Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
 

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

........

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

........


d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz. This
allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The use
of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for the
frequencies concerned.


e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as of
this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While this
restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage" equipment,
it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a General
Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph, is
no longer an issue.

(end quote)

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz. This
allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The
use
of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for the
frequencies concerned.

e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as of
this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While
this
restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage" equipment,
it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a General
Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph, is
no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

It isn't on the NCI website. It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website. It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

Is it on the ARRL website? If so, provide the LINK for it.

Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?" That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal? If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz.
This
allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The
use
of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for
the
frequencies concerned.

e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as
of
this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While
this
restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage"
equipment,
it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a
General
Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph,
is
no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?

From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it yesterday
and read it. Didn't you?

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did not
match the news release?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an NPRM.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you know
where to look.

It isn't on the NCI website.

It's not an NCI petition.

It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.

It's not a Newsline petition either.

It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by ol'
Fast Freddie.

Is it on the ARRL website?

I don't know. That's not where I got it.

If so, provide the LINK for it.

Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone else
here orders?

Why should I help you find the new NCVEC petition, Len, given the way you
behave here? Will you act in a civil manner towards me if I help you? Or will I
simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad jokes, and
other abuse?

Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?"

No.

I am referring to, and quoting, the new NCVEC proposal. The one mentioned in
the news release. Don't you have a copy yet, Len? If not, why are you
commenting on something you haven't read?

That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].

That's not where I found it.

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal?

I'm not talking about the ARRL proposal. I'm talking about the new NCVEC
proposal.

If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.

Is that an order? Who are you to give me or anyone else here orders?

I'm quoting from the new NCVEC petition. It's online, available for download.
Took me about 2 minutes to find it, once I realized that the links posted were
to the old NCVEC petition, not the new one.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.

Then what's your problem, Len? If it's not a real petition, why are you all
worked up about it?

Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz.

This

allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The

use

of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for

the

frequencies concerned.

e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as

of

this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While

this

restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage"

equipment,

it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a

General

Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph,

is

no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?


From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it yesterday
and read it. Didn't you?
I think he's talking about th eNECVEC propoasal, not the NCVEC
proposal, Jim!



The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!


Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did not
match the news release?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.


They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an NPRM.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?


Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".


You must be mistaken Jim.

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you know
where to look.

Got that one on all my computers. The NCVEC does indeed seem to have
power limits on the newbies. The NECVEC proposal must be different.


It isn't on the NCI website.


It's not an NCI petition.

Go figure, eh?


It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.


It's not a Newsline petition either.

LIB!


It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.


It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by ol'
Fast Freddie.

You bet.

Is it on the ARRL website?


I don't know. That's not where I got it.


If so, provide the LINK for it.


Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone else
here orders?


It's not on the arrl website Jim. So I doubt you could provide a link! 8^)

Why should I help you find the new NCVEC petition, Len, given the way you
behave here? Will you act in a civil manner towards me if I help you? Or will I
simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad jokes, and
other abuse?


Remember good manners are a sign of weakness, Jim!


Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?"


No.

I am referring to, and quoting, the new NCVEC proposal. The one mentioned in
the news release. Don't you have a copy yet, Len? If not, why are you
commenting on something you haven't read?


That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].


That's not where I found it.

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal?


I'm not talking about the ARRL proposal. I'm talking about the new NCVEC
proposal.


If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.


Is that an order? Who are you to give me or anyone else here orders?

I'm quoting from the new NCVEC petition. It's online, available for download.
Took me about 2 minutes to find it, once I realized that the links posted were
to the old NCVEC petition, not the new one.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.


Then what's your problem, Len? If it's not a real petition, why are you all
worked up about it?

Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits:
.......

no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?

From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it
yesterday and read it. Didn't you?

I think he's talking about th eNECVEC propoasal, not the NCVEC
proposal, Jim!

Something like that.

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of
the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did
not match the news release?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an
NPRM.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".

You must be mistaken Jim.

Not me.

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you
know where to look.

Got that one on all my computers.

Easy to find, wasn't it?

The NCVEC does indeed seem to have
power limits on the newbies.

100 W below 24 MHz, 50 W above.

The NECVEC proposal must be different.

Don't hold yer breath waiting to see the "NECVEC" proposal.

It isn't on the NCI website.

It's not an NCI petition.

Go figure, eh?

Exactly.

It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.

It's not a Newsline petition either.

LIB!

?? I don't know that one, Mike.

It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by
ol' Fast Freddie.

You bet.

There's a guy used to getting his way.

Is it on the ARRL website?

It's not an ARRL petition.

I don't know. That's not where I got it.

If so, provide the LINK for it.

Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone
else here orders?

It's not on the arrl website Jim. So I doubt you could provide a link! 8^)

I could provide a link in a few seconds. But why should I? Len's a
self-proclaimed "professional in radio" - he doesn't need my help, does he?

Why should I help you find the new NCVEC petition, Len, given the way you
behave here? Will you act in a civil manner towards me if I help you? Or
will I
simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad jokes, and
other abuse?

Remember good manners are a sign of weakness, Jim!

Never heard that one.

Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?"

No.

I am referring to, and quoting, the new NCVEC proposal. The one mentioned
in
the news release. Don't you have a copy yet, Len? If not, why are you
commenting on something you haven't read?

The world wonders.

That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].

That's not where I found it.

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal?

I'm not talking about the ARRL proposal. I'm talking about the new NCVEC
proposal.

If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.

Is that an order? Who are you to give me or anyone else here orders?

I'm quoting from the new NCVEC petition. It's online, available for
download.
Took me about 2 minutes to find it, once I realized that the links posted
were
to the old NCVEC petition, not the new one.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.

Then what's your problem, Len? If it's not a real petition, why are you all
worked up about it?

Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded
from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.

So what do you think of the NCVEC petition in its entirety, Mike? Not the press
release, the actual petition.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And note this: All of these petitions are simply delaying any new restructuring
NPRM. We won't even see an NPRM until both the ARRL and NCVEC petitions get RM
numbers and have comment periods.

And Hans hasn't done his proposal yet.

The ARRL estimate of two years looks like it was too soon!

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

"Quote" from WHAT?

From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it yesterday
and read it. Didn't you?

There's only ONE "actual NCVEC petition," RM-10787.

Downloaded that one a long time ago...first of September 2003.

There's one OTHER proposal which has been tossed about under
"Ham radio for the 21st Century" title. That's been out for a while
too and I've had that in the download folder. It is NOT in any FCC
Notice as any "RM" (petition for Rule Making).

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of
the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did not
match the news release?

I noticed the exact similarity of the posted link download after viewing
it, that's why I commented.

I don't eagerly view each and every download as it comes in. I just
use "save as" to download PDFs and DOCs in the background while
I surf elsewhere.

Was I supposed to check in with you first or what?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an
NPRM.

Obviously NOT. The LAST comment on RM-10787 was made over
four months ago.

The ECFS files on NPRM 98-143 are still available to the public. Are
you saying the FCC is also "still gathering input" on that?!?

News flash: R&O 99-412 happened at the end of 1999. NPRM 98-143
was no longer under consideration for anything except checking on
the complaints of a few.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".

Oh my! Fuss and furor going to be raised on a simple typo... :-)

I can hear your strident messaging even now..."error!"..."mistake!"
"not worthy of consideration!" :-) :-)

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you know
where to look.

The FCC doesn't seem to have it available for the public.

Where is it?

It isn't on the NCI website.

It's not an NCI petition.

Bill Sohl is with NCI and he is the one posting links in here.

It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.

It's not a Newsline petition either.

Never said it was. Newsline has made other petitions, have they?

It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by ol'
Fast Freddie.

Is Fred Maia still on the NCVEC? Answer Yes or No.

Is it on the ARRL website?

I don't know. That's not where I got it.

I think you "got it" all in your head...

If so, provide the LINK for it.

Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone else
here orders?

Poor baby. Getting all upset are you?

"Nobody can give YOU orders!" Not of any kind, shape, or form! :-)

No problem. When the REAL petition shows up as an RM,
then it is worth looking at.

Or will I simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad
jokes, and other abuse?

OH! You've been ABUSED have you?!? Poor baby...!

Tsk, tsk, tsk, all you of the self-perceived nobility are the same.
It must be all that blue blood, royal cynaosis not letting enough
oxygen into your emotion centers!


Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.

"Real petitions," yer lardship, are on the FCC site.

Sorry to not bow and scrape to your most esteemed worthiness,
but if you ever got down from your high horse, you might be
tolerable to other civilized humans.

Don't get off...yer horse piddled on da ground, 'e did...ya'll step
in it an' get yer booties all wet...

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

TAFKARJ, that's Mighty Bold of you to title the subject, "Wrong Again,
Len!" without quoting what you think TNAFKNAMPARRL got wrong. You
really gotta do a better job than that laying a foundation to entrap
TNAFKNAMPARRL.

I think he's got you rattled.

Advice: Get a Grip before you lose title of El Supremo Amateur de
RRAP.

While you compose yourself, give us a hint what TNAFKNAMPARRL said
that was so wrong (again).

"Anything." :-)

LHA / WMD

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

"Sorry to not bow and scrape to your most esteemed worthiness, but if you
ever got down from your high horse, you might be tolerable to other
civilized humans."
__________________________________________________ ___________

Sounds like good self-advice, Leonard. Why don't you try it? And if you
can't, just do your best impression of a human being. It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

BTW, we put our Amateur Radio gear on-line for the first time in the Mobile
Incident Command Center the other day. First contact was via CW with a
station in Iowa. Conditions for SSB were just not up to par. We just love
having all those tools in our communications kit.

We also tested our state of the art sat-phone/VTCs and wireless VOIP
network. They worked flawlessly -- what wonderful pieces of gear. We are
now completely wireless (including phone lines) so we can go wherever
needed. 21st Century comms at its best -- which means a mixture of the old
and new together to give us the strongest redundancy possible.

Arnie -

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

"Sorry to not bow and scrape to your most esteemed worthiness, but if you
ever got down from your high horse, you might be tolerable to other
civilized humans."
_________________________________________________ ____________

Sounds like good self-advice, Leonard. Why don't you try it? And if you
can't, just do your best impression of a human being. It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

Poor baby. No one giving you the love, attention, and respect you
richly deserve?

Darn shame that is.

Okay everybody...one...two...three...all respect Arnie!

Wonderful human being and champion 1930s radio operator!

Yay!

sound of one hand clapping...

