| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Famous Hams
|
|
|
Subject: Famous Hams
From: (Lumushahs) Date: 7/15/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Subject: Famous Hams From: (Len Over 21) Porky Pig is a ham. He on the list? Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Vippy...I see your extended absence was not used to improve your English or your expressive skills...Nor your understanding of Amateur Radio...Still hunting those "preety fems"...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
|
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:11:23 +0000, Lumushahs wrote:
Subject: Famous Hams From: (Len Over 21) Porky Pig is a ham. He on the list? Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. Don't assume that they all are. Ummm, yes they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. |
Sorry, PØRKY is not a valid call (;-)
However, NØPIG is a valid call -- check QRZ Sorry if this is a BØAR -- Lamont Cranston The Shadow Knows "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: http://users.tellurian.com/gjurrens/famous_hams.html Porky Pig is a ham. He on the list? LHA / WMD |
In article nSQJc.1002$fB4.54@lakeread01, "Da Shadow" writes:
Sorry, PØRKY is not a valid call (;-) However, NØPIG is a valid call -- check QRZ Sorry if this is a BØAR -- Lamont Cranston Sunnuvagun! Really? :-) Does Warner Brothers know about this? :-) [loved your show in the old days on AM BC... :-) ] LHA / WMD |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , (Lumushahs) writes: Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Yes, it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". "Amateur radio operator" and "ham" mean the same thing. Oh, my, yes! Not only that, the "only way to show interest in radio is to get a ham license! (herr robust) No ham license, NO "interest in radio!" :-) LHA / WMD |
In article , Fred Garvin
writes: On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:11:23 +0000, Lumushahs wrote: Subject: Famous Hams From: (Len Over 21) Porky Pig is a ham. He on the list? Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. Don't assume that they all are. Ummm, yes they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. NOT in this newsgrope! :-) The Great Gurus, Wiseguys out of the East, won't let anyone do dat. This newsgrope be da PCTA forum for all those that worship at the Church of St. Hiram under the cardinal beeper. Amen. LHA / WMD |
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: Famous Hams From: (Lumushahs) Date: 7/15/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Subject: Famous Hams From: (Len Over 21) Porky Pig is a ham. He on the list? Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Vippy...I see your extended absence was not used to improve your English or your expressive skills...Nor your understanding of Amateur Radio...Still hunting those "preety fems"...?!?! Poor delusional Gunnery Nurse must be hurting in another area. Thinks ham radio is either all about sex or has nothing to do with sex. :-) Ah, yes, the Gunnery Nurse put on his Class A Amateur uniform and is busy doing recruiting for The Service! Spreading all that "good will" the FCC says hams have? Hollywood could make another movie about good will hunting. Starring the Staring Stalking Dill Instructor busy chewing out all those not delighted with his Yell-Yell. :-) An eighth hostile action to put in with his shoebox medal set! LHA / WMD |
|
From: n2ey
Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Maybe, maybe not. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Yes, it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". "Amateur radio operator" and "ham" mean the same thing. Perhaps in a limited view. Or it may be an attempt to limit other people's options. By declaring there is no other options, these other amateur radio amateurs (must) subsrcibe to the ham culture. From: Fred Garvin Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. So all people with a call sign must like to be called "ham", worship morse code, love contests, hate CBers, and believe all things that are "ham"? Some people do not identify with those things, and have their own interests. |
"Lumushahs" wrote in message ... From: n2ey Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Maybe, maybe not. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Yes, it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". "Amateur radio operator" and "ham" mean the same thing. Perhaps in a limited view. Or it may be an attempt to limit other people's options. By declaring there is no other options, these other amateur radio amateurs (must) subsrcibe to the ham culture. From: Fred Garvin Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. So all people with a call sign must like to be called "ham", worship morse code, love contests, hate CBers, and believe all things that are "ham"? Some people do not identify with those things, and have their own interests. There is no requirement, formal or informal or otherwise, to follow any particular, so-called culture. The term "ham" is, and has been for approximately 100 years, a term meaning amateur radio operator. One hundred years ago, there was no CB and there were no contests. Morse was a necessity but hams were working diligently on better transmitters and working towards developing voice transmissions. When the term was coined, none of the factors that you list were pertinent and some didn't even exist. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Subject: Famous Hams
From: (Lumushahs) Date: 7/17/2004 6:46 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: From: n2ey Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Maybe, maybe not. No maybe...No maybe not. If they have an FCC form 600 with thier name and an Amateur callsign and class of license Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Yes, it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". "Amateur radio operator" and "ham" mean the same thing. Perhaps in a limited view. Or it may be an attempt to limit other people's options. By declaring there is no other options, these other amateur radio amateurs (must) subsrcibe to the ham culture. Not, they don't. From: Fred Garvin Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. So all people with a call sign must like to be called "ham", worship morse code, love contests, hate CBers, and believe all things that are "ham"? Vipul, you're a bigot of almost immeasurable proportion if you think that those things you just described are what define "Ham" radio. Some people do not identify with those things, and have their own interests. No kidding...?!?! You think some people really have thier OWN ideas of what they want to take away from Amateur Radio...?!?! Were you born this way or is it the culmination of a life long pursuit...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
In article ,
(Lumushahs) writes: From: n2ey Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Maybe, maybe not. If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Yes, it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". "Amateur radio operator" and "ham" mean the same thing. Perhaps in a limited view. No, they mean exactly the same thing by definition. To be one is to be the other. Your attempt to redefine what certain words mean is futile. Give it up. Or it may be an attempt to limit other people's options. No, it's just a word. By declaring there is no other options, these other amateur radio amateurs (must) subsrcibe to the ham culture. Being an amateur radio operator/ham does not mean one must subscribe to any "culture". From: Fred Garvin Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. So all people with a call sign must like to be called "ham", worship morse code, love contests, hate CBers, and believe all things that are "ham"? Nope. Not at all. Some people do not identify with those things, and have their own interests. And if those people have amateur radio licenses, they are hams. If they do not have amateur radio licenses, they are not hams. |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Lumushahs) writes: From: n2ey Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Maybe, maybe not. If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. Just reviewed Part 97. I must have missed it. Kindly direct me to the proper paragraph. |
N2EY wrote:
If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. There is no such definition. Then (William) replied: Just reviewed Part 97. I must have missed it. Kindly direct me to the proper paragraph. Thank you. You are correct. There is no mention of the word "ham" in Part 97. |
Subject: Famous Hams
From: (Lumushahs) Date: 7/17/2004 5:06 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: N2EY wrote: If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. There is no such definition. Sure there is, albeit not in Part 97. You won't find Police Officers refered to as "cops" in municipal or "official" documents, but if you say "cops", everyone knows who you are talking about. Then (William) replied: Just reviewed Part 97. I must have missed it. Kindly direct me to the proper paragraph. Thank you. You are correct. There is no mention of the word "ham" in Part 97. There's also no mention of "Vipul" in Part 97, but you're a Ham too, Vippy. Live with it. Steve, K4YZ |
|
In article , Leo
writes: On 16 Jul 2004 22:02:42 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article nSQJc.1002$fB4.54@lakeread01, "Da Shadow" writes: Sorry, PØRKY is not a valid call (;-) However, NØPIG is a valid call -- check QRZ Sorry if this is a BØAR -- Lamont Cranston Sunnuvagun! Really? :-) Does Warner Brothers know about this? :-) [loved your show in the old days on AM BC... :-) ] Yup - that guy sold an awful lot of Blue Coal, Wildroot and Camels.....:) "Wildroot" and "Camels" I know. What be "Blue Coal?" Not that I was buying much then as a youth of a lad in Illinois way back when... :-) Forgive me, I digress. This thread is all about the IMPORTANCE of being famous through amateur radio... :-) LHA / WMD |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Lumushahs" wrote in message ... From: n2ey Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Maybe, maybe not. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Yes, it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". "Amateur radio operator" and "ham" mean the same thing. Perhaps in a limited view. Or it may be an attempt to limit other people's options. By declaring there is no other options, these other amateur radio amateurs (must) subsrcibe to the ham culture. From: Fred Garvin Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. So all people with a call sign must like to be called "ham", worship morse code, love contests, hate CBers, and believe all things that are "ham"? Some people do not identify with those things, and have their own interests. There is no requirement, formal or informal or otherwise, to follow any particular, so-called culture. Peer pressure! Especially from the Exxtras (dos equis or otherwise) The term "ham" is, and has been for approximately 100 years, a term meaning amateur radio operator. According to the ARRL the word "ham" was applied by PROFESSIONAL morsemen on amateurs for their poor sending. It was a term of DERISION (scorn, ridicule). One hundred years ago, there was no CB and there were no contests. Radio, as a communications medium, is 108 years old. There were contests of all sorts 108 years ago! Sunnuvagun! First Modern Olympic Games were held in 1896...same year as the first demonstrations of radio. No radio per se at the first of the Modern Olympic Games. How about that? Morse was a necessity but hams were working diligently on better transmitters and working towards developing voice transmissions. First radio voice transmission was in 1906...done by a pro, not an amateur. Reginald Fessenden. The Pros developed the "better transmitters" and the better tubes for those better transmitters. It's in all the text books. When the term was coined, none of the factors that you list were pertinent and some didn't even exist. ...and Mama Dee was THERE! :-) "What day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times...and you were there...!" - tag line for CBS radio/TV show "You Are There." |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On 17 Jul 2004 13:56:20 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. The definition, as it appears in part 97, recently changed. By law, now, a ham is anyone who is listed on the FCC database as being licensed to serve as the control operator of an amateur radio station. You are correct, sir! The definition of "holds a valid amateur radio license" is that you are in the appropriate database. Actually having the paper document is not the determining factor - the databese is. Thnaks for the update 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Lumushahs" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. There is no such definition. Check a decent dictionary and you will find it. Then (William) replied: Just reviewed Part 97. I must have missed it. Kindly direct me to the proper paragraph. Thank you. You are correct. There is no mention of the word "ham" in Part 97. Government documents always use formal English. "Ham" is an informal term so is not used in government documents. However just check a good dictionary and you will find the definition of "amateur radio operator." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
Nor is there a mention of hobby -- it is the Amateur Radio Service.
-- Lamont Cranston The Shadow Knows "Lumushahs" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. There is no such definition. Then (William) replied: Just reviewed Part 97. I must have missed it. Kindly direct me to the proper paragraph. Thank you. You are correct. There is no mention of the word "ham" in Part 97. |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: First radio voice transmission was in 1906... Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio communication was being carried out. Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG. "Two-way" in 1906? When, between December 26 and 31 that year?!?!? Must be. You wrote that. You are never "wrong." :-) done by a pro, not an amateur. Reginald Fessenden. Wrong again, Len! Fessenden held an amateur license. He was a ham as well as a "pro". Not in 1900 or 1906, Alex Trebek. WRONG. The first USA radio regulating agency didn't exist until 1912! Hi hi. and a hearty Hiyo Ho Ho! Get that Time Mashine FIXED, Jimmie. Before you get into Jeopardy. LHA / WMD |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , (Lumushahs) writes: From: n2ey Also, some of the people on the list may not be hams. No, they're all hams. Maybe, maybe not. If they hold a valid amateur radio license, they're hams. By definition. Don't assume that they all are. Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Yes, it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". "Amateur radio operator" and "ham" mean the same thing. Perhaps in a limited view. No, they mean exactly the same thing by definition. To be one is to be the other. Your attempt to redefine what certain words mean is futile. Give it up. Or it may be an attempt to limit other people's options. No, it's just a word. By declaring there is no other options, these other amateur radio amateurs (must) subsrcibe to the ham culture. Being an amateur radio operator/ham does not mean one must subscribe to any "culture". From: Fred Garvin Just because they have a call sign does not mean they are "hams", either. Ummm, yes it does. One can still like radio (amateur or professional), and not be a "ham". Sure. So all people with a call sign must like to be called "ham", worship morse code, love contests, hate CBers, and believe all things that are "ham"? Nope. Not at all. Some people do not identify with those things, and have their own interests. And if those people have amateur radio licenses, they are hams. If they do not have amateur radio licenses, they are not hams. |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: First radio voice transmission was in 1906... Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio communication was being carried out. Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG. No, it's quite right. You're the one who's wrong, Len. "Two-way" in 1906? Yes. Two way transatlantic in 1906. Voice radio transmission was first demonstrated by Fessenden in 1900, not 1906. You're reference is six years late. Simply wrong. In error. Mistaken. When, between December 26 and 31 that year?!?!? Nope. November. Look it up. You probably won't do that, because doing so would prove you to be wrong. Must be. You wrote that. You are never "wrong." :-) Wrong yet again, Len! Are you going for a record? done by a pro, not an amateur. Reginald Fessenden. Wrong again, Len! Fessenden held an amateur license. He was a ham as well as a "pro". Not in 1900 or 1906, Alex Trebek. WRONG. I didn't say *when* he held the amateur license. Just as you never said when you were getting that Extra licesne out of its box. Been more than 4-1/2 years now. Yes, that new Tech written must be a real toughie...... Fessenden was 1XS and later VP9F. See: http://users.tellurian.com/gjurrens/famous_hams.html But you probably won't. |
Looking at the Lenover21 vs N2EY debate on the first voice
transmission, maybe we could make some headway by the following: Fessenden first transmitted voice modulated spark in 1900. The reply to the transmission was via telegraphy. In the ensuing years, there were both spark and alternator telephony experiments. The spark had the disadvantage of a nasty hissing component in the audio, and the contemporary alternators were running at up to 10 kHz, not very satisfactory, because they weren't all that much above voice frequencies. As time went by, alternators were built that could run at much higher frequencies. The first two-way transatlantic telephony was performed in 1906 at a frequency of around 88 kHz. This is all in the historical record. Jim accepts it, and Len appears not to. Len, what is your rationale for that? - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: First radio voice transmission was in 1906... Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio communication was being carried out. Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG. No, it's quite right. You're the one who's wrong, Len. "Always wrong" to Rev. Jim. :-) "Two-way" in 1906? Yes. Two way transatlantic in 1906. Voice radio transmission was first demonstrated by Fessenden in 1900, not 1906. Riiiiiight...real-time full duplex? Half duplex? Duplicity? So, a big deal with everyone jumping on the bandwagon of voice transmissions 1900 to 1906, right? :-) You're reference is six years late. Simply wrong. In error. Mistaken. Oooooooo! :-) When, between December 26 and 31 that year?!?!? Nope. November. Look it up. So, the famous "Christmas Eve broadcast" didn't happen on Christmas Eve? Real "high-tech" Tx there. A specially-designed carbon-pile mike in the antenna feedline making a sort of AM. :-) You probably won't do that, because doing so would prove you to be wrong. What "won't I do?" :-) Wrong yet again, Len! Are you going for a record? No. You must be as judge, jury, executioner wanna-be, the Chief Justice of the Ethnic Cleanser Corpse. Fessenden held an amateur license. He was a ham as well as a "pro". Not in 1900 or 1906, Alex Trebek. WRONG. I didn't say *when* he held the amateur license. Tsk. You tried to connect the dots. :-) NOBODY in the USA held ANY official civil radio license until 1912. I'm just stating a fact that is, most assuredly, very correct. Just as you never said when you were getting that Extra licesne out of its box. Just as Reggie Fessenden never became a commercial success in radio. He went broke more than Edison. Couldn't get enough commercial backing. But, you MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here. :-) 1900 or 1906 is a long time ago, 104 to 98 years to be exact. You have an affinity for the old stuff. All that "high tech" of old technologically-primitive radio of nearly a century ago. Tsk, tsk. Fessenden was 1XS and later VP9F. See: Not before 1912 in the USA. :-) |
