wrote:
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. :-)

You wrote " not ', Len.

And who is "Jimmie"?

Not *wrong*, just a typo...

It's plain, flat out wrong, Len. You made a mistake.

One would think a self proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL IN RADIO" would catch
something that simple. But you missed it.

And you blame the messenger for pointing out *your* mistake.

too much pressure on the shift key. :-)

Looks more like a short-circuit between your head-phones ;-)

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?

Len, you're not funny.

wrote:
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. :-)

You didn't write FEET, Len. You used the symbol for INCHES.

You were wrong.

Not *wrong*,

It was wrong, Len. Just plain flat out wrong.

just a typo...too much pressure on the shift key. :-)

Maybe this explains it:

Story:

http://www.local6.com/education/10097181/detail.html

Rankings:

http://www.local6.com/education/10097048/detail.html

PA: 10th
MN: 13th
TN: 30th
OH: 34th
CA: 47th

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

When did you join a convent, Len?

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

What *are* you blubbering about, Len?

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

No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.

Sheesh!

Unbelievable...

Dave K8MN

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

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

No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.


I guess he just doesn't know the difference between feet and inches.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?

Sure do. This newsgroup isn't all of amateur radio, though. In fact,
it's a very small group.

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.

You mean like olde-tymers who want the zoning in their neighborhood to
stay the
same forever? There's at least one of those "in 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... :-)

It's not all about *you*, Len ;-)

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

No such "propaganda", Len.

You've been Conditioned,

Not at all.

Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...

How? By facts and experience?

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,

License TEST requirements.

That doesn't answer my question at all, Len.

Why are the modes used or not used by *other* radio services important
to
the license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?

Shouldn't the modes used by radio amateurs be most important to the
license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?

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?

Because that mode is a big part of amateur radio operation, and skill
in the use of that mode cannot be adequately tested otherwise. And
because there needs to be some testing on the things an Amateur Radio
license authorizes licensees to do.

What you're saying, once all the bluster is removed, is that since hams
are not required to *use* Morse Code, they should not be required to
*learn* Morse Code.

The problem is that if the same idea is applied to other modes, most of
the rest of the license requirements go away.

For example:

The FCC does not require exclusive use of radiotelephone modes by US
radio amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there
be any questions on radiotelephone modes on the tests for an amateur
radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of data modes by US radio
amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there be any
questions on data modes on the tests for an amateur radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of VHF bands by US radio
amateurs. Choice of band is entirely optional. Why should there be any
questions on VHF on the tests for an amateur radio license?

Etc.

Go down that path for any distance and there's almost nothing left of
the written test. Is that what you want? I think it is.

From: "Dee Flint" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 8:53pm

wrote in message
wrote:

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

No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.

I guess he just doesn't know the difference between feet and inches.

I guess you did NOT read my admission of a typo?

Of course not, you have me "killfiled" because my comments
are just so "horrid" at not speaking the ARRL party line.

An approximation of a quarter-wave monopole in FEET
is 234/(frequency in MHz).

234 / 73 = 3.205 FEET.

Tsk, the nit-pickers just didn't do the math. A quarter
is NOT '0.205' but 0.250. Nobody checked that out. :-)

Not even N2EY, the Mother Superior of the newsgroup who
scrutinizes all of my postings with a beady eye, ready
to have a "WRONG" orgy, hopping up and down in glee at
"mistakes" and "errors" that "always" occur. :-)

Dee, since you have me "killfiled" you won't see this
post. I won't hold that against you. It's just another
"ostrich syndrome" of the pro-coders refusing to see the
reality of now. :-)

From: "an_old_friend" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 4:15pm

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

That supposedly happened several years ago. But, it's
about the only "proof" the pro-code-testers have for
"enforcement" of the code test. Too bad they can't
effectively argue their case to the United States Coast
Guard. The USCG quit monitoring the 500 KHz inter-
national maritime distress frequency about the same time.


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

Really. The "medium-haul" radio comms (50 to 200 miles, roughly)
was handled by the more-mobile AN/GRC-26 (hut on a deuce and a
half truck towing a MG set) where the TTY was favored for its
already-written messages followed by simultaneous voice. The
bulk of land-to-land messaging was handled by the "TRCs" or
transportable radio relay sets carrying four multiplexed voice
channels. Each voice channel could handle four TTY circuits.
All of that was left-over stuff from World War II.

Short-range comms were handled almost exclusively by FM voice
from the AN/PRC-6 (2nd generation HT, introduced just before
1950) and the manpacks ranging from SCR-300 (original "walkie-
talkie" of WWII) to the AN/PRC-8 through -10 (in the three
overlapping "line" bands just introduced). Vehicular radios
were a whole series of "VRCs" now arranged in the "line"
bands at high-HF to low-VHF running voice FM. Many of those
VRCs had become known as "tank radios" of WWII under their
"SCR-" IDs.

