In article , Alun
writes:

Fessenden demonstrated voice modulated spark operation as early as
1900. His methods have been verified by actual tests using replica
transmitters and dummy loads.

Fessenden transmitted voice over one mile during December 1900, possibly
on the 12th, on Cobb Island, Maryland.

Yep. You can even listen to re-creations of what it may have sounded like
on-line. I posted the urls here some time back.

By 1903, he had reached 50 miles.

Of course in a way *almost all* spark transmitters use alternators, because
except for simple spark coils, they *all* use AC generated by alternators...

Fessenden's innovation was to use AC above the voice frequency range.

Brilliant guy. Over 500 patents, in a variety of fields.

Fessenden had a two-way transatlantic radiotelephone setup in operation
by November of 1906 using alternator RF sources.

The demo of Christmas Eve 1906 was repeated a week later (New Year's
Eve).

These events are well documented.

As is DeForrest's later voice coverage of the New York yacht race, using a
spark transmitter of the earlier type (no alternator) but using a
regenerative detector with a triode tube. I can't remember when that took
place, although it is in several books, but the triode (audion) patent
discloses the regenerative detector and was issued in 1907, so the yacht
race must have taken place around that period.

Practical regenerative detection is generally credited to Armstrong in 1915.
However, DeForest's use of voice communication at such an early date is another
historic fact.

Seems to me that Fessenden's transatlantic 2 way radiotelephone operation is
the most significant of these early developments. Less than 5 years after
Marconi claimed one-time one-way reception of a single coded letter, Fessenden
had practical, repeatable, two-way voice transatlantic radio communications
over a longer path, using much less power.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

Fessenden demonstrated voice modulated spark operation as early as
1900. His methods have been verified by actual tests using replica
transmitters and dummy loads.

Fessenden transmitted voice over one mile during December 1900,
possibly on the 12th, on Cobb Island, Maryland.

Yep. You can even listen to re-creations of what it may have sounded
like on-line. I posted the urls here some time back.

By 1903, he had reached 50 miles.

Of course in a way *almost all* spark transmitters use alternators,
because except for simple spark coils, they *all* use AC generated by
alternators...

Fessenden's innovation was to use AC above the voice frequency range.

Brilliant guy. Over 500 patents, in a variety of fields.

Fessenden had a two-way transatlantic radiotelephone setup in
operation by November of 1906 using alternator RF sources.

The demo of Christmas Eve 1906 was repeated a week later (New Year's
Eve).

These events are well documented.

As is DeForrest's later voice coverage of the New York yacht race,
using a spark transmitter of the earlier type (no alternator) but using
a regenerative detector with a triode tube. I can't remember when that
took place, although it is in several books, but the triode (audion)
patent discloses the regenerative detector and was issued in 1907, so
the yacht race must have taken place around that period.

Practical regenerative detection is generally credited to Armstrong in
1915.

'Empire of the Air' (both the TV show and the book) claimed that Armstrong
came up with regeneration in 1911. De Forrest's patent pre-dated that by
another four years, and he won the court case. How could it ever have been
in doubt, when Armstrong's 'eureka' moment was four years after DeForrest
had the patent in his hand?

Armstrong seemed to rely on the argument that DeForrest didn't understand
what he had done, which is a lame argument to say the least. Maybe he
didn't understand what he had done, but he still did it first.

However, DeForest's use of voice communication at such an early
date is another
historic fact.

Seems to me that Fessenden's transatlantic 2 way radiotelephone
operation is the most significant of these early developments. Less
than 5 years after Marconi claimed one-time one-way reception of a
single coded letter, Fessenden had practical, repeatable, two-way voice
transatlantic radio communications over a longer path, using much less
power.

73 de Jim, N2EY




Undoubtedly. Do you know what types of transmitter and receiver were used
in 1906?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

N2EY wrote:


The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.



It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it. Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".
And who hasn't, by mistake, operate the wrong mode in some subband? Like
answering a foreign phone CQ on 7140? Oops... Most people will not make
a habit of doing that, but once or twice over the years. The FCC
realizes that
errors do happen, and that most people will realize the error and
correct it themselves
without the FCC having to do anything about it.




































jgjyujklo;fgd

Robert Casey wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.

It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it.

I think it all comes down to complaints, too.

Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".

That's very true.

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

(similar to the above anticodetest argument - and just as incomplete).

And who hasn't, by mistake, operate the wrong mode in some subband?

Me. I've *never* done that. Not by mistake, not intentionally either.

Like
answering a foreign phone CQ on 7140?

Not even once.

Oops... Most people will not make
a habit of doing that, but once or twice over the years.

Mistakes happen. But when you read the FCC enforcement letters, it
becomes clear that mistakes, particularly technical ones, aren't
really much of a problem anymore in the ARS.

The FCC realizes that
errors do happen, and that most people will realize the error and
correct it themselves
without the FCC having to do anything about it.

That's why we have OOs. The OO program was instituted so that hams
would find out about such problem from each other rather than FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 4 Dec 2003 09:26:52 -0800, N2EY wrote:

Mistakes happen. But when you read the FCC enforcement letters, it
becomes clear that mistakes, particularly technical ones, aren't
really much of a problem anymore in the ARS.

Technical mistakes were, and I would guess still are, handled by
less formal warnings (a phone call or an Advisory Notice rather than
a Notice of Violation or a Notice of Apparent Liability to
Forfeiture, for instance) at least the first time around.

Whatever works.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

N2EY wrote:

Robert Casey wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:



The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.



It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it.



I think it all comes down to complaints, too.



Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".



That's very true.

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and
it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing. At least be able
to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and
such. Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their
equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to modify his
radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could. It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker. I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Sure.

Just like how the FCC allows us to send and receive Morse code on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Neither the use of Morse code nor the construction/modification of equipment is
mandatory. Many hams enjoy amateur radio without doing either.

At least be able to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and such.

Sure.

Just like being at least be able to recognize most of the 43 symbols of the
Morse Code when sent at the very slow speed of 5 wpm.

Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to
modify his radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could.

Yet they often do just that.

It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker.

Usually such modifications require the high level of technical skill required
to cut the blue wire or crush diode D17....

And such modifications are not mandatory at all. Most hams today use certified
equipment, do they not?

Which is more common on the amateur HF bands: hams using homebrew/seriously
modified equipment, or hams using Morse code?

Do you really think the written exams adequately test whether a ham can build
or modify amateur radio equipment - particularly considering the wide range of
bands, modes and technologies usable by hams?

I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

IMHO they've been gradually watering down the theory tests for over 25 years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Sure.

Just like how the FCC allows us to send and receive Morse code on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Bzzt, passing a code test is NOT required to use morse code
on ALL ham bands. A "no-code" tech is free touse morse
at whatever speed or skill level (or lack of skill level) one
wants to. I have no recollection of anyone ever being cited by
the FCC for "sloppy" or too slow a code speed. Have you?

At least be able to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and such.

Sure.

Just like being at least be able to recognize most of the 43 symbols of
the
Morse Code when sent at the very slow speed of 5 wpm.

That isn't a requirement in terms of actual use of morse.

Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to
modify his radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could.

Yet they often do just that.

You know anyone that modified their cellphone? CBs we know about,
cellphones...I doubt it.

It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker.

Usually such modifications require the high level of technical skill
required
to cut the blue wire or crush diode D17....

And such modifications are not mandatory at all. Most hams today use
certified
equipment, do they not?

Certified against what?

Which is more common on the amateur HF bands: hams using
homebrew/seriously
modified equipment, or hams using Morse code?

Do you really think the written exams adequately test whether a ham can
build
or modify amateur radio equipment - particularly considering the wide
range of
bands, modes and technologies usable by hams?

Did the novice test, even in 1960 adequuately do that? I say no, yet
those novices were also free to "homebrew" or build it themselves.

I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

IMHO they've been gradually watering down the theory tests for over 25
years.

Frankly, the General test of 1960 wasn't all that theory difficult. Many of
us just memorized some formulas and some circuit diagrams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK