"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: (William)
Date: 10/4/2004 7:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Gosh, I wonder who's running MARS?

All of the civilians who happen to have Amateur Radio licenses,

DoD runs MARS.

For DoD purposes, not Amateur purposes.

On MARS frequencies, not on Amateur frequencies.

With DoD regulations, not Amateur regulations.

Riley has nothing to do with it.

Didn't say he did.

You said that "MARS IS Amateur Radio!"

Riley is a regulator of Amateur Radio. Therefore Riley is a regulator
of MARS.


Incorrect use of deductive logic. Otherwise we could say: Roses are red,
Apples are red, therefore roses are apples.

Except that not all roses are red, and not all apples are red.

I ran Steve in circles with your logic. He then tried saying that
-ALL- MARS radio operators were Amateur Radio volunteers. I showed
that not all MARS radio operators are amateurs.

Then he switched to "MARS would cease to exist without amateur
volunteers," which is where his current state of the art thinking
sits.

Or we could go: Dogs are
carnivores, bears are carnivores, therefore dogs are bears.

Then why don't you? See if Steve will buy into it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Best of luck.

Steve, the truth is in this message. Best of Luck.

bb
-------------
(William) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Yep, 35 years later they've got Collins. Keepin' up with the times.

That's right, "William", I've got a modified 75A-3 which is about 51
years old, a 51S-1 which was produced in the late seventies and a
KWM-2A

NICE collection!

which was built about the same time as Len's Icom R-70 receiver.
I have an Orion which was produced last year.

How do you like using the Orion?

No rig is perfect. The Orion is very, very close.

I stopped by Ten-Tec last year and looked at it, didn't buy it.

They still make 'em.

But David they don't come with antennas and somebody who knows how to
install antennas so that's the end of Silly Willy Beeper's Ten-tec
dream machine.

Kelly, I never have had an HF radio that came with an antenna.
Perhaps your do. Yet I managed to build my own cubical quad on HF,
dipoles, off-center fed dipoles, and EDZ's for 10 and 6, a hustler
vertical for 40, etc, etc, etc.

But in this particular location, I have very precise requirements and
your one size fits all suggestion just wasn't what I wanted. Thank
you for your suggestion, but don't force it on me. Reminds me of the
time you told me to bend over. Thanks, but No thanks. Some kind of
weird elmering going on where you're from.

I also have other functional ham gear from the twenties, thirties,
forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties. I'm
keeping up with the times--ALL of 'em.

Nothing earlier?

To have anything earlier, I'd have to find something earlier. All I
have is a piece of something earlier. My late friend W4JBP first became
a ham in 1912 on the family farm near Indianapolis. John gave me the
spark coil from an old Reo truck. It was the basis for his very first
rig. It is coated in pitch and mounted in a small dovetailed wooden
box.

Yeeee-haw! One of those was my very first "transmitter"!

In seventh or eighth grade I found a big thick dusty 1920s compilation
of DIY projects which had appeared earlier in Popular Mechanics in the
jr. high library. What there was of it. 1950 timeframe. Lotta radio
projects and I built a couple crystal sets from the articles. None of
this 1N34 nonsense, go find a chunk of Galena then go find a hot spot
on it with a home-brewed cat whisker . . worked.

There was an article on building a spark TX based on a Model T Ford
spark coil which is obviously the same critter Reo used. I went spark
coil hunting and bought mine from J.C. Whitney which stocked heaps of
Model T parts and diddled with it. My Lionel train transformer did a
good job as it's "power supply".

I wrapped a dozen or so turns of wire around the wooden box to serve
as the "secondary" of the spark coil and grounded one end of it to a
copper water pipe in the rafters. Then I strung up some wire from the
"output" end of the secondary fom my cellar "laboratory" to an apple
tree out back. Connected a J-38 between the Lionel xfmr output and the
spark coil primary and was set to hit the airwaves.

I needed somebody to listen for me and after several days of getting
patted on my noggin and being written off as a nutcase I managed to
finally recruit George Barnum who lived a block and a half away to
listen for me. His older brother had a radio and TV repair shop so
George sorta understood what I was up to. He heard me *good* when I
fired the thing up on sked.