LHA / WMD

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

"Sorry to not bow and scrape to your most esteemed worthiness, but if you
ever got down from your high horse, you might be tolerable to other
civilized humans."
__________________________________________________ ___________

Sounds like good self-advice, Leonard. Why don't you try it? And if you
can't, just do your best impression of a human being. It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

Personally, I think it's arrogance to the Nth degree that Lennie
even remotely PRESUMES himself to be "civilized"...especially when
it's his profane, untruthful rantings herein that so lovingly endeear
him to us all.

BTW, we put our Amateur Radio gear on-line for the first time in the Mobile
Incident Command Center the other day. First contact was via CW with a
station in Iowa. Conditions for SSB were just not up to par. We just love
having all those tools in our communications kit.

We also tested our state of the art sat-phone/VTCs and wireless VOIP
network. They worked flawlessly -- what wonderful pieces of gear. We are
now completely wireless (including phone lines) so we can go wherever
needed. 21st Century comms at its best -- which means a mixture of the old
and new together to give us the strongest redundancy possible.

I spent the day at TEMA (Tennessee Emergency Management Agency)
EOC and GUESS what I found...?!?!

A rack of R F Harris gear DEDICATED to Amateur HF nets. Also, the
EOC has two operating positions for V/UHF, as well as a packet station
and a seperate UHF rig dedicated to the SKYWARN net.

Seems that TEMA and FEMA don't have the same cavalier attitude
about Amateur Radio that Lennie insists such governmental agencies do.

In the course of the discussion the California ACS came up.
Seems Lennie doesn't have all his facts together there, either...And
THAT came from the mouth of a FEMA officer...Not that I doubted Lennie
was wrong.

"I'm laughing at the superior intellect..." Again.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Poor baby. No one giving you the love, attention, and respect you richly
deserve? Darn shame that is. Okay everybody...one...two...three...all
respect Arnie! Wonderful human being and champion 1930s radio operator! Yay!
sound of one hand clapping...
__________________________________________________ ______________

No -- actually I get a lot of respect in my job, so I don't need any from
you whatever as my ego is just fine.

As to the 1930s radio comment. You seem to be caught in a 1950's time warp,
Leonard (Hell, no surprise there). The great gear that we have in our MICP
is more akin to the 2030s -- We are well ahead of the curve. I'll bet you
don't even know what a "Scotty" does? Again, no surprise if you don't. A
quick Yahoo search to save face if you do.

Arnie -

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

"Sorry to not bow and scrape to your most esteemed worthiness, but if you
ever got down from your high horse, you might be tolerable to other
civilized humans."
__________________________________________________ ___________

Sounds like good self-advice, Leonard. Why don't you try it?

Arnie, sounds like good advice for lots of folks on here, doesn't it?

And if you
can't, just do your best impression of a human being.

Wow. Warms the heart to see such humanity on the group.

It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

Arn, ever see what Steve posts?

BTW, we put our Amateur Radio gear on-line for the first time in the Mobile
Incident Command Center the other day.

But 9/11 was more than 2.5 years ago.

First contact was via CW with a
station in Iowa.

Was it Iowa that you needed to contact? I'm trying to think what an
East Coast military installation might need with Iowa? Looking for
obsolete Collins parts?

Conditions for SSB were just not up to par.

For a contact with Iowa? Did you try a band higher? Did you try a
band lower? Again, what was the reason Iowa was needed for a contact?

We just love
having all those tools in our communications kit.

Wow. Me too.

We also tested our state of the art sat-phone/VTCs and wireless VOIP
network. They worked flawlessly -- what wonderful pieces of gear. We are
now completely wireless (including phone lines) so we can go wherever
needed.

So you really didn't need to contact Iowa with amateur radio. I was
wondering about that.

21st Century comms at its best -- which means a mixture of the old
and new together to give us the strongest redundancy possible.

Strong redundancy equals GAO audits. They don't like redundancy even
if it means survivability. They'd rather have the money spent on food
stamps and WIC.

Arnie, its always great to read one of you posts. Thanks for stopping
in.

"William" wrote ...

Wow. Warms the heart to see such humanity on the group.


Apparently you've never been on the end of a personal attack from Leonard.
I have. He deserves a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his way.

It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

Arn, ever see what Steve posts?

Sure. They are usually in response to a first strike from Leonard. What's
your point?

BTW, we put our Amateur Radio gear on-line for the first time in the
Mobile
Incident Command Center the other day.

But 9/11 was more than 2.5 years ago.


We've had plenty of comms ability since then, but put the gear in the MICP
as a means of improvement. Improvement of comms systems is a good thing,
right William?

First contact was via CW with a
station in Iowa.

Was it Iowa that you needed to contact? I'm trying to think what an
East Coast military installation might need with Iowa? Looking for
obsolete Collins parts?

Conditions for SSB were just not up to par.

For a contact with Iowa? Did you try a band higher? Did you try a
band lower? Again, what was the reason Iowa was needed for a contact?


We tested the gear on ALL bands (and both modes). And Iowa was the place we
happened to contact first. If I need to contact FEMA via HF in another
state (including IOWA) I think I have proven that it can be done by this
test. And that, after all, was the purpose to begin with.

We just love
having all those tools in our communications kit.

Wow. Me too.

We also tested our state of the art sat-phone/VTCs and wireless VOIP
network. They worked flawlessly -- what wonderful pieces of gear. We
are
now completely wireless (including phone lines) so we can go wherever
needed.

So you really didn't need to contact Iowa with amateur radio. I was
wondering about that.

Sure we did. The Ham gear is for redundancy. That's why we have it. A
test of it's HF capability was important. Test complete, test successful.

21st Century comms at its best -- which means a mixture of the old
and new together to give us the strongest redundancy possible.

Strong redundancy equals GAO audits. They don't like redundancy even
if it means survivability. They'd rather have the money spent on food
stamps and WIC.


Strong redundancy equals uninterrupted communications in an emergency. The
GAO cares not as long as we spend the money appropriately. Since the
purchases were pre-approved, I guess we already did that.

Arnie, its always great to read one of you posts. Thanks for stopping
in.

And you too William.

Arnie -

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"William" wrote ...

Wow. Warms the heart to see such humanity on the group.

Apparently you've never been on the end of a personal attack from Leonard.
I have. He deserves a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his way.

I'm sure you think so. You have a terrible ego problem in that
you need to have agreement from everyone that your viewpoint
is the only possible "correct" one. It isn't, and you don't like
certain folks who won't kiss your [expletive deleted].

You managed a personal attack on me some time back via a
web page with my allege "photo" on there. Beat the gunnery
nurse by months.

I've been up-front in public in all these arguments. I didn't try
to sneak behind any backs to defame another like you or the
gunnery nurse did.

It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

Arn, ever see what Steve posts?

Sure. They are usually in response to a first strike from Leonard.

Wayyyyy incorrect, inspector clueless.

Want proof? Go to Google. Start looking. It will take days.

But, if past is prologue, you will see only what you WANT to see.

What's
your point?

BTW, we put our Amateur Radio gear on-line for the first time in the
Mobile
Incident Command Center the other day.

But 9/11 was more than 2.5 years ago.

We've had plenty of comms ability since then, but put the gear in the MICP
as a means of improvement. Improvement of comms systems is a good thing,
right William?

Work on your SSB equipment some more. You couldn't reach Iowa.

First contact was via CW with a
station in Iowa.

Was it Iowa that you needed to contact? I'm trying to think what an
East Coast military installation might need with Iowa? Looking for
obsolete Collins parts?

Conditions for SSB were just not up to par.

For a contact with Iowa? Did you try a band higher? Did you try a
band lower? Again, what was the reason Iowa was needed for a contact?

We tested the gear on ALL bands (and both modes). And Iowa was the place we
happened to contact first. If I need to contact FEMA via HF in another
state (including IOWA) I think I have proven that it can be done by this
test. And that, after all, was the purpose to begin with.

But, you couldn't make there and had to resort to CW.

We just love
having all those tools in our communications kit.

Wow. Me too.

We also tested our state of the art sat-phone/VTCs and wireless VOIP
network. They worked flawlessly -- what wonderful pieces of gear. We
are
now completely wireless (including phone lines) so we can go wherever
needed.

So you really didn't need to contact Iowa with amateur radio. I was
wondering about that.

Sure we did. The Ham gear is for redundancy. That's why we have it. A
test of it's HF capability was important. Test complete, test successful.

But, you said you only got Iowa by CW. Only one mode.

21st Century comms at its best -- which means a mixture of the old
and new together to give us the strongest redundancy possible.

Strong redundancy equals GAO audits. They don't like redundancy even
if it means survivability. They'd rather have the money spent on food
stamps and WIC.

Strong redundancy equals uninterrupted communications in an emergency. The
GAO cares not as long as we spend the money appropriately. Since the
purchases were pre-approved, I guess we already did that.

Riiight...you got it through the bureaocracy. :-)

Is the General Accounting Office (GAO) staffed with radio experts?

LHA / WMD

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

No -- actually I get a lot of respect in my job, so I don't need any from
you whatever as my ego is just fine.

Not believable. You've been absent from public view in this newsgroup
for months. The first post you make is a direct attack against me.
Not about amateur radio policy, but about me.

You still have a bruised and sore ego from long-ago go-arounds
in here. You need better treatment for those self-perceived wounds.

As to the 1930s radio comment. You seem to be caught in a 1950's time warp,
Leonard (Hell, no surprise there). The great gear that we have in our MICP
is more akin to the 2030s -- We are well ahead of the curve.

You are now working in the electronics industry too? Amazing.

Even the electronics industry can't predict what is coming in
25 years from now.

I'll bet you don't even know what a "Scotty" does?

In reference to what? A Scotsman? A doggie? An old tissue?

Maybe you've been into the Black and White too much and
are seeing a future that isn't there...like in the year 2030.

Don't drink and derive.

Again, no surprise if you don't. A
quick Yahoo search to save face if you do.

I care nothing about your "quizzes."

You aren't into the NCVEC proposal, just your own nasty little ego
wanting vengence for perceived past wrongs in a newsgroup.

Did you ever get a chance to see a U.S. Army Regimental Signal
Center in operation when you were employed by the Army?
I'll bet you didn't and probably didn't even try.

Did you ever get a chance to look at FM 24-24 back when you
were an Army dick? [excuse me, "investigator"] I guess not.

We could have had a decent, civil discussion back then but, no,
you had to assert yourself and make like an "expert" with all the
"Army uses CW" talk. Tsk, tsk, tsk...all that time and wounds
still fester in you.

LHA / WMD

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

The rest of Leonard's usual drivel snipped ...

"You are now working in the electronics industry too? Amazing."
__________________________________________________ ______

What? The amazing Leonard not familiar with current technology? I'm
shocked. You mean to tell me that this lowly Amateur Radio Op knows more
about cutting edge technology than the Wizard of Electronics? Say it ain't
so, Leonard.

