|
"R Harrison" wrote in message news:CEfjb.12$Eb
... What would you rather, the frequency used, or lost, because of an outdated and backward looking 'elite' RH (G1EZV) The PCTA would answer "LOST." They really don't care. Brian |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: snip 1906 - (December 24 & 31) Christmas Eve broadcast of both recorded and live music and voice from Massachusetts. Signals heard all over North Atlantic and coastal areas. Inland as far as New York State. Broadcast *repeated* New Year's Eve. Quit misdirecting with olde tyme raddio lore. Quit trying to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup. That's your game, Rev. Jim. Come up with the way anyone can make a spark transmitter amplitude modulated for intelligible voice or music communication... using a microphone in the antenna circuit of a 1 KW transmitter. Why? That's not what Fessenden did. So what did Fessenden do? Come up with the way a spark transmitter suddenly turns into an Alexanderson Alternator whenever it is brought up in an amateur radio newsgroup. That's your game, Len. What's your game, Jim? |
|
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... (N2EY) wrote What level of written testing would you have if FCC adopts your 2 class structure? Two levels. A beginers level similar to our current Technician examination, with a modest limit on power, and a non-renewable 10-year term. A regular level similar to our current Extra examination, with power levels of 1.5KW as now. Making the second level license examination equivalent to the current Extra examination sounds like it would drive people out of ham radio. That's simply too big a jump to expect people to take in one swallow so to speak especially since this would affect current Technicians who entered the licensing program under a system with 3 tiers (or more for those who entered several years ago). It would also take away privileges from existing Techs in that they are now receive renewable licenses but would not under that proposal. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Bill Sohl" writes: (old stuff removed) (N2EY wrote:) Why is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify and most of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when it's the same rig? Actually, when you think about it...ANYONE is allowed to design, build, repair, align and/or modify ham equipment...it is ONLY the "operate" part that ultimately requires the license. Excellent point! However, in the interests of strict correctness, note that equipment which is manufactured for sale has to meet certain certification requirements which licensed hams ar exempt from. In the case of RF power amplifiers, a licensed amateur can homebrew things no manufacturer can legally sell. Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical incompetence are very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any particular license class. So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech? Jim, you keep bringing up what you believe are analogies to the ode test issue and I'm not gonna play anymore. the argument(s) fail to convince the FCC and I don't see you making them to the FCC either. If and when someone attempts to petiton for the changes you suggest are analogous...then I'll argue further. The code test issue will be decided by FCC one way or the other, sooner or later. I'm not worried about it, they'll decide whatever they decide. My concern is simply that if someone or some group starts using the same arguments against much of the writtens, they're going to be difficult to defend. That is your opinion...I think otherwise. You and I can join forces to defend writtens...if and when someone does try to end writtens. Frankly, I don't think it'll happen on my watch. Reading the KL7CC article, and seeing the recent drop in new Techs that correlates exactly to the new Tech Q&A pool got me thinking, that's all. You are talking about it, I'm done playing. No reason to do so. OK, fine. As I pointed out to W0EX, we disagree about lots of things. I hope you are right about it not becoming an issue. Time will tell. When I see something that looks like an NPRM, I'll comment. Me too! Hopefully, FCC will agree with us. Until the FCC makes a propsed rulmaking using any of that as a basis, its a waste of time. I do hope you're right Works for me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message . net... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing "devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ... I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and "more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...). Carl, It isn't about you. You know a bit about politics it is obvious. But you are falling prey to a common malady among politicians. It isn't about you. You don't support the watering down of the writtens. That's great, and I agree and support you in that effort 100 percent. I also support you in your BPL efforts. 100 percent again. But there are people out there who agree with part of your premise about the CW test, but not all of it. They don't think that removing the CW Morse test is enough. They want more. (or less if you wish to look at it that way) Right now, things are going their way. Maybe not for your reasons, but they like what they see happening. Just who are those people...the THEY want folks that you think exists. The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a more technically inclined ARS. Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon. All apologies No apologies needed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... [snip] How will we counter that argument? One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples' minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD ideas ... Carl - wk3c |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Hans K0HB) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote On-off keying was adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just practical applied physics. Nothing else. Oh ****, you got it wrong again! Now you've done it. Rev Jim will stop reading at this point ?(unless he invokes the PCTA double standard). In Boston, on Christmas Eve of 1906, modulating a spark transmitter, Reginald Fessenden made a holiday broadcast of a short spoken introduction, some recorded Christmas music, and played "Oh Holy Night" on a violin. Did you enjoy it? What antenna (aerial) did you use? What detector (receiver) did you use? Obviously on-off keying was not the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE (your emphasis) for early ("spark") radio to allow communications. MIG, TIG, or ordinary ARC welding? "Dear Mother Anderson, your son Leonard is failing in practical applied physics. Perhaps he would benefit from a stint in the Army to learn a useful trade." Sunuvagun! Good luck on this one now. Dear Mother Brakob, Your offspring is once again confused, perhaps suffering from dittybopper dementia from spending too much time listening to beeping or seminarian studies of official documents from Newington. The following is a direct quote from the Special Commemorative Issue of McGraw-Hill's "Electronics" magazine of April 17, 1980, page 75, right-hand column, section titled "History before 1930." That issue is 650 pages total, was printed in celebration of 50 years of "Electronics" magazine existance. STOP! Do not attempt to inject authority into the equation. "The broadcast television that followed two decades later, would, of course, not have been possible without proper transmitters, receivers, modulators, demodulars, etc. --or, in other words, without proper radio. The world had been introduced in the potential of such a radio system as far back as 1906, when on Christmas Eve Prof. Reginal A. Fesenden of Harvard University made the first documented radio broadcast of speech and music. For this feat, he used a 50-KHz Alexanderson alternator, manufactured by the General Electric Co. Telegraph operators on ships crossing the North Atlantic were surprised on the historic night to hear music coming out of earphones that previously had emitted nothing but dots and dashes. Fessenden modulated the alternator's 1-KW output simply by putting a microphone in series with the antenna of his experimental station at Brant Rock, Mass. It is likely, but not certain, that the microphone was water-cooled." Imagine if he had forgotten where he had put his microphone, re Larry, Dick, an Moe. Mother Brakob, please point out, highlight if necessary with a yellow marker pen, that the transmitter was an ALTERNATOR, not the damped-wave "spark" type your son scribbled in angry crayon. Specifically, an ALEXANDERSON ALTERNATOR. ONE KILOWATT output. Alex-ANDERSON has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? You may wish to give your son a primer on electricity explaining power losses in resistive conductors. That is important considering the microphone used by Fessenden was IN SERIES WITH THE ANTENNA CARRYING CURRENT SUFFICIENT FOR ONE KILOWATT RADIO FREQUENCY POWER OUTPUT. Best of good luck on that one, Mother Brakob. [you are going to need it] LHA Wonder if Mother Brakob lived in a shoe? PS: You may wish to contact ARRL psychiatric services privately for a list of competent mental health professionals in your area who are specialists in the dementia of dittybopper data distortion attempted on historical facts gathered by professional publishers. Cudbe a Jody song for the USN? |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com