Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:25:41 -0500, "Not Lloyd" anon@anon wrote:


"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Such as Mark does?
I never said anything such Although It is in fact imposible to work
some of the DX I want to work with a 100 watt and G5RV

That is correct. That is because you are a tech and cannot work HF at all!

Like Dee, I've worked stations worldwide with "just" 100 watts and a G5RV
and you could too, if you'd but learn a paltry 5wpm code speed.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other.

Then why don't they?

They *do*, Len.

Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Nonsense.

No, it's the truth.

"Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who
want things kept without change.

Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup.


Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be.

Nobody says they do.

Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-)

They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.

No such "propaganda", Len.

You've been Conditioned, Miccolis. Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place.

Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use
Morse Code - extensively.

Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements,
Miccolis. License TEST requirements.

The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy
by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL
to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use,
why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE?



Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part
97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs
to communicate with foreigners.

That's true. But one of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service is international good will. Communicating with "foreigners" is
one way to do that.

["boilerplate" political insert into the Basis & Purpose]

So, exactly WHAT is this so-called "good will?" Has it
stopped wars and armed conflict anywhere in the world?
[No] Has it ended world hunger or even alleviated it?
[No] Does this "good will" do ANYTHING?

When was the last time the AMATEUR bands were used to save
a life using radiotelegraphy?

I would think saving a life would be the BEST good will
possible.


The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code.

How do you know?

:-) Try reading the No-Code International website and
researching the statements in there. Those are true
statements.


It's a fact that at least some people use poorly-designed training
methods.

Did Moore School drill that into you? :-)


Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.

Why is that so important?

It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking
Believer. :-)

It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of
morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't
worth having a license TEST for it. Especially since the
FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio-
telegraphy for years.


Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?

It's not about 'special significance".

Yes, it is. :-)

See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements
for 20 WPM code tests. See all the "gotta upgrade!"
agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way
over all other modes.


The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code.

There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those
who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the
written tests.

Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time,
cannot understand that a federal court decision in the
early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC.
:-)



The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time.

You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Jimmie? :-)

No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was
the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-)

I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with
about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. A
few hundreds of thousands other recruits did the same
in the 1950s. You NEVER did that.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.

The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie.
Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in
basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways)
and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a
LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty.

You never did either one...


btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.

Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine
example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"]

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've
READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio
surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-)


The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history.

Who lobbied for those requirements, Len?

ARRL, of course. :-)

As they've bragged to anyone who can read, "they know what is
best for amateur radio!" :-)


As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept
citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations.
The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens
in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not
with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur
radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those
are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not
licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already-
licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already-
licensed to be listened to over and above all other
interested citizens.

The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens.

No kidding?!? :-)

Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)


It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.

It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.

Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to
serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed.
Go starve, you poor thing...


Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.

"Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context
of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone
against what you previously wrote. :-)



Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.

So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates*
US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government.
Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every*
other radio service.

A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles
for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared
with many others.

Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over
by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-)

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control.

How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30
MHz?

Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for
himself...and CAN'T.

The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band-
width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around
saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are
they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art
(of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool"
of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't
making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a
HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all
angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO
(which is what they really are).

IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less
than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz.

Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE
30 MHz? HAAAAA!

Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?"

Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications
radio service?

btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of
*all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz.

No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER
radio services, including the Department of Defense, for
frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-)

Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens
to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they
had to take. Why is that?

No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.

They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF.

Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95,
did you? :-)

The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF.

Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow
slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing
those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-)

They are
allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their
communications limited to line-of-sight.

Amateur radio is very different.

Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for
COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of
models. Hello? It ain't about "communications"
but about CONTROL BY RADIO.

0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up
the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD
for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight.
To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To
so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all
those slots are filled.

Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power,
small antennas and line-of-sight radio.

Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF.

NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate
for interplanetary DX.

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with
performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-)

Is that what you think amateur radio should be?

Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at,
much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that."

You CRAPPED again, Jimmie.

By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some
band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-)

It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft
enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their
27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over
by illegal cb operation.

BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again.

There were only SIX channels available in the original
CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close
to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying,
boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and
got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels.

80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend
happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley
dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway
for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem.


And when FCC recently asked for comments on the Morse Code test issue,
the majority of those commenting were *against* the complete
elimination of the Morse Code test. The ratio was approximately 55% in
favor of at least some Morse Code testing.