What was you callsign then?

Or were you bootlegging as you've previously reported?

The problem was that I really screwed up by arranging the sked when
every houswife in town was listening to the Don McNeil Breakfast Club
Hour while they were doing their ironing.

Actually, you're biggest screwup was operating w/o a license.

I completely obliterated the
AM b'cast band for blocks around, the phone rang off the hook and Mom
not only terminated my Grand Experiment but almost terminated me too.
Again.

. . . growing up is such a bitch . .

Maybe that's why you've done so little of it over the years.

Dave K8MN

w3rv

bb

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/2/2004 8:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message news:
...

Or, on the cheap side of the coin, "recycled" parts using mainly
technology that is 50 to 40 years old (K4YZ homepage).

What fault do you find with that and why doesn't any of it appear of
K4YZ's homepage?

Len is confused. He cannot deal with the fact that K4YZ and N2EY are
not
the
same person.

There's a whole lot that he is confused about.

For example, he keeps trying to confuse Amateur Radio with PLMRS, GMRS,
Armed Forces Communications, CB, etc etc etc.

I think Len would be very happy if Amateur Radio became just like cb.

Nothing in the Southgate Type 7 is "cheap". The parts used were very
inexpensive, but of high quality.

Geez,
absolutely zilch time spent in trying to make any of it
attractive.

Wrong again!

A lot of time and effort were spent making it attractive to the
intended
market. No time or effort was spent making it attractive to Len.

Of course...the Supreme Engineer forgot that the purpose of the
project
was to provide a functional device.

Ya missed the point.

"Attractiveness" is in the eye of the beholder. Look at how clothing
designs
have changed over the years.

Tsk. Kluges are still kluges.

I don't know of any clothing styles called "kluges".

"Kluge" isn't a clothing style.

Then why did you use the word?

It refers to a thrown-together
(usually hastily) collection of odds and ends of aerospace
things to serve a temporary purpose. Been a common term
in aerospace for a half century.

This isn't an aerospace newsgroup. And the Southgate Type 7 wasn't "thrown
together". Nor is it to serve a temporary purpose. So the term doesn't fit at
all.

You should call it "modern radio art" and thereby rationalize that
you are "advancing the state of the radio art!" :-)

Is that an order?

Tsk.

Yes or no?

Still upset about your handiwork not being admired and
respected? Even if it has the appearance of being a kluge?

"You can not answer a question with another question"

Riiiiiight...by making "modern" radio designs using tubes in the
1990s...:-)

Electro-politically incorrect to you, I suppose...

Gosh no.

Heck yes.

It seems to bother you a great deal that my rig even exists.

Forget the transistor got invented in the 1940s.

1948, actually. So what?

Tubes
are venerable, traditional, the stuff of might and brawn in hum
raddio...according to the olde-tymers.

If your radios hum, I suggest you do some work on the power supply filters.

I find that most of the "modern ready-built" radio sets are very
unattractive.

...just like all the other radio amateurs? :-)

I find some other radio amateurs unattractive too. Most I find to be
nice people.

But, you don't LIKE the "modern ready-builts." :-)

Most of them I find unattractive, and not well designed ergonomically. That's
my independent opinion. You seem to be saying that I should simply, blindly
accept what the manufacturers produce. After all, they're 'professionals'...

You want to re-invent the wheel and get all the applause for being
able to use chassis punches... :-)

??

The Type 7 is a unique design. No similar amateur radio transceiver exists,
either in current production nor in the past.

Here's a quick design problem for you: Design a heterodyne scheme to cover the
80, 40, and 20 meter ham bands (CW/data portions) using a 1400 kHz receiver IF
and a single-range VFO whose maximum frequency is less than 7 MHz. Use a
minimum of parts and allow for transceive operation, receiver offset tuning,
and bandswitching. Alignment must not require much in the way of test
equipment.

Why are the designer-manufacturers continuing (after years of doing
so) to design such "unattractive" exteriors?

One reason is that it's cheaper for them to do so. Another is that, as
in fashion, conventional marketing wisdom says that things have to
change in order to sell more product.

Is it all a conspiracy
against the superior esthetic sense of Jimmie?

You can't be talking about me, because I don't claim any "superior
esthetic sense".

HAR! :-)

It seems that you would rather have all of us amateurs simply purchase whatever
the manufacturers put out, without question or comments.

What I do have is "independent thought" about what's attractive and
not attractive. I find that most of the "modern ready-built" radio sets are
very unattractive. If that's unacceptable to you, tough.

Rationalization for being ultra-cheap...or terribly strapped for available
cash even though working as an electronics engineer (implied) for
money. Tsk.

Not at all. The Yankee word for it is "frugal".

Why should I spend more money on a transceiver that does not meet my
requirements when I can build one for less money that does?

Why should I accept the manufacturer's idea of what is "attractive" rather than
my own?

Why should I accept *your* idea of what is "attractive" rather than my own?

You seem to be saying that amateur radio must be limited to only those who are
willing to spend the money for "ready-built" equipment that meets your
approval. Even though you are not a radio amateur and never have been. Very
illogical.

Cluttered front panels, poor color choices, knobs and displays way too
small
and too close together, etc., etc. So I purposely avoid such design in my
projects. If the set is a little bigger because of it - so what?

Kluges are still kluges. :-)

Back to talking about clothing again?

Not me. "Kluge' is a familiar term in aerospace. Too bad you never
worked in that...

Why would I want to?

Decals for radio markings have been around for a half century...

So what? I don't think the use of decals would make the Type 7
attractive to you.

Tsk. Still smarting from the lack of appreciation of your personal
hobby stuff?

Nope. You behaved exactly as predicted.

are
clearer to read that scribbled felt-tip marker pen markings.

There are no such markings on the Type 7.

Hard to tell from a single picture on a personal website.

Then why did you make the statement?

But, if
those are "beauty" to you, feel free to enjoy it.

I don't need your permission, Len.

Tsk. But all NCTAs need YOUR permission to exist in here... :-)

Untrue.

Try NOT to impose
your "standards of beauty" (radio-wise) on others.

I don't. It is *you* who try to impose your standards of
"attractiveness" on others.

You've said that morse code is "music to your ears." :-)

How is that imposing my standard of beauty on others? It's music to *my* ears.

Tsk. That wasn't in any music appreciation venue that I know
of (and that's considerable).

Your experience is limited and flawed, then.

Yet we are yet to see any examples of *your* homebrew HF radio
projects, made in your own shop with only your own resources.

Ah. The "challenge" is made! Gauntlet thrown down.

If you wish to call it that.

SHOW WORK! MAKE WEB PAGES FOR DISPLAY!

Why all the shouting?

"Proof" is in the web pages! If it doesn't exist, then everyone
"lies." :-)

Nothing worth showing, huh? That means you're all talk and no action, Len. All
show and no go. Vaporware.

DOS tip, Len: AOL gives you a free home page with each screen name.
You can have up to seven! Plus they provide easy-to-use software to
help you set them up. Even I managed to get two of them done in a
short time. (Yes, there's another...)

Tsk. The limit is 2 MB per name. Good for some snapshots,
little more. :-)

They don't have to be high resolution. One would think an old-time
modem-communicator like you could do a lot with 14 MB. But so far nothing.
Nada. Zip. Zero. All talk and no action. All show and no go. Vaporware.

So *show us* what *you* could do in the home workshop, using only your
own resources.

Geez...all but baring your teeth in a snarly challenge! :-)

Not me. That would be you...

Your response is as expected, Len. You don't have any homebrew HF radio
projects to show us. Not receivers, transmitters or transceivers anyway. You'd
be at a loss to actually design and build one yourself, in your home workshop,
on your own time, with only your own resources. You talk a lot about articles
written by others and technical details, but when it comes to designing and
building a complete radio.......

Nothing worth showing.

You are still put out that all I said of your single photo was that it
was "neat."

Not "put out" at all. You behaved exactly as expected and predicted.

No gushing admiration for your prodigious chassis
punching, no respect for your mnemoic capabilities of tube circuit
recall. Sigh.

There's a lot more to building a rig like the Type 7 than "chassis punching"
and remembering circuits.

About the Type 7:

Had I used "decals" on the Type 7, you'd complain that they were
glossy and hard to read, plus easy to rub or wash off.

A simple Lucite of Plexiglass cover plate (easy to work) will
protect such things.

"Lucite of Plexiglass"? What is that?

The word is "Plexiglas", btw.

Now if it were Len writing this post, he'd go off on a long tangent about how
"Lucite" and "Plexiglas" are brand names for a certain family of clear
plastics. Lots of stuff about their history, etc. Maybe mention the big Rohm &
Haas plant in Bristol, PA, near the Burlington-Bristol bridge, just northeast
of Philadelphia on I-95. Etc., etc., etc.

Had I used tape labels, you'd complain that they looked "primitive"

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

Your behavior is very predictable, Len.

Had I used engraved nameplates, you'd complain that they looked old
and like an afterthought.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

Everyone who reads your stuff here knows what you would have done, Len.

Had I silkscreened the front panel, you'd complain that it wasn't
engraved.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

It's "what you do", Len

Had I engraved the front panel, you'd complain about the color choice.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

Or similar stuff.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

It's very clear that you are more interested in the superficial (appearance,
parts used, cost) rather than the significant (performance, reliability, usable
features, unique methods) of homebrew radio equipment.

Jim's radio did just that.

And much more.

Mission accomplished.

Not the stuff of "marketable design!"

That'd be a real problem if it was built to be a marketable design.

The intended market thinks it's an excellent design and of high quality
manufacture.

It seems that the real issue is that it bugs Len no end that someone
he considers an inferior (me) can do something he can't. Not just
building a rig, but being able to use it on the air. Not just from a
license/legal perspective, but from a practical operating skills
perspective.

Tsk. Inferiority complex you have?

Nope. But you seem to have one. Somebody has a website that shows a homebrew
ham station, and you have to attack its appearance and the technology used,
even though you know little or nothing about it.

We forget Lennie's only reason for being a "radio
professional"...profit.

Nothing wrong with that!

"Nothing wrong?"

No, there isn't.

There is wrongness in still keeping the code test in U.S. amateur radio
regulations.

No, there isn't.

Tsk. That's a hypocritical statement in here!

How? By whom?

Yourself...a PCTA extra with the Double Standard.

Explain - if you can.

Meanwhile, readers may note that you talk of "homebrewing" and "technical
subjects", but have nothing to show that isn't work-related except perhaps
having purchased a ready-built receiver 20+ years ago. For "CASH"...

It may also be noted that while you talk about only being against the Morse
Code test (not use), and being in favor of hams doing technical stuff, that
talk rapidly turns negative and critical when someone actually does such
things.

WE do what we do for FUN!

Also service to our country.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHHHAAAAA....!!!!

Engaging in a part-time HOBBY is a "service to the country?"

Sure.

It would be great if it were a full time pursuit...

Nonsense. Particularly from someone who NEVER served in
the military.

You seem to think that "the military" is the only way to be of service to our
country. You're wrong about that.

Your mindset is so engrossed in amateur radio as your raison
d'etre that you've slipped over the edge of reality into fantasy.

Not me, Len. Amateur radio is just one of many things I do, and have done for a
long time. In fact, it was 37 years ago today (October 14, 1967) that my Novice
license arrived in the mail from the FCC. 37 years of great fun, learning,
making friends all over the world, designing, building and operating rigs of
many types.

If anyone has a "mindset is so engrossed in amateur radio as your raison
d'etre that you've slipped over the edge of reality into fantasy", it would be
*you*. Len. You're not a ham, have never been one, have no apparent intentions
to become one despite that "out of the box" claim of almost 5 years ago.

Yet you post here probably more than anyone else, clutter the ECFS with long
repetitious commentary on a single small facet of amateur radio testing, and
argue even with those who agree with you.

Very illogical.

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/14/2004 10:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Rationalization for being ultra-cheap...or terribly strapped for
available
cash even though working as an electronics engineer (implied) for
money. Tsk.

Not at all. The Yankee word for it is "frugal".

Why should I spend more money on a transceiver that does not meet my
requirements when I can build one for less money that does?

Why should I accept the manufacturer's idea of what is "attractive" rather
than
my own?

Why should I accept *your* idea of what is "attractive" rather than my own?

You seem to be saying that amateur radio must be limited to only those who
are
willing to spend the money for "ready-built" equipment that meets your
approval. Even though you are not a radio amateur and never have been. Very
illogical.

Not at all, Jim.

Lennie's one and only reason for being a "radio professional" was to MAKE
MONEY from the radio industry.

As long as Amateurs continue to show the resolve and initiative to either
participate in radio design and engineering and/or build thier own gear, even
if in the form of a kit, then "radio professionals" such as he (still gives me
a snicker!) will still have to hang out at the union hall looking for work.

Not me. "Kluge' is a familiar term in aerospace. Too bad you never
worked in that...

Too bad Lennie never did, either.

Why would I want to?

Exactly.

Decals for radio markings have been around for a half century...

So what? I don't think the use of decals would make the Type 7
attractive to you.

Tsk. Still smarting from the lack of appreciation of your personal
hobby stuff?

Nope. You behaved exactly as predicted.

As if a crystal ball was required? Madam Cleo could see THAT one coming!

SHOW WORK! MAKE WEB PAGES FOR DISPLAY!

Why all the shouting?

I bet we won't see Brain jump in calling Lennie "Yell DMC".

"Proof" is in the web pages! If it doesn't exist, then everyone
"lies." :-)

Nothing worth showing, huh? That means you're all talk and no action, Len.
All
show and no go. Vaporware.

WE have had pictures of our various stations. Lennie can't even show us a
clipping from a catolog of what he CLAIMS to have up and running.

DOS tip, Len: AOL gives you a free home page with each screen name.
You can have up to seven! Plus they provide easy-to-use software to
help you set them up. Even I managed to get two of them done in a
short time. (Yes, there's another...)

Tsk. The limit is 2 MB per name. Good for some snapshots,
little more. :-)

They don't have to be high resolution. One would think an old-time
modem-communicator like you could do a lot with 14 MB. But so far nothing.
Nada. Zip. Zero. All talk and no action. All show and no go. Vaporware.

My QRZ site was a pic of my station when I was on Cagle Mountain.

And the AOL pages handle a heck of a lot more than "2MB". Anyone who has
looked through AOL pages know there are thousands upon thousands of pages that
have multiple pictures, graphics, and even "background music".

Yet our "resident radio professional" is already making excuses as to why
he can't make a single page AOL home page.

I am sure there are hundreds of pre-teens and middle school kids falling
off thier chiars in laughter right now! ! ! !

Some of them Amateur Generals and Extras, no doubt!

So *show us* what *you* could do in the home workshop, using only your
own resources.

Geez...all but baring your teeth in a snarly challenge!

Not me. That would be you...

Only further prrof of my assertions of what a liar Lennie is...

He never was an engineer, probably a borderline technician, undoubtedly
skilled at nothing more than plagiarism.

Your response is as expected, Len. You don't have any homebrew HF radio
projects to show us. Not receivers, transmitters or transceivers anyway.
You'd
be at a loss to actually design and build one yourself, in your home
workshop,
on your own time, with only your own resources. You talk a lot about articles
written by others and technical details, but when it comes to designing and
building a complete radio.......

Nothing worth showing.

Nothing TO show, let alone "worth showing"...Not even a store-bought
SWL/Scanner installation.

But you didn't and I didn't remark on it. Yet you "know" I would
have said what you accuse me of doing...hi hi.

It's very clear that you are more interested in the superficial (appearance,
parts used, cost) rather than the significant (performance, reliability,
usable
features, unique methods) of homebrew radio equipment.

