thats the classic eastern european sound of homemade gear.

that and the tone that starts high and goes low as the dah dah dah
is sent.

dont worry, you get used to it.

We thought it was the sound of your head deflating after the Atlantic crossing.

On 16 Jul 2003 15:27:41 -0700, (Gary) wrote:

thats the classic eastern european sound of homemade gear.

that and the tone that starts high and goes low as the dah dah dah
is sent.

dont worry, you get used to it.

We thought it was the sound of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx after the Atlantic crossing.

i do believe that i have ''a convoy''

meg, dipstick and now garry

how quaint.

all i need now is an amstrad 902.

10-4!

zpk_12wpm wrote:.


that and the tone that starts high and goes low as the dah dah dah
is sent.

That one usually comes from Cuba

Some of us have ALWAYS built our own equipment. That's why
some of us became "hams" --- so we could test it out.....

Alas, most today are appliance operators. I can't, personally, see any
thrill at all in spending 2K for a rig designed and built by strangers, and
spending a month reading the manual learning how to use it...

Still, there's room in the hobby for all of us.

And, in fact, there's a whole lot of us that have more degrees and
licenses than can fit on a good sized wall.

Enjoy whatever facet of it you choose....

Andy W4OAH

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:53:15 UTC, Leigh
wrote:

"citizensband" wrote in
:

All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB,
unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never
be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off
the shelf these days.

What? I've never heard that. Folks should know how their radios
work, that's why the FCC exam includes "theory". There's never been
a requirement to bring in a Home Brew transceiver as part of the
exam.


.....and a true example of home-built radio was heard on 80m CW a week or
so ago - a Russian with homemade equipment that rasped CW more than broke
the carrier and was a wide signal.

Sort of knocks the 'build your own' case for Gareth into a cocked hat - not
easy to work or even work out who or where he was.

Leigh.....

I've been licensed for 35 years and I've only met one person who
built an SSB transceiver from scratch. I know lots of folk who
have the expertise to repair them and many have built kits.

de ah6gi/4
--

hey this could be a troll! ya think?
(plonk)

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html
"citizensband" wrote in message
...
All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB,
unless
you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to
build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these
days. Most people can't even be bothered, have no interest or don't have
the
time to build rigs anymore. Boatanchors should be used for exactly that,
anchoring boats!

Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken
you all!

tox

Leigh wrote:

"citizensband" wrote in
:

All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB,
unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never
be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off
the shelf these days.

.....and a true example of home-built radio was heard on 80m CW a week or
so ago - a Russian with homemade equipment that rasped CW more than broke
the carrier and was a wide signal.

Sort of knocks the 'build your own' case for Gareth into a cocked hat - not
easy to work or even work out who or where he was.

Leigh.....

You were probably hearing a keyed parasitic oscillation.

In article , Dick Carroll wrote:


Leigh wrote:

"citizensband" wrote in
:

All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB,
unless you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never
be able to build a rig that even comes close to what's available off
the shelf these days.

.....and a true example of home-built radio was heard on 80m CW a week or
so ago - a Russian with homemade equipment that rasped CW more than broke
the carrier and was a wide signal.

Sort of knocks the 'build your own' case for Gareth into a cocked hat - not
easy to work or even work out who or where he was.

You were probably hearing a keyed parasitic oscillation.

Yup. I am sorry to report that my first homebrew rig did the same thing
too.

Some of the eastern european folks I know are still rockbound, and some of
them are cutting their own crystals. This is a recipe for parasitics, or
at least it was when I tried doing it in high school.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"citizensband" wrote in message
...
All the garbage about how you should even be allowed to operate a CB,
unless
you are able to build your own equipment. Real Hams will never be able to
build a rig that even comes close to what's available off the shelf these
days. Most people can't even be bothered, have no interest or don't have
the
time to build rigs anymore. Boatanchors should be used for exactly that,
anchoring boats!

