"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

U-Know-Who wrote:
"

Next lesson is punctuation, Goofball. It is required.
you lack the power to require anything of me

you also lack the intelegence to understand that fact and you lack any
manners I ivtie you into to my world andwhat do I get instaed of thanks
you I get your puting my loosey spelling on the same plan as Robesons
death threats and both of accusing me of child moletsing

one day maybe you will grow up and get a life but I doubt as you nick
tells you are nameless loser: your wting shows you to be frustrated
school marm type


Oh my! You (ivtie) me into your world? No thanks. I'll pass on that one,
good buddy. (loosey) spelling? You are hilarious in your futile crappie
flopping around all subjects. Well, all except your sexual deviations and
disgraceful use of beer. You seem to love talking about both.

Now, when I "grow up and get a life", does that mean I have to engage in sex
with men and douche my ass with beer as you do? I'll pass.

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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

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. :-)

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? 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?

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

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

What is wrong with live and let live?

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...

Now, now, calm down, Jimmie. You have NEVER been IN
the military yet you have NO reservations about
telling all the military and its veterans what to do,
how they should do it, how "wrong" they were in not
doing it as you said it should be done.

Amateur radio "differs" from other radio services
only in man-made regulations and the fantasies of
its licensees. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the basic
physical laws governing radio or radio waves versus
all other radio services.

Electrons, EM fields and waves follow THEIR rules, not
the imaginations of the ARRL and its members...or the
legislations of human law-makers.

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. 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]

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

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 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?

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.

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

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?!?

You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio
control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting, yet
you DEFINE "practicality" in such things as inserting
a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
for broadcasting.

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."

AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.

Superfluous minutae.

YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting. Your amateur radio
license does NOT permit broadcasting. I have been IN
broadcasting, still have the license (now lifetime).

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.


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. 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.

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.


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

Superfluous minutae. Manual telegraphy consisted of
closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed.
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.

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:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?

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:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?

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. :-)

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'."

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.


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?

You know NOTHING of military radio. You never served, never
worked with the military. I did both as a soldier and as a
civilian.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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]

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.

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

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?

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

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!

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.

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!


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."

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.


The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago.

1947. The PATENT wasn't granted immediately. :-)

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.

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. Use those mighty collitch degrees, all that radio-
electronics "experience" in the "industry" to show us
what you can really do. :-)

" wrote in
ups.com:

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:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?



Whewww. That was a gassy one.

SC

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:11:28 GMT, Blow Code spake
thusly:

Whewww. That was a gassy one.

We don't need to hear about your sex life.

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

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
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.

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

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

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

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. 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? 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?

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
but I have made a few exceptions lately.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
obviously not to be taken seriously.

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