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.

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 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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.