Fans of the AN/GRC-9 would be disappointed in the LACK of use
of that WWII relic and its arm-wasting manual generator. It
operated only at low-HF. Tactically, it was a throwback to
pre-WWII days of military radio and didn't suit the rapidly-
shifting field tactics in Korea.

Long-haul radio comms in Korea (beyond 200 miles) was almost
exclusively HF TTY plus all the wireline TTY (land permitting).
Comms to FEC Hq in Tokyo was a mix of VHF radio relay, HF TTY
(direct), and wireline (including underwater cable to cross
the sea). Some of that was encrypted TTY using a second-
generation system similar to the rolling-code "SIGABA" of the
second world war times. [never cracked until the USS Pueblo
was captured nearly intact]

In the early 1960s and the heating up of the Southeast Asia
Live Fire Exercise, the AN/PRC-25 channel-tuned VHF FM voice
portable made its debut. The "Prick-25" became the radio of
choice for land field units. All solid-state except for the
final PA, a battery-filament tube. A few years later the
AN/PRC-77 was introduced with ALL-solid-state active devices.
Over 120,000 PRC-25s and PRC-77s were manufactured. The
PRC-8 to PRC-10 series was also used but the high turnover
in personnel made the PRC-25 favored due to easy operation.

VHF and UHF radio relay was the major comms carrier in SE
Asia during the Vietnam War. Multi-channel voice, each voice
channel could handle several multiplexed TTY circuits. Most
firebases were identifiable by the antenna structures for
those radio relay sets. Radio relay on VHF-UHF was a huge
operation but never well-publicized in amateur radio mags.

Vehicular comms were still done by the VRCs in Vietnam but,
the lack of terrain for effective armor limited that to the
supplies vehicles. Long-haul comms to Japan and Hawaii
Hqs were done by HF TTY, either direct or relayed through
Manila or Okinawa. [Far East Command Hq was transferred
from Tokyo to Fort Shafter, HI, about 1958 although there
were relays (HF TTY) through USAF-maintained HF radio near
Tokyo to link to the States; USAF took over the USA HF
radio facilities there in 1963]

Experiments with satellite commsats began during the Vietnam
War but those were largely just experiments. They got PR
because satcomm was new and noteworthy to news editors,
seemed exciting with big, big antenna dishes, etc. Satcomm
ops never took off until after the Vietnam War was over
in 1973. Once the satcomms' relay was possible, the use of
HF for long-haul circuits was relegated to a standby role.

It's a much-ballyhooed MYTH that "CW" was essential to
radio comms even during WWII. [maybe it was due to
Hollywood liking the mystique of morsemen at their keys
with headphones on and doing the thousand-yard stare?]
The major long-haul comms circuits were TTY even then.
In the electronics trade shows of the early 1970s, the
Teletype Corporation was displaying a gold-plated TTY
terminal as the half-millionth! The already-WRITTEN
messages were always preferred by field commanders for
accuracy and reliability. An added plus was that TTY
could be encrypted ON-LINE when needs be, even for the
USN as far back as 1940. The famous Command Sets of
WWII aircraft were used primarily in voice mode, by the
pilots; was very little time to have the radio op write
down messages and bring them up to the cockpit; radio
ops on B-17s and B-24s were basically gunners first,
radiomen second. Liason Sets were seldom used and then
only when the air was "peaceful" over friendly territory.


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

The morsemen in here have RANK, STATUS, PRIVILEGE and
Vanity (note the 1x2 calls seen in here)...lobbied for
by the much-older hams who were after rank, status,
privilege due to morsemanship. These morsemen are the
"best" and they don't hesitate to tell everyone so.
They demand obediance to their wishes...which is to
maintain their rank, status, privilege due to morseman-
ship...and their perceived ability ('nobility?') to
look down on all the no-code-test advocates as if they
are somehow "better." AS IF... :-(

Funny how operating abilities of the 1930s isn't
"appreciated" in the 2000s. [morsemen are quaintly out
of date]



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

Frequency coordination is ALWAYS a problem in ANY radio service.
It gets worse when there are thousands of users in a relatively
small locale. The FCC long ago gave up on trying to coordinate
the PLMRS users and delegated that to the individual private
user groups...public safety, railroad, businesses, etc.