Subject: Famous Hams
From: Mike Coslo Date: 7/18/2004 1:06 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Looking at the Lenover21 vs N2EY debate on the first voice transmission, maybe we could make some headway by the following: Fessenden first transmitted voice modulated spark in 1900. The reply to the transmission was via telegraphy. In the ensuing years, there were both spark and alternator telephony experiments. The spark had the disadvantage of a nasty hissing component in the audio, and the contemporary alternators were running at up to 10 kHz, not very satisfactory, because they weren't all that much above voice frequencies. As time went by, alternators were built that could run at much higher frequencies. The first two-way transatlantic telephony was performed in 1906 at a frequency of around 88 kHz. This is all in the historical record. Jim accepts it, and Len appears not to. Len, what is your rationale for that? Because he "said so", Mike. He's a "professional"...! ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: First radio voice transmission was in 1906... Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio communication was being carried out. Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG. I would say his Time Machine is spot on. In 1900 Fessenden was working for the U.S. Weather Bureau where he improved their Morse code system for better weather forecasting and expermenting on his own transmitted voice for a distance of over a mile. In 1903 he sent a voice message over a distance of 50 miles and in 1906 he acheived *two-way* voice transmissions between the Brant Rock Station in Massachusetts and Machrihanish, Scotland. Spured by the Titanic disaster, he developed a device to bounce radio waves off iceburgs miles away. (the first RADAR maybe?) |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Fessenden first transmitted voice modulated spark in 1900. The reply to the transmission was via telegraphy. In the ensuing years, there were both spark and alternator telephony experiments. The spark had the disadvantage of a nasty hissing component in the audio, and the contemporary alternators were running at up to 10 kHz, not very satisfactory, because they weren't all that much above voice frequencies. As time went by, alternators were built that could run at much higher frequencies. The first two-way transatlantic telephony was performed in 1906 at a frequency of around 88 kHz. This is all in the historical record. A few more points, Mike: - The 1900 voice radio transmissions were the first, and were over a distance of about a mile. - By 1903, Fessenden had extended the distance to 50 miles - By November 1906, Fessenden had set up stations on both sides of the Atlantic and was conducting two-way voice transatlantic radio communication. - The much-heralded Christmas Eve 1906 event was not the first voice transmission, but rather the first *broadcast*, as it was meant for general reception by anyone with a suitable receiver. This broadcast was repeated a week later, on New Year's Eve. - Fessenden was able to generate intelligible voice-modulated spark by using a supply frequency above the audible range. However, he found that modulating an alternator was a superior method. - A few years ago, some Canadians built a replica of Fessenden's 1900 transmitter, and using a dummy load were able to get it to work. Recoridngs of the resulting signal are online. While the audio quality is low, the voice is intelligible. Fessenden was a true genius, with over 500 patents in a variety of fields. In my opinion, he is second in significance only to Edwin Howard Armstrong in the development of modern radio. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Looking at the Lenover21 vs N2EY debate on the first voice transmission, maybe we could make some headway by the following: Mike, this is all old ground that was ground under the anguished trodding feet of the exacting headmasters months ago. :-) A century in the past. An oddity insofar as technology is concerned. Anyone (other than the one in my ancestral land) using alternators or spark transmitters now? This is all in the historical record. Jim accepts it, and Len appears not to. Len, what is your rationale for that? Doesn't matter what I write in here. Headmaster and Deacon, the "right" Rev. Jim, will say I am "flat-out wrong," "incorrect" and so forth, no matter what the subject. :-) The only thing I'm sure about is that I was helping to keep HF communications alive and well across the Pacific a half century ago...24/7 service...never once having to use morse code then or in the next half century. If you guys want only to natter about ancient history and argue the whichness of the what on technologies long ago kissed bye- bye by everyone, fine. If Jeopardy ever has questions on ancient radio days' technologies, I really doubt if any of you PCTA are going to pull off a Ken