| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
October 27th 06, 06:34 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
|
#3
October 27th 06, 08:58 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, " wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am "Opus-" wrote in message Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. Then why don't they? They *do*, Len. Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*? well to be far Robeson does insit he trying to help me when calls me a child molestor rapesit elderabuser Tax Fraud and welfare cheatm becuae I refuse to learn Mrose Code same for SC Military Imposter Robeson is one sick puppy. We can't expect him to improve his demeanor by himself. He is personally angry and frustrated, searching for something, anything in regards to personal "glory" via some kind of rank. perhaps the point you should making is that the OT are no longer enough in touch with reality to hel anybody including themselves and the ARS Those olde-tymers (who fear Evil No-Coders) are into the stubbornness of middle age. They want things THEIR way and everyone else can go to hell. QED. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Nonsense. No, it's the truth. "Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who want things kept without change. Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this* newsgroup. Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The Requirements Should Be. Nobody says they do. Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-) They never did, despite all the pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches. No such "propaganda", Len. You've been Conditioned, Miccolis. Conditioned thinking stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you were able to read... It should be quite obvious that every other radio service has either given up on using morse code for communications or never considered it in the first place. Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use Morse Code - extensively. Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements, Miccolis. License TEST requirements. The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use, why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE? Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs to communicate with foreigners. That's true. But one of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service is international good will. Communicating with "foreigners" is one way to do that. ["boilerplate" political insert into the Basis & Purpose] So, exactly WHAT is this so-called "good will?" Has it stopped wars and armed conflict anywhere in the world? [No] Has it ended world hunger or even alleviated it? [No] Does this "good will" do ANYTHING? I don't know it does nothing I know I and other chated a bit about the Gonzales case with some cubans and may have promoted some understanding to help resolve that case (although it still should have gone better) The "Elian" affair is NOT about amateur radio policy. When was the last time the AMATEUR bands were used to save a life using radiotelegraphy? I would think saving a life would be the BEST good will possible. not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately. "Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands. The major (in population) nation administrations have dropped their morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of morse code. How do you know? :-) Try reading the No-Code International website and researching the statements in there. Those are true statements. It's a fact that at least some people use poorly-designed training methods. Did Moore School drill that into you? :-) Indeed, all other US radio services operating below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy. Why is that so important? It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking Believer. :-) It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't worth having a license TEST for it. Especially since the FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio- telegraphy for years. Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some special significance? It's not about 'special significance". Yes, it is. :-) See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements for 20 WPM code tests. See all the "gotta upgrade!" agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way over all other modes. The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all" have some innate ability to learn morse code. There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the written tests. Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time, cannot understand that a federal court decision in the early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC. :-) The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time. You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Jimmie? :-) No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-) I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. A few hundreds of thousands other recruits did the same in the 1950s. You NEVER did that. I took one as it happens when I was doing some work with a signal corps project that was looking a CW based NON Morse more app, I tested very poorly indeed The US military has kept the CW setting on front panel controls for years...but NOT for radiotelegraphy purposes. That is for remoting the operation of transmitters, almost always by wireline control. Land forces learned many decades ago to locate transmitters well away from Hq troops. Pro-coders will see such front panel control settings and immediately jump on their pro-code bandwagon shouting about "the military using radiotelegraphy" when they don't know squat about real field use of land force radios or the peripheral equipment for same. The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train them. The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]" topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie. Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun! The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways) and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty. You never did either one... btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2. Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof" of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"] World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has *never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-) a truce that could end at any minute I fear but still no need for cw ops to go man radios Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953). Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade. Problem is, olde-tymers are still brainwashed by glorious propaganda (from the boys in Newington) about World War II and (conveniently) forget that war ended 61 years ago. They still have dreams of glory and honor using "CW" and get angry when they are awakened to the reality of today. The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history. Who lobbied for those requirements, Len? ARRL, of course. :-) As they've bragged to anyone who can read, "they know what is best for amateur radio!" :-) As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations. The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already- licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already- licensed to be listened to over and above all other interested citizens. The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens. No kidding?!? :-) Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should" comment about amateur radio regulations? :-) and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I [they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the INTENT was plain as day at noontime. These pro-coder olde-tymers just do NOT want that code test to ever disappear. If it did they would lose their major Bragging Right (to glory and honor of telegraphic modes). It does NOT affect those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur. It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the worse because of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed would be affected. Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders to play with? :-) Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class. Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed. Go starve, you poor thing... Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected. "Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone against what you previously wrote. :-) Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource - the radio spectrum. So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS. So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes all the public safety radio services, railroad radio service, business radio, paging services. So does cellular telephony. So does the US government and US military. Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates* US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government. Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every* other radio service. A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared with many others. Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-) I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers. [I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) is a membership organization (about a quarter million members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both competition flying and for safety; there is special liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote control. How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30 MHz? Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for himself...and CAN'T. The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band- width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art (of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool" of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO (which is what they really are). they also 16 channeles within the Ham bands reseversed for Ham into RC and those units are allowed higher power levels than the rest Anyone remotely involved with the Model Hobby Industry will see the emphasis on the license-free "72 MHz" channels from ready- built remote control radios. With 80 channels to choose from it is NOT a problem at any event or weekend gathering of modelers together in one location. IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz. Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE 30 MHz? HAAAAA! Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?" Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications radio service? btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of *all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz. No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER radio services, including the Department of Defense, for frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-) Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they had to take. Why is that? No code test nor license was required. You may read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio Control Radio Service. They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF. Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95, did you? :-) The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF. Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-) They are allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their communications limited to line-of-sight. Amateur radio is very different. Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of models. Hello? It ain't about "communications" but about CONTROL BY RADIO. 0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight. To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all those slots are filled. Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power, small antennas and line-of-sight radio. Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF. NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate for interplanetary DX. A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long. How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-) Is that what you think amateur radio should be? Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at, much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that." You CRAPPED again, Jimmie. By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-) on 6 m I have one of those units Then that unit is bound to be affected by "legal" ham transmissions (AS IF interference with others is "legal") causing loss of control. Olde-tymers (causing such interference) will claim they have a "right" to do it. They "own" the band or something like that. :-( It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their 27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over by illegal cb operation. BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again. There were only SIX channels available in the original CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying, boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels. 80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem. well Honestlly Len allow me an R/C flyer to correct you at some shows their are problem with not being near enough frqs at some shows it is smaller scalle planes show that atract more fliers that have a problem was even promted some developement of 2/4 gig units Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do that a LOT in here... :-) The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather than the "operating." I started working in 1948 at Testor Chemical Company, working IN the model shop as a flunky doing the plan illustration. I've followed the Model Hobby Industry somewhat ever since. I don't claim "inside knowledge" on the R-C radios, only that I got interested in radios