"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

But NCVEC's proposal wants to do just that. Read
the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal.

I'm having some doubts about the "21st Century" paper authorship.

I can certainly understand that.

KL7-whatever-his-call-is

KL7CC

claims W3BE as a co-author, yet W3BE in
his comments to FCC comes down in opposition to most of those
ideas like free upgrades as looney-tune-stupid (which they are).

All it takes to claim somebody as coauthor is for them to contribute a
few things. They don't have to agree with the entire paper. But I do
think that someone who is as much at odds with that paper as the
comments reveal would have demanded their name be removed from the
author list.

What really tells the tale is who signed the NCVEC submittal to FCC.
It wasn't either of the hams you mentioned above.

For the record, I find the following NCVEC proposal ideas to be
"looney-tune-stupid" (great phrase):

- Limitations on homebrewing
- Free upgrade to General for post-March-21-1987 Techs and Tech Pluses
- Free upgrade to Extra for Advanceds
- 30 volt rule
- Special callsign block reserved only for newbies
- Any replacement of relevant regs questions by "signed statement"
nonsense. (If it takes a few more questions to test regs knowledge,
add 'em)

Your proposal looks better and better, Hans.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Robert Casey wrote:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

OK, here goes:

Way back in the 1930s, hams began to replace their "blooper"
(regenerative) receivers with "super-hets" (superheterodynes). The
added complexity of the "super" was justified by the invention of the
single signal crystal filter, which gave improved adjacent-channel
selectivity.

Those early ham supers almost all used an IF around 455 kHz, because
the available crystal filter systems worked best around that
frequency. The better ones had one or preferably two RF stages before
the mixer, to reduce image response and override the mixer noise. A
top receiver of those days might have two RF stages and three IF
stages, plus a couple of audio stages and the mixer and detector. And
even so, image response was a problem.

After WW2, the trend moved towards "double conversion". The first IF
was typically in the low HF region, to reduce images, and the second
IF much lower, to get selectivity. Some designs like Collins kept the
455 kHz second IF, while many others (National, Hallicrafters) used a
first IF around 1700 or 2215 kHz and a second IF of 50-60 kHz. Such a
low second IF meant that LC circuits could be used for the
selectivity.

Such receivers were arguably "better" - and unarguably more complex.
Compare the prewar National NC-101X with the mid-50s NC-300, or a
typical homebrew super of the '30s with an HBR. And while better in
some ways, they were worse in others.

Then packaged high-frequency crystal filters were developed (about
1957), followed by improved mixer designs such as the Pullen mixer. It
became possible to design receivers with a high IF for image
rejection, no RF stages and a much reduced parts count. The Squires
Sanders SS-1R is an example of such a design. It is simpler than, say,
an NC-300, as well as smaller, lighter and less power-hungry.

There are lots of other examples. Compare an Elecraft K2 with almost
any other current amateur HF transceiver - then compare the specs and
features. In many ways its high performance is a direct result of the
relative simplicity.

Simplification can be an improvement. But simplicity isn't always
simple, or easy.

73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB wrote:





Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.




If you use low loss feedline and a tuner, it doesn't much matter how bad
the antenna's
SWR is. Low loss feedline means that you don't lose much RF energy as
it bounced
back off the bad antenna to the tuner, and then back to the antenna.
Actually, lossy
feedline can make your SWR look better. The propagation delays of
these bounces
are of little importance for the narrowband modes we use on HF (SSB, CW,
RTTY
and such). I use some old Ethernet cable (essentially foam RG8U) to run
the feed
from the shack upstairs down to the basement, and there I switch over to
coax
more weather resistant thru a small hole in the wall (caulked to keep
bugs out) to the
vertical in the back yard. It's a pre WARC multiband HF vertical.

A major reason for bad antennas is a lack of space or place to install a
good
antenna.

Bill Sohl wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
. net...

"N2EY" wrote


It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits.

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.


Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.

hehe, now that sounds like fun! 8^0

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/30/2004 7:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air".
Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are
licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.

What ages are we talking about?

CAP cadets can be 12 to 21 if they join before age 18, however the one's I
am addressing specifically are all between 15 to 17. (Ironically the 17 year
old is the one who has yet to upgrade!)

And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

FCC makes that call. And note this: One of the arguments for dumping
Element 1 is the claim that when it was dumped for Tech, the whole ARS
didn't fall apart.
So if we get over 323,000 free upgrades to General with no testing and
the ARS
doesn't fall apart.....

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!

Nope. A person might think that 20 wpm code tests given by FCC
examiners are relevant and necessary to an Extra license, but they
will have a hard time finding them today..

Point taken, Jim, but what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say was that
it's partly the applicant's decision to decide if acquiring the knowledge or
skill was appropriate to gaining the license...In other words, are the benefits
of licensure worth the time and effort expended to get it...?!?!

Any better?

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/30/2004 3:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 6:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

There's nothing to "stuff". MARS, under current regulations and
plans,
would cease to exist without Amateur Radio Operators to flesh it out.

Sorry you don't agree.

Sorry you're not man enough to understand.

Maniliness? That has nothing to do with it.

No wonder you're the Pariah of RRAP.

I can be the "pariah" of anything, Briam, but it doesn't negate this
simple truth:

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

This is your simple truth, and it's simply wrong:

No, I am not...Not unless recent MARS policy has provided for a major
shift in MARS membership demographics and prerequisites.

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

OK, Brain...You're back in "Idiot Mode" and there's nothing I can do to get
around it.

Steve, K4YZ

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.



Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.



Now, if you used the soldering iron *as* the dummy load, ...... :-)