Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Alun
writes: I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_ subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning. Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold much water today: 'Phone signals take up far more spectrum than code signals. Back in the days when full carrier DSB AM was king, the ratio was even worse than it is with SSB. Ten to twenty code signals in the space of one AM 'phone signal is about right. Not to mention the whistles from heterodyning carriers. If you're going to argue about non-related privs, then why should anyone have to learn about VHF/UHF to use HF, or vice versa? Why require knowledge of 'phone and image to operate CW? Why require theory to operate manufactured equipment? Why require anyone to learn anything they don't think they'll use? Or anyhting they don't like? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |