the "first computer". But they all lack something that ENIAC had. Some, like the ABC and even Babbage's Difference Engine, were never fully operational. Some, like the Mark 1, used relays and mechanics for calculation, and were not really electronic. Some were built for a specific task, such as breaking codes, and were not really general purpose. Some were partly or entirely analog, such as the Differential Analyzer. ENIAC was the first to do it all. ENIAC took up an enormous amount of space and power, used over 17,000 tubes and required programming in machine language to do anything useful. Its complexity and sheer size meant that breakdowns were frequent. One solution was to never turn it off, because many failures occurred during turn-on and turn-off. Part of the problem was that the parts used in the original construction were not the most reliable possible. ENIAC was built under wartime restrictions, and they had to use what they could get. The quality of some parts, particularly common octal tubes, noticeably decreased over the war years because they were being made by a variety of companies, using inexperienced people and whatever facilities were available. The experienced tube companies and people were needed for radar and proximity fuse work, not the manufacture of 6SN7s. The reliability of ENIAC was such that it would typically run for 1 to 2 days before something needed fixing. Its record was only about 5 days of continuous operation. The folks using it got very very good at identifying and fixing the problems. ENIAC was never duplicated. During its development, so much was learned that newer machines like EDSAC, EDVAC and ultimately the UNIVAC were designed, rather than repeat the ENIAC design. The points of this little bit of history are these: By modern standards, or even those of 20, 30, or 40 years ago, ENIAC is/was totally impractical. But by the standards of its time, it was a tremendous advance. Calculations that took *weeks* using pre-ENIAC methods could be done in *seconds* using the machine. The boundaries of "numerically hard" calculation were pushed back enormously. Most important of all, the ENIAC was considered "practical" enough by the US Army. Soon after it was publically announced in 1946, the Army moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where it was used for its intended purposes until 1955. ....and like ENIAC, Fessendon's feat was an advancement over what had previously been possible. Practicality had to be defined by the time in which something took place. Otherwise you're left playing a game of "what if the U.S. had the atomic bomb in 1917?" That's why I wrote the above ENIAC story. ENIAC was practical in its time. How many computers made today have a useful life as long as ENIAC? Not many. I recall running Miniprop on an XT with no math copressor. Forecasting took hours. I'd enter the solar flux and come back after a movie. Now, similar programs run on a modern machine in a second or two. btw, in 1976, ENIAC was returned to where it was built, and a museum display set up with parts of it. In the 1990s, part of it was restored to operating condition, and some calculations done as a demonstration. I got to see and touch parts of ENIAC. Also read the papers on it. A machine that changed the world, made from very ordinary parts and techniques, assembled in a new way. I'm glad we don't need that sort of thing today. I don't have room for an ENIAC. I wonder if Len ever saw or touched ENIAC. Surely we'd have heard about it by now--several times. AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920. Superfluous minutae. ...is your specialty, Len, but I spell it "minutia". Webster's spells it "minutia" for singular, "minutiae" for plural. Len's should have chosen the singular. He made an error. Typical. The main point is that it's not superfluous. Voice radio was "practical" enough for MW broadcasting by 1920 - that's not an opinion, it's a demonstrated fact. Yes. There is nothing currently underway to move toward anything in the near future to change amplitude modulation for medium wave broadcasting. There are AM BC receivers from the 1920s that, if restored, will perform admirably today in their intended purpose. ....and a high quality, tube-type BC set from the 1950's sounds every bit as good as its modern, LSI counterpart. Some NTSC TV sets from 60 years ago, if restored, can still be used to watch VHF TV. There's a website showing a 1954 RCA color set in operation - today. Of course HDTV will eventually replace NTSC. Those HDTV tuner boxes are quite common. If one uses one of them ahead of an old analong set and puts the tuner in the 480 interlaced mode, the analong TV is useful for many more years. YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting. Len keeps trying to find out about my work. Now he's reduced to posting untruths in an effort to get more information. So he doesn't actually know if you've worked in broadcasting or not and he has resorted to wild speculation? He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and untruths for a long time. I'm sure you have an idea of his reasons for digging for information. I have, Len. What of it? Your amateur radio license does NOT permit broadcasting. I know that. That's why I don't use it for broadcasting. Did you know that most people in broadcasting don't have any kind of license? Howard Stern. That's either a really good or a really bad example, but yes. Are you sure? Ever hear of "loop modulation"? There might not be anything about it on the White's page. White's is very good - for what it covers. It essentially stops long before WW2. Its treatment is heavy on broadcasting, light on amateurs and nonbroadcasting commercial operation. IMHO. But Len refers to it as if it is the Bible. He usually follows one of those references with some sniping at the American Radio Relay League. Do you think there's any chance that other, more efficient techniques were developed? Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century. PR bull**** you fantasize. No, it's a fact. Look up the ages of pioneers like Armstrong, Fessenden, Beverage etc. in 1920. They were young men. The wireless operators on the Titanic weren't even 25 years old. They were the best Marconi could supply. Remember this classic quote?: "I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity." (Len Anderson, Sept 2, 1996) I remember it well. He has written similar things more recently, though they were a tad more insulting. I'm still looking for a definition of "morsemanship" Len hasn't told us exactly what that term means. It might be a very good thing, Jim. Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version. Len don't *do* documentation, Dave. Right. I think he sees those as "DEMANDS". Len don't do "DEMANDS". So far we have from him only wild speculation, guesses and undocumented claims. Not "only", Dave. There's a lot more, like Godwin-ready commentary.... He usually waffles on Waffen and sez he doesn't refer to those he obviously means. Do you need to review the profile? Len needs to review the profile. He seems powerless to avoid fulfilling its predictions. You were NOT among the "pioneers of radio" and you have NO demographics to prove the ages, let alone a poll or listing showing that. Neither were you, Len. ...but you must have found the ages of the Titanic ops from somewhere, Jim. It's pretty easy to look up the ages of those folks. Of course Len will not. Would ruin his rant. Len seldom lets the truth get in the way of one of his monologues. Witness his frequent references to the MARS assignment I never had in Vietnam, despite the fact that I've corrected him each and every time. That behavior is predicted in the profile. Have you noticed that he has suddenly clammed up about my working with NASA? He tripped over the facts I strew in his path. All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited versions of radio history from the ARRL. More untruths from Len. I give him some wiggle room in referring to them as factual errors. It's an untruth. My history sources go far beyond ARRL publications. And ARRL history isn't "bowdlerized". Agreed. I have numerous books on the history of radio in general and on the history of amateur radio. That's your story and you're sticking with it. Landline telegraphy was already changing from manual to teleprinter by the year 1900. That changeover continued until the middle of the 1900s until ALL the landline telegraph circuits were either shut down or replaced by electromechanical teleprinters. Actually, there were still some landline telegraph operations in operation in 1969. They may have continued beyond that year. I'm sure the guys in a landline telegraph newsgroup would be fascinated by your account. The important point was that the use of Morse Code in radio continued long past the middle of the 20th century. To be factually correct, it would have to be said that the use of Morse Code in radio continues into the 21st century. Both are true. I was writing about non-amateur use of Morse Code in radio. The Morse Code used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after 1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse. Superfluous minutae. Not superfluous at all. A landline operator knew the wrong code. Though to be fair, there were a number of landline telegraphers who were familiar with both codes. Yep. In fact, here in the USA, there were at least *three* codes in use until 1912. Besides "American" and "Continental", the US Navy had its own code. Even though the Berlin conference of 1906 had specified Continental for radio use, the USA did not universally adopt it. That all changed with the new radio laws of 1912. That's how I like to think of your ADA tales of better than a half-century back, except I use "minutia" Notice how Len doesn't mention any HF experience of his after ADA, except cb? He does still have one of the most compact Johnsons ever produced, too! Ah, the tiny, dusty Johnson. I've not noticed any HF stories after what Len calls "BIG TIME". We'd surely have remembered because they'd had been repeated often. Manual telegraphy consisted of closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed. Superfluous minutia. Except it's not really true. Duplex and quadruplex telegraph circuits used polarity reversal and other methods beyond on-off. Carrier was used as well - often frequency-shift. Ahhhh! I should have remembered. My 9L1US 50 MHz beacon used frequency shifted Morse in 1990-91. And the most modern communications today - fiber optics - is really nothing more than on-off keying of a light beam. That's right. Packet switching is just the old telegram model reinvented. ....with a form of collision avoidance and numerous retries when the collision avoidance doesn't work. It'd be clunky if it wasn't done at speed. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different versions of on-off telegraphy which have been developed, NONE of them modeled on either "International" or "Continental" AMERICAN morse code or any English-language representation. Superfluous minutia. Jim has more patience with you than I can muster. I think you're missing the point, Dave. Len has spent more than a decade here on rrap. He's barraged rrap and the FCC with torrents of words about a simple license test - even though he is not a radio amatuer and will probably never be one. Oh, I've not missed *that* point. I don't think has changed the mind of even one person about Morse Code. I think he may have, but not from pro-code testing to anti-code testing. It'd be the reverse. After the restructuring of 2000, it seemed like a "slam dunk" that the FCC would just drop code testing as soon as it could. Len even said he would "go for Extra right out of the box" back in January of that year. But he didn't. That box was never opened. Len counted on the code test being eliminated at that point. But that was illogical. Sure it was. The FCC would not violate the treaty about code testing. They said so in the R&O for the 2000. It didn't happen and it left him holding the--box. In July 2003 the treaty requirement went away, and it really seemed like a "slam dunk" that code testing would soon go away in the USA. But now it's 3-1/2 years later, and despite 18 petitions and an NPRM, the rules haven't changed. FCC won't even say when they will make a decision. ...and Len is not only still holding the box, he has a mug full of dried egg. Len claimed he was once up to about 8 wpm with Morse Code, before he quit - gave up - trying to learn it. If that were true, why wouldn't he be able to relearn it enough to pass Element 1? Maybe that claim wasn't entirely true? Or maybe it's the *written* tests that are the problem? Either way, he didn't even attempt going for the most basic license class, much less the Extra. The echoes of his boast are all that's left. In fact, the old "omnibus" NPRM (04-140, IIRC) is still working its way through the system. That NPRM will almost certainly yield an R&O before the Morse Code one does. But there's no indication from FCC when the "omnibus" R&O will show up, let alone the Morse Code changes. Of course FCC will probably just drop Element 1 eventually. But they're in no hurry to do so. By the time FCC gets around to announcing its decision, Len may not have anybody to rag on about it. I'm not particularly worried about Len Anderson showing up on the ham bands with a shiny new Extra which he'll have obtained from a very worn and tattered box. To do so would require not only a license, but assembling a station. Note that while Len talks endlessly about places he has worked and projects he has worked on, there's almost nothing about radio projects he has done himself, with his own money, at home. I've noticed the talk of his workshop, but nothing about what comes out of it. There's the one-tube unlicensed oscillator transmitter of 1948, his conversion of some ARC-5s and their sale, the store-bought ICOM receiver and the compact Johnson....and not much else. Len was certainly quick to insult your homebrew gear though. I'm interested in the little 40m receiver described in this month's QST. I may have to build one of those. My latest workshop efforts weren't difficult. I bought a Heathkit HL-2200 HF amp--an SB-220 in brown clothing a couple of years back. I got it expressly for the purpose of converting it to 6m. I had to throw together a circuit for reducing the amplifier keying circuit from 125v to 12v at about 2ma. After that, I modified the amp plate circuit and tuned input per a Hints and Kinks article. It didn't work as well as I thought it should have so I disconnected the entire 80/40m coil assembly and unwound all but 2 turns of the 20/15/10m coil. I tapped that at 1 1/4 turn with wide copper strap and threw it back together. It delivers 900 watts on Six. Plus if FCC *does* drop Element 1, what will Len do? There won't be anything left for him to argue about, and nobody to argue with. So he's working on some new angles - which are really just old ones warmed up again. Meanwhile, he's obviously upset, worried and angry. How is that different from the way he has always acted here? Good question. ....with an obvious answer. Len could have had an Extra with just a 5 wpm code test way back in 1990. But he didn't. That says it all. Len could have had a no-code tech ages ago. The code waivers actually preceded the Technician's loss of its code test. It would have provided him with access to the VHF/UHF bands--the ones he says are where the action should be. Says it all. All talk, no action. All hat, no cattle. All vine, no fruit. See you on the air, Dave. For sure. SS is coming up fairly soon. Dave K8MN |
|
#109
October 8th 06, 01:35 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
From: on Sat, Oct 7 2006 6:39 am
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice communication as early as 1900, and had practical long-distance radiotelephony by 1906. "PRACTICAL?!?" What is "PRACTICAL" about inserting a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead-in to 'brute force' modulate a CW carrier?!? It was not only PRACTICAL, Len, it was the ONLY way known at the time. I don't think they used "the antenna lead-in", old boy. They probably used the feedline. Think of it as more of a "lead-out". You should get the lead out. The modulation was done in the ground lead, not the aerial lead. (They used the term "aerial" in those days). It was practical enough to be heard across the pond. That sounds pretty practical. For its time. Then triode vacuum tubes came along and changed things. The first triode vacuum tube (deForrest called them "audions" in those days) was invented in 1906...same year as Reggie's "Christmas" broadcast. :-) At NO TIME did any OTHER broadcaster or voice transmitter adopt the Fessenden brute-force amplitude modulator. NO ONE. Not in the USA, not in Canada, not anywhere in the world. So much for your redefinition of "practical." ...and the insistence of "amateur only" subject matter in this newsgroup. :-) It appears that Len expects me to reply to his "you have never..." statements by saying what I have done in non-amateur radio. Old trick, doesn't work. Tsk, tsk, you've TOLD ME what I should have done in the military, yet you've never served in the military or in the US government. I served 8 years in the US Army. You can see and read what I did for three years there via: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf 6 MB in size, takes about 19 minutes download on a dial-up connection. Twenty pages with many photo illustrations. High-power HF transmitters. 1953 to 1956. The other reason for Len's antics is so he can tell us, once again, the different things he's done. "It ain't braggin' if ya done it!" :-) Have you noticed that Len doesn't ask about what other people have done in *amateur* radio? And this is an *amateur* radio newsgroup! Tsk, I have done so. All that you've displayed (via links) is an old 70's era receiver, supposedly built for less than $100, on Kees Talen's website "HBR" pages (HomeBrew Receiver, after the various "HBR" articles in QST of decades ago). Didja know Fessenden's 1906 "broadcast" used an alternator transmitter? I surely did. Of course that limited his voice-radio operations to below 100 kHz (3000 meters) Tsk, tsk, that was before 1920. 1920 is 86 years ago. Why do you live in the past so much? For a double-degreed education in things electrical you just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and definite misunderstanding of the real definition of "practical." Note the dig at my BSEE and MSEE degrees. What Len doesn't realize is that, in the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible things were once considered practical. Tom Edison thought for sure that Direct Current would be The Way for widespread electrical power distribution. :-) Is NOT practical now. Academics once insisted that "current flow" was opposite that of electron flow. Was written up in lots of textbooks. Is NOT practical now. Some insist that "Greenlee Chassis Punches" are necessary for homebuilt radio construction. Is ONLY "practical" for knocking out conduit attachment holes in electrical power distribution boxes or some 70s-era boatanchor construction project (i.e., using vacuum tubes and needing socket holes for same). Greenlee is still a corporation in Rockford, IL, but they seem to have stopped making "chassis punches" for radio hobbyists. For example, the very first operational general-purpose electronic digital computer was the ENIAC, which was built at one of my alma maters here in Philadelphia. Its design and construction were paid for (some would say "subsidized") by the U.S. Army (some would say "the taxpayers"). Its original stated purpose was for the calculation of artillery aiming information. "Firing Tables" those are called, Jimmie. Ever spot artillery fall, Jimmie? Oh, you weren't IN the military! That's right... Some may point to machines like the Colossus, Mark 1 or even the ABC as the "first computer". But they all lack something that ENIAC had. Some, like the ABC and even Babbage's Difference Engine, were never fully operational. Some, like the Mark 1, used relays and mechanics for calculation, and were not really electronic. Some were built for a specific task, such as breaking codes, and were not really general purpose. Some were partly or entirely analog, such as the Differential Analyzer. ENIAC was the first to do it all. ENIAC "broke codes?" Really? "Did it all?" :-) Ever hear of 'the BSTJ?' That's the Bell System Technical Journal. Before the Bell break-up it was published (mostly) monthly. They had a nice write-up in it on the three electromechanical 'computers' that Bell Labs made for making Firing Tables during WWII. Good old "amateur radio subject in an amateur radio newsgroup!" :-) ENIAC took up an enormous amount of space and power, used over 17,000 tubes and required programming in machine language to do anything useful. Jimmie ever do any "programming in machine language?" At any time? I have. Want me to list them? :-) Its complexity and sheer size meant that breakdowns were frequent. One solution was to never turn it off, because many failures occurred during turn-on and turn-off. Good old tube filaments! Part of the problem was that the parts used in the original construction were not the most reliable possible. ENIAC was built under wartime restrictions, and they had to use what they could get. The quality of some parts, particularly common octal tubes, noticeably decreased over the war years because they were being made by a variety of companies, using inexperienced people and whatever facilities were available. People reproduce without any experience. :-) The experienced tube companies and people were needed for radar and proximity fuse work, not the manufacture of 6SN7s. Tsk, in the history of the War Production Board, the number 1 priority went to the Manhattan Project. Second priority was the manufacture of quartz crystal units (a million a month total between '43 and '45). The company that would change its corporate name to MOTOROLA (Galvin Manufacturing) was the center of quartz production control but Galvin also designed and built wartime radios...one (the first handie-talkie) being done before the USA was drawn into WW2. Heck, Lewyt Vacuum Cleaner Company built high-power transmitters (BC-339) during WW2. What did Jimmie do during WW2? I was a schoolchild then. Did Jimmie get his proximity fused yet back then? The reliability of ENIAC was such that it would typically run for 1 to 2 days before something needed fixing. Its record was only about 5 days of continuous operation. The folks using it got very very good at identifying and fixing the problems. ENIAC was never duplicated. During its development, so much was learned that newer machines like EDSAC, EDVAC and ultimately the UNIVAC were designed, rather than repeat the ENIAC design. ENIAC flunked. It went defunct. One of a kind. By modern standards, or even those of 20, 30, or 40 years ago, ENIAC is/was totally impractical. Try 51 years, not just 40 years ago. But by the standards of its time, it was a tremendous advance. According to Moore School PR and the Eckert-Mauchley company that also went defunct afterwards... :-) Calculations that took *weeks* using pre-ENIAC methods could be done in *seconds* using the machine. Now, now, you are comparing pomegranites and pumpkins. Quit trying to compare humans operating Monroe or Friden desk calculators for those Firing Table data tabulations with the MINUTES it took using ENIAC. The boundaries of "numerically hard" calculation were pushed back enormously. Tsk. It's a given that mechanical means, then electrical means has been acknowledged as making mathematical calculations faster since LONG before ENIAC existed. Most important of all, the ENIAC was considered "practical" enough by the US Army. Soon after it was publically announced in 1946, the Army moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where it was used for its intended purposes until 1955. The government PAID for it and now they were stuck with this big white elephant. Probably didn't bother declaring it "surplus" since no one wanted to buy it. :-) That's why I wrote the above ENIAC story. BFD. You went to Moore, "touched" the museum piece that it is. How many computers made today have a useful life as long as ENIAC? My HP Pavilion box for one. My wife's HP Pavilion for two. One hellishly FASTER clock rate than ENIAC, enormous RAM, ROM, and mass storage medium. Built about 4 years ago. My Apple ][ Plus for three...built in 1980 sold to me in 1980...been running now and then ever since. Dinky little clock rate of 1 MHz, a thousand times slower than the HP Pavilions but still a lot faster than ENIAC could ever do. A quarter of a century later it still boots up, runs programs. btw, in 1976, ENIAC was returned to where it was built, and a museum display set up with parts of it. In the 1990s, part of it was restored to operating condition, and some calculations done as a demonstration. [big Ben Stein "wowwwww..." here] Thirty years before 1976 the Rosenwald Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago had a working interactive tic-tac-toe calculator made from relays. Was mounted behind glass so the visitors could see the relays in operation. Interactive, Jimmie, any visitor could try it without instruction. :-) I got to see and touch parts of ENIAC. Wowee. I've touched the Liberty Bell at Independance Hall in Philly. Between the two, I'd much prefer the Liberty Bell. ENIAC is defunct. Liberty is NOT. Also read the papers on it. A machine that changed the world, made from very ordinary parts and techniques, assembled in a new way. PR minutae you spout. Maybe you ought to get on a committee to build a SHRINE for ENIAC? "All worship the Machine That CHANGED THE WORLD!!!" :-) Webster's spells it "minutia" for singular, "minutiae" for plural. Len's should have chosen the singular. He made an error. Typical. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie lays on the MINUTAE in plural form so much that I was correct. :-) WTF Moore School and ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO POLICY seems to have vanished in Jimmieworld. The main point is that it's not superfluous. Voice radio was "practical" enough for MW broadcasting by 1920 - that's not an opinion, it's a demonstrated fact. Yes. There is nothing currently underway to move toward anything in the near future to change amplitude modulation for medium wave broadcasting. There are AM BC receivers from the 1920s that, if restored, will perform admirably today in their intended purpose. Then let the Navy use them. :-) ["perform admirably" :-) ] Some NTSC TV sets from 60 years ago, if restored, can still be used to watch VHF TV. Why? Aren't those good for 80m "CW" transceiver parts? [rock-bound at 3.58 MHz... :-) ] "Cost less than $100...etc., etc., etc." :-) Of course HDTV will eventually replace NTSC. "Eventually?!?" The transition phase is and has been underway NOW, Jimmie. Here in the USA, not on some "website." Once you watch DTV in operation, side by side with an older NTSC set, the tremendous difference in DTV can be seen AND heard. With the truly flat-screen LCD, Plasma, or DLP display with a wider picture than possible with NTSC, the detail and expanse is striking with DTV. Jimmie say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" Tsk, Jimmie be the Amish of ham radio. Jimmie love horse-and-buggy comms using morse code? [note similarity of 'horse' and 'morse'] He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and untruths for a long time. Tsk. Typical bluffmanship on Jimmie's part. He no say what he do but he IMPLIES lots. Sounds like that USMC Imposter Robeson's tactic. Jimmie keep things SECRET. Very hush-hush. Somebody say Jimmie know nothing, they "LIARS." Just like Robeson. See above about ENIAC. It was very practical, in its time - but never repeated. ENIAC defuct. Flunked in reliability, flunked in architecture (BCD accumulators/registers, not binary). NEVER repeated. A MUSEUM PIECE. I'm still looking for a definition of "morsemanship" Poor baby. Can't understand it? Post-graduate degree and you still can't connect the dots? :-) My history sources go far beyond ARRL publications. And ARRL history isn't "bowdlerized". ARRL carefully OMITS certain items of history and IMPLIES amateurs are 'responsible' for all advances. :-) Beyond the Thomas White radio history pages, Jimmie not mention any of his "sources" that go beyond League publications. I was writing about non-amateur use of Morse Code in radio. Why Jimmie do dat? This be AMATEUR Radio newsgroup. Notice how Len doesn't mention any HF experience of his after ADA, except cb? WRONG. Civil avionics work included HF...used in US Aviation Radio Service. Maritime Radio Service includes personal use of an HF SSB transceiver (SGC-2020) two years ago. Contract work involved DoD design and evaluation which did not need my civilian Commercial operator license sign-off. To do so would require not only a license, but assembling a station. "Plug and play" nowadays, was that way a half century ago. :-) Collins Radio used to make whole stations, quit the amateur radio market and still makes money. Note that while Len talks endlessly about places he has worked and projects he has worked on, there's almost nothing about radio projects he has done himself, with his own money, at home. This newsgroup is Amateur Radio Policy, not Amateur Radio Homebrew. :-) Jimmie wanna see my home workshop? Have it digitized, was sent to three others. Wanna see the HP 608D and the 606 signal generators, the 60 MHz dual-channel scopes (note plural), the 1 KW Variac below the bench? Poor baby. Jimmie jealous? Jimmie work at just ONE employer his whole life? Jimmie NOT serve in military. Jimmie NOT serve in government. Jimmie "serves" the nation by his ham radio hobby? There's the one-tube unlicensed oscillator transmitter of 1948, his conversion of some ARC-5s and their sale, the store-bought ICOM receiver and the compact Johnson....and not much else. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Two complete ARC-5 receiver-transmitters for 40 meters. Conversion earned me some money on resale. I still have one 6-9 MHz ARC-5 receiver that runs, assorted parts from both receivers and transmitters. Did that in 1948, not the "phonograph transmitter" built as a lark in 1947...which worked on the AM BC band and did not violate any FCC regulations at the time. :-) You are confused with the 1947 HF regenerative receiver that I suppose DID 'regenerate' a bit much out a 200 foot long wire antenna at times. :-) Oh, my, a "store-bought Icom receiver!" Their model IC-R70. Paid for "in cash" (check, actually) at an HRO in Van Nuys, CA (later moved to two successive locations in Burbank, CA). Cost about $600 then. No problem, could afford it. Ask USMC Imposter Robeson about any of those HRO stores. He says he's been to two of them "with friends." :-) Would you like my old checkbook balance digitized so you can view it for your 'verification?' How about I digitize the receipt? Or do you want to wait for the famous Background Check that Paul seems to want done? :-) Oh, yeah, the "compact Johnson." The E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger is small but not necessarily compact. If you need some verification I can get some URLs for CB nostalgia types for you. On the "compact johnson," your allusion to my penis, let's just say I've satisfied two wives and a dozen girlfriends with my "goodie woody." Would you be satisfied with my primary physician's note on its size, digitized and sent to you? Or will you wait for Paul's Background Check to verify that bit of AMATEUR RADIO POLICY you want to talk about? Hmmm? You like penises, Jimmie? Plus if FCC *does* drop Element 1, what will Len do? Then I will drop the advocacy of eliminating the morse code test...as I have written many times in here. There would be no NEED for advocacy of eliminating that test since it had already been eliminated in that case. Tsk, you are SO unbelieving, all that FABRICATION about "reasons" you imagine! Poor baby. Len could have had a no-code tech ages ago. Len had a Commercial First 'Phone since 1956, has used that in many more places on the EM spectrum than are allowed to US radio amateurs. Mostly for money but some times just for fun. See you on the air, Dave. Using very slow-scan ATV? Perhaps using morse code pixels? You have morse code glasses? Your Elecraft kit have a built-in spectrum analyzer? Video viewer? |
|
#110
October 8th 06, 01:43 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
From: Dave Heil on Sat, Oct 7 2006 5:40 am
wrote: Big Brother of Newington will ruler-spank you. Ho, ho! Beep, beep... "FB, OM." QRT. "Roger who?" etc., ... Tsk, tsk, in the usual display of humorless unpleasantness, Heil takes things out of context in order to attempt some kind of humiliation of those he doesn't like. :-) Here is the original exchange between Brian Burke and myself, taken directly from very recent Google RRAP newsgroup message storage: ================================================== =========== From: on Thurs, Oct 5 2006 7:20 pm wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: 1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL for use in "official" message relay by amateurs. Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was by "official" means a la Western Union or similar REAL telegraphic message. :-) Why must the format be sold? Is it copy righted? If I send a message using THE FORMAT without purchasing the form, am I guilty of copyright infringement? Big Brother of Newington will ruler-spank you. 2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.' Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic shorthand where inflection and tonality of real laughter is not possible] Hi, hi! Ho, ho! Beep, beep... 3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports" to other stations AS IF they were solidly received when they are not. You're 59, OM. "FB, OM." 4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain words would have worked just as well. Jargon use has the appearance of being a "professional" service but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand used in different modes. QSL. QRT. 5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any) under discussion. Most of the time such voice contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom. Roger. "Roger who?" 6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names in non-radio conversation, communication, and image displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL radio station or radio broadcaster. Every 10 minutes. "We now pause 10 seconds for official station identification." 7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being "federally authorized radio station (or operator or both)." Elevation of self-importance beyond what the amateur radio license GRANT is about. 10-4. Roger that. Affirmative. Over and out. 8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow a national service to the country. Authenticate. "Official" 9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of radio activity of all) into that "national service" akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an important "resource" that would always "save the day when all other infrastructure communications services 'failed'." Amateur Radio Service = GI Bill. ARRL chief a member of Joint Chiefs of Staff. 10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource. Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions written, the amateur radio service is still an avocational radio activity done for personal pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation. "Sorry Jim, MARS is Amateur Radio." As Pluto went so may MARS... Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know. Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service, what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services? Other than reading about the amateur radio service in WWII, what does Jim know about THE Service? He consults Pentagon library of morsemen. You know NOTHING of military radio. You never served, never worked with the military. I did both as a soldier and as a civilian. Jim knows nothing of military radio. Except surplus he read about. You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and technology. I've been involved with broadcasting at the station end since 1956. I suspect that Jim was an Extra in "Pump Up The Volume." He not listed in SEG, Screen Extras Guild. You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services, never had one. I did. When you was LMR, Jim was VFR. CAVU...(Code Allatime Very Universal) You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms. I've done that, both air-air and air-ground. Maybe Jim wasn't VFR. IFR. Intermittent Fantasy Regaler. You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on and what is used. I've used it on the water, both in harbors and inland waterways. Jim is on CH16. Hot water? You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service. CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice that. I've been doing that since 1959. Jim is on CH19. 10-4. You MIGHT know something about Personal Communications Radio Services other than CB (R-C is not strictly a communications mode, it is tele-command)...such as a cellular telephone. No "call letters," "Q" codes, or radiotelegraphy are used with cell phones. One in three Americans has one. Do you have one. I do. You can reach Jim at XXX-XXX-XXXX. He X rated now? Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. Not true, Len. We're amateurs Don't you forget it. Yowsa! :-) I have USED my COMMERCIAL radio operator license to operate on FAR MORE EM SPECTRUM than is allocated to amateurs. LEGAL operation. In most cases of such work NO license was required by the contracting government agency. [the FCC regulates only CIVIL radio services in the USA, NOT the government's use] Jim isn't involved in Gov't Radio. But he reads about it. Knows all. Allatime calls others "wrong." When did YOU "legally" operate below 500 KHz? Have you EVER operated on frequencies in the microwave region? [other than causing 2.4 GHz EMI from your microwave oven] Have you transmitted ANY RF energy as high as 25 GHz? I have transmitted RF from below LF to 25 GHz. I have done that since 1953...53 years ago. Jim's Giga Hurts. Let's take up collection to send him Preparation H. What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks" of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-) I prefer smooth. Peanuts. I've once "worked" 250,000 miles (approximately) "DX" with a far-away station above 2 GHz but below 10 GHz. What have YOU done above 3/4 meters? READ about it? Jim once incorrectly calculated the distance to the moon. I think maybe Coslo aided him with the calculations. Coslonaut helped Giganaut. Oh, yes, now you are going to "reply" with the standard ruler-spank that I did not do that with "my own" equipment. :-) You should have gotten a QSL manager and with the greenstamps earned, bought both sides of the QSO. My bad. I QRK and QSY both. Well, now YOU have a quandry. To use that stock "reply" of yours you MUST define that the "taxpayer SUBSIDIZES" anything of the government or contracted work by the government. In your "logic" then, I really DO "own" that equipment! I suspect that Jim is subsidized in many ways. Must be...he never subsides. But, if you say I don't then you have to take back your INSULT to all military servicemen and servicewomen that they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer." I will NOT "own that equipment" if you take that insult back. Perhaps Jim will loan you some tube-type equipment ... I have tubular capacitors for hollow-state things, cathode ray tubes on a hot tin roof. YOU don't think your remark was an "insult." You've tried to rationalize your way out of that three ways from Sunday since. Well then, I "do" "own" that equipment and did get experience using "my own" equipment! Jim insulted me. Jim insulted Hans. Jim insulted Mark. Jim insulted Len. Jim did not insult Dave who apparently thinks little of his service. Is that why his Giga hurts? YOU are NOT young, Jimmie. Face it. You've hit the halfway mark and are downhill all the way since. YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older. YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering." But, but, but he has greenlee punches... He is punchy. You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving an amateur extra class license largely through a test for morsemanship. Manual radiotelegraphy hasn't been "pioneered" by you. Jim is a follower. Camp. The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago. 1947. The PATENT wasn't granted immediately. :-) Owch!!! I guess that was before the days of instant gratification. Also before instant oatmeal and regularity. Amateurs were using them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s. Early. Like 1952. See QST or CQ (forget which) which I saw at Fort Monmouth in that year. Transistors made by Philco (?). Whatever it was, the transistors have long been obsolete, out of production, replaced by newer, better, cheaper types. Do they require greenlee punches? How about we give him nice Hawaiian Punch? Come back when you've actually DESIGNED some solid-state ham radio, not just assembled a kit designed by someone else. Plans from a Ham Radio magazine. Prior to 1980... Use those mighty collitch degrees, all that radio- electronics "experience" in the "industry" to show us what you can really do. :-) He can post attrition numbers on hobby radio. Cribbed from Joe Speroni's website... ======================== end message quote ==================== Taken IN CONTEXT the exchange (try reading it as the spoken word) is amusing. Of course it is one-sided. Of course it is sarcasm, but it is WRY sarcasm based on years of one-sided smug arrogance of morsemen in this newsgroup against all no-code-test advocates. This newsgroup's amateurs allow very little objectivity and the pro-coders insist on strict adherence to THEIR opinions...and justify their attempts at humiliation and insult of no-code-test advocates as being "their right" or "for the good of ham radio" or other quaint, uncivil, but invalid rationalizations. :-) Heil did the same OUT OF CONTEXT "quoting" of Brian Burke, adding in his pet phrase (which Heil says is "not" a personal insult) of "red-hatted monkey." Heil has his own pet phrase for me, of course "not" a personal insult in His rationalizations: The Old Organ Grinder, the man who is only here for CIVIL debate is heard from. Tsk, tsk. I *am* a civilian. :-) I have ground pepper but never an organ. [I have yet to be in Fargo, ND, and would not be there playing with a chipper in the snow... :-) ] When arguing with UNCIVIL pro-coders (such as Heil and his out-of-context quoting uncivility) one cannot be a polite "goody two-shoes" respondent. Especially when the pro-coders are very concerned about "sphincters." :-) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| shortwv | Shortwave | |||
| 178 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | General | |||
| 214 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (09-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
Linear Mode