Time to stop whinging, and face the facts...Real Technology has overtaken
you all!

tox


In all honesty, unless go in for VERY low power ( 1Watt), the problem is
that you are going to have real problems ensuring that you don't generate
unacceptable levels of spurious emissions. To properly test things to the
standard required nowadays, with today's high density of electronic
equipment in any residential area, you will need test equipment costing much
more than a brand new 'off the shelf' set.
But it is certainly possible to design your own passive circuits, for
instance filters and traps, without this risk being involved.
If you are interested in DX, then a commercially designed receiver is going
to be much more sensitive and selective, of course. This is due to the fact
that a multinational company has the development resources that an
individual could only dream of.
Obviously, you do gain a lot of respect for designing your own circuits, and
you will attract a lot of interest by doing so! So I don't think that 'home
brew' will ever die out in it's entirety! DN

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I'll save you the bother of responding. They are being killed by CRIMINALS
using GUNS. Criminals will always have guns in this country, because
criminals, by definition, are not constrained by the moral necessity to
observe the law, including gun laws. Just ask any victim of gun crime in
Great Britain, where the law-abiding citizens have no rights to keep and
bear arms, and even sporting shotguns must be kept in gun club armories,
instead of in the owner's home. Over there, violent criminals have no
problem getting guns -- they're brought into the country by the SEALAND
container load under the watchful eye of Customs officers who have nice
fat pockets full of payoff money. They are quickly distributed throughout
the criminal and terrorist underground at obscene profits, and end up in
the hands of the same kinds of criminals that they've always ended up
in. Even unarmed criminals are having a "field day" of their own. They can
simply walk into the homes of innocent citizens, even in broad daylight,
since they know with absolute certainty that they will not be faced with the
barrel of a shotgun or a 9mm pistol, as they may have been years before.
The net result is that British citizens are being robbed and killed by
criminals with guns at a rate three times what it was before the country
went to total civil disarmament. Crimes against property have risen to
the point where it is now estimated that fully 50% of the British population
has been or will be crime victims within their lifetimes.

Can you point us to a source for that info, Larry?

Jim:

I don't know if I should. I'm about 14 years behind on receiving "sources"
I've requested from others in the past. However, start at www.nra.org. Also
check out www.fredoneverything.com (columnist Fred Reed).

It is a proven fact that everywhere in the United States where "Shall Issue"
Right-to-Carry concealed weapon laws exist, violent crime drops at a
dramatic rate.

Surce, please?

Axed and answered, sort of.

Your own home state of Texas is one of the leading examples.
It is also a proven fact that the only force that can stop a criminal with a
gun is a law-abiding citizen with another gun.

I assume you include law enforcement officers in that group.

Certainly.

You see, the guns don't
know who is using them -- they are inanimate objects which require a
responsible human agency to utilize them for good or evil. The best
solution to the problem of violent gun crime is to ensure that the criminals
have as much to fear from their victims as their victims have to fear from
them.

I disagree.

I think the best solution to the problem of violent gun crime is to ensure
that
the criminals have *MORE* to fear from their victims and the criminal justice
system as their victims have to fear from them.

Won't argue with that, Jim. I'm all for criminals being in fear.

BTW, If I were the owner of a convenience store, I'd have a special door
chime that played a .WAV of a 12-ga. pump-action shotgun being racked
every time someone came in after sundown.

And, you'd probably be local news.

Yeah. The story would be about why my store is never robbed.

There is nothing so stupid that some criminal won't try it. Heck, there was
at
least one case where a couple of guys tried to hold up a gun shop. Owner was
better armed and trained than they were. He's OK. They aren't.

Besides, total disarmament in this country would simply not work because
millions of law-abiding citizens would simply hide their guns and ammo.
Indeed, many non-gun-owners would go out and buy guns and ammo before
any ban went into effect.

Yep, they sure would! Look for that to start happening sometime in 2007,
when Hillary decides to run for President.

I still think the best arrangement would be to license gun owners, not their
weapons. If someone is an adult, law abiding, responsible taxpaying citizen
with a clean record, they should not have their rights infringed. OTOH,
children, people with serious mental problems, and criminals should not be
allowed to have any dangerous weapons. OF course the laws would have to be
structured to put the burden on the govt. to show why someone should not get
a license, not the other way around.

I'm all for that, Jim!

73 de Larry, K3LT