Arnie -

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

Work on your SSB equipment some more. You couldn't reach Iowa.

Only God can improve atmospheric conditions. That's why we used CW. We
couldn't reach squat on SSB that day. Next test might show an improvement
in SSB capability. Sure hope so, it is our primary Ham mode.

Riiight...you got it through the bureaocracy. :-)

Is the General Accounting Office (GAO) staffed with radio experts?

Actually, they have some very knowledgeable folks in their tech area.
Thanks for asking.

Arnie -

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote ...

Wow. Warms the heart to see such humanity on the group.

Apparently you've never been on the end of a personal attack from Leonard.
I have. He deserves a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his way.

Perhaps. Hang in there with your semi-civil tongue. We may yet get
to civil debate.

It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

Arn, ever see what Steve posts?

Sure. They are usually in response to a first strike from Leonard. What's
your point?

No, no, no. You're just enabling Steve with such a an attitude.

Others in here appear to be able to withstand a "first strike" from
Len. Let's use you as an example. You said above that "He deserves a
lot harsher language than I have ever sent his way." So why didn't
you?

Do you have self-control? Self-respect?

Are you emotionally balanced?

Did Mark Morgan "deserve a lot harsher language than I have ever sent
his way?"

BTW, we put our Amateur Radio gear on-line for the first time in the
Mobile
Incident Command Center the other day.

But 9/11 was more than 2.5 years ago.

We've had plenty of comms ability since then, but put the gear in the MICP
as a means of improvement. Improvement of comms systems is a good thing,
right William?

Always.

First contact was via CW with a
station in Iowa.

Was it Iowa that you needed to contact? I'm trying to think what an
East Coast military installation might need with Iowa? Looking for
obsolete Collins parts?

Conditions for SSB were just not up to par.

For a contact with Iowa? Did you try a band higher? Did you try a
band lower? Again, what was the reason Iowa was needed for a contact?

We tested the gear on ALL bands (and both modes). And Iowa was the place we
happened to contact first.

And that is the amateur's attitude to communications. I flipped on
the radio and talked to Costa Rica! Everythings great, I got
Emergency Comms!

If I need to contact FEMA via HF in another
state (including IOWA) I think I have proven that it can be done by this
test. And that, after all, was the purpose to begin with.

I don't. The true measure of a test is the test. As an IG augmentee,
I lay down a card, and Capt Soso reads it and say, "I can do that."

Do I mark down 100% on his say so, or do I say, "So let me see you do
it, Capt Soso."

We just love
having all those tools in our communications kit.

Wow. Me too.

We also tested our state of the art sat-phone/VTCs and wireless VOIP
network. They worked flawlessly -- what wonderful pieces of gear. We
are
now completely wireless (including phone lines) so we can go wherever
needed.

So you really didn't need to contact Iowa with amateur radio. I was
wondering about that.

Sure we did. The Ham gear is for redundancy.

Sort of. It's there for when your primary and secondary gear doesn't
do what its supposed to do. You still have a mission, and it's not
talking to a ham in Iowa.

That's why we have it. A
test of it's HF capability was important. Test complete, test successful.

In other words, you tested that the radio worked. You could have done
that with a dummy load and not wasted that Iowa ham's time.

Next time you inadvertantly contact an amateur in another state, ask
him to phone patch you through to that state's EMA or State Police.
That at least would be worth noting.

21st Century comms at its best -- which means a mixture of the old
and new together to give us the strongest redundancy possible.

Strong redundancy equals GAO audits. They don't like redundancy even
if it means survivability. They'd rather have the money spent on food
stamps and WIC.

Strong redundancy equals uninterrupted communications in an emergency. The
GAO cares not as long as we spend the money appropriately. Since the
purchases were pre-approved, I guess we already did that.

Which model HF radio did you get?

Arnie, its always great to read one of you posts. Thanks for stopping
in.

And you too William.

Arnie -

"William" wrote in part ...

Did Mark Morgan "deserve a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his
way?"

WOW, I haven't heard that name in a long time.

And that is the amateur's attitude to communications. I flipped on
the radio and talked to Costa Rica! Everythings great, I got
Emergency Comms!

I think you are missing the point here, William. I said that Iowa was the
first station that we contacted. You are making a huge presumption here
that it is the only station that we contacted. Do you really think that we
would contact one station, declare victory, then call it a day? You know
better than that. We made multiple contacts during the day as we switched
from band to band.

Next time you inadvertantly contact an amateur in another state, ask
him to phone patch you through to that state's EMA or State Police.
That at least would be worth noting.

Actually, not a bad idea; however, this was a function test of equipment in
preparation for an exercise later this month. When we activate that
exercise, we will be contacting those types of agencies directly (including
out of state) We didn't want to have to coordinate that contact in advance
because it would take away from the realism of the upcoming exercise and
give them a "heads up". Part of the exercise is to see how quickly they
will respond in a "no warning" situation -- or if they respond at all.

Which model HF radio did you get?

Kenwood TS 570D(s) and
Kenwood TM 261A (VHF)

Arnie -

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:42:46 -0500, Arnie Macy wrote:

Part of the exercise is to see how quickly they
will respond in a "no warning" situation -- or if they respond at all.

"Goofball, Goofball, this is Zoomer with a No Notice Test Message".

We used to just LOVE those...... ggg (The remote deskset was on
my desk....)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

Retired and loving every minute of it....
Work was getting in the way of my hobbies

William wrote:


In other words, you tested that the radio worked. You could have done
that with a dummy load and not wasted that Iowa ham's time.

Just to enlighten you, the radio is not the entire system, the antenna
system needs to be tested also.

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

Work on your SSB equipment some more. You couldn't reach Iowa.

Only God can improve atmospheric conditions. That's why we used CW.

Of course. SHARES uses CW all the time? Military HF radio?

Back a half century ago, the ACAN used SSB on a 24/7 basis as
primary mode of long-distance communications..."long" as in
500 to 8000 miles over water or land.

We
couldn't reach squat on SSB that day. Next test might show an improvement
in SSB capability. Sure hope so, it is our primary Ham mode.

You really ought to consult with Army Signal Corps folks on how
to do SSB on HF from true emergency condition locations. Ask
for "Nevis." :-)

Signal Corps has some neat portable-mobile-fixed relatively low-
power HF radios that Get Through on SSB. Hughes Aircraft
(Ground division) designed and made some of it in the 1980s.
You can really "fly" with some of that. :-)

Fort Gordon, GA. They're in the DSN directory. They're on the
Internet. Signal Corps center. Good smarts there.

Riiight...you got it through the bureaocracy. :-)

Is the General Accounting Office (GAO) staffed with radio experts?

Actually, they have some very knowledgeable folks in their tech area.
Thanks for asking.

You cannot answer a specific question with a specific answer?

Does the GAO have RADIO EXPERTS?

Ask your "Nevis."

LHA / WMD

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

The rest of Leonard's usual drivel snipped ...

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still using pejoratives to open a message?

"You are now working in the electronics industry too? Amazing."
_________________________________________________ _______

What? The amazing Leonard not familiar with current technology?

I'm familiar with current...and voltage...and lots of things in the
whole field of electronics (radio is a part of that whole). But,
electronics technology keeps advancing. I'm still learning and
I started learning about it 57 years ago.

I can measure current in many and different ways, including
non-intrusive means at DC, AC, and RF. Do you wish to know
more about current? Please consult an electronics text or the
application notes of some electronics instrument manufacturers.

I'm shocked.

Safety first...use proper precautions around live conductors.

Do not let your train of thought become derailed.

You mean to tell me that this lowly Amateur Radio Op knows more
about cutting edge technology than the Wizard of Electronics?

I'm not a "wizard" nor have I claimed to be. After retiring (only from
regular hours of work) from a career as an electronics design
engineer, I've accumulated some amount of knowledge and
experience in several disciplines of electronics. I'm still learning
and working and designing and not afraid of jumping into venues
populated (as this one) by a number of egocentric amateurs with
delusions of expertise, trying to put down others who have the
actual experience and knowledge. Your sarcasm (with overtones
of spite if not spittle) is noted.

Say it ain't so, Leonard.

I am trying to discuss subjects in here, not personalities. People
like yourself don't want to do that, are intent on promoting only
themselves and their alleged expertise in communications.

This particular thread was another's egoboo challenge about some
NCVEC petition (actually two of them, the second only a plan).
To be gracious and civil, you could have at least recognized that.
Instead, you started in with your first public posting in here after a
long absence as nothing but a direct personal attack on myself.

If you wish to do nothing but make personal attacks, you are free
to start other threads with nothing but personal condemnation of
whomever you choose to target. This newsgroup is open to all and
not moderated; not moderated except in the minds of some PCTAs.

The immediate future for U.S. amateur radio is some kind of change
in licensing regulations which may or may not eliminate the
International Morse Code test from examinations. That immediate
future also has the spectre of wide-range, wide-bandwidth noise
on most of HF through low VHF from Access BPL. In essence,
Access BPL implementation may cause EVERYONE's HF through
low VHF receiver to kiss their sensitivity ratings goodbye...the QRM
may prohibit any sort of low-level reception by anyone in an urban
or suburban location.

If you wish to continue personal attacks on individuals just to ease
your perceived past woundings in this newsgroup, go ahead. Such
seems petty and vindictive on your part.

There's a very distinct possibility of an emergency in radio reception
quality of the future that isn't coming from overt attackers on the US
or any terrorists wanting any religious jihad or any imaginary threats
to Homeland Security. It exists in the homeland itself.

It is more constructive to fight against threats as a concerted group
instead of playing verbal paintball of individual on individual for petty
personal reasons. Your choice.

LHA / WMD

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in part ...

Did Mark Morgan "deserve a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his
way?"

WOW, I haven't heard that name in a long time.

I don't even remember anything about Mark. But I do remember Steve
getting his hemorrhoid tied up in knots over him.

And that is the amateur's attitude to communications. I flipped on
the radio and talked to Costa Rica! Everythings great, I got
Emergency Comms!

I think you are missing the point here, William. I said that Iowa was the
first station that we contacted. You are making a huge presumption here
that it is the only station that we contacted. Do you really think that we
would contact one station, declare victory, then call it a day? You know
better than that. We made multiple contacts during the day as we switched
from band to band.

Presumption? Perhaps.

If I dial home, and I get Iowa, then my comms failed.

You need to have a goal before you ever switch the radio on.

Let's say that your goal is the Military Police desk at Ft. Riley,
Kansas.

