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?