RadioBanter
Page 3 of 8 12 3 45678
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/104052-code-requirement-really-keeping-good-people-out-ham-radio.html)

[email protected] October 5th 06 03:49 AM
Formalism
 
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.

What's wrong with it?

There's no requirement to buy the forms in order to use the standard
message format. Once someone has handled enough messages, the format
becomes second nature.

Using a standard message format for written messages is easier, faster
and more accurate. That's why it has been used for so long.

Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

It's not play-acting, Len. It's for-real.

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'

Yep, that's a pretty dumb practice. Note that it's a *voice* thing.
It's been considered a poor voice operating practice for decades. I
simply don't do it.

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]

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Of course you are not a Morse Code operator, Len, so your ignorance may
be understandable.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

I would call them "inaccurate" reports. And again, they're poor
operating practice.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well.

I agree!

A *few* Q signals have a place on voice, where the Q signal saves a lot
of verbiage. But most are simply poor operating practice.

For example, some voice operators will say "QSL" to mean "Roger" -
which means "I heard and understood everything you said". "QSL" is
three syllables, while "Roger" is only two. If both mean the same
thing, why say the longer one?

Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

Jargon does not make something "professional".

Jargon has a use where it conveys a special-purpose meaning in a few
words. For example, referring to an amateur band by meters instead of
megahertz saves time and space, as in "I was on 80 the other night and
the Gs were all over the place".

Most human activities develop their own jargon - amateur radio is no
different. The jargon used on the amateur bands is not an attempt to
sound "professional".

Once again, the problem you cite is a voice thing.

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.

Another voice-only problem. And what does it have to do with
"formalism?"

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.

I think you're jealous, Len, because *you* don't have an amateur radio
callsign.

Referring to a person by their callsign instead of their name is good
amateur practice. Callsigns are unique, short, and easily understood,
while names often are not.

Amateur radio stations are REAL radio stations, Len. That's not an
opinion - it's a legal fact, defined so by the FCC.

Did you ever hear of the "8JK" antenna, Len? Or the "G5RV"?

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)."

What's wrong with that? It's certainly a fact.

Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

How? The license for both station and operator are federally issued.

btw, I've never heard an amateur using Morse Code use that "federally
authorized....." verbiage. Another voice thing.

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.

Amateur Radio often performs public service - at the local, state,
regional and national level. It's not "just a hobby", Len.

And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

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'."

What *are* you going on about, Len? The word "service" has several
meanings.

Nobody says that amateur radio will *always* save the day. But there
are times when amateur radio steps in and provides needed communication
when other means have failed.

Like the communications failure in Tennessee a week or so back. I can
provide a link, if you need one.

btw, one of the reasons for that problem in Tennessee was that the
professionals installed vital telephone equipment in a basement - which
flooded.

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.

Who assumes that, Len? And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

Emergency communications is one aspect of amateur radio. It's an
important aspect, but not the only one.

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.

But that's not all it is. Public service is part of amateur radio, too.


Just read Part 97.

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?

Quite a bit, Len. More than you'd like to admit.

You know NOTHING of military radio.

That's not true, Len.

You never served, never
worked with the military.

How do you know for sure?

I did both as a soldier and as a civilian.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology.

That's not true, Len.

I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.


You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services,

That's not true, Len.

never had one.

How do you know for sure?

I did.

That's nice, Len.

You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or
procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms.

That's not true, Len.

I've done that, both air-air and air-ground.

But you've never been a licensed pilot, Len.

You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on
and what is used.

That's not true, Len.

I've used it on the water, both in
harbors and inland waterways.

That's nice. What does any of that have to do with "formalism" or
amateur radio?

You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service.

I've listened to it. Quite a mess.

CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice
that.

How do you know for sure, Len? CB use does not require a license.

I've been doing that since 1959.

Do you think Amateur Radio should become more like cb, Len?

Do you think your experience in cb somehow makes you qualified to tell
experienced radio amateurs how Amateur Radio should be run?

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.

The number is probably closer to one in two Americans, Len. Maybe even
more - in many families, there is one or even no wired phone, but
everyone in the family has their own cell phone.

However, the cellphone is completely unlike Amateur Radio. The user has
very little control over the radio part of a cellphone. S/he can turn
the cellphone on and off, and that's about the level of absolute
control.

All cell phone radio functions are actually controlled by the cellphone
network/system. The user *requests* various functions, such as
intitiating a call, but the system decides how to handle the request -
even whether to handle it.

Cell phones are actually just the end device in an enormous
communications network - almost all of which does *not* use radio!

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.

I'm proud of it.

And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

I have USED my COMMERCIAL radio operator license to operate
on FAR MORE EM SPECTRUM than is allocated to amateurs.

So why are you here, lecturing to amateurs?

LEGAL operation.

Maybe.

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]

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.

So what, Len? Why do you live in the past?

What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks"
of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-)

It's up to you, Len.

I've once "worked" 250,000 miles (approximately) "DX" with
a far-away station above 2 GHz but below 10 GHz.

But not with your own station.

What have
YOU done above 3/4 meters? READ about it?

Oh, yes, now you are going to "reply" with the standard
ruler-spank that I did not do that with "my own"
equipment. :-)

You didn't, Len. You got to push a button on a system that was the
result of many people's work - and paid for by the taxpayers.

If someone makes a telephone call that goes through a geosynchronous
satellite, they've used microwave communications over a path longer
than 50,000 miles.

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.

The taxpayers pay for it, yes. The government subsidizes it, because
the market cannot support it.

In your "logic" then, I really DO "own" that
equipment!

Nope. The part of your taxes that went to pay for it were tiny. Perhaps
one small part was paid for by your taxes - if that much.

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 never wrote that they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer.", Len.

You are mistaken, and misquoting.

I will NOT
"own that equipment" if you take that insult back.

You don't own that equipment, Len. It's that simple.

YOU don't think your remark was an "insult."

I've asked both you and Brian Burke to explain why the word "subsidize"
is an insult. So far, you have not explained.

I even posted the defintion, straight from Webster's. Perhaps you
should look it up.

You've tried
to rationalize your way out of that three ways from Sunday
since.

I've said that no insult was intended. You have not explained what the
insult is.

Well then, I "do" "own" that equipment and did get
experience using "my own" equipment!

Try to bring it home, Len....

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

As for youth:

I recall you writing that you've always had a problem with that - shall
I produce the exact quote?

I also recall that you wanted to *ban* anyone under the age of 14 from
amateur radio. You went so far as to recommend that to FCC.

As for simplicity:

You sure do seem to make simple things complicated.

YOU are NOT young,
Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

I'm a lot younger than you, Len. In body, mind, and spirit.

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."

How do you know for sure, Len?

And what does that have to do with "formalism"?

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship.

Where do I imply that, Len? I passed the Amateur Extra license exams in
1970, at the age of 16. There were more than a few Extras younger than
me, back then.

The written testing for the Extra Class license has always been more
than the Morse Code testing. In 1970, earning that license required
passing four written tests (Novice, General/Tech, Advanced, Extra) but
only two Morse Code tests (13 and 20 wpm).

btw - what exactly is "morsemanship"? You keep using that word, but
never say what it means.

Seems to me, Len, that you've taken a simple question and turned you
answer into a personal attack on me, for no reason at all. Typical.

Dave Heil October 5th 06 04:40 AM
Formalism
 
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.

What's wrong with it?

There's no requirement to buy the forms in order to use the standard
message format. Once someone has handled enough messages, the format
becomes second nature.

Using a standard message format for written messages is easier, faster
and more accurate. That's why it has been used for so long.

The format used helps to ensure accuracy, specifies handling
instructions, tells when and from whom the message originated and
specifies precedence. Why would Leonard have a problem with that?


Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

It's not play-acting, Len. It's for-real.

It surely is. It may be a telegraphic message, voice message or digital
mode message. Did you note Len's use of "REAL" and the smiley used to
indicate that he is just joking?

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'

Yep, that's a pretty dumb practice. Note that it's a *voice* thing.
It's been considered a poor voice operating practice for decades. I
simply don't do it.

I seldom hear it. Len is living in the past.


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]

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Of course you are not a Morse Code operator, Len, so your ignorance may
be understandable.

I'm convinced.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

I would call them "inaccurate" reports. And again, they're poor
operating practice.

When and if our Leonard ever obtains an amateur radio license, he is
free to take accurate measurement and provide them in dbm to stations he
works. He is free to reject any report they provide him.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well.

I agree!

A *few* Q signals have a place on voice, where the Q signal saves a lot
of verbiage. But most are simply poor operating practice.

For example, some voice operators will say "QSL" to mean "Roger" -
which means "I heard and understood everything you said". "QSL" is
three syllables, while "Roger" is only two. If both mean the same
thing, why say the longer one?

Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

Jargon does not make something "professional".

Jargon has a use where it conveys a special-purpose meaning in a few
words. For example, referring to an amateur band by meters instead of
megahertz saves time and space, as in "I was on 80 the other night and
the Gs were all over the place".

Most human activities develop their own jargon - amateur radio is no
different. The jargon used on the amateur bands is not an attempt to
sound "professional".

Once again, the problem you cite is a voice thing.

Yes and one which Len is free to adopt or not adopt should he ever
obtain an amateur radio license.

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.

Another voice-only problem. And what does it have to do with
"formalism?"

I think he's making a case for the elimination of voice modes in amateur
radio.

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.

I think you're jealous, Len, because *you* don't have an amateur radio
callsign.

Len is big on terms like "overly-proud" and "over-use". They mean
anything more frequent than his standards permit. I may use my callsign
at any time.

Referring to a person by their callsign instead of their name is good
amateur practice. Callsigns are unique, short, and easily understood,
while names often are not.

Amateur radio stations are REAL radio stations, Len. That's not an
opinion - it's a legal fact, defined so by the FCC.

I have a REAL amateur radio license. It has my REAL callsign printed on
it. I keep it in my REAL radio station.

Did you ever hear of the "8JK" antenna, Len? Or the "G5RV"?

Nobody calls 'em by the name of their developer.

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)."

What's wrong with that? It's certainly a fact.

Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

How? The license for both station and operator are federally issued.

"Overly-proud", "over-use of callsigns", "elevation of self-importance".

Leonard Anderson doesn't get to specify how much self-importance is too
much.

btw, I've never heard an amateur using Morse Code use that "federally
authorized....." verbiage. Another voice thing.

Me neither.

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.

Amateur Radio often performs public service - at the local, state,
regional and national level. It's not "just a hobby", Len.

Where in Part 97 of the FCC regs is the word "hobby" ever used?

Have you noticed how far afield Len is going? This isn't about the use
of morse or about removing the morse test. It is about amateur radio
itself.

And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

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'."

What *are* you going on about, Len? The word "service" has several
meanings.

Nobody says that amateur radio will *always* save the day. But there
are times when amateur radio steps in and provides needed communication
when other means have failed.

Like the communications failure in Tennessee a week or so back. I can
provide a link, if you need one.

If you do, I can almost guarantee that the profile will be fulfilled in
short order.

btw, one of the reasons for that problem in Tennessee was that the
professionals installed vital telephone equipment in a basement - which
flooded.

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.

Who assumes that, Len? And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

Len is never one to stand on formality.

Emergency communications is one aspect of amateur radio. It's an
important aspect, but not the only one.

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.

But that's not all it is. Public service is part of amateur radio, too.

Len isn't talking about public service or its lack. Len wants to talk
about pomposity and self-righteousness. We are in amateur radio. Len
is an outsider. He is galled.


Just read Part 97.

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?

Quite a bit, Len. More than you'd like to admit.

You know NOTHING of military radio.

That's not true, Len.

You never served, never
worked with the military.

How do you know for sure?

I did both as a soldier and as a civilian.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

....and he is galled.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology.

That's not true, Len.

I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

I got started in broadcast radio in 1967. I was quite a big younger
than you when I did so.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.


You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services,

That's not true, Len.

never had one.

How do you know for sure?

I did.

That's nice, Len.

He's still playing that "mine is bigger than yours" game. He is galled.


It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.
Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?
Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

As for youth:

I recall you writing that you've always had a problem with that - shall
I produce the exact quote?

I also recall that you wanted to *ban* anyone under the age of 14 from
amateur radio. You went so far as to recommend that to FCC.

As for simplicity:

You sure do seem to make simple things complicated.

YOU are NOT young,
Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

I'm a lot younger than you, Len. In body, mind, and spirit.

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."

How do you know for sure, Len?

And what does that have to do with "formalism"?

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship.

Where do I imply that, Len? I passed the Amateur Extra license exams in
1970, at the age of 16. There were more than a few Extras younger than
me, back then.

The written testing for the Extra Class license has always been more
than the Morse Code testing. In 1970, earning that license required
passing four written tests (Novice, General/Tech, Advanced, Extra) but
only two Morse Code tests (13 and 20 wpm).

btw - what exactly is "morsemanship"? You keep using that word, but
never say what it means.

Seems to me, Len, that you've taken a simple question and turned you
answer into a personal attack on me, for no reason at all. Typical.

Len's use of the term "largely through a test for morsemanship" is a
blatant falsehood. As you point out, there were four written exams to
be passed in going from the Novice to Amateur Extra. You became an
Extra by passing all of the available amateur radio exams. Len bragged,
more than a few years ago, that he was going for an "Extra right out of
the box". He hasn't yet walked that walk. The talk was cheap.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil October 5th 06 05:05 AM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
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 lomg-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.

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?


...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?

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".

YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting.

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. Had Fessenden's EXPERIMENT been at all
practical, others would have used that technique. NONE
did.

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.

Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version.

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. All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited
versions of radio history from the ARRL.

That's your story and you're sticking with it.

Here's a plain and simple fact: 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.

I'm sure the guys in a landline telegraph newsgroup would be fascinated
by your account.


The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.

Superfluous minutae.

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.

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.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil October 5th 06 05:16 AM
Part A, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


But you have never been "IN" amateur radio, Len.

Tsk, that old ploy once again...

That old ploy represents an accurate statement of fact.

Now, now, calm down, Jimmie.

Why don't you calm down, Lennie?


Amateur radio "differs" from other radio services
only in man-made regulations and the fantasies of
its licensees.

Fantasies? It has never really been about a morse test with you, has
it, Lennie?


If Miccolis' logic is "correct" in who is able to
talk about, govern, regulate, etc. amateur radio,
then the very first amateur licensee and the very
first radio regulating agency have been ILLEGAL from
the start.

That'd be fine if you hadn't drawn a false picture. You've talked.
You've commented. The FCC *must* accept your input. They are not bound
to agree with you at all.

If you write here, it is the equivalent of your standing on a street
corner addressing a crowd. No one in the crowd is required to listen,
to approve or to refrain from jeering or shouting you down. The crowd
has as much right to speak its mind as you.

Id est, the unlicensed would NOT have
been IN amateur radio, therefore they could not do
anything. You see the fallacy of your argument?
[you wouldn't admit it if it came up and bit your
butt]

You stated it. It was base upon a false premise. It came up and bit
*your* butt.

Your "IN" argument in reference to amateur radio is
therefore not only incorrect, it is nonsense.

*Ding!*

I'm sorry, Mister Anderson. That is incorrect. Thanks for playing and
please accept our consolation prize.

You wish to quibble word definitions in order to
score message points and thereby show your alleged
superiority? Id est, one must be "IN" amateur radio
in order to "do" something about it. Nonsense.

In amateur radio, dear Leonard, rank beginners are your superiors. You
are not involved.

In regulations that is also fallacious. None at the
FCC need be licensed "IN" the amateur radio service
in order to REGULATE it or any US civil radio service.
NONE. Not the Commissioners, not any of the staff.
Tsk, tsk, you do not negatively criticize the FCC yet
they are NOT "IN" US amateur radio. Why is that?

The FCC regulates. You do not. If anyone working for the FCC wants to
participate in amateur radio, he or she must pass the same exams that
any other candidate for an amateur radio license must pass.

Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens
may freely express their desires to the government of
the United States. [the formal wording is "petition
the government for the redress of their grievances"]
That includes ALL laws, legislation thereof, regulations
and rules imposed by the government.

You've done so. Now what?

Yet YOU wish to exclude the nearly 299 million citizens
who are NOT amateur radio licensees (your definition of
being "IN" amateur radio is being granted that license)
from doing anything at all except obeyance of YOUR
desires and ONLY those of other amateur licensees.
That is dictatorial, totalitarianism, and general
bull**** 'territory' thinking that is akin to some
neighborhood street gang.

You aren't 299 million citizens, Len. You've commented to the FCC,
where your input must be accepted. You've commented here where there is
nothing forcing anyone to accept, support or agree with your views.
Now what?

You do not "own" amateur radio nor do you have ANY
qualifications to "rule" on it.

You don't own it. You don't regulate it. You don't participate in it.
Now what?

You've NEVER been IN
any government regulating agency, indeed never been
IN government, yet you wish to exclude millions just
on YOUR "definition" of who can say what and to whom.

You aren't millions.

I'm convinced, Len.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil October 5th 06 05:42 AM
Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing
 
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:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.

Is that where you obtained yours?

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.

You wrote one and submitted it here for free? I don't think the reviews
are going to be good on this one, Len. It has some gaping holes and
some factual errors.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

No kidding? The only thing is, they didn't drop very fast until the
past five or six years.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

Why the smiley? Was that a joke?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

No smiley here?

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.

That's not correct. The 1981 PC had limited capabilities compared to
the XT available not too long afterward. Both had limited capabilities
in terms of processor speed, memory and storage compared to the PC's of
the early 1990's.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed.

Were there things that the IBM couldn't do at that point, Len?
If not, why were so many folks designing, building and selling systems
to allow those early PC's to network with minicomputers?

And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

There's a big difference between designing or building and using
minicomputers. I've never designed or built any minicomputer but I have
plenty of experience in using and working as systems manager on Wang VS
systems. Now what?

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

Now what?

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web")...

Would you like additional time to rethink your statement?

...nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

Does everyone who is technically minded need a university degree at any
time, Len?

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

That's odd. Our regional jail uses plenty of PC's. I don't know any
nannies but I know plenty of housewives who use PCs. I didn't see
anything incorrect in Jim's statement. Where are you going with yours?

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

If you aren't, did you crib from him without giving credit? :-)

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?

Relax, Len. It was probably due to his having had prior experiences
with you.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

I'll bet it took you years to solder the parts on those mother boards.
How long did it take you to assemble that hard drive?

Awwwww! I'll bet you meant that you assembled the motherboard into a
case, screwed in the power supply, slid in a drive or two, perhaps added
a CD or DVD burner, plugged in a couple of PCI boards, attached the
monitor, keyboard and mouse and called it a day.

You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE.

Yessir. I know about the IEEE Code of Ethics, too. What has all this
talk of the IEEE to do with amateur radio? Does anyone need an IEEE
member to assemble a computer or use it?

Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug]

That's great, Len. It looks as if you've found your niche.

Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?

I say, if it is computers you like, it is with computers you should
stick. Have a blast, Leonard. You can take 'em apart and put 'em back
together again. You can impress those with less knowledge than yourself.


What is wrong with live and let live?

You've been allowed to live.

Dave K8MN

[email protected] October 5th 06 11:39 AM
Accuracy, Facts and Opinions
 
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:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.

Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis.

You left out important information and included a few mistakes. The
information you left out disproves your conclusions.

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"

I've never claimed to be an expert, Len. I do know some things that you
do not know. That seems to really bother you.
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like.

I point out some of your mistakes. That's how things go in a newsgroup.

You can have any opinion you want, Len. You can believe the earth is
flat, the moon made of green cheese, that "acceptable" has the letter
"i" in it, or that the IBM PC was introduced in 1980. If you express
such "opinions", it's possible someone else will point out your
mistakes. Your opinion does not make something a fact.

You know everything, yes?

Oh no, I don't know nearly everything. But I do know some things that
you do not know. That seems to really bother you.

you are a code-tested amateur extra.

There's no other kind. You aren't even a Novice, though.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently."

In the context of the PC, about the past 7 years.

The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

Of course. But until about 7 years ago, most complete systems were well
over $1000.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

That's relatively recently, Len.

Did it include a monitor? Printer? Supplies for the printer?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

That's my point, Len. The prices *now* are far below what they were
even 8 years ago.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

Ever hear of something called "inflation", Len? How about "inflation
adjusted"?

You know, how the value of money declines in an inflationary economy?

"2006 dollars" is a valid way of describing that.

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.

No, by any reasonable standard. Heck, the original IBM PC was
considered obsolete long before 1990.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market.

And by the late 1990s they had been eclipsed by much more powerful PCs.

Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

The point is that those early machines were expensive and limited in
their capabilities.

The original 1981 IBM PC did not include a hard drive, color display,
network interface, modem or mouse as standard equipment. The software
available for it was limited and expensive.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC?

It's not about me, Len. It's about what computers used to cost, and
what they could do.

Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts?

Actually, Len, I'm quite good at assembling PCs. For a lot less than
$100. In many cases, for no money at all.

My specialty is collecting older machines and utilizing the best parts
from them to assemble a "new" one. Usually I get them before they reach
the dumpster, but sometimes I have to reach in and pick something out.

It's amazing what computer hardware individuals and businesses throw
away these days. 17" monitors that work perfectly. Pentium II class
machines complete with CD burners, NICs, modems, etc. Sometimes the OS
is still on the hard drive. Cables, keyboards, printers, and more. It
is not at all unusual for me to find working but discarded computers
that cost more than $2500 new.

Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

Who needs to "program computer code", Len? Why do you live in the past?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

But *you* haven't done it. I have.

It's also besides the point: Until rather recently (7 years ago,
approximately), PCs were quite expensive. Spending a couple of thousand
dollars is a different thing than spending a couple of hundred.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Not the point. What is the point is that there is much more content
available. And it's much easier and less expensive to access.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

They did need some understanding of how to set up and use a PC. That
sort of thing used to be fairly unusual - not anymore.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy."

Sure they do, Len.

They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

If they pass the tests and earn the license. You haven't passed the
tests and you haven't earned the license.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

I don't claim to be.

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe?

Because you got the facts wrong, Len.

Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?

Because it is, Len. You got the dates wrong. You left out how much PCs
used to cost, and how little they used to be able to do.

If PCs have had an effect on the number of US radio amateurs, most of
that effect has happened in the past 8 years or less.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch?

I've assembled several from components.

No?

Yes.

I have.

That's nice. Were they IBM-compatible PCs? Or were they simple systems
from 25-30 years ago?, and you're playing word games with "personal"
and "computer"

Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me.

That's nice, Len.

Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

I'm not - if you want to build computers, go ahead.

But if you want to discuss the effects of PCs on amateur radio, you're
going to see rebuttals to your mistaken assertions.

[email protected] October 5th 06 12:26 PM
Ping [email protected]
 
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.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Jim, N2EY

Opus- October 5th 06 02:34 PM
Ping [email protected]
 
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

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.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually". But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to
code only?

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.


[email protected] October 5th 06 08:48 PM
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
 
From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here.

Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer-
modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids'
with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they
think...traceability is possible but only through
systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that
happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced
with all its immaturity.

Having participated in computer-modem communications
locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen
quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly
fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences
were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet
socially with those participants, get real clues to
the person instead of just seeing their words on a
screen. In most their words echoed their up-close
personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their
fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words,
their public, social interaction being nowhere near
that and they were relatively subdued, few having
'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their
computer-modem personnae represented their
imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to
fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives'
frustrations.

With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net
servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be
let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become
aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful
of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is
aided by the relative isolation of time and distance
of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear
of physical confrontation as a result of their words,
they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in
safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the
filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup.

It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have
their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration,
bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist
in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare
cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in
the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot.
Civilization requires a greater suppression of that
internal rage, anger, frustration for the common
good but some think internally that they are 'better'
than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of
'superiority' through sub-groups in which their
capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self-
righteous descriptions of themselves.

That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists
all along the human experience.


For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.

Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I
think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce
in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there
were lots with other life experiences that were fun to
listen to and to respect.

They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old
timers' were rather focussed on the experience of
World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned
as a part of that.

What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later
that some of them were exaggerating what they said
and a few were downright liars! :-)

If one survives long enough to become the same age
as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological
way that is), it is easier to see where they are
coming from! Much easier...! :-)

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of
mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers'
are having a good time and laughing at the mortals'
shenanigans!

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out
and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO
demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge,
to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the
pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship
(however long ago that happened, if it ever did)
to show "how good" they are.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.

Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged
superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and
become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They
are NOT interested in anything but making themselves
look good to themselves on their own screens. They
have little recognition that the same 'message' they
sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when
it may be read by thousands of others who never reply.

That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about
every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on
the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET.
Lacking the validity of anything but their own
experiences, they toss logic out the window and
consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread.

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.

You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands
of other humans know that. That's the reason that
all other radio services except amateur radio have
dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes. At least in the USA; I
don't have enough information about Canada's use of
communications modes to verify that.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders.
They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They
got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their
morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires
should be those of all.

Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is
a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented
publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio-
telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills.
Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio
publications here, has had that for at least seven
decades, they can and have managed to condition the
thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor
of radiotelegraphy.

Those who've been conditioned will not understand that
they've been imprinted but insist it like some
'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out-
rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed!
Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can.

Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein
was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated
at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange.

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid?

It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly
all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can
get away with it, unworried about any direct physical
confrontation that might ensue.

Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate?

Yes.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post.

Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the
bank.' :-)


They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS.

Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very
old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class
C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de-
allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to
work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly
howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to
take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.'
Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to
demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-)

I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here.

I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use
down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large
number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At
worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some-
thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet
to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit
using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82
Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't
indicate anything different; this residence in southern
California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5,
a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our
cell phone now works so well on major highways that we
don't have any consideration of installing any other
radio in our present car.


And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.

an old friend October 5th 06 11:18 PM
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
 

wrote:
From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...
maybe not maybe they will avoid the flame bait this once since you
saidf they would flame on
And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.
that line storkies suddenly of a memory of a movie omen 3 the final
conflict where thron is talking about his his role as president of some
youth concil something like "....we tell them to grow meaning wiat till
you have grown old then you will think like we do"

[email protected] October 6th 06 01:05 AM
Ping
 
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
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.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

--

The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

Jim, N2EY

[email protected] October 6th 06 03:20 AM
Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

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? Is it copy righted? If I send a message
using THE FORMAT without purchasing the form, am I guilty of copyright
infringement?

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!

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

You're 59, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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."

You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services, never
had one. I did.

When you was LMR, Jim was VFR.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

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.

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.

What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks"
of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-)

I prefer smooth.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

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...

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.

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.

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?

Jimmie, quit contradicting those who were IN the radio-
electronics industry or work who worked through all
that period. As a double-degreed whizzy something you
should KNOW that REAL PRACTICAL transistors for HF use
didn't come into being until much later than the late
1940s.

There's a whole heaping gob of documents of history of
the solid-state era, how it began, all the trouble
everyone had to make them work, to make them reliable,
to make them cheap. Much of that is now on the web.
Go do some study of something OTHER than ARRL
"radio history" for your own edification. That is,
if you can really tear yourself away from Big Brother.

To me, the history of the industry is interesting. To
you it is little more than some obscure footnote you
hunt for in order to use in messages where you claim
your respondent is "wrong" or "in error." :-)

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.

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.

[email protected] October 6th 06 03:29 AM
Jim Lies. Was: Formalism
 

wrote:

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Impossible. One can only imagine that "hi, hi" sounds like a laugh in
any language. It cannot be so in reality.

[email protected] October 6th 06 03:33 AM
Tell it to Robesinner: Was: Formalism
 

Dave Heil wrote:

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Tell it to Robesinner.

an old friend October 6th 06 03:36 AM
Tell it to Robesinner: Was: Formalism
 

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Tell it to Robesinner.
Robeson is coded extra and is beyond repaoch

kd5sak October 6th 06 05:05 AM
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.

Interesting, because AR offers more than just communication.

SC

Barry

I know the comment about people leaving Amateur radio isn't Barrys comment,
but thought I'd address it anyway. I was 69 when I got my Tech license and
72 by the time I made myself pass the code test and got my General. A lot of
the avid pro-morse Hams are even older than I am. I know of no one locally
who has just quit the hobby and those senior to me are not leaving
on their own at all, when they do stop Hammin' it's 'cause their keys went
silent. I never used code after passing the test. I've got the thought in
the back of my mind that I may sometime
pursue a little CW, but it all depends on when I get my own SK notice.

Harold
KD3SAK



an old friend October 6th 06 02:44 PM
Ping
 

wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

and yet you try to impose your opinion on the rest
The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

no the answer is not to be based on wether it does more harm than good
the question that must be answered isfirst what regulatory prupose does
it serve

no regulatory purpose and the test is ilegeal even if it could be shown
to do more good than harm

the other question is does the test serve the PUBLIC interest interest
no Procder ever deals with the issue of how Code testing benifits
memebrs of the public such as Len Anderson

Jim, N2EY

[email protected] October 6th 06 07:05 PM
Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
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...






[email protected] October 7th 06 12:03 AM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
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.

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.

...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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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)

Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version.

Len don't *do* documentation, Dave.

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.

All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited
versions of radio history from the ARRL.

More untruths from Len.

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.

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.

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.

And the most modern communications today - fiber optics - is really
nothing more than on-off keying of a light beam.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Slow Code October 7th 06 01:32 AM
LenAnderson believes CB type behavior will good for ham radio. Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
 
" wrote in
ups.com:

From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here.

Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer-
modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids'
with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they
think...traceability is possible but only through
systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that
happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced
with all its immaturity.

Having participated in computer-modem communications
locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen
quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly
fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences
were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet
socially with those participants, get real clues to
the person instead of just seeing their words on a
screen. In most their words echoed their up-close
personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their
fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words,
their public, social interaction being nowhere near
that and they were relatively subdued, few having
'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their
computer-modem personnae represented their
imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to
fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives'
frustrations.

With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net
servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be
let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become
aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful
of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is
aided by the relative isolation of time and distance
of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear
of physical confrontation as a result of their words,
they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in
safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the
filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup.

It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have
their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration,
bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist
in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare
cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in
the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot.
Civilization requires a greater suppression of that
internal rage, anger, frustration for the common
good but some think internally that they are 'better'
than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of
'superiority' through sub-groups in which their
capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self-
righteous descriptions of themselves.

That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists
all along the human experience.


For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.

Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I
think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce
in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there
were lots with other life experiences that were fun to
listen to and to respect.

They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old
timers' were rather focussed on the experience of
World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned
as a part of that.

What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later
that some of them were exaggerating what they said
and a few were downright liars! :-)

If one survives long enough to become the same age
as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological
way that is), it is easier to see where they are
coming from! Much easier...! :-)

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of
mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers'
are having a good time and laughing at the mortals'
shenanigans!

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out
and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO
demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge,
to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the
pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship
(however long ago that happened, if it ever did)
to show "how good" they are.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.

Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged
superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and
become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They
are NOT interested in anything but making themselves
look good to themselves on their own screens. They
have little recognition that the same 'message' they
sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when
it may be read by thousands of others who never reply.

That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about
every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on
the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET.
Lacking the validity of anything but their own
experiences, they toss logic out the window and
consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread.

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.

You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands
of other humans know that. That's the reason that
all other radio services except amateur radio have
dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes. At least in the USA; I
don't have enough information about Canada's use of
communications modes to verify that.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders.
They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They
got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their
morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires
should be those of all.

Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is
a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented
publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio-
telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills.
Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio
publications here, has had that for at least seven
decades, they can and have managed to condition the
thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor
of radiotelegraphy.

Those who've been conditioned will not understand that
they've been imprinted but insist it like some
'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out-
rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed!
Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can.

Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein
was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated
at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange.

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid?

It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly
all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can
get away with it, unworried about any direct physical
confrontation that might ensue.

Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate?

Yes.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post.

Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the
bank.' :-)


They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS.

Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very
old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class
C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de-
allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to
work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly
howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to
take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.'
Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to
demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-)

I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here.

I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use
down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large
number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At
worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some-
thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet
to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit
using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82
Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't
indicate anything different; this residence in southern
California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5,
a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our
cell phone now works so well on major highways that we
don't have any consideration of installing any other
radio in our present car.


And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.




Ten-Four?

Dave Heil October 7th 06 06:09 AM
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
 
wrote:
From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm


(on WWII vets)

What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later
that some of them were exaggerating what they said
and a few were downright liars! :-)

Did any of them tell the the equivalent of your "sphincter post", where
they described going through something they never actually went through?


(on old timers)

The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out
and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO
demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge,
to be in-charge.

There's a certain just, poetic quality to your words, Len. They could
easily have been penned about yourself.

(on the ARRL and the *use* of morse)

Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is
a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented
publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio-
telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills.
Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio
publications here, has had that for at least seven
decades, they can and have managed to condition the
thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor
of radiotelegraphy.

Those who've been conditioned will not understand that
they've been imprinted but insist it like some
'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out-
rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed!
Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times.

Your claims of only wanting to eliminate "the test" ring hollow, Leonard.


(Leonard Anderson on ATTACKS)

It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly
all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can
get away with it, unworried about any direct physical
confrontation that might ensue.

Please see the N2EY which outlines your own behavior toward any who
disagrees with you.

Dave Heil October 7th 06 06:19 AM
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

Dave Heil October 7th 06 06:20 AM
Tell it to Robesinner: Was: Formalism
 
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Tell it to Robesinner.

I don't know him. Tell him yourself.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil October 7th 06 06:40 AM
Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
wrote:

Big Brother of Newington will ruler-spank you.

Ho, ho! Beep, beep...

"FB, OM."

QRT.

"Roger who?"

"We now pause 10 seconds for official station identification."

Roger that. Affirmative. Over and out.

"Official"

ARRL chief a member of Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As Pluto went so may MARS...

He consults Pentagon library of morsemen.

Except surplus he read about.

He not listed in SEG, Screen Extras Guild.

CAVU...(Code Allatime Very Universal)

IFR. Intermittent Fantasy Regaler.

Hot water?

10-4.

He X rated now?

Knows all. Allatime calls others "wrong."

Let's take up collection to send him Preparation H.

Peanuts.

Coslonaut helped Giganaut.

My bad. I QRK and QSY both.

Must be...he never subsides.

I have tubular capacitors for hollow-state things,
cathode ray tubes on a hot tin roof.

Is that why his Giga hurts?

He is punchy.

Camp.

Also before instant oatmeal and regularity.

How about we give him nice Hawaiian Punch?

Prior to 1980...

Cribbed from Joe Speroni's website...

The Old Organ Grinder, the man who is only here for CIVIL debate is
heard from.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil October 7th 06 07:05 AM
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

[email protected] October 7th 06 02:39 PM
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

[email protected] October 7th 06 03:26 PM
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

Dave Heil October 8th 06 12:52 AM
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

[email protected] October 8th 06 01:35 AM
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?

[email protected] October 8th 06 01:43 AM
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." :-)

Dave Heil October 8th 06 04:22 AM
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
 
wrote:
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., ...

I don't blame you for leaving out the rest. I'd have been embarrassed
to have have written it too.

Tsk, tsk, in the usual display of humorless unpleasantness...

I know that you intended your post to be sarcastic and perhaps even
humorous. It wasn't. It was sophomoric.

Heil takes things out of context in order to attempt some
kind of humiliation of those he doesn't like. :-)

It doesn't matter whether you read it in context or out, Len. Consider
my post as humor. You've exhibited your usual display of humorless
unpleasantness.


Here is the original exchange between Brian Burke and
myself...

Naw, let's not do that again. It was awful the first time.

======================== end message quote ====================

Taken IN CONTEXT the exchange (try reading it as the
spoken word) is amusing.

Others will let you know if it is amusing or not.

Of course it is one-sided.

I fully agree.

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.

It is sarcastic and it is juvenile. It isn't worthy of an adult in his
eighth decade.

This newsgroup's amateurs allow very little objectivity
and the pro-coders insist on strict adherence to THEIR
opinions...

Awwwwwww! Did someone poke fun at the old piranha?

...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. :-)

I'm not looking for rationalizations. Your post wasn't some civil
dissertation on your reasoned thoughts on removal of morse testing.
No one here is bound to accept your thoughts, find amusement in them,
refrain from jeering or from throwing tomatoes. :-)

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."

Did I say it wasn't a personal insult? It is certainly an accurate
description. I can't take credit for it.

Heil has his own pet phrase for me, of course "not"
a personal insult in His rationalizations:

I have several for you. Go into your "Herr Robust" or "Waffen SS"
routine again and you'll likely see a few of 'em.

The Old Organ Grinder, the man who is only here for CIVIL debate is
heard from.

Tsk, tsk. I *am* a civilian. :-)

....but you aren't civil.

I have ground pepper but never an organ.

You grind your organ frequently right here in r.r.a.p.

[I have
yet to be in Fargo, ND, and would not be there
playing with a chipper in the snow... :-) ]


I wrote nothing of Fargo nor chippers. :-) :-)

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.

You were here when I showed up and were already not being a polite
"goody two-shoes" respondent.

Especially
when the pro-coders are very concerned about
"sphincters." :-)

You'll likely be asked again in light of your deliberate falsehood
concerning what it was like to undergo an artillery barrage.



See IEEE Code of Ethics

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil October 8th 06 05:28 AM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
wrote:
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:

Tsk, tsk, you've TOLD ME what I should have done in the
military...

What did Jim TELL YOU that you should have been doing, Len?
Was it something about not fabrication experience in combat?

....yet you've never served in the military or in
the US government. I served 8 years in the US Army.

At ease, old soldier. I served in the military and the U.S. government.
Look what fabrications you've come up with on that.

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.

Reruns of "Look what I did".

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!" :-)

It isn't "all that", Leonard Baby.

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).

(Insert the profile of Leonard's actions here)


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.

Your ADA sojourn began about fifty-three years back, didn't it, Len?
Why do you live in the past so much?

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.


Some insist that "Greenlee Chassis Punches" are necessary
for homebuilt radio construction.

Who has insisted that, Len. Feel free to use a drill and a saber saw
with a metal-cutting blade.

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).

That's a factual error as anyone who builds linear amplifiers, builds
other electronic gear or installs a ball mount for an antenna on an
automobile can tell you.

Greenlee is still a corporation in Rockford, IL, but they
seem to have stopped making "chassis punches" for radio
hobbyists.

There's another of your factual errors. Greenlee still sells chassis
punches--round ones, square ones, those shaped for D-connectors, power
sockets. There's even a hydraulic punch set. The U.S. Government buys
loads of them. The company's "hole making" product information can be
downloaded--all 7.9 mb of it.

http://www.greenlee.com/product/index.html


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...

As I recall, you wrote a very well known piece about what it is like to
undergo an artillery barrage. When and where did that take place, Len?
Can your friend Gene confirm it?

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!" :-)

Didn't you just bring up your experiences at ADA?


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? :-)

That's not necessary, Len. Why not tell us any of the things you've
done in amateur radio?


That's why I wrote the above ENIAC story.

BFD. You went to Moore, "touched" the museum piece that it is.

(insert the profile here)


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.

Let us know if you replace it before eleven years.


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.

Liberty is not a bell.


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.

Hey! You were finally able to work in the plural form of the word.


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. :-)

No, Len, you were not correct. You were corrected.

WTF Moore School and ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO POLICY
seems to have vanished in Jimmieworld.

What was that url for the info about ADA?

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."

Only a fraction of the American people are watching HDTV. Most aren't
even aware of what will hit them in a couple of years. People are still
running out to K-Mart and Wally World and buying new *analog* TV sets.
Some compromise sets are being marketed as EDTV for "Enhanced Definition".

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.

It'll be possible to watch DTV with a simple converter. Those will
extend the life of analog televisions for many years. The Feds are even
going to help pay for the converter boxes. I don't recall them doing
that when the UHF-TV channels came into existence.

There'll be a big learning curve for the non-city dwelling owners of new
HDTV receivers. They'll find that they have to use antennas with fairly
high gain, preamps and rotators. They'll be using those rotators quite
often. I ended up buying a Channel Master rotator with remote control
and memory.

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']

(insert profile here)

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.

It was an accurate statement, Leonard. You don't know much about Jim.
You have resorted to wild speculation and untruths.

He no say what
he do but he IMPLIES lots.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

Sounds like that USMC Imposter
Robeson's tactic.

Why not bring his name up with your new recruiter friend. As an
alternative, have Brian Burke contact "Stolen Valor".

Jimmie keep things SECRET. Very hush-hush. Somebody say
Jimmie know nothing, they "LIARS." Just like Robeson.

You do washee?

See above about ENIAC. It was very practical, in its time - but never
repeated.

ENIAC defuct.

The same can't be said for you.

Flunked in reliability, flunked in architecture
(BCD accumulators/registers, not binary). NEVER repeated.
A MUSEUM PIECE.

As are you, dear Leonard.


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? :-)

He has a license which says he can connect the dots and the dashes.
Do you have such documentation? Tsk, tsk, poor baby.


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. :-)

You've made another untruthful statement. Note the lack of a smiley.

Beyond the Thomas White radio history pages, Jimmie not
mention any of his "sources" that go beyond League
publications.

You're an old cut and paste man, Len. What do you normally do in such a
situation?


I was writing about non-amateur use of Morse Code in radio.

Why Jimmie do dat? This be AMATEUR Radio newsgroup.

What's that ADA url?


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.


All fine stuff, Len. I'm convinced.


To do so would require not only a license, but assembling a station.

"Plug and play" nowadays, was that way a half century
ago. :-)

Sure it is, Len. Just unbox your tower and antennas (all
pre-assembled), set them up in the yard, connect a microphone and "Hello
World". Right.

Collins Radio used to make whole stations,
quit the amateur radio market and still makes money.

Don't they make whole stations anymore?

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. :-)

It isn't alt.radio.commercial or alt.radio.military either, old boy. :-)

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?

You're kind of light in the Variac department, Len. Don't you have
anything which will handle real power?

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?

You're a pathetic and childish geezer, Len. You really need a way to
fill your idle hours.


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. :-)

Maybe you could whip together a modern, solid state version of the phono
oscillator and play at being a junior ham, Len. You could CQ, assign
yourself an "XB-523" call and all. You might convince a neighbor to
build one too. You could have a blast.

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." :-)

Surely he's fabricating. You could check with the recruiter and get
some sort of investigation going right away.

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? :-)

Paul didn't say anything about a background check, Len. He addressed
the IEEE Code of Ethics.

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.

It is a very tiny Johnson, Len. Your has been gathering dust for years.

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."

*Guffaw!* I'm sure that the story and equipment used with grow with the
countless retellings, Leonard.

Would you be satisfied with my primary
physician's note on its size, digitized and sent to
you?

I would personally treasure such a document for the rest of my life,
Leonard. It would confirm every notion I've ever had about your state
of being, both physical and emotional.

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?

It sounds as if you're discussing superfluous minutae, Len.


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.

That isn't the same as saying that you'd be finished with advocating.
Your statement addresses one very specific item.

Tsk, you are SO unbelieving, all that FABRICATION about
"reasons" you imagine! Poor baby.

We've seen you in action for better than a decade. Tsk, task, 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.

A commercial license can't be used in amateur radio, Len. Sorry.

Mostly for money but
some times just for fun.

Are you discussing your tiny, dusty Johnson?


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?

How about if we use any band or mode available to us? You, of course,
may do as you can.

[email protected] October 8th 06 01:29 PM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
wrote:
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?!?"

Yes.

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. :-)

DeForest spelled his name with only one "r".

Vacuum tubes that could be used in 'practical' transmitters were not
available in 1906. Nor an oscillator circuit. Those things took a few
years to develop.

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.

How do you know for sure, Len? Did you visit every transmitting station
in the world?

The truth is that you don't know - you're just making things up. Maybe
others adopted Fessenden's idea and failed. Or maybe they succeeded,
but after a time lost interest and went on with other things.

You don't know for sure. All you know is that you haven't come across
any documentation that someone else adopted Fessenden's idea.

So much for your redefinition of "practical."

You seem to think that a thing cannot be practical unless it is copied.
That's simply not true.

...and the insistence of "amateur only" subject matter in
this newsgroup. :-)

Who insists on that?

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,

When did I write that? You are telling an untruth, Len.

yet you've never served in the military or in
the US government.

How do you know for sure who served and who didn't?

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

If I had a dollar for every time you've mentioned your Army experience
on rrap, I'd probably have enough for a brand new Orion II with all the
filters.

6 MB in size, takes about 19 minutes download on a dial-up
connection.

Are you still using dial-up, Len? I'm not.

Why do you live in the past?

Twenty pages with many photo illustrations.
High-power HF transmitters. 1953 to 1956.

How does anyone know for sure that it's all accurate, Len? You didn't
even get the distance from the USSR to Tokyo correct - maybe you made
other mistakes?

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!" :-)

How do we know for sure that you did 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.

No, you haven't.

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).

Actually it cost about $10.

I've discussed much more of my amateur radio activities here. You
weren't paying attention.

Have you forgotten the picture of my current station on my website? (I
have several - AOL gives them out free. Len hasn't taken advantage of
that AOL feature, even though he has several screen names).

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?

1956 was 50 years ago. Why do *you* live in the past?

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.

So Edison made a mistake on that. I wasn't talking about him.

In the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible
things were once considered practical. That's a fact.

Academics once insisted that "current flow" was opposite
that of electron flow.

Current flow *is* opposite electron flow, Len. It's an engineering
convention.

Was written up in lots of textbooks.

Still is. Current flows from positive to negative. Electrons go the
other way.

Is NOT practical now.

Then why is it still the conventional representation in electrical
engineering?

Some insist that "Greenlee Chassis Punches" are necessary
for homebuilt radio construction.

I don't. btw, the resceiver on the HBR website was built without them.

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).

No, that's not true at all, Len.

For homebrew radio construction, they have a lot of uses:

- Holes for meters and displays
- Holes for connectors, ranging from SO-239 to DB-25
- Holes for chassis-mount components such as large electrolytic
capacitors and flush-mount transformers
- Holes for ventilation

And much more. Of course those holes can be made other ways - Greenlee
punches have never been essential tools. They're just nice to have and
use.

Greenlee is still a corporation in Rockford, IL, but they
seem to have stopped making "chassis punches" for radio
hobbyists.

That's incorrect. They make a wider line of chassis punches than ever
before.

btw, the classic Adel nibbling tool is still in production.

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,

That's nice, Len.

Is "artillery aiming information" somehow incorrect?

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?" :-)

ENIAC had all the features needed to be the very first operational
general-purpose electronic
digital computer. And it was.

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.

They were slow - at least an order of magnitude slower than ENIAC. They
were not general purpose, either. Their technology led nowhere.

Good old "amateur radio subject in an amateur radio
newsgroup!" :-)

You mean like your constant rehash of ADA?

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.

ever do any "programming in machine language?"

Yes.

At any
time? I have. Want me to list them? :-)

No.

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!

They're called heaters, Len.

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. :-)

Fortunately, some do not.

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 does that have to do with ENIAC?

The point is that the ENIAC folks got the machine to work with the
parts available.

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.

No, it passed.

The Army accepted ENIAC, moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
used it until 1955.
If it were not a 'practical' device, they would have simply abandoned
it or scrapped it.

The US Army abandoned and/or scrapped a lot of things in those days.
For example, a lot of material was destroyed or abandoned in place
because it wasn't practical to bring it back to the USA. Projects were
simply stopped. WW2 "surplus" was sold for pennies on the dollar just
to get rid of it.

If ENIAC "flunked", why did the Army use it for at least 9 years?

It went defunct.

After 1955, yes.

One of a kind.

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.

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.

51 years was 1955. ENIAC served the Army for at least 9 years (1946 to
1955). Say, that's longer than *you* claim to have served, Len! ;-)
;-) ;-)

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... :-)

Bought out by a larger company.

ENIAC *was* a tremendous advance. And it was practical, by the
standards of its time.

Calculations that took *weeks* using pre-ENIAC methods could be done in
*seconds* using the machine.

Now, now, you are comparing pomegranites and pumpkins.

Nope. I'm comparing calculating speeds.

Quit

You're telling me what to do, Len. You frequently tell people what to
do, when they prove you wrong. What is wrong with live and let live?

trying to compare humans operating Monroe or Friden desk
calculators for those Firing Table data tabulations with
the MINUTES it took using ENIAC.

Why? Did you ever see a firing table calculation (not tabulation) done
on ENIAC? Or do one by hand? Ever see the machine itself? Ever read the
original papers on it?

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.

Irrelevant. The point is that the use of electronics by ENIAC increased
the speed by *orders* of magnitude. No mechanical or electromechanical
machine could hope to keep up.

Mechanical and electromechanical computing and calculating were
rendered hopelessly obsolete by ENIAC's success. ENIAC caused the focus
to move to purely electronic computing and calculating. Within a few
years, commercial machines like UNIVAC were on the market. (A UNIVAC
correctly predicted the outcome of the 1952 presidential election,
based on just a few percent of the returns).

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.

Yes, the Army paid for it.

No, it wasn't a "white elephant". It was practical and they used it.

The Army accepted ENIAC, moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
used it until 1955.
If it were not a 'practical' device, they would have simply abandoned
it or scrapped it.

The US Army abandoned and/or scrapped a lot of things in those days.
For example, a lot of material was destroyed or abandoned in place
because it wasn't practical to bring it back to the USA. Projects were
simply stopped. WW2 "surplus" was sold for pennies on the dollar just
to get rid of it.

If ENIAC was a "white elephant". why did the Army use it for at least 9
years?

Probably didn't bother declaring it
"surplus" since no one wanted to buy it. :-)

They couldn't decalre it surplus because they were using it.

That's why I wrote the above ENIAC story.

BFD. You went to Moore, "touched" the museum piece that it is.

It's clear you're very jealous, Len.

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.

ENIAC was in service at least 9 years, Len.

My Apple ][ Plus for three...built in 1980 sold to me in
1980...been running now and then ever since.

You never turn it off?

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.

But it's not practical any more.

Those machines can all trace their design right back to ENIAC - and not
to any mechanical or electromechanical device.

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. :-)

Not general purpose, and not a computer.

I got to see and touch parts of ENIAC.

Wowee. I've touched the Liberty Bell at Independance Hall
in Philly.

So did I - several times.

When I ran the Philadelphia Independence Marathon, the finish line was
in front of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.

Between the two, I'd much prefer the Liberty
Bell.

Why must one prefer one over the other?

ENIAC is defunct. Liberty is NOT.

"Liberty is not a bell". And the way things are going, Liberty is
slowly being eroded.

btw, the Liberty Bell *is* defunct for its original purpose (ringing).

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.

The word is spelled "minutiae", Len.

Maybe you ought to get on a committee
to build a SHRINE for ENIAC?

There's already a museum. No shrine needed.

"All worship the Machine That
CHANGED THE WORLD!!!" :-)

You really are jealous, aren't you, Len? Fact is, ENIAC *did* change
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,

lays on the MINUTAE in plural form so much
that I was correct. :-)

"Minutiae" is the plural, Len.

WTF Moore School and ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO POLICY
seems to have vanished

I'll explain it again, Len:

In the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible
things were once considered practical. That's a fact.

ENIAC is just one example of how things that are now considered
incredible were once practical.

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?!?"

Yes, eventually. How many times have they moved the date when NTSC TV
will end? How many NTSC TV sets and other hardware are being sold
today?

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.

Yes - but most of the shows are still JUNK. The quality of the picture
and sound doesn't make up for the lack of quality in the programming.

say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

What's wrong with that?

be the Amish of ham radio.

Do you have a problem with "the Amish"? Do you know anything about them
or their way of life?

Do you know what happened in Nickel Mines, PA last week?

He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and
untruths for a long time.

Sounds like that USMC Imposter
Robeson's tactic.

How do you know if someone is a "USMC Imposter", Len?

See above about ENIAC. It was very practical, in its time - but never
repeated.

ENIAC defuct.

"defuct"?

Flunked in reliability, flunked in architecture
(BCD accumulators/registers, not binary). NEVER repeated.
A MUSEUM PIECE.

If it were so bad, why did the Army use it for at least 9 years?

ENIAC served the Army longer than *you* did, Len ;-)

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? :-)

It's not in the dictionary.

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. :-)

More untruths from Len.

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.

OK

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.

Somebody else's radio on somebody else's boat, authorized under
somebody else's license.

To do so would require not only a license, but assembling a station.

"Plug and play" nowadays, was that way a half century
ago. :-)

For cb

Collins Radio used to make whole stations,
quit the amateur radio market and still makes money.

Superfluous

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. :-)

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.

Already mentioned.

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. :-)

Already mentioned.

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.

Already mentioned.

Oh, yeah, the "compact Johnson." The E. F. Johnson
Viking Messenger is small but not necessarily compact.

Practical for its time.

If you need some verification I can get some URLs for
CB nostalgia types for you. On the "compact johnson,"

I wrote about your "compact Johnson", Len - and that's all. See the
capital J? That's a proper name.

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.

First time I've seen you wrote that.

Besides, if the test is gone, there's no reason to advocate for its
elimination.

The question is what will you do without that obsession to fill your
time?

There
would be no NEED for advocacy of eliminating that test
since it had already been eliminated in that case.

Well, duh.

Tsk, you are SO unbelieving, all that FABRICATION about
"reasons" you imagine! Poor baby.

You have advocated far more than simple elimination of the Morse Code
test.

[email protected] October 8th 06 10:40 PM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

N2EFrom: on Sun, Oct 8 2006 5:29 am


wrote:
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:



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.

How do you know for sure, Len? Did you visit every transmitting station
in the world?

No. There is NO historical record of ANY broadcasting
station USING that single-high-power-special-carbon-
microphone "modulator" that you claim is "practical."

The truth is that you don't know - you're just making things up. Maybe
others adopted Fessenden's idea and failed. Or maybe they succeeded,
but after a time lost interest and went on with other things.

The "truth" is that you are ****ed, want to rationalize
your previous claim of "practicality" and are trying to
side-pedal onto some area where you can rail at the
challengers, saying the challengers LIE.

You don't know for sure. All you know is that you haven't come across
any documentation that someone else adopted Fessenden's idea.

All I know is that NO ONE seems to have documented it...
and there has been LOTS of documentation about broad-
casting for all of its existance...from manufacturers
to users.

Feel free to post ANY source that claims to have used
Reggie's brute-force modulator of a single-high-power-
special-carbon-microphone "modulator" that you say is
"practical."

Why don't you write some of the 50 KW AM broadcasters
and suggest this "practical" idea? Try KMPC here in San
Fernando Valley. 50 KW RF output into three towers.
Do you know of any carbon microphone maker that sells a
FIFTY KILOWATT MICROPHONE? Can you engineer one?

How about the studio people at KMPC? Would you like to
tell them that, for "practical" reasons, they all have to
cluster around a SINGLE microphone that is passing 50 KW
of RF energy? Hmmm? The studio MUST be moved to the
transmitter site unless you can figure out some way for
the SINGLE microphone to exist in present studios yet
handle the 50 KW RF from the transmitter and back out to
the antenna.

So much for your redefinition of "practical."

You seem to think that a thing cannot be practical unless it is copied.
That's simply not true.

I think (no "seem" about it) that you dribbled out some
nonsense about your radio hero's "practical" thing and
are trying (vainly) to get the hell out of it through
a lot of NON-thinking.



yet you've never served in the military or in
the US government.

How do you know for sure who served and who didn't?

YOU did NOT serve in ANY military. Period. You don't
have the attitude for anything but being elitist, you-
are-better-superiority.


If I had a dollar for every time you've mentioned your Army experience
on rrap, I'd probably have enough for a brand new Orion II with all the
filters.

NOT enough. Not enough to cover the costs of your HBR
clone pictured on Kees Talen's website.


Twenty pages with many photo illustrations.
High-power HF transmitters. 1953 to 1956.

How does anyone know for sure that it's all accurate, Len? You didn't
even get the distance from the USSR to Tokyo correct - maybe you made
other mistakes?

It was already reviewed by three who were THERE, plus
a civilian engineer who worked there for both the USA
and USAF. Several others who were THERE, including a
USAF MSgt who worked at Kashiwa after the USAF took it
over have looked at the final copy FIRST. A draft
copy went with the CD containing photos about Hardy
Barracks to a Pacific Stars and Stripes journalist in
Tokyo. That journalist supplied some extra data which
was incorporated into the final version.

I was in the Army at the time, NOT the USAF. Didn't
need to compute any air distances of possible enemy
aircraft directions. Are you going to say there was
"no danger" from the USSR in the early 1950s?!? Go
tell that to the Far East Command folks...now the
USARPAC based at Fort Shafter, HI.

Speaking of "distances," want to give the distance
to the moon again like you did the first time? :-)

"It ain't braggin' if ya done it!" :-)

How do we know for sure that you did it?

You don't...because you NEVER CHECK. All you do is
say I am "in error" (LIE). I have the third-party
documentation, was there.

You were never there. You never served in any
military.


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.

No, you haven't.

Oh, so now YOU just said what you claimed you didn't say
earlier in your post! [can you say 'hypocrite?']


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).

Actually it cost about $10.

Ten dollars is LESS THAN $100.

If it only cost "$10" then I've only mentioned a large
HF communications station ten times... :-)

You have to get your money for that Orion somewhere else.

You can't design an Orion clone by yourself? :-)


In the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible
things were once considered practical. That's a fact.

Yawn.


Current flow *is* opposite electron flow, Len. It's an engineering
convention.

The engineering convention I go to is called 'WESCON'
the WEStern electronics show and CONvention. Alternates
years between Anaheim, CA, and San Francisco, CA. One-
week combination trade show and technical talks.


Still is. Current flows from positive to negative. Electrons go the
other way.

Is NOT practical now.

Then why is it still the conventional representation in electrical
engineering?

Is it? :-) Have you cracked a NEW text published after
two decades ago? :-)

Are you going to explain "current flow" from the faceplate
of a CRT back to the cathode? :-)




ENIAC "broke codes?" Really? "Did it all?" :-)

ENIAC had all the features needed to be the very first operational
general-purpose electronic digital computer. And it was.

ENIAC broke codes?

Don't waffle. Either it did or it didn't.


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.

They were slow - at least an order of magnitude slower than ENIAC. They
were not general purpose, either. Their technology led nowhere.

Tell that to Bell Labs. :-) Tell that to Claude
Elwood Shannon. :-)



ever do any "programming in machine language?"

Yes.

Which processor or CPU?


Good old tube filaments!

They're called heaters, Len.

Tsk. Out came the knuckle-spanking ruler again! :-)

I have lots of old engineering texts which refer to
the glowing part of vacuum tubes as 'filaments.'

More than I have old engineering texts which talk
about "current flow."

Are you now going to whip out some hydro engineering
texts and explain that "current flow" goes uphill in
a stream? :-)



The point is that the ENIAC folks got the machine to work with the
parts available.

What does ENIAC have to do with amateur radio policy?


The Army accepted ENIAC, moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
used it until 1955.
If it were not a 'practical' device, they would have simply abandoned
it or scrapped it.

Tsk, you are an amateur extra pro-coder and KNOW what
the US Army thinks-knows-does!

Marvelous! All from NEVER serving in any military!

Yawn.



Mechanical and electromechanical computing and calculating were
rendered hopelessly obsolete by ENIAC's success. ENIAC caused the focus
to move to purely electronic computing and calculating. Within a few
years, commercial machines like UNIVAC were on the market. (A UNIVAC
correctly predicted the outcome of the 1952 presidential election,
based on just a few percent of the returns).

Predicted all by itself? No programmer did anything?

Amazing!

But, UNIVAC was not ENIAC. :-)


It's clear you're very jealous, Len.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yawn.



Those machines can all trace their design right back to ENIAC - and not
to any mechanical or electromechanical device.

Oh, my, not to Alfred Boole? :-)

Not to Von Neuman? Not to hundreds of thousands
like Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley? Or Jack Kilby?
Or the innovator of the floppy disk mass storage
device (whoever did that first)?

Right you are, Mr. Computer Guru. Nothing about "Harvard"
architecture, "pipelining", bilateral digital switching,
standardized logic levels, RAM, ROM, EPROM, or BINARY
registers instead of the BCD variant ENIAC used. Modern
computers "trace their design right back to ENIAC?"
Nooooooo.

Try as hard as I can, I can't find ANY relatively modern
computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base),
not even 12AU7s. The last vacuum tube used with computers
was the CRT and that's quickly going away...



ENIAC is defunct. Liberty is NOT.

"Liberty is not a bell".

Whatever you say, Mr. Patriot.

I think of LIBERTY and FREEDOM in the larger sense, but
if all you can think of is some 'bell' go for it.

Ring your own chimes, Mr. Never Served.



You really are jealous, aren't you, Len? Fact is, ENIAC *did* change
the world.

Still stuck on that religious object at Moore? Tsk.



How do you know if someone is a "USMC Imposter", Len?

Real veterans KNOW this, Jimmie. You don't because you will
never be a military veteran.




ENIAC served the Army longer than *you* did, Len ;-)

No problem, ENIAC served the ARMY an infinity more
than YOU did. You NEVER served...any military.

BTW, what did it say on ENIAC's DD-214? :-)




Oh, yeah, the "compact Johnson." The E. F. Johnson
Viking Messenger is small but not necessarily compact.

Practical for its time.

Is it like the "ENIAC" of CB?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[damn, it's hard to keep a straight face with your postings]


I wrote about your "compact Johnson", Len - and that's all. See the
capital J? That's a proper name.

It's just a SURNAME, Jimmie, for "E. F. Johnson."

E. F. Johnson made a LOT of different radios. Which one
do you think I have?

Have you seen the E. F. Johnson mobile transceivers they
have now? Much more compact than the Viking Messenger.



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.

First time I've seen you wrote that.

Here's a plain and simple fact: You LIE, Jimmie.

I have explained what I will do many times. So many
times that I might juggle a few words to make it look
a bit different. The INTENT and MEANING is still the
same.

Besides, if the test is gone, there's no reason to advocate for its
elimination.

Golleee, Gomer, you finally figured that out all by
yourself?

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The question is what will you do without that obsession to fill your
time?

What "obsession?" :-)

Changing federal laws and regulations is a POLITICAL
matter. I am active in politics, many things, but none
are "obsessions." ["obsessions" like the religious
affection for a defunct computer]



You have advocated far more than simple elimination of the Morse Code
test.

How about that? :-)

Elimination of the morse code test was NEVER "simple." :-)

To do so would mean the End of the World As Morsemen
Knew It!

Morse code testing is practically a Religious Rite to all
morsemen, ending it is like defaming God, a Heresy with
a capital H. :-)


But, as always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

[email protected] October 8th 06 10:45 PM
Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
 
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 8 2006 3:22 am

wrote:
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., ...

I don't blame you for leaving out the rest. I'd have been embarrassed
to have have written it too.

Something "left out?" Oh, my, we can't have that. Here's
the exchange again, word for word, right from Google's
recent RRAP message storage:

=============== Begin Message Quote (Again) ==================


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 Repeat of Message Quote =================

I know that you intended your post to be sarcastic and perhaps even
humorous. It wasn't. It was sophomoric.

Poor baby. Upset are you? There there, just cry in
Mother Superior's habit and you'll feel better...


It doesn't matter whether you read it in context or out, Len.

Ah, so you LIKE taking things out of context!

And you seem to think that is "acceptible."

No sweat, senior, we can ALL do that to YOUR posts now.


Consider my post as humor.

"BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"I am laughing at your superior intellect!" :-)


You've exhibited your usual display of humorless unpleasantness.

Is that more of your "humor?" :-)

Well, we will all "consider your posts as humor" in the
future. No sweat, senior, we will. It is how you want
it. :-)

Heh heh, Don Rickles will never have to worry about
any competition from you... :-)

Of course, Brian Burke and I were having fun with one
of James Miccolis' posts, NOT Heil's.

But, you are the self-appointed "protector" of Miccolis
in here, right? :-)



It is sarcastic and it is juvenile. It isn't worthy of an adult in his
eighth decade.

Ah, you are the "judge" of that, old-timer? :-)

Miccolis can't answer for himself? You have to intrude
and be the pro-bono "defense?" :-)
[or is it "pro-boner?"]


I'm not looking for rationalizations.

You MAKE them, though...

Your post wasn't some civil
dissertation on your reasoned thoughts on removal of morse testing.

The FCC has all those. :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I've told you why I am here and what do I
get for "replies?" Stuff like I have "hidden agendas"
(and other conspiratorial bull****) or "you've had an
interest in ham radio for decades and never got a license"
or "you could have gotten a no-code tech license" or "you
could have gotten a license on waivers" along with
assorted insinuations of stupidity, ignorance, lack of
"proper attitude" and other nastygrams. :-)

The above have greeted every "reasoned thought" I've
presented in here on ELIMINATION of morse code testing
for an amateur radio license...and many more quaint
adolescent insults directed to my person. You were one
of those tossing ****. shrug You are an amateur
extra and consider yourself above the rest, are
"superior." No problem. Usual from the uber-morse
crowd.

No one here is bound to accept your thoughts, find
amusement in them, or refrain from jeering or throwing
tomatoes.

Poor baby, your good buddie Jimmie got some over-ripe
tomatoes in his direction? It's the Nature of the
Newsgroup Beast. Try to get used to it. [you never
have gotten used to it, though, and that makes you
angry allatime]


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."

Did I say it wasn't a personal insult?

You used it as a personal insult.

It is certainly an accurate description.

See, there you go again with the personal insult.

You can't help yourself. Poor baby.


I have several for you.

And you DO use them...and then 'deny' them. Tsk, tsk.


Go into your "Herr Robust" or "Waffen SS"
routine again and you'll likely see a few of 'em.

"Routine?" Did you think they referred to yourself? :-)

The Old Organ Grinder, the man who is only here for CIVIL debate is
heard from.

Tsk, tsk. I *am* a civilian. :-)

...but you aren't civil.

I have never been a civil servant. :-)

You have been employed by the State Department...yet
you've not displayed any diplomacy in here, neither
"carrot" nor "stick"...but you DO tell your 'opponents'
to "stick it." :-)


I have ground pepper but never an organ.

You grind your organ frequently right here in r.r.a.p.

Sorry, I don't "grind my organ" while typing. :-)

[I'm laughing too hard at pro-coders usually...]

I don't grind my teeth, either. [yes, they are all
rather firmly attached 24/7]


I wrote nothing of Fargo nor chippers. :-) :-)

No doubt you claim you never saw the movie "Fargo"
either. Nice end of the movie scene where a murderer
is getting rid of a body by running it through a
chipper. Seems like the kind of thing you would
enjoy...grinding your 'opponents' down that way. :-)


You were here when I showed up and were already not being a polite
"goody two-shoes" respondent.

Awwww..."being civil" meaning I should AGREE with
KH2D in here at the time? :-)

Kehler was one of the most sarcastic, sulpherous,
one-sided pro-coders experienced anywhere. He left
here, left Guam, moved to the states.


You'll likely be asked again in light of your deliberate falsehood
concerning what it was like to undergo an artillery barrage.

You think you "know" all that I've done? Of course
you think so. You are a pro-code amateur extra and
"know" everything. Understood. Morsemanship makes
you superhuman.

See IEEE Code of Ethics

If you have ANY evidence of PROFESSIONAL impropriety, you
just go ahead and report me to the IEEE. I gave you
their mailing address and URL here in public.

You fail to understand that the IEEE is a Professional
Association. It isn't a scouting organization nor is it
religious organization such as the Church of St. Hiram.
The IEEE Code of Ethics is for a WORK ethic, not the
entirety of life as an individual.

But, you WANT to use every little scrap you can get hold
of in order to besmirch some imagined 'enemy' don't you?
Of course you do. You seem to revel in it.

Okay, you have the freedom to write the IEEE and tell them
I have been behaving nasty to you (a 'superior' being) in
a USENET newsgroup and should have my membership cancelled
because of that. DEMAND apologies. Demand strict obediance
to your wishes. Go for it.

As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase is invoked.

[email protected] October 8th 06 10:49 PM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 8 2006 4:28 am


wrote:
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:

Tsk, tsk, you've TOLD ME what I should have done in the
military...

What did Jim TELL YOU that you should have been doing, Len?

It's in the archives where Jimmie likes to live. :-)


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.

Reruns of "Look what I did".

Not "I," old soldier-statesman, what *we* in the
battalion did. 8235th Army Unit.

It's for historical interest purposes. The only other one
(a much larger one) is at www.usarmygermany.com that was
put together by Walter Elkins about the Signal effort in
Europe.

If you sneer too much at the My3Years.pdf, then feel free
to substitute AlphabetSoup.pdf, a copy of my battalion's
own production of its mission tasks circa 1962. That
courtesy of Mr. James Brendage, a retired civilian
engineer who worked at ADA when I was serving there.

If you don't like either of those, then substitute either
one of the two remaining, one on microwave radio relay,
the other on the SCR-300, both from a technical standpoint.
The SCR-300 was the first walkie-talkie, a backpack VHF
transceiver, introduced during WW2, designed and built by
Galvin Mfg (later to be renamed Motorola).

It's all about RADIO and COMMUNICATIONS.


Your ADA sojourn began about fifty-three years back, didn't it, Len?
Why do you live in the past so much?

1. I live for the now and the future, not the past.

2. There is no copyright restriction on government works,
therefore no need to get written permission.

3. There is no security classification on the material
I've presented...neither from the DoD nor private
company non-disclosure agreements.



Greenlee is still a corporation in Rockford, IL, but they
seem to have stopped making "chassis punches" for radio
hobbyists.

There's another of your factual errors.

My bad. :-) Does Greenlee take out ads in QST, QEX?

How about Popular Communications? Any ads in there?

Greenlee still sells chassis
punches--round ones, square ones, those shaped for D-connectors, power
sockets. There's even a hydraulic punch set. The U.S. Government buys
loads of them. The company's "hole making" product information can be
downloaded--all 7.9 mb of it.

http://www.greenlee.com/product/index.html

Are you on commission from Greenlee? :-)

No sweat, old soldier-statesman, I've been IN Greenlee on
a visit, have seen the little corner of one building where
two guys were making punches and files.

Send your download to Lowes or Home Depot corporate head-
quarters, see if they are interested.

I still have old Greenlee chassis punches from before the
60s, still wrapped in oily paper, get checked now and then
for rust. They were all used decades ago...only two have
been reground on the edges (did that myself, no problem).

Not much use for those punches now in the solid-state era.
Especially when there are so many KITS available for those
who claim to design their own. :-)



Jimmie ever do any "programming in machine language?" At any
time? I have. Want me to list them? :-)

That's not necessary, Len. Why not tell us any of the things you've
done in amateur radio?

You mean the software mods I made for two other hams
don't apply? [Microchip Corp. PIC microcontrollers]

How about a series of bandpass filters for the HF bands
where I did the toroid windings, capacitor selection,
assembly, shielding, and alignment? Using my own
computer program "LCie4"?

Oh, be still my heart, the great soldier-statesman has
put me down! :-)


Only a fraction of the American people are watching HDTV. Most aren't
even aware of what will hit them in a couple of years. People are still
running out to K-Mart and Wally World and buying new *analog* TV sets.

Thank you for the attempt at being an electronics
industry "insider." It is nice to know that someone
cares.


There'll be a big learning curve for the non-city dwelling owners of new
HDTV receivers. They'll find that they have to use antennas with fairly
high gain, preamps and rotators. They'll be using those rotators quite
often. I ended up buying a Channel Master rotator with remote control
and memory.

That's nice. Are you going for some kind of amateur HDTV
award or contest?




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.

It was an accurate statement, Leonard. You don't know much about Jim.
You have resorted to wild speculation and untruths.

How can something be "untrue" if there is NO basis to
judge? Id est, as in his never saying...but you MUST
call a speculation a LIE?

Sounds like the old Waffen SS trick again.



ARRL carefully OMITS certain items of history and IMPLIES
amateurs are 'responsible' for all advances. :-)

You've made another untruthful statement.

My apology for offending your religious beliefs. However,
the TRUTH is not heresy.



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?

You're kind of light in the Variac department, Len. Don't you have
anything which will handle real power?

Yes...it's labeled "4 Stacks" on aeronautical sectional
charts.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pilot joke, old soldier-statesman]



You're a pathetic and childish geezer, Len.

Awwww...you are TOO sweet... :-)


You really need a way to fill your idle hours.

"Idle?"

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Paul didn't say anything about a background check, Len. He addressed
the IEEE Code of Ethics.

YOU addressed the IEEE Code of Ethics, failing to write
all of it. Paul picked up on that and wanted to get in
some kind of "fight" about it.

YOU have the mailing address of the IEEE. Feel free to
write them and complain about my behavior in the news-
group and how that "violates" the Professional Code of
Ethics about engineering WORK. Be sure and document
everything from BOTH sides, such as your own name-
calling ("You're a pathetic and childish geezer").
Tell the IEEE that your "soldier-statesman" image has
been "tarnished" by "insults" in here. Go ahead, make
your day.



Are you discussing your tiny, dusty Johnson?

No, but you seem to have overmuch interest in it.

Did you munch a lot of nuts while in Guinea-Bisseau?
[cashews are their biggest export...]


As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked...

[email protected] October 8th 06 10:53 PM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
From: Dave Heil on Sat, Oct 7 2006 11:52 pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
 wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:


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 works! :-) Jimmie just hasn't done anything outside.

He has never been IN the military.

He has never been IN government.

He has never stated what he does for a living.


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.

How about that? I became a professional BEFORE anything
else! :-)


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."

What, no "69?" [Cecil and I probably agree on that one...:-) ]


If he tries a "you have never" and someone refutes it with details, Len
simply clams up.

Ah! "Justification" for that Imposter Robeson...a licensed
amateur extra and a pro-coder!

My, my, these pro-coders sure do hang together.

Cosier that way. They would otherwise hang separately. :-)

If they voluntarily post material describing something
they've done, Len uses that as an opportunity for insulting the poster.

I will insult any poster of Che Guevara I see. :-)

Most political posters glued to vertical spaces are
themselves insulting...


...and like ENIAC, Fessendon's feat was an advancement over what had
previously been possible.

"...had previously been possible." :-)


I'm glad we don't need that sort of thing today. I don't have room for
an ENIAC.

Sure you do in that rambling country antenna farm.

But, there's only ONE ENIAC and it is now a museum
piece. Defunct. Good only for show-and-tell.


I wonder if Len ever saw or touched ENIAC.

Why is that "necessary?" :-)


...and a high quality, tube-type BC set from the 1950's sounds every bit
as good as its modern, LSI counterpart.

Enjoy your vacuum tube set...until one of the tubes burns
out. :-)


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.

You WILL reveal to the forum your "reasons," won't you?

Of course you will, you both are pro-code amateur extras,
the 'superior' ones who know everything. :-)

You MUST "profile" all those who don't agree with you.


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.

Not at all. Thomas H. White's radio history in the USA is
large, illustrated, and readily accessible on the web. It
was mentioned only because of its accessibility.

McGraw-Hill's ELECTRONICS magazine of April 17, 1980, had a
special commemorative Issue on their 50th anniversary.
Volume 53, Number 9, 650 pages, excellent overview with
many details, photographs from before Marconi's time to
1980. They didn't emphasize amateur radio because amateur
radio was really a small player in that bigger game of
electronics technology. Unless one was a subscriber to
Electronics magazine or has access to a technical library,
it isn't that easy to use as a reference.

Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave: Technology and
American Radio," 1900-1932, Princeton University Press,
1985, 588 pages, soft cover, is a scholarly work, quite
complete and sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
Again, there isn't the highlighting of amateur radio a la
ARRL but that is for the real reason that amateur radio
wasn't considered a 'big player' in the technological
development of radio.

Aitken's earlier work, "Syntony and Spark: The Origins of
Radio" was done in 1976, reprinted in 1985 by Princeton
University Press. I don't have that handy at the moment
so I can't describe its size but it is another soft-
cover. Neither is readily available except from a
technical library.

What some amateurs call "The Collins Sideband Book," or
"Single Sideband Principles and Circuits," Pappenfus,
Bruene, and Schoenike, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964,
382 pages, has a good bit of HF communications history
in Chapter 1 up to copyright date of the book, more in
following chapters on various early SSB systems.

A veritable cornucopia of radio-electronics historical
information can be found on dozens of websites that don't
inwardly focus just on amateur radio. One can start with
the links listing at http://sujan.hallikainen.org down
towards the bottom of the "Broadcast History" main page.
Harold Hallikainen is a licensed radio amateur, by the
way. From those links can be found much history of
communications and electronics, even military such as
Walter Elkins' www.usarmygermany.com website (huge,
detailed history of post-WW2 US Army history in USAEUR).
If you need to see a direct copy of US Army in the Far
East circa 1962, download my Military (page) upload of
http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/
AlphabetSoup.pdf. For things like the telecommunications
infrastructure there are several sites about this service
that is supposed to "fail" at every emergency (according
to some popular but erroneous myths among some hams)
such as the transcontinental microwave radio relay
system by AT&T that was, developments of microwave
vacuum tubes, slow-scan TV (other than amateur
experiments), cellular telephony, indeed nearly every
facet of "the telephone company." It might be noted
that the microwave radio relay system was an integral
part of US defense communications in the decades
before 1980...which is opposite of the "always fails"
claim of the infrastructure accusers. Some of that
includes the Western Electric Company early work that
helped bring the early vacuum tube into a reproducible,
reliable product.

At the IEEE website under "Milestones" (in electronics
and electrical power distribution) is a number of firsts
("milestones") in technology, the where-when-who of each
one. The IEEE spoken histories include interviews with
many of the movers-and-shakers, major to minor, of the
electronics industry, military, and aerospace field.
For other history there is the Radio Club of America,
the first membership organization in the USA and still
organized, containing a number of biographies of notable
radio pioneers and their work plus early radio sites and
stories. At the Corning Frequency Control website (now
acquired by another corporation ? and may have its URL
altered) is several papers on the history of quartz
crystal production in the USA before, during, and after
WW2 by participants in that work. There exist a great
number of websites on nearly all phases of electronics
and radio, done by individuals or groups who have been
there and done that without any "necessity" of first
getting an amateur radio license, then being a part of
the industry. Everything from a history of radio comms
in California state and local police (many photos) to a
specialty site about the SCR-300 walkie-talkie done by
the son of the chief designer at Galvin (later Motorola).
A New Jersey historical group has an extensive coverage
of the Coles, Evans, and Squier Laboratories very near
Fort Monmouth, NJ, the to-be-abandoned site of the US
Army Electronics Command...included in that is a large
description of the very first "moonbounce" dubbed Project
Diana that took place just after WW2 ended.

The number of places to get historical information on
electronics (including radio) is immense on the Internet.
It seems that many, many individuals have an INTEREST in
the whole sphere of the technology without having to "get
a ham license first." They were IN it before being told
they HAD to get that "first permission to enter" from
some blowhard control-freak ham.

He usually follows one of
those references with some sniping at the American Radio Relay League.

There is no denying that the publications output of the
ARRL is very large. They must do that in order to get the
income necessary to perform all their "free" services to
members. The ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur-
interest publications in the USA...no denying that, either.

But, the ARRL is also a political organization,
maintaining both a legal firm and a lobbying organization
in DC on retainer. As a political entity, they come
under the good old American tradition of being a target
for anyone who cares to comment. The League is NOT
without fault...except in the minds of its faithful
followers, the disciples of the Church of St. Hiram.

Having a virtual monopoly on radio-amateur-interest
publications also gives them a psychological power to
mold readers' opinions to those of the League hierarchy.
To deny that is to deny the power of marketing
techniques, of psychological propaganda activities that
go on daily in nearly all human activities.



Do you need to review the profile?

Len needs to review the profile.

No. "Profiles" work both ways. Heil and Miccolis have
both been "profiled" in here, not just by me but by
many others. It is the Nature of the (newsgroup) Beast.



Len seldom lets the truth get in the way of one of his monologues.

Tsk, Heil speaks an untruth.

OPINIONS are not "facts," just opinions.

Miccolis tries to manuever all opinion statements as "facts"
written by those he has problems with...thus garnering the
"accusations" of "untruth" or "error" when some just plain
don't like him. That he often comes across as an arch-
typical "mother superior" (complete with spanking ruler) is
lost on him. Prissy, as if sucking on sourballs when
writing up "error" "error" on those disagreeing with him.

Heil comes across as a stereotypical WW2 propaganda movie
Waffen SS officer, ordering others around, telling them
what they "should" do (his way, naturally). One can
almost see the sneer on his face, the monocle ready to
drop as his face gets more livid with order-barking,
the heels clicking.



I've noticed the talk of his workshop, but nothing about what comes out
of it.

Why should it? It is for MY enjoyment for myself, not
some "hey-look-at-me-and-what-marvelous-things-I've-done"
self promotion on some website. :-)

I've had it for four decades. Those I know have been
in it and we've talked mutual interest stuff about any
project then on-going. Material like that has been
exchanged privately. No need to make it public.



All vine, no fruit.

Southern California is not an ideal place for vinyards;
mid-state is best: Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties.
California produces most of the wine consumed in the USA.

Southern California climate is good for citrus. My 35-
year-old lemon tree bears lemons all year around. The
dwarf orange hybrid is almost as productive.


For sure. SS is coming up fairly soon.

"Waffen?" Jahwhol! [click, click] :-)

[email protected] October 9th 06 01:28 AM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
wrote:
N2EY Wrote: From: on Sun, Oct 8 2006 5:29 am
wrote:
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:

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.

How do you know for sure, Len? Did you visit every transmitting station
in the world?

No.

Then you don't really know. You're just guessing, and passing off your
uneducated guess as a fact.

There is NO historical record of ANY broadcasting
station USING that single-high-power-special-carbon-
microphone "modulator" that you claim is "practical."

Incorrect.

There is no historical record *that you can find*.

Also, note your original claim: (direct quote - see above to be sure)

"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."

"broadcaster or voice transmitter" - that means you claim that not only
did broadcasters not use Fessenden's method, but that no experimenters,
amateurs, commercial users or military units did, either.

The fact that *you* can't find an historical record doesn't mean you
have proof it didn't happen.

The truth is that you don't know - you're just making things up. Maybe
others adopted Fessenden's idea and failed. Or maybe they succeeded,
but after a time lost interest and went on with other things.

The "truth" is that you are ****ed,

Not me, Len. You're the one shouting and calling names because your
claim has been shown to be unfounded.

You claim to be a "professional writer", but your logic and use of
words is very sloppy.

want to rationalize
your previous claim of "practicality" and are trying to
side-pedal onto some area where you can rail at the
challengers, saying the challengers LIE.

Totally incorrect, Len.

I haven't said that you or anyone else here on rrap lied.

What you have done is to tell untruths, make mistakes, promulgate
errors. That's not the same as lying.

For something to be a lie, the person stating it has to know it is
untrue, and then state it as if it were true, with the intention of
deceiving the reader or listener.

You don't know for sure. All you know is that you haven't come across
any documentation that someone else adopted Fessenden's idea.

All I know is that NO ONE seems to have documented it...

And that's true.

But it's not the same as:

"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."

and there has been LOTS of documentation about broad-
casting for all of its existance...from manufacturers
to users.

That doesn't mean every attempt at voice radio from ~100 years ago was
documented so that you could find it, Len. There are lots of things you
don't know.

Feel free to post ANY source that claims to have used
Reggie's brute-force modulator of a single-high-power-
special-carbon-microphone "modulator" that you say is
"practical."

Why?

Why don't you write some of the 50 KW AM broadcasters
and suggest this "practical" idea? Try KMPC here in San
Fernando Valley. 50 KW RF output into three towers.
Do you know of any carbon microphone maker that sells a
FIFTY KILOWATT MICROPHONE? Can you engineer one?

How about the studio people at KMPC? Would you like to
tell them that, for "practical" reasons, they all have to
cluster around a SINGLE microphone that is passing 50 KW
of RF energy? Hmmm? The studio MUST be moved to the
transmitter site unless you can figure out some way for
the SINGLE microphone to exist in present studios yet
handle the 50 KW RF from the transmitter and back out to
the antenna.

Now you're just ranting. You're all angry and upset because, once
again, you've been shown to be mistaken in your claim.

Here it is again:

"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."

No mention of high power. No mention of "practicality", "studios" or a
limit to just broadcasting.

Ever hear of loop modulation, Len?

So much for your redefinition of "practical."

You seem to think that a thing cannot be practical unless it is copied.
That's simply not true.

I think (no "seem" about it) that you dribbled out some
nonsense about your radio hero's "practical" thing and
are trying (vainly) to get the hell out of it through
a lot of NON-thinking.

You seem to think that a thing cannot be practical unless it is copied.
That's simply not true.

yet you've never served in the military or in
the US government.

How do you know for sure who served and who didn't?

YOU did NOT serve in ANY military. Period.

How do you know for sure, Len?

You don't
have the attitude for anything but being elitist, you-
are-better-superiority.

Now you're just making stuff up. What attitude should a veteran have?
I've known plenty of military veterans, Len - from WW2, Korea, Vietnam,
and more recent conflicts. None of them display an attitude or behavior
like yours.

If I had a dollar for every time you've mentioned your Army experience
on rrap, I'd probably have enough for a brand new Orion II with all the
filters.

NOT enough.

More than enough, probably.

You've been posting here to rrap for over ten years, Len. That's more
than 3650 days. Probably more than 4000 days.

If you mentioned your Army days here just once a day, that would be
over 3650 dollars. While you don't post here every day, there have been
days when you mentioned your Army experience more than once. In fact,
you sometimes mention it more than once per post!

Not enough to cover the costs of your HBR
clone pictured on Kees Talen's website.

Heck, Len, that receiver only cost me $10. You've probably mentioned
your Army experience ten times this month!

And my "Silver Receiver" (aka Southgate Type 4) on the HBR website is
not a clone of anything. It's a unique design. Perhaps I should
describe that receiver - it had some unusual features. Like the ability
to use a wide variety of tubes without being modified.

You don't...because you NEVER CHECK.

How can I be sure that the information you give is correct, Len? You
can't both give the info and the check method.

All you do is
say I am "in error" (LIE).

Nope. You're in error - again!

Being in error and lying are two different things, Len.

I haven't said that you or anyone else here on rrap lied.

What you have done is to tell untruths, make mistakes, promulgate
errors. That's not the same as lying.

For something to be a lie, the person stating it has to know it is
untrue, and then state it as if it were true, with the intention of
deceiving the reader or listener.

In the history of electrical engineering, all sorts of now-incredible
things were once considered practical. That's a fact.

Is NOT practical now.

ENIAC had all the features needed to be the very first operational
general-purpose electronic digital computer. And it was.

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.

They were slow - at least an order of magnitude slower than ENIAC. They
were not general purpose, either. Their technology led nowhere.

Tell that to Bell Labs. :-) Tell that to Claude
Elwood Shannon. :-)

It's not me who said it. The Army did.

Good old tube filaments!

They're called heaters, Len.

Tsk. Out came the knuckle-spanking ruler again! :-)

I have lots of old engineering texts which refer to
the glowing part of vacuum tubes as 'filaments.'

Filaments are used in directly heated cathodes.

Heaters are used in indirectly heated cathodes.

The tubes in ENIAC were mostly indirectly heated types. Therefore, the
term "heaters" is more accurate than "filaments".

The point is that the ENIAC folks got the machine to work with the
parts available.

What does ENIAC have to do with amateur radio policy?

What does ADA have to do with amateur radio policy?

The Army accepted ENIAC, moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
used it until 1955.
If it were not a 'practical' device, they would have simply abandoned
it or scrapped it.

Tsk, you are an amateur extra pro-coder and KNOW what
the US Army thinks-knows-does!

On the issue of ENIAC - yes, I do.

Just take a look at this (if you have the guts):

ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS

HISTORICAL MONOGRAPH FROM 1961

Karl Kempf
Historical Officer
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
November 1961

Available online at:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/index.html

That's official Army history. Do you know more about ENIAC than the
Historical Officer at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds?

Here's the chapter on ENIAC:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

Read what the official Army historical officer wrote, and you'll see
I'm right. They specifically mention the relay computers as taking all
night to perform a computation, and to being outmoded by ENIAC and its
successors.

ENIAC was a bargain, too - cost less than a million dollars.

and btw:

ENIAC did not used BCD (binary-coded-decimal). It was a true decimal
machine, with decimal ring counters and ten data lines for each digit.
The use of decimal rather than binary architecture was the only
fundamental part of ENIAC's structure that was not copied in later
machines.

Now be a big boy and admit your mistakes, Len.

Slow Code October 9th 06 01:37 AM
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 
wrote in
oups.com:

wrote:
N2EY Wrote: From: on Sun, Oct 8 2006 5:29 am
wrote:
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:

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.

How do you know for sure, Len? Did you visit every transmitting
station in the world?

No.

Then you don't really know. You're just guessing, and passing off your
uneducated guess as a fact.


That's what Len always does. Normally right changing the subject line.

SC

[email protected] October 10th 06 02:20 AM
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
 
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 8 2006 5:29 am
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 7 2006 6:39 am

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.

They were slow - at least an order of magnitude slower than ENIAC. They
were not general purpose, either. Their technology led nowhere.

Tell that to Bell Labs. :-) Tell that to Claude
Elwood Shannon. :-)

I don't have to - the Army already did:

Quoting Chapter 1 of "ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS"

(an official US Army history):

"Two Bell Relay Computers were used. They were accurate, but slow and
required expert maintenance. Dust and humidity adversely affected their
operation."

The point is that the ENIAC folks got the machine to work with the
parts available.

The Army accepted ENIAC, moved it to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and
used it until 1955.

If it were not a 'practical' device, they would have simply abandoned
it or scrapped it.

Mechanical and electromechanical computing and calculating were
rendered hopelessly obsolete by ENIAC's success. ENIAC caused the focus
to move to purely electronic computing and calculating. Within a few
years, commercial machines like UNIVAC were on the market. (A UNIVAC
correctly predicted the outcome of the 1952 presidential election,
based on just a few percent of the returns).

Predicted all by itself? No programmer did anything?

Amazing!

But, UNIVAC was not ENIAC. :-)


It's clear you're very jealous, Len.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yawn.


Those machines can all trace their design right back to ENIAC - and not
to any mechanical or electromechanical device.

Oh, my, not to Alfred Boole? :-)

Nope.

Not to Von Neuman?

Do you mean John von Neumann? He was on the team that built ENIAC.

Not to hundreds of thousands
like Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley?

They invented the transistor, not the computer, Len.

Right you are, Mr. Computer Guru. Nothing about "Harvard"
architecture,

Von Neumann architecture is the key.

"pipelining",

ENIAC could do parallel computations.

bilateral digital switching,
standardized logic levels,

ENIAC's were standardized.

RAM,

ENIAC had accumulators - aka registers.

ROM, EPROM,

Had those, too.

or BINARY
registers instead of the BCD variant ENIAC used.

ENIAC was a decimal machine. Not BCD.

Modern
computers "trace their design right back to ENIAC?"
Nooooooo.

Yes, they do.

At least the US Army thinks so:

http://ftp.arl.army.mil/ftp/historic...-comp-tree.gif

The root of the tree is ENIAC.

Some quotes from Army history:

"During the period 1946 - 1955 the ENIAC was operated successfully for
a total of 80,223 hours of operation. It performed about five thousand
arithmetic operations for each second of its useful life. ENIAC led the
computer field through 1952 when it served as the main computation
machine for the solution of the scientific problems of the nation. It
surpassed all other existing computers in solving problems involving a
large number of arithmetic operations. It was the major instrument for
the computation of all ballistic tables for the U.S. Army and Air
Force. In addition to ballistics, the ENIAC's field of application
included weather prediction, atomic energy calculations, cosmic ray
studies, thermal ignition, random number studies, wind tunnel design,
and other scientific uses."


Try as hard as I can, I can't find ANY relatively modern
computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base),
not even 12AU7s.

You didn't look very hard:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,10...1/article.html


The last vacuum tube used with computers
was the CRT and that's quickly going away...

So what? It's only been 60 years since ENIAC was announced...


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 AM.
Page 3 of 8 12 3 45678
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com