"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

My job is like that. The building is really well shielded
and I wanted to run an inconspicuous 30/40m SW+
QRP rig from my desk.


We took this apartment (paid for by the VA) to allow my wife to easily
attend school just down the street. Sadly, there is enough metal in this
building to build a few dozen Army tanks. Even worse, the apartment is
directly above the owner's apartment and he likes to spend a great amount of
time outdoors on the patios out back (the front is directly above the office
entrance). I've tried several homebrew internal antennas, but none of them
would allow me to consistently hit a repeater just a few miles away. We're
hoping that, once the owner gets used to us, he'll eventually allow a small
antenna. But, as it is now, the only way to talk on the radio at home is to
walk out onto the balcony (and the metal in the building even effects that).

Well, from the information you've provided, I can safely assume that
your apartment is at least on the second floor. (Unless your landlord
lives in the basement.) You can probably get away with operating at
night with a wire hung from the balcony with a tuner. 40m is hoppin'
at night and you certainly don't need much power to work distant
stations reliably. I fired up my 40m Small Wonders SW+ QRP rig for the
first time yesterday and promptly worked a chap in Rochester, NY. I
received a RST report of 459 with only 2.5 Watts, simply amazing! Of
course, these are just helpful suggestions...YMMV.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
We took this apartment (paid for by the VA) to allow my wife to easily
attend school just down the street. Sadly, there is enough metal in this
building to build a few dozen Army tanks. Even worse, the apartment is
directly above the owner's apartment and he likes to spend a great amount of
time outdoors on the patios out back (the front is directly above the office
entrance). I've tried several homebrew internal antennas, but none of them
would allow me to consistently hit a repeater just a few miles away. We're
hoping that, once the owner gets used to us, he'll eventually allow a small
antenna. But, as it is now, the only way to talk on the radio at home is to
walk out onto the balcony (and the metal in the building even effects that).

Here ya go, Dwight. Came across this and thought about your situation.
This one's already built and for the Novice portion of 40. (Add
Element 1 to your Tech ticket and viola.) Good luck in any case.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 74

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Well, from the information you've provided, I can safely
assume that your apartment is at least on the second
floor. (Unless your landlord lives in the basement.) You
can probably get away with operating at night with a
wire hung from the balcony with a tuner. (snip)


I've given up on this place. There is simply no hope of getting a decent
signal out of here. My wife finishes school next year. Until then, I'm prety
much stuck with mobile operation.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

Well, from the information you've provided, I can safely
assume that your apartment is at least on the second
floor. (Unless your landlord lives in the basement.) You
can probably get away with operating at night with a
wire hung from the balcony with a tuner. (snip)


I've given up on this place. There is simply no hope of getting a decent
signal out of here. My wife finishes school next year. Until then, I'm pretty
much stuck with mobile operation.

No way! Don't give up and lose a whole year of desktop operating.
Check this out:

This: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 74

....plus this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 72

....& maybe this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=48 711

Equals worldwide DX. Approx. 2 bills all said and done.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge
of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur
radio operator. There are two higher classes which require
a code test.


Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than
Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse code
is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator.

Dwight:

I didn't deny that they were "amateur radio operators," I just clarified the
fact that they are *entry-level* amateur radio operators.

If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will
simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as
a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e.
petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which
support them.

No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of the
world around us. Larry.

"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is
fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We
note, moreover, that the design of modern communications
systems, including personal communication services, satellite,
fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies. We also note that
no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to
receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are designed to be
automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred
in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that
reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a
licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as
it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them
to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196

I am quite familiar with the text of the Restructuring R&O, Dwight. The
FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors
who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good reason.
The FCC, if they can get the code testing requirement lifted, faces a smaller
administrative burden in running the ARS licensing system, an important
consideration since the ARS is an economically irrelevant communications
service. For this reason, I fully expect code testing to be abolished. I am
certain that it *will* happen.

The exact same arguments could be made when talking about the elimination
of the Element 1(a) code test.

And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge
of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur
radio operator. There are two higher classes which require
a code test.


Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than
Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse
code
is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator.

Dwight:

I didn't deny that they were "amateur radio operators," I just clarified
the
fact that they are *entry-level* amateur radio operators.

If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will
simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as
a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e.
petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which
support them.

No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of
the
world around us. Larry.

"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is
fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We
note, moreover, that the design of modern communications
systems, including personal communication services, satellite,
fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies. We also note that
no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to
receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are designed to be
automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred
in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that
reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a
licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as
it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them
to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196

I am quite familiar with the text of the Restructuring R&O, Dwight. The
FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors
who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good
reason.

Translation: "Because Larry doesn't agree with the FCC's determinations,
it's "pandering" ..."

And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial. NCI doesn't even have
mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life. What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c


Whether or not they're being honest or just spiteful, there's a lot of
hams that accuse the largest ham radio equipment producers of
financing the "beat the morse code" campaign (as they see it)...
the implied reasoning is that the producers & manufacturers stand
to gain more profit if the code testing is dropped and more hams
flood the market and buy thier products. A little too conspiratorial
for me but there's many who buy it.

Clint

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial.

Carl:

Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an
unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources.

NCI doesn't even have
mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life.

That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's
funding sources.

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC. This is where
the FCC's true mission exists, and to a far greater extent than in what
is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio). Even the "money"
you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs
and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a
spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial
broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the
FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from
amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest
extent possible. The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce
licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep
from repeatedly dealing with the same issues.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial.

Carl:

Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an
unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources.

The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

NCI doesn't even have
mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life.

That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's
funding sources.

I was just trying to address what appeared to be a "someone's going
to make money off of this" scenario ... your text came across that way.

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions
by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?

This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

and to a far greater extent than in what
is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio).

YOU view it as primarily a hobby ... and it is a hobby, but the
FCC and Congress look at it as a public service *provided
for free to society* by folks who do it as a hobby. They also
value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that
increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics.

Even the "money"
you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs
and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a
spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial
broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the
FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from
amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest
extent possible.

Sure, services that affect/are used by 10's of millions of people will
get more attention ... that's logical.

The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce
licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep
from repeatedly dealing with the same issues.

That's nonsense ... all they have to do is set reasonable, logical,
and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns.
Just because some yahoo asks them to do something stupid
(like the Petitions for Reconsideration that came out immediately
after restucturing, asking the FCC to re-institute 13 and 20 wpm
code tests) doesn't mean they have to honor them ... such nonsense
should be summarily dismissed with virtually no consumption of
FCC resources.

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by
any manufacturer ...)

All that's really happened so far in the "current round" is a flurry of
petitions. There are more in process that don't have RM numbers yet.

Back during the restructuring NPRM, there were comments from manufacturers.

In fact, the most-often-quoted-by-FCC commenter in the R&O to 98-143 wasn't
ARRL or NCI or NCVEC or some individual radio amateur.

It was Kenwood.

73 de Jim, N2EY