Jennings. :-) By the way, consider what became of ol' Reggie after the 20s. Not much left of his "technology" in the world of radio. Some consider him a "genius." Those folks NEED hero worship objects for some reason. Bottom line was that Reggie just couldn't hack it in trying to be a part of Big Radio Business not long after that famous Christmas Eve broadcast. You might say ol' Reg just fired up, tuned out, and went QRT. He did invent the first heterodyne receiver (of a most crude sort). Ed Armstrong came along and invented a great improvement, the superheterodyne. Tubes proved superior to lil bitty spark RF generators. Reg just didn't work much with tubes. You too can make a "heterodyne receiver" much like Fessenden's. Just get a crystal set and add a little RF generator tuned to close to the signal frequency. Sort of a "detector and BFO" without the rest of the receiver. [a direct-conversion receiver is much easier and more sensitive, but let's not quibble among the ancient radio re-enactors... :-) ] I think most hams will know what a "superhet" receiver is. How many know what a "het" receiver is? :-) |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: Just as you never said when you were getting that Extra licesne out of its box. Just as Reggie Fessenden never became a commercial success in radio. He went broke more than Edison. Couldn't get enough commercial backing. You were wrong, Lennie. But, you MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here. You were wrong, Lennie. 1900 or 1906 is a long time ago, 104 to 98 years to be exact. You were wrong, Lennie. You have an affinity for the old stuff. All that "high tech" of old technologically-primitive radio of nearly a century ago. Tsk, tsk. You were wrong, Lennie. Fessenden was 1XS and later VP9F. See: Not before 1912 in the USA. You were wrong, Lennie. Now...on those few occassions when you have been right, you've DEMANDED that the other party acknowldege your rightness and pay you homage. We won't hold our breath for the same from you, but we will wait and see if you are man enough to acknowledge that you were, indeed, wrong. I don't think you are. Steve, K4YZ |
|
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: First radio voice transmission was in 1906... Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio communication was being carried out. Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG. No, it's quite right. You're the one who's wrong, Len. "Always wrong" to Rev. Jim. :-) Who? "Two-way" in 1906? Yes. Two way transatlantic in 1906. Voice radio transmission was first demonstrated by Fessenden in 1900, not 1906. Riiiiiight...real-time full duplex? Half duplex? Duplicity? Sounds like you've had a couple doobies, Len ;-) ;-) So, a big deal with everyone jumping on the bandwagon of voice transmissions 1900 to 1906, right? :-) You tell us - you brought it up. And you got the date wrong by six years. You're reference is six years late. Simply wrong. In error. Mistaken. Oooooooo! :-) Good stuff in those doobies, huh? ;-) ;-) When, between December 26 and 31 that year?!?!? Nope. November. Look it up. So, the famous "Christmas Eve broadcast" didn't happen on Christmas Eve? Sure it did. It just wasn't the first radio voice transmission. Real "high-tech" Tx there. A specially-designed carbon-pile mike in the antenna feedline making a sort of AM. :-) It worked. You probably won't do that, because doing so would prove you to be wrong. What "won't I do?" :-) You won't look up the facts and admit your mistake. Wrong yet again, Len! Are you going for a record? No. You must be as judge, jury, executioner wanna-be, the Chief Justice of the Ethnic Cleanser Corpse. Not me. You. Fessenden held an amateur license. He was a ham as well as a "pro". Not in 1900 or 1906, Alex Trebek. WRONG. I didn't say *when* he held the amateur license. Tsk. You tried to connect the dots. :-) You did. NOBODY in the USA held ANY official civil radio license until 1912. So what? Your high bias is showing, Len. Makes you run hot ;-) ;-) I'm just stating a fact that is, most assuredly, very correct. Maybe. Doesn't fix your mistake, though. Just as you never said when you were getting that Extra licesne out of its box. Just as Reggie Fessenden never became a commercial success in radio. He went broke more than Edison. Couldn't get enough commercial backing. You're no Fessenden, Len. ;-) ;-) But, you MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here. :-) Gee. Len, I'm not the one calling people names and telling them to shut up. You are. 1900 or 1906 is a long time ago, 104 to 98 years to be exact. Then why did you bring it up? You have an affinity for the old stuff. Some old stuff. Not all old stuff. All that "high tech" of old technologically-primitive radio of nearly a century ago. Tsk, tsk. You MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here. :-) Fessenden was 1XS and later VP9F. See: Not before 1912 in the USA. :-) He got his out of its box. You haven't. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com