Oh, oh, Jimmie CRAPPED again! Just *WHO* does he think came
up with the statistics? *ME* sweetums. I read - and saved
(on CD now) - each and every Comment on FCC 05-235. Further,
I tried to keep folks in *this* newsgroup appraised of the
progress. BEFORE pro-coder Joe Speroni could cook his own
stats to make it LOOK like pro-coders "won."

I have to say I wouldn't do *that* again with all the heckling
and cat-calling by the pro-coders in here. You were one of
those, you poor dear. You were UPSET by the EARLY RETIRNS
showing a decided favor for ELIMINATION of the code test.

It's all in Google archives, sweetums. Go look for yourself.
See your own heckling and cat-calling in there.

You don't like that? Tough ****. Now go play with your code
key, Jimmie. Stay out of the radio spectrum highway where so
many radio users hang out that you might get hurt. Stay in
your little radiotelegraph spectrum slivers and pretend you
are the bestest coder what am, "pioneering the airwaves" with
your dots and dashes. Dream on, the REAL pioneering was done
by others a half century before you got your first license.

If some nasty no-coder makes you sweat, just complain to Big
Brother in Newington. Or write nastygrams to the IEEE (where
you aren't a member) about someone "not following the IEEE
rules of conduct!" :-)

Ptui.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:

I have to say I wouldn't do *that* again with all the heckling
and cat-calling by the pro-coders in here. You were one of
those, you poor dear. You were UPSET by the EARLY RETIRNS
showing a decided favor for ELIMINATION of the code test.

RETURNS, not 'retirns.' Typo. :-)

Ptui.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
wrote:

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.

3 1/4 *FEET*, Jimmie. :-)

Not *wrong*, just a typo...too much pressure on the shift key. :-)

Tsk, Mother Superior trying to do her knuckle-spanking bit today?

Class was dismissed years ago, Jimmie, and your Habit is still
looking terrible on you...quit this trans-gender nonsense, okay?

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, "
wrote:

From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am


not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems

There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately.
"Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders
can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down
somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing
the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands.
I love that story that it is trotted out is just a measure of how
desperate they are
I took one as it happens when I was doing some work with a signal
corps project that was looking a CW based NON Morse more app, I tested
very poorly indeed

The US military has kept the CW setting on front panel controls
for years...but NOT for radiotelegraphy purposes. That is for
remoting the operation of transmitters, almost always by wireline
control. Land forces learned many decades ago to locate
transmitters well away from Hq troops.

Pro-coders will see such front panel control settings and
immediately jump on their pro-code bandwagon shouting about
"the military using radiotelegraphy" when they don't know squat
about real field use of land force radios or the peripheral
equipment for same.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.

The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie.
Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in
basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways)
and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a
LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty.

You never did either one...


btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.

Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine
example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"]

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've
READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio
surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-)

a truce that could end at any minute I fear but still no need for cw
ops to go man radios

Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms
DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953).
Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade.

really? are you tlaking about just local stuff or long haul korea to
stateside stuff geting a better feel for the timeline I was under the
impression that army pretty weel stay with cw/code through most of
korea then switched pretty quickly

Problem is, olde-tymers are still brainwashed by glorious
propaganda (from the boys in Newington) about World War II
and (conveniently) forget that war ended 61 years ago. They
still have dreams of glory and honor using "CW" and get
angry when they are awakened to the reality of today.


Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)

and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham
should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules

Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I
[they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the
INTENT was plain as day at noontime.

funy how if they don't really mean that and Morse Code makes them such
great comicating that they are so consistantly misunderstood

These pro-coder olde-tymers just do NOT want that code test
to ever disappear. If it did they would lose their major Bragging
Right (to glory and honor of telegraphic modes).

It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.

It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.

Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to
serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed.
Go starve, you poor thing...


Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.

"Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context
of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone
against what you previously wrote. :-)



Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.

So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates*
US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government.
Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every*
other radio service.

A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles
for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared
with many others.

Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over
by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-)

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control.

How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30
MHz?

Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for
himself...and CAN'T.

The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band-
width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around
saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are
they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art
(of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool"
of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't
making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a
HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all
angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO
(which is what they really are).

they also 16 channeles within the Ham bands reseversed for Ham into RC
and those units are allowed higher power levels than the rest

Anyone remotely involved with the Model Hobby Industry will see
the emphasis on the license-free "72 MHz" channels from ready-
built remote control radios. With 80 channels to choose from it
is NOT a problem at any event or weekend gathering of modelers
together in one location.



IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less
than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz.

Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE
30 MHz? HAAAAA!

Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?"

Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications
radio service?

btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of
*all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz.

No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER
radio services, including the Department of Defense, for
frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-)

Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens
to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they
had to take. Why is that?

No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.

They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF.

Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95,
did you? :-)

The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF.

Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow
slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing
those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-)

They are
allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their
communications limited to line-of-sight.

Amateur radio is very different.

Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for
COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of
models. Hello? It ain't about "communications"
but about CONTROL BY RADIO.

0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up
the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD
for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight.
To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To
so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all
those slots are filled.

Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power,
small antennas and line-of-sight radio.

Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF.

NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate
for interplanetary DX.

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with
performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-)

Is that what you think amateur radio should be?

Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at,
much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that."

You CRAPPED again, Jimmie.

By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some
band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-)

on 6 m I have one of those units

Then that unit is bound to be affected by "legal" ham transmissions
(AS IF interference with others is "legal") causing loss of control.

Olde-tymers (causing such interference) will claim they have a
"right" to do it. They "own" the band or something like that. :-(
nah ^m is such a neglected band tafter all we techs are allowed to use
never had anytrouble

It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft
enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their
27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over
by illegal cb operation.

BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again.

There were only SIX channels available in the original
CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close
to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying,
boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and
got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels.

80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend
happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley
dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway
for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem.

well Honestlly Len allow me an R/C flyer to correct you at some shows
their are problem with not being near enough frqs at some shows it is
smaller scalle planes show that atract more fliers that have a problem
was even promted some developement of 2/4 gig units

Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do
that a LOT in here... :-)

The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has
a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field
there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location
for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are
a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all
R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the
MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather
than the "operating."
that they try but it is secondary the abilty of the RC gruop is largely
depneant In my expernce on just how the local frequecny coordinators
are able to get people on to lots of freqs in fringe area where the
shop are feww and large college is around somed ay you do have 50
plane trying to operate on 4 or 5 frq
in larger area the hobby shop and tend in placing orders for stuff to
spread the new folks around an advantage yYOU get in your area or would
around SF but out between hobby shop things get weird

(right now trying to duck being given the job of trying to coordinate
the freqs round here Indeed I often spend a lot helping recrytal and
tune the units

I started working in 1948 at Testor Chemical Company, working
IN the model shop as a flunky doing the plan illustration. I've
followed the Model Hobby Industry somewhat ever since. I
don't claim "inside knowledge" on the R-C radios, only that I
got interested in radios and electronics while seeing what the
very first R-C planes could do with rudder-only control. [we are
talking the Raytheon RK61 single-tube gas-filled tube regen
receivers here smile with quite primitive mechanical control
systems] Bang-bang control (full one way or the other, single
neutral center), not the PWM proportional systems of today
and two decades ago using single- and double-conversion solid-
state receivers with (now) standardized control-stick transmitter
boxes containing microprocessors.

R-C has gotten rather sophisticated since its beginning. Last
year had the first successful cross-Atlantic flight of a model
aircraft, R-C for takeoff and landing with GPS-assisted mid-
course control. One helluva good accomplishment for non-
professional modelers! I think the website for that has been
taken down but anyone can read about it in MAN or the two
other newsstand magazines targeting R-C modeling.

Some radio amateurs are still trying to promote radiotelegraphy
AS IF this were still 1901 with Marconi getting his S in
Newfoundland. :-)

They think one MUST do the "CW" thing even if using a multi-
conversion, DSP-enhanced, digitial-synthesis frequency control
solid-state transceiver (using microprocessor assistance),
ready-built off-the-shelf plug-and-play. All to bang the carrier
ON or OFF in order to communicate! :-)

1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Mark in the Dark' wrote in
:


SNIP-Len Andersons gas and Morkins bull**** removed


What a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.

SC

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
wrote:

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.

3 1/4 *FEET*, Jimmie. :-)

Not *wrong*, just a typo...too much pressure on the shift key. :-)

Tsk, Mother Superior trying to do her knuckle-spanking bit today?

Class was dismissed years ago, Jimmie, and your Habit is still
looking terrible on you...quit this trans-gender nonsense, okay?


I guess all the strokes have effected your typing.

SC