You get on the radio and "Viola," you got Iowa. Great. Good first
step. Ask that Iowa amateur to dial the Military Police desk at Ft.
Riley, Kansas (333-444-5555). Hmmmmm, who's gonna pay the $0.07/per
minute charges? Iowa ham won't do it. Iowa was a failure. Try
Nebraska if prop holds.

Make up your own scenario. Don't count off this ex-IG augmentee to
create your exercise scenario for you.

Next time you inadvertantly contact an amateur in another state, ask
him to phone patch you through to that state's EMA or State Police.
That at least would be worth noting.

Actually, not a bad idea; however, this was a function test of equipment in
preparation for an exercise later this month. When we activate that
exercise, we will be contacting those types of agencies directly (including
out of state)

OK, you are going to contact the EMA and State Police *_directly_*
with amateur radio? Cool. How are you going to do that?

We didn't want to have to coordinate that contact in advance
because it would take away from the realism of the upcoming exercise and
give them a "heads up".

Right. No prior coordination. But...

Part of the exercise is to see how quickly they
will respond in a "no warning" situation -- or if they respond at all.

No.

1. You state a requirement for them (your ham volunteers) to be able
to do such things. Your MOU is a place to state broad requirements.
The SOP or Instructions cover the specifics.

2. You train them to do such things.

3. You then give them a no warning exercise scenario where they have
to do what they (1) have a requirement to do, and (2) have been
trained to do.

That is how it's done in the military. Really.

Does your military installation have a MARS base support team?

Which model HF radio did you get?

Kenwood TS 570D(s) and
Kenwood TM 261A (VHF)

Excellent choices. Simple and capable.

bb

"William" wrote in part ...

If I dial home, and I get Iowa, then my comms failed. You need to have a
goal before you ever switch the radio on.

Our goal was to check the functionality of the HF gear. We made multiple
contacts on multiple bands -- making contacts throughout the day. Those
were the parameters of the test. Test successful. We have written MOAs
with the stations that we intend to contact during the exercise, so they
completely understand the nature of the "no-warning" scenario. We also ran
functionality tests on the VTC/SAT and VOIP equipment. It was a busy day.

As you know, all major exercises have an extensive OPORD that directs us
before anything begins. Ours has been in place for months. All T's
crossed.


Does your military installation have a MARS base support team?

We do not use MARS for multiple reasons. All of our ops are civil service
and FCC Licensed Hams. This gives us much greater latitude in the
equipment, modes, and frequencies available to us. The EM operation is a
completely civilian one. Sorry if I didn't make that clear before. Of
course, we had to clear the frequency use with the folks at the installation
DOIM, but that was just a formality.

Arnie -

In article , JJ
writes:

In other words, you tested that the radio worked. You could have done
that with a dummy load and not wasted that Iowa ham's time.

Just to enlighten you, the radio is not the entire system, the antenna
system needs to be tested also.

Ask your Nevis.

:-)

LHA / WMD

"JJ" wrote ...

Just to enlighten you, the radio is not the entire system, the antenna
system needs to be tested also.
__________________________________________________ ________

I was going to mention that, JJ. But I think William probably realized that
after he wrote his response. This was not just a check of the "HF radio"
but of the entire EM comms system. Our MICP is run by a gas generator, and
part of the test was to see if we could run "all" of our equipment at the
same time without a drop in available regulated power. Test successful
there as well.

Arnie -

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

Rest of drivel snipped (as usual)

I'm not a "wizard" nor have I claimed to be. After retiring (only from
regular hours of work) from a career as an electronics design
engineer, I've accumulated some amount of knowledge and
experience in several disciplines of electronics. I'm still learning
and working and designing and not afraid of jumping into venues
populated (as this one) by a number of egocentric amateurs with
delusions of expertise, trying to put down others who have the
actual experience and knowledge. Your sarcasm (with overtones
of spite if not spittle) is noted.
__________________________________________________ _______

So, bottom line is that you do NOT know what I am talking about. I guess
this accounts for your reclama that you are still learning. As to actual
experience -- in this area, I obviously have more than you. But I'm sure
you would never be able to bring yourself to the point of admitting that.
After all, you are the GREAT Leonard. Master of the 1950s "current".

Arnie -

ubject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/20/2004 8:33 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...

It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

Arn, ever see what Steve posts?

You mean one of the one's wherein I ask you to provide some validation of
assertions YOU made, Brain...?!?!

Yep...pretty rough, getting your nose tweaked over your OWN mistruths, eh,
Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: "Arnie Macy"
Date: 3/21/2004 1:42 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"William" wrote in part ...

Did Mark Morgan "deserve a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his
way?"

WOW, I haven't heard that name in a long time.

And that is the amateur's attitude to communications. I flipped on
the radio and talked to Costa Rica! Everythings great, I got
Emergency Comms!

I think you are missing the point here, William.

Hey Arnie...

Brian Burke, AKA "Billy Beeper" AKA "William" accused you of "enabling" me
over my refusal to be bowled over by Lennie's arrogance.

Don't let him make YOU an "enabler" by acknowledging his alter-ego.
BillyBeeper/William is Brain Burke, taking a lesson from Lennie in how to
disperse his foolheartiness over several screen names.

73

Steve, K4YZ

PS: Welcome back!

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in part ...

If I dial home, and I get Iowa, then my comms failed. You need to have a
goal before you ever switch the radio on.

Our goal was to check the functionality of the HF gear. We made multiple
contacts on multiple bands -- making contacts throughout the day. Those
were the parameters of the test. Test successful.

Your initial post didn't make it appear that way.

We have written MOAs
with the stations that we intend to contact during the exercise, so they
completely understand the nature of the "no-warning" scenario. We also ran
functionality tests on the VTC/SAT and VOIP equipment. It was a busy day.

Sounds good.

As you know, all major exercises have an extensive OPORD that directs us
before anything begins. Ours has been in place for months. All T's
crossed.

And you've trained your volunteers to some standard?

Does your military installation have a MARS base support team?

We do not use MARS for multiple reasons. All of our ops are civil service
and FCC Licensed Hams. This gives us much greater latitude in the
equipment, modes, and frequencies available to us.

That's too bad. Military communications has a specialized function
for such purposes.

The EM operation is a
completely civilian one. Sorry if I didn't make that clear before. Of
course, we had to clear the frequency use with the folks at the installation
DOIM, but that was just a formality.

Arnie -

Always is.

Best of luck.

"William" wrote ...

And you've trained your volunteers to some standard?

Our "volunteers" are government employees who have this duty assigned to
them as part of their employment, and they are well trained in EM. All of
the angencies that support us have trained their volunteers via either RACES
or ARES in EM. Of course, that training varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but there is little we can do to enforce our standards on
them.

Does your military installation have a MARS base support team?

We do not use MARS for multiple reasons. All of our ops are civil
service
and FCC Licensed Hams. This gives us much greater latitude in the
equipment, modes, and frequencies available to us.

That's too bad. Military communications has a specialized function
for such purposes.


I agree that the specialized function it provides could have assisted us --
and we too a long look at that when we were planning. But in reviewing all
COAs, the cost-benefit just wasn't there. Since we are primarily in contact
with civilian agencies (both state and federal) during emergencies, it made
better sense to utilize the cilvilian HAM radio assets we had in place. We
have plenty of standard military comms available other than MARS HF. The
Amateur radio piece is for redundancy purposes -- not as a primary means of
communication. For example, all of our VHF is military and of course the
SAT and wireless is run on military net/satilites for security purposes.

Arnie -

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote ...


Brian Burke, AKA "Billy Beeper" AKA "William" accused you of "enabling" me
over my refusal to be bowled over by Lennie's arrogance. Don't let him make
YOU an "enabler" by acknowledging his alter-ego. BillyBeeper/William is
Brain Burke, taking a lesson from Lennie in how to disperse his
foolheartiness over several screen names.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Thanks for the info, Steve. You don't have to tell me about Leonard's
arrogance -- we've all had to live with it for years. "The great white
current chaser" and "Legend in his own mind".

Arnie -

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/22/2004 9:00 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: "Arnie Macy"
Date: 3/21/2004 1:42 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"William" wrote in part ...

Did Mark Morgan "deserve a lot harsher language than I have ever sent his
way?"

WOW, I haven't heard that name in a long time.

And that is the amateur's attitude to communications. I flipped on
the radio and talked to Costa Rica! Everythings great, I got
Emergency Comms!

I think you are missing the point here, William.

Hey Arnie...

Anyone that puts up with your twisted """quotes""" is an enabler.

Nothing I've "quoted" is twisted, Brain.

That you don't like being tasked with actually PROVING what you claim is
not my problem.

Sorry about that.

Steve, K4YZ

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...

Thanks for the info, Steve. You don't have to tell me about Leonard's
arrogance -- we've all had to live with it for years. "The great white
current chaser" and "Legend in his own mind".

No problem, Arnie. Welcome back to the fray.

Current Lennie/Brain practice is to make assertions they know are
either false or area at least dubiously true and then call you "nuts"
when you ask them to validate thier assertions.

Brain's most recent NG faux pas was to claim that the unlicensed
radio services (Class D CB, FRS, MURS, Part 15) "play a major role in
emergency comms".

I've quoted Brain word-for-word several times and asked him to
please provide some examples, but so far he's only gotten as far as
calling me "obnoxious", etc. His recent "Quioterobeson" is
cute...even imaginitive.. now if I could just get a straight answer
out of him!

A neverending task, but I am hopeful!


73

Steve, K4YZ

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote ...

And you've trained your volunteers to some standard?

Our "volunteers" are government employees who have this duty assigned to
them as part of their employment, and they are well trained in EM. All of
the angencies that support us have trained their volunteers via either RACES
or ARES in EM. Of course, that training varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but there is little we can do to enforce our standards on
them.

I could be wrong, but I think only school teachers and the ARRL's W1AW
Operator are allowed to be paid while using amateur radio.

Does your military installation have a MARS base support team?

We do not use MARS for multiple reasons. All of our ops are civil
service
and FCC Licensed Hams. This gives us much greater latitude in the
equipment, modes, and frequencies available to us.

That's too bad. Military communications has a specialized function
for such purposes.


I agree that the specialized function it provides could have assisted us --
and we too a long look at that when we were planning. But in reviewing all
COAs, the cost-benefit just wasn't there. Since we are primarily in contact
with civilian agencies (both state and federal) during emergencies, it made
better sense to utilize the cilvilian HAM radio assets we had in place. We
have plenty of standard military comms available other than MARS HF. The
Amateur radio piece is for redundancy purposes -- not as a primary means of
communication. For example, all of our VHF is military and of course the
SAT and wireless is run on military net/satilites for security purposes.

Arnie -

Fair enough.