| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
November 28th 03, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Alun
writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in : In article , (N2EY) writes: In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. Not to the FCC. In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a "spark" transmitter), The alternator was driving a spark gap, so it was a spark transmitter. Not only that, but there was a circuit known before that to keep a spark gap continuously energised without using an alternator, and that had actually been used by Duddell to transmit voice, although originally invented by someone else for arc lights (much the same thing as spark tansmitters in many ways, anyway!). The Thomas H. White "Early Radio History" pages on the Internet give the details on Fessenden's audio experiments and includes several photographs. [I've given the website address in here] The carbon-arc lamp was not a Fessenden innovation nor is it related to "radio." :-) Fessenden's innovation was to run the alternator at 80 kHz, i.e. well above audio. Before that, only telegraphy transmitters could use alternators, which enabled you to run kilowatts instead of just a few watts, amplifiers having yet to be invented and detectors of the day being very 'deaf'. From what I can see in the history, Reginald Fessenden's only "innovation" was to connect a specially-designed carbon microphone in series with the LF transmitter's antenna lead and then say it was a "voice and music transmitter." :-) Let's just say that the great voice broadcast of 1906 was PRIMITIVE insofar as technology was concerned. :-) Even if the early radio receivers were also of low sensitivity, they could receive AM. Most of the radio amateur's spark transmitters of those pre-WW1 times used arc repetition rates of less than a KiloHertz and were therefore distinguishable from atmospheric noise...they were, essentially, AM detectors. There isn't any recorded radio industry history of any rush to get into radio broadcasting by the Fessenden "AM" of 1900 through into the post-WW1 period, regardless of the high-tech of those times. Broadcasting would have to wait for improvement of the vacuum tube...and broadcasting was the driving industry of radio development up to 1920 or so. Voice and music broadcasting, not by morse code. :-) ...and not by having high-heat mikes sitting in antenna leads series modulating the amplitude of the transmitters... :-) :-) :-) :-) -------- The deliberate misdirection of a few regulars in here is to get well away from the subject of morse code and any test requirement. The nit-picking on the type/kind of Fessenden AM transmitter is one thing and those regulars distort recorded historical information on voice transmission. One even goes so far to introduce cellular telephones with the insistence that "turning on a cell phone handset automatically establishes contact with the nearest cell site" which it does NOT. Such is misdirection from the difference between the power-on control with the actual call/transmit control on the handset. Such things result in lots of "angry" words of denunciation occupying lots of time NOT about the code test. The claim that proficiency in morse code results in "more ethical, more polite radio operators" is another one of the misdirections, along with all the other pre-WW2 mythos and fairystories about morse code pervading the psyches of devout morsemen. :-) Happy holidays, Alun, LHA |
|
#3
November 28th 03, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in
: In article , Alun writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in : In article , (N2EY) writes: In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. Not to the FCC. In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a "spark" transmitter), The alternator was driving a spark gap, so it was a spark transmitter. Not only that, but there was a circuit known before that to keep a spark gap continuously energised without using an alternator, and that had actually been used by Duddell to transmit voice, although originally invented by someone else for arc lights (much the same thing as spark tansmitters in many ways, anyway!). The Thomas H. White "Early Radio History" pages on the Internet give the details on Fessenden's audio experiments and includes several photographs. [I've given the website address in here] The carbon-arc lamp was not a Fessenden innovation nor is it related to "radio." :-) Try reading what I actually said a bit more carefully, Len. What I said was that a previous circuit was known that was borrowed from arc lamp technology, which enabled a spark to be continuous, in turn allowing 'phone to be transmitted by spark. This was done by Prof Duddell, FRS, and pre-dated Fessenden's 1900 experiment. I did not say that Fessenden used this system in this experiment, but it is known that he was familiar with it. The cutting edge state of the art for telegraphy at the time was to excite a spark gap with an alternator, which allowed a large power output (kW) in those days before amplifiers. Spark phone was known, as per Duddell's system, but if you tried to use an alternator the problem was that the output frequency of any normal alternator was in the audible range, and constiuted a whine drowning out your voice, whereas in telegraphy it just gave each station's dits and dahs a distinctive tone. Fessenden overcame this problem by having special high frequency alternators built to order by Poulsen, who was also considered to be a major figure in the early days of radio. Fessenden's innovation was to run the alternator at 80 kHz, i.e. well above audio. Before that, only telegraphy transmitters could use alternators, which enabled you to run kilowatts instead of just a few watts, amplifiers having yet to be invented and detectors of the day being very 'deaf'. From what I can see in the history, Reginald Fessenden's only "innovation" was to connect a specially-designed carbon microphone in series with the LF transmitter's antenna lead and then say it was a "voice and music transmitter." :-) I'm afraid you are completely mistaken. This is a subject that I have researched quite a bit. There is a very old book by someone called Laughter that goes into a great deal of detail, and another informative work by Fleming, who just happens to also be the inventor of the vacuum tube. I have photocopied the relevant parts of both books. Neither are these my sole sources. Fessenden patented exactly this same system, and as I am a patent agent, it should not surprise you that I have read the patent. I have also read through the archives kept in the house where the experiments took place, and have discussed it all at length on the air with Bob Jeter, AG3B, a resident of the island. I do, in fact, live in the same county myself, so it is local history. Let's just say that the great voice broadcast of 1906 was PRIMITIVE insofar as technology was concerned. :-) Even if the early radio receivers were also of low sensitivity, they could receive AM. Most of the radio amateur's spark transmitters of those pre-WW1 times used arc repetition rates of less than a KiloHertz and were therefore distinguishable from atmospheric noise...they were, essentially, AM detectors. There isn't any recorded radio industry history of any rush to get into radio broadcasting by the Fessenden "AM" of 1900 through into the post-WW1 period, regardless of the high-tech of those times. Broadcasting would have to wait for improvement of the vacuum tube...and broadcasting was the driving industry of radio development up to 1920 or so. Voice and music broadcasting, not by morse code. :-) ...and not by having high-heat mikes sitting in antenna leads series modulating the amplitude of the transmitters... :-) :-) :-) :-) -------- The deliberate misdirection of a few regulars in here is to get well away from the subject of morse code and any test requirement. I am against code testing, as you ought to know by now. I am just pointing out that you have an erroneous understanding of Fessenden's work. The nit-picking on the type/kind of Fessenden AM transmitter is one thing and those regulars distort recorded historical information on voice transmission. If you post something inaccurate on Usenet, nitpicking will follow like night follows day. That's the way it is. One even goes so far to introduce cellular telephones with the insistence that "turning on a cell phone handset automatically establishes contact with the nearest cell site" which it does NOT. Such is misdirection from the difference between the power-on control with the actual call/transmit control on the handset. Such things result in lots of "angry" words of denunciation occupying lots of time NOT about the code test. The claim that proficiency in morse code results in "more ethical, more polite radio operators" is another one of the misdirections, along with all the other pre-WW2 mythos and fairystories about morse code pervading the psyches of devout morsemen. :-) Happy holidays, Alun, LHA |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS: Antique Test Equipment - collectible | Boatanchors | |||
| FS: Antique Test Equipment - collectible | Boatanchors | |||
| Tantalums and test eqpt. | Homebrew | |||
| My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC | Policy | |||
| replace cw test with typing test! | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