and electronics while seeing what the very first R-C planes could do with rudder-only control. [we are talking the Raytheon RK61 single-tube gas-filled tube regen receivers here smile with quite primitive mechanical control systems] Bang-bang control (full one way or the other, single neutral center), not the PWM proportional systems of today and two decades ago using single- and double-conversion solid- state receivers with (now) standardized control-stick transmitter boxes containing microprocessors. R-C has gotten rather sophisticated since its beginning. Last year had the first successful cross-Atlantic flight of a model aircraft, R-C for takeoff and landing with GPS-assisted mid- course control. One helluva good accomplishment for non- professional modelers! I think the website for that has been taken down but anyone can read about it in MAN or the two other newsstand magazines targeting R-C modeling. Some radio amateurs are still trying to promote radiotelegraphy AS IF this were still 1901 with Marconi getting his S in Newfoundland. :-) They think one MUST do the "CW" thing even if using a multi- conversion, DSP-enhanced, digitial-synthesis frequency control solid-state transceiver (using microprocessor assistance), ready-built off-the-shelf plug-and-play. All to bang the carrier ON or OFF in order to communicate! :-) 1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui. |
|
#4
October 28th 06, 12:15 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: wrote: On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, " wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately. "Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands. I love that story that it is trotted out is just a measure of how desperate they are I took one as it happens when I was doing some work with a signal corps project that was looking a CW based NON Morse more app, I tested very poorly indeed The US military has kept the CW setting on front panel controls for years...but NOT for radiotelegraphy purposes. That is for remoting the operation of transmitters, almost always by wireline control. Land forces learned many decades ago to locate transmitters well away from Hq troops. Pro-coders will see such front panel control settings and immediately jump on their pro-code bandwagon shouting about "the military using radiotelegraphy" when they don't know squat about real field use of land force radios or the peripheral equipment for same. The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train them. The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]" topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie. Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun! The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways) and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty. You never did either one... btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2. Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof" of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"] World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has *never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-) a truce that could end at any minute I fear but still no need for cw ops to go man radios Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953). Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade. really? are you tlaking about just local stuff or long haul korea to stateside stuff geting a better feel for the timeline I was under the impression that army pretty weel stay with cw/code through most of korea then switched pretty quickly Problem is, olde-tymers are still brainwashed by glorious propaganda (from the boys in Newington) about World War II and (conveniently) forget that war ended 61 years ago. They still have dreams of glory and honor using "CW" and get angry when they are awakened to the reality of today. Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should" comment about amateur radio regulations? :-) and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I [they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the INTENT was plain as day at noontime. funy how if they don't really mean that and Morse Code makes them such great comicating that they are so consistantly misunderstood These pro-coder olde-tymers just do NOT want that code test to ever disappear. If it did they would lose their major Bragging Right (to glory and honor of telegraphic modes). It does NOT affect those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur. It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the worse because of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed would be affected. Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders to play with? :-) Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class. Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed. Go starve, you poor thing... Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected. "Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone against what you previously wrote. :-) Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource - the radio spectrum. So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS. So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes all the public safety radio services, railroad radio service, business radio, paging services. So does cellular telephony. So does the US government and US military. Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates* US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government. Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every* other radio service. A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared with many others. Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-) I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers. [I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) is a membership organization (about a quarter million members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both competition flying and for safety; there is special liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote control. How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30 MHz? Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for himself...and CAN'T. The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band- width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art (of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool" of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO (which is what they really are). they also 16 channeles within the Ham bands reseversed for Ham into RC and those units are allowed higher power levels than the rest Anyone remotely involved with the Model Hobby Industry will see the emphasis on the license-free "72 MHz" channels from ready- built remote control radios. With 80 channels to choose from it is NOT a problem at any event or weekend gathering of modelers together in one location. IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz. Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE 30 MHz? HAAAAA! Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?" Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications radio service? btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of *all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz. No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER radio services, including the Department of Defense, for frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-) Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they had to take. Why is that? No code test nor license was required. You may read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio Control Radio Service. They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF. Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95, did you? :-) The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF. Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-) They are allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their communications limited to line-of-sight. Amateur radio is very different. Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of models. Hello? It ain't about "communications" but about CONTROL BY RADIO. 0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight. To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all those slots are filled. Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power, small antennas and line-of-sight radio. Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF. NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate for interplanetary DX. A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long. How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-) Is that what you think amateur radio should be? Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at, much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that." You CRAPPED again, Jimmie. By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-) on 6 m I have one of those units Then that unit is bound to be affected by "legal" ham transmissions (AS IF interference with others is "legal") causing loss of control. Olde-tymers (causing such interference) will claim they have a "right" to do it. They "own" the band or something like that. :-( nah ^m is such a neglected band tafter all we techs are allowed to use never had anytrouble It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their 27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over by illegal cb operation. BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again. There were only SIX channels available in the original CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying, boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels. 80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem. well Honestlly Len allow me an R/C flyer to correct you at some shows their are problem with not being near enough frqs at some shows it is smaller scalle planes show that atract more fliers that have a problem was even promted some developement of 2/4 gig units Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do that a LOT in here... :-) The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather than the "operating." that they try but it is secondary the abilty of the RC gruop is largely depneant In my expernce on just how the local frequecny coordinators are able to get people on to lots of freqs in fringe area where the shop are feww and large college is around somed ay you do have 50 plane trying to operate on 4 or 5 frq in larger area the hobby shop and tend in placing orders for stuff to spread the new folks around an advantage yYOU get in your area or would around SF but out between hobby shop things get weird (right now trying to duck being given the job of trying to coordinate the freqs round here Indeed I often spend a lot helping recrytal and tune the units I started working in 1948 at Testor Chemical Company, working IN the model shop as a flunky doing the plan illustration. I've followed the Model Hobby Industry somewhat ever since. I don't claim "inside knowledge" on the R-C radios, only that I got interested in radios and electronics while seeing what the very first R-C planes could do with rudder-only control. [we are talking the Raytheon RK61 single-tube gas-filled tube regen receivers here smile with quite primitive mechanical control systems] Bang-bang control (full one way or the other, single neutral center), not the PWM proportional systems of today and two decades ago using single- and double-conversion solid- state receivers with (now) standardized control-stick transmitter boxes containing microprocessors. R-C has gotten rather sophisticated since its beginning. Last year had the first successful cross-Atlantic flight of a model aircraft, R-C for takeoff and landing with GPS-assisted mid- course control. One helluva good accomplishment for non- professional modelers! I think the website for that has been taken down but anyone can read about it in MAN or the two other newsstand magazines targeting R-C modeling. Some radio amateurs are still trying to promote radiotelegraphy AS IF this were still 1901 with Marconi getting his S in Newfoundland. :-) They think one MUST do the "CW" thing even if using a multi- conversion, DSP-enhanced, digitial-synthesis frequency control solid-state transceiver (using microprocessor assistance), ready-built off-the-shelf plug-and-play. All to bang the carrier ON or OFF in order to communicate! :-) 1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui. |
|
#5
October 28th 06, 10:23 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: "an_old_friend" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 4:15pm
wrote: wrote: On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, " From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately. "Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands. I love that story that it is trotted out is just a measure of how desperate they are That supposedly happened several years ago. But, it's about the only "proof" the pro-code-testers have for "enforcement" of the code test. Too bad they can't effectively argue their case to the United States Coast Guard. The USCG quit monitoring the 500 KHz inter- national maritime distress frequency about the same time. Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953). Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade. really? are you tlaking about just local stuff or long haul korea to stateside stuff geting a better feel for the timeline I was under the impression that army pretty weel stay with cw/code through most of korea then switched pretty quickly Really. The "medium-haul" radio comms (50 to 200 miles, roughly) was handled by the more-mobile AN/GRC-26 (hut on a deuce and a half truck towing a MG set) where the TTY was favored for its already-written messages followed by simultaneous voice. The bulk of land-to-land messaging was handled by the "TRCs" or transportable radio relay sets carrying four multiplexed voice channels. Each voice channel could handle four TTY circuits. All of that was left-over stuff from World War II. Short-range comms were handled almost exclusively by FM voice from the AN/PRC-6 (2nd generation HT, introduced just before 1950) and the manpacks ranging from SCR-300 (original "walkie- talkie" of WWII) to the AN/PRC-8 through -10 (in the three overlapping "line" bands just introduced). Vehicular radios were a whole series of "VRCs" now arranged in the "line" bands at high-HF to low-VHF running voice FM. Many of those VRCs had become known as "tank radios" of WWII under their "SCR-" IDs. Fans of the AN/GRC-9 would be disappointed in the LACK of use of that WWII relic and its arm-wasting manual generator. It operated only at low-HF. Tactically, it was a throwback to pre-WWII days of military radio and didn't suit the rapidly- shifting field tactics in Korea. Long-haul radio comms in Korea (beyond 200 miles) was almost exclusively HF TTY plus all the wireline TTY (land permitting). Comms to FEC Hq in Tokyo was a mix of VHF radio relay, HF TTY (direct), and wireline (including underwater cable to cross the sea). Some of that was encrypted TTY using a second- generation system similar to the rolling-code "SIGABA" of the second world war times. [never cracked until the USS Pueblo was captured nearly intact] In the early 1960s and the heating up of the Southeast Asia Live Fire Exercise, the AN/PRC-25 channel-tuned VHF FM voice portable made its debut. The "Prick-25" became the radio of choice for land field units. All solid-state except for the final PA, a battery-filament tube. A few years later the AN/PRC-77 was introduced with ALL-solid-state active devices. Over 120,000 PRC-25s and PRC-77s were manufactured. The PRC-8 to PRC-10 series was also used but the high turnover in personnel made the PRC-25 favored due to easy operation. VHF and UHF radio relay was the major comms carrier in SE Asia during the Vietnam War. Multi-channel voice, each voice channel could handle several multiplexed TTY circuits. Most firebases were identifiable by the antenna structures for those radio relay sets. Radio relay on VHF-UHF was a huge operation but never well-publicized in amateur radio mags. Vehicular comms were still done by the VRCs in Vietnam but, the lack of terrain for effective armor limited that to the supplies vehicles. Long-haul comms to Japan and Hawaii Hqs were done by HF TTY, either direct or relayed through Manila or Okinawa. [Far East Command Hq was transferred from Tokyo to Fort Shafter, HI, about 1958 although there were relays (HF TTY) through USAF-maintained HF radio near Tokyo to link to the States; USAF took over the USA HF radio facilities there in 1963] Experiments with satellite commsats began during the Vietnam War but those were largely just experiments. They got PR because satcomm was new and noteworthy to news editors, seemed exciting with big, big antenna dishes, etc. Satcomm ops never took off until after the Vietnam War was over in 1973. Once the satcomms' relay was possible, the use of HF for long-haul circuits was relegated to a standby role. It's a much-ballyhooed MYTH that "CW" was essential to radio comms even during WWII. [maybe it was due to Hollywood liking the mystique of morsemen at their keys with headphones on and doing the thousand-yard stare?] The major long-haul comms circuits were TTY even then. In the electronics trade shows of the early 1970s, the Teletype Corporation was displaying a gold-plated TTY terminal as the half-millionth! The already-WRITTEN messages were always preferred by field commanders for accuracy and reliability. An added plus was that TTY could be encrypted ON-LINE when needs be, even for the USN as far back as 1940. The famous Command Sets of WWII aircraft were used primarily in voice mode, by the pilots; was very little time to have the radio op write down messages and bring them up to the cockpit; radio ops on B-17s and B-24s were basically gunners first, radiomen second. Liason Sets were seldom used and then only when the air was "peaceful" over friendly territory. Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should" comment about amateur radio regulations? :-) and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I [they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the INTENT was plain as day at noontime. funy how if they don't really mean that and Morse Code makes them such great comicating that they are so consistantly misunderstood The morsemen in here have RANK, STATUS, PRIVILEGE and Vanity (note the 1x2 calls seen in here)...lobbied for by the much-older hams who were after rank, status, privilege due to morsemanship. These morsemen are the "best" and they don't hesitate to tell everyone so. They demand obediance to their wishes...which is to maintain their rank, status, privilege due to morseman- ship...and their perceived ability ('nobility?') to look down on all the no-code-test advocates as if they are somehow "better." AS IF... :-( Funny how operating abilities of the 1930s isn't "appreciated" in the 2000s. [morsemen are quaintly out of date] Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do that a LOT in here... :-) The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather than the "operating." that they try but it is secondary the abilty of the RC gruop is largely depneant In my expernce on just how the local frequecny coordinators are able to get people on to lots of freqs in fringe area where the shop are feww and large college is around somed ay you do have 50 plane trying to operate on 4 or 5 frq in larger area the hobby shop and tend in placing orders for stuff to spread the new folks around an advantage yYOU get in your area or would around SF but out between hobby shop things get weird (right now trying to duck being given the job of trying to coordinate the freqs round here Indeed I often spend a lot helping recrytal and tune the units Frequency coordination is ALWAYS a problem in ANY radio service. It gets worse when there are thousands of users in a relatively small locale. The FCC long ago gave up on trying to coordinate the PLMRS users and delegated that to the individual private user groups...public safety, railroad, businesses, etc. It didn't help the model hobby industry to come out with fixed- frequency R-C Tx and Rx in order to sell them at lower cost... and makes them lighter (important for flying models). The trend now is to have frequency-synthesis techniques on receivers; it is easier to that in transmitter boxes (plenty of room, not a weight problem). Considerate modelers will be aware of who is using what channel, do the "flag" display thing (if appropriate) and try not to cause another model any catastrophy. [a model helo can cost up to $500, hardly a toy...anyone who deliberately interferes with one causing a crash will have the helo owner physically confronting the interferer...not so usual with an amateur radio interferer] One problem with frequency coordination is the territoriality of thinking that a coordinate frequency is ONLY for the intended use and those not WITH a coordinator shouldn't be there. In model flying that would be the casual "park flyer" who is not a local club member. In amateur radio it is some casual user unaware of the "authorized" nature of coordinate frequencies; yet the FCC allows all the OPTION of using any allocated mode in any allocated band. The FCC catches that with the "do not interfere with another user" requirement common to every radio service. Problem is, interference still happens. :-) |