It didn't help the model hobby industry to come out with fixed-
frequency R-C Tx and Rx in order to sell them at lower cost...
and makes them lighter (important for flying models). The trend
now is to have frequency-synthesis techniques on receivers; it
is easier to that in transmitter boxes (plenty of room, not a
weight problem). Considerate modelers will be aware of who is
using what channel, do the "flag" display thing (if appropriate)
and try not to cause another model any catastrophy. [a model
helo can cost up to $500, hardly a toy...anyone who deliberately
interferes with one causing a crash will have the helo owner
physically confronting the interferer...not so usual with an
amateur radio interferer]

One problem with frequency coordination is the territoriality
of thinking that a coordinate frequency is ONLY for the intended
use and those not WITH a coordinator shouldn't be there. In
model flying that would be the casual "park flyer" who is not a
local club member. In amateur radio it is some casual user
unaware of the "authorized" nature of coordinate frequencies;
yet the FCC allows all the OPTION of using any allocated mode
in any allocated band. The FCC catches that with the "do not
interfere with another user" requirement common to every radio
service. Problem is, interference still happens. :-)

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?

Sure do. This newsgroup isn't all of amateur radio, though. In fact,
it's a very small group.

....and I've seen very few looking for any help here. In fact, this
group has had quite a number of instant experts.

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.

You mean like olde-tymers who want the zoning in their neighborhood to
stay the
same forever? There's at least one of those "in this newsgroup".

Do you mean that bound-and-determined olde-tymer in California?

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

Nobody says they do.

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

It's not all about *you*, Len ;-)

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

No such "propaganda", Len.

You've been Conditioned,

Not at all.

Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...

How? By facts and experience?

I think Len means the standard ARRL conditioning program, the one where
we all practice ARRL-think and the one by which we all stuff checks into
envelopes and mail them to the League periodically.

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,

License TEST requirements.

That doesn't answer my question at all, Len.

Why are the modes used or not used by *other* radio services important
to
the license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?

Shouldn't the modes used by radio amateurs be most important to the
license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?

Len really can't answer that one, Jim. He hasn't had a real answer for
it in over a decade.

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?

Because that mode is a big part of amateur radio operation, and skill
in the use of that mode cannot be adequately tested otherwise. And
because there needs to be some testing on the things an Amateur Radio
license authorizes licensees to do.

What you're saying, once all the bluster is removed, is that since hams
are not required to *use* Morse Code, they should not be required to
*learn* Morse Code.

The problem is that if the same idea is applied to other modes, most of
the rest of the license requirements go away.

For example:

The FCC does not require exclusive use of radiotelephone modes by US
radio amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there
be any questions on radiotelephone modes on the tests for an amateur
radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of data modes by US radio
amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there be any
questions on data modes on the tests for an amateur radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of VHF bands by US radio
amateurs. Choice of band is entirely optional. Why should there be any
questions on VHF on the tests for an amateur radio license?

Etc.

Go down that path for any distance and there's almost nothing left of
the written test. Is that what you want? I think it is.

Len's not sure of what he's *for*, but he knows damned well what he is
*against*.

He is against morse testing, the ARRL, overly-proud radio amateurs and
Fessenden among others.

Dave K8MN

From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 12:32pm

On 28 Oct 2006 05:47:32 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?

Sure do. This newsgroup isn't all of amateur radio, though. In fact,
it's a very small group.

and non of th OT are good helpfull hams including yourself

Tsk. Miccolis imagines he is "helpful." His concept of
"helpful" is everyone doing as he says, thinking what he
thinks. That's not reality. It's 'hive mind' stuff.

It might be that Miccolis doesn't understand 'reality.'
He says he "lives in the ham bands." The rest of us
live in residences like houses or apartments. He has
funny ideas of zoning laws and how they affect hundreds
of peoples' lives about THEIR neighborhood, not to
mention local tax laws.

Miccolis is off on some Hate kick. He just can't stand
opposition to his beloved ARRL's ideas or anyone
gasp! disagreeing with the mighty of Newington.
Therefore he stretches even his concept of reality to
the breaking point...and broke it more than once. He
NEEDS to find the worst of everyone disagreeing with
him. A sort of junior-league Major Dud (Robeson) now.

1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui.

Slow Code wrote:
Opus- wrote in
:

Don't you have some offs to ****?



Why do no-coders always break down in the middle of an argument and start
spewing profanities? I just don't understand it. It must be do to their
limited mental abilities.

Opus being a Cannuk probably doesn't help either.

SC

Removing the code requirement at this late date would do little to
increase the number of hams applying for a license. At one time,
possibly 30 years ago it would have made sense to replace the code test
with one that emphasizes skills that actually have a use in the real
world. Sadly, I think that there is little that can be done to attract
younger hams into the hobby. There are just too many license-free ways
of communicating with people from around the world.