|
#6
November 2nd 06, 01:05 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
|
#7
November 2nd 06, 02:35 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
|
#8
November 3rd 06, 07:26 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
wrote: It's a much-ballyhooed MYTH that "CW" was essential to radio comms even during WWII. Was this a myth, Len? http://www.eham.net/articles/15064 Oh my, a nice emotional tribute to a father by his son, son reprinting his dad's poem. Tell us, Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis, what YOU did in World War II in the service of your country? Tell us what you did in ANY military branch. Tell us what you did as a civilian for the government. Can you? I don't think so. All you can do is crib from OTHERS' websites. The MAJOR communications modes of World War II were RTTY and VOICE. RTTY on HF for the brunt of messaging...and to handle encrypted traffic. Voice between aircraft, between ground vehicles, between foot soldiers, between all three of those with the other two. OOK CW was used, yes, but it was mainly by the USN. You seem oblivious to the fact that cruiser class and heavier used RTTY for command traffic and voice 'TBS' since 1940. Destroyer class and submarines used RTTY later in World War II (see a display of the 'SIGABA' at the USS Pompanito floating museum in the Bay Area...a TTY terminal modified for on-line encryption-decryption...the Pompanito is a submarine). SOME OOK CW was used in the Pacific Theater by the AAF during bombing raids over Japan...but the major comms were still VOICE between formation aircraft, plus the comms between them and "little friends" (P-51 escorts) all the way to and from Japan. SOME OOK CW was used on aircraft ferry missions, handled by specialist radiomen, but the single-engine aircraft made do with just voice. If you are going to babble about little portable 'QRP' rigs (like the mishandled 'Pogo Stick' and the "Angry-Nine"), I'll just toss in the first handie-talkie (available in early 1940) and the famous SCR-300 walkie-talkie, the backpack VHF radio used first in Italy then in Europe since 1943. VOICE, Jimmie, the instant stuff not hampered by having to write on message forms for the local ground commander to see...who has to compose a message to send back in reply. You just don't have ANY training in foot soldiering so quit trying to sound off like you "know" stuff in an era where you didn't exist. In the history of "Magic," the breaking of the Japanese high-level codes of 1940 to 1945, how did you think the intercepts got to Op-20-GY in DC? How do you think the decrypted intercepts were disseminated? By TTY, encrypted TTY for security. The Navy and the Army did that, the USN for HF radio relay, USA for wireline and terminal equipment. Do you really believe a rolling tank is a good place to send-receive morse code? Try it some time. Ride a tank. Ride a Bradley. Ride a true OFF-ROAD SUV and do it. In World War II the armor units used VOICE. Wasn't no time to futz around playing morseman when some enemy in another tank is out to destroy you. You just don't have time for retries in such situations. Did you think fighter pilots in a furball were going to do air-air comms in morse? At 200 to 300 Knots airspeed? You'd be nuts to think so. The medium and heavy bombers had gunners-first, specialties-second. The radio ops on B-17s and B-24s were mainly gunners, sometimes having to replace regular gunners in other positions. Bombardiers and navigators (both commissioned officers) had to do double- duty as gunners. The pilots relied on VOICE over their Command Sets to keep a formation intact. You can go over to the Army Center for Military History website and read a bunch of documents on land signals operations, find out that TTY was still a mainstay for written comms after 1942, VOICE for the field telephones, VHF-UHF radio relay for both (even DURING the famous Battle of the Bulge)...check out the land war in the Pacific and find out much the same. Even DURING World War II the days of manual morse code were beginning to diminish. It went completely out for comms in less than a half century afterwards. But, not to worry, for radio history you can always go to the ARRL and get THEIR version, the one glamorizing beeping during World War II. Was the ARRL *IN* WW II? Too long ago for just about all the Newington staff and Directors. YOU were never in the military service so you just don't know squat about the time you didn't exist. As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. |
|
#9
October 27th 06, 10:40 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, " wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am "Opus-" wrote in message Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help each other. Then why don't they? They *do*, Len. Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*? well to be far Robeson does insit he trying to help me when calls me a child molestor rapesit elderabuser Tax Fraud and welfare cheatm becuae I refuse to learn Mrose Code same for SC Military Imposter Robeson is one sick puppy. We can't expect him to improve his demeanor by himself. He is personally angry and frustrated, searching for something, anything in regards to personal "glory" via some kind of rank. perhaps the point you should making is that the OT are no longer enough in touch with reality to hel anybody including themselves and the ARS Those olde-tymers (who fear Evil No-Coders) are into the stubbornness of middle age. They want things THEIR way and everyone else can go to hell. QED. The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or understanding of the requirements. Nonsense. No, it's the truth. "Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who want things kept without change. Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this* newsgroup. Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The Requirements Should Be. Nobody says they do. Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-) They never did, despite all the pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches. No such "propaganda", Len. You've been Conditioned, Miccolis. Conditioned thinking stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you were able to read... It should be quite obvious that every other radio service has either given up on using morse code for communications or never considered it in the first place. Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use Morse Code - extensively. Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements, Miccolis. License TEST requirements. The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use, why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE? Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs to communicate with foreigners. That's true. But one of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service is international good will. Communicating with "foreigners" is one way to do that. ["boilerplate" political insert into the Basis & Purpose] So, exactly WHAT is this so-called "good will?" Has it stopped wars and armed conflict anywhere in the world? [No] Has it ended world hunger or even alleviated it? [No] Does this "good will" do ANYTHING? I don't know it does nothing I know I and other chated a bit about the Gonzales case with some cubans and may have promoted some understanding to help resolve that case (although it still should have gone better) The "Elian" affair is NOT about amateur radio policy. When was the last time the AMATEUR bands were used to save a life using radiotelegraphy? I would think saving a life would be the BEST good will possible. not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately. "Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands. The major (in population) nation administrations have dropped their morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of morse code. How do you know? :-) Try reading the No-Code International website and researching the statements in there. Those are true statements. It's a fact that at least some people use poorly-designed training methods. Did Moore School drill that into you? :-) Indeed, all other US radio services operating below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy. Why is that so important? It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking Believer. :-) It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't worth having a license TEST for it. Especially since the FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio- telegraphy for years. Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some special significance? It's not about 'special significance". Yes, it is. :-) See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements for 20 WPM code tests. See all the "gotta upgrade!" agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way over all other modes. The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all" have some innate ability to learn morse code. There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the written tests. Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time, cannot understand that a federal court decision in the early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC. :-) The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time. You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Jimmie? :-) No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-) I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. A few hundreds of thousands other recruits did the same in the 1950s. You NEVER did that. I took one as it happens when I was doing some work with a signal corps project that was looking a CW based NON Morse more app, I tested very poorly indeed The US military has kept the CW setting on front panel controls for years...but NOT for radiotelegraphy purposes. That is for remoting the operation of transmitters, almost always by wireline control. Land forces learned many decades ago to locate transmitters well away from Hq troops. Pro-coders will see such front panel control settings and immediately jump on their pro-code bandwagon shouting about "the military using radiotelegraphy" when they don't know squat about real field use of land force radios or the peripheral equipment for same. The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train them. The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]" topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie. Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun! The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways) and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty. You never did either one... btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2. Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof" of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"] World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has *never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-) a truce that could end at any minute I fear but still no need for cw ops to go man radios Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953). Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade. Problem is, olde-tymers are still brainwashed by glorious propaganda (from the boys in Newington) about World War II and (conveniently) forget that war ended 61 years ago. They still have dreams of glory and honor using "CW" and get angry when they are awakened to the reality of today. The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history. Who lobbied for those requirements, Len? ARRL, of course. :-) As they've bragged to anyone who can read, "they know what is best for amateur radio!" :-) As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations. The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already- licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already- licensed to be listened to over and above all other interested citizens. The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens. No kidding?!? :-) Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should" comment about amateur radio regulations? :-) and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I [they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the INTENT was plain as day at noontime. These pro-coder olde-tymers just do NOT want that code test to ever disappear. If it did they would lose their major Bragging Right (to glory and honor of telegraphic modes). It does NOT affect those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur. It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the worse because of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed would be affected. Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders to play with? :-) Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class. Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed. Go starve, you poor thing... Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected. "Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone against what you previously wrote. :-) Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource - the radio spectrum. So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS. So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes all the public safety radio services, railroad radio service, business radio, paging services. So does cellular telephony. So does the US government and US military. Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates* US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government. Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every* other radio service. A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared with many others. Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-) I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers. [I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) is a membership organization (about a quarter million members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both competition flying and for safety; there is special liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote control. How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30 MHz? Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for himself...and CAN'T. The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band- width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art (of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool" of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO (which is what they really are). they also 16 channeles within the Ham bands reseversed for Ham into RC and those units are allowed higher power levels than the rest Anyone remotely involved with the Model Hobby Industry will see the emphasis on the license-free "72 MHz" channels from ready- built remote control radios. With 80 channels to choose from it is NOT a problem at any event or weekend gathering of modelers together in one location. IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz. Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE 30 MHz? HAAAAA! Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?" Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications radio service? btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of *all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz. No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER radio services, including the Department of Defense, for frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-) Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they had to take. Why is that? No code test nor license was required. You may read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio Control Radio Service. They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF. Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95, did you? :-) The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF. Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-) They are allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their communications limited to line-of-sight. Amateur radio is very different. Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of models. Hello? It ain't about "communications" but about CONTROL BY RADIO. 0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight. To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all those slots are filled. Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power, small antennas and line-of-sight radio. Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF. NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate for interplanetary DX. A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long. How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-) Is that what you think amateur radio should be? Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at, much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that." You CRAPPED again, Jimmie. By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-) on 6 m I have one of those units Then that unit is bound to be affected by "legal" ham transmissions (AS IF interference with others is "legal") causing loss of control. Olde-tymers (causing such interference) will claim they have a "right" to do it. They "own" the band or something like that. :-( It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their 27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over by illegal cb operation. BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again. There were only SIX channels available in the original CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying, boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels. 80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem. well Honestlly Len allow me an R/C flyer to correct you at some shows their are problem with not being near enough frqs at some shows it is smaller scalle planes show that atract more fliers that have a problem was even promted some developement of 2/4 gig units Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do that a LOT in here... :-) The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather than the "operating." I started working in 1948 at Testor Chemical Company, working IN the model shop as a flunky doing the plan illustration. I've followed the Model Hobby Industry somewhat ever since. I don't claim "inside knowledge" on the R-C radios, only that I got interested in radios and electronics while seeing what the very first R-C planes could do with rudder-only control. [we are talking the Raytheon RK61 single-tube gas-filled tube regen receivers here smile with quite primitive mechanical control systems] Bang-bang control (full one way or the other, single neutral center), not the PWM proportional systems of today and two decades ago using single- and double-conversion solid- state receivers with (now) standardized control-stick transmitter boxes containing microprocessors. R-C has gotten rather sophisticated since its beginning. Last year had the first successful cross-Atlantic flight of a model aircraft, R-C for takeoff and landing with GPS-assisted mid- course control. One helluva good accomplishment for non- professional modelers! I think the website for that has been taken down but anyone can read about it in MAN or the two other newsstand magazines targeting R-C modeling. Some radio amateurs are still trying to promote radiotelegraphy AS IF this were still 1901 with Marconi getting his S in Newfoundland. :-) They think one MUST do the "CW" thing even if using a multi- conversion, DSP-enhanced, digitial-synthesis frequency control solid-state transceiver (using microprocessor assistance), ready-built off-the-shelf plug-and-play. All to bang the carrier ON or OFF in order to communicate! :-) 1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui. |
|
#10
October 27th 06, 11:24 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| shortwv | Shortwave | |||
| 178 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1402  June 25, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1402  June 25, 2004 | General | |||
| 214 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (09-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
Hybrid Mode