That was, of course, the fifth paragraph where Lennie tried to make an
issue of "know(ing) what (he'd) do".

I guess Lennie thinks we're not observant enough to have noted very
predictible and established patterns...

Tsk. Inferiority complex you have?

Nope. But you seem to have one. Somebody has a website that shows a homebrew
ham station, and you have to attack its appearance and the technology used,
even though you know little or nothing about it.

But you KNEW how he'd react, Jim.

WHY do you respond to his stuff, anyway...?!?! (Where have I heard THAT
before...?!?!)

Tsk. That's a hypocritical statement in here!

How? By whom?

Yourself...a PCTA extra with the Double Standard.

Explain - if you can.

Meanwhile, readers may note that you talk of "homebrewing" and "technical
subjects", but have nothing to show that isn't work-related except perhaps
having purchased a ready-built receiver 20+ years ago. For "CASH"...

It may also be noted that while you talk about only being against the Morse
Code test (not use), and being in favor of hams doing technical stuff, that
talk rapidly turns negative and critical when someone actually does such
things.

Of course, Jim!

But don't let Brain see you actually using Lennie's own words against him!
Only those of us that he calls "PCTA" have a "double standard"!

WE do what we do for FUN!

Also service to our country.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHHHAAAAA....!!!!

Engaging in a part-time HOBBY is a "service to the country?"

Sure.

It would be great if it were a full time pursuit...

If only it could.

Of course Lennie could ask the same question of members of the USAF
Auxiliary (Civil Air Patrol), the USCG Auxiliary, the American Red Cross, the
Salvation Army, The Boy Scouts, the Girl Socuts, the American Heart
Association, etc etc etc...

Each of those organizations and programs are almost 100% volunteers
(notice I said ALMOST...) For many of those folks, it's "just a hobby".

Dare we say that any one of those organizations provides a "service to the
country"...?

Amateur Radio DEFINATELY does. It's been documented in the Federal
Register as such.

Nonsense. Particularly from someone who NEVER served in
the military.

You seem to think that "the military" is the only way to be of service to our
country. You're wrong about that.

Of course he is.

Your mindset is so engrossed in amateur radio as your raison
d'etre that you've slipped over the edge of reality into fantasy.

Not me, Len. Amateur radio is just one of many things I do, and have done for
a
long time. In fact, it was 37 years ago today (October 14, 1967) that my
Novice
license arrived in the mail from the FCC. 37 years of great fun, learning,
making friends all over the world, designing, building and operating rigs of
many types.

If anyone has a "mindset is so engrossed in amateur radio as your raison
d'etre that you've slipped over the edge of reality into fantasy", it would
be
*you*. Len. You're not a ham, have never been one, have no apparent
intentions
to become one despite that "out of the box" claim of almost 5 years ago.

Yet you post here probably more than anyone else, clutter the ECFS with long
repetitious commentary on a single small facet of amateur radio testing, and
argue even with those who agree with you.

Very illogical.

Of course it is, Jim. You expect an idiot to be "logical"...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


"Kluge" isn't a clothing style.

Then why did you use the word?

Tsk. Those of us in the real electronics industry (which includes
aerospace) know the word KLUGE and are familiar with it and what
it means. Tens of thousands of us, in fact. It's been in use for a
half century by us electron-pushers. :-)


This isn't an aerospace newsgroup.

Tsk. Then why did you carry on like you were such a space business
guru, etc., a couple months ago? :-)

Nope, THIS newsgroup seems to be a hang-out for the mighty macho
morsemen, PCTA extras who want to keep shoving the morse code
test on all newcomers to the PCTA's HF playground...


Still upset about your handiwork not being admired and
respected? Even if it has the appearance of being a kluge?

"You can not answer a question with another question"

Tsk, tsk. A kluge is a kluge, despite the self-enoblement you put
on it.


Here's a quick design problem for you:

Tsk. Have your agent call mine, they can "do lunch" and talk over
the contract terms... :-)

Design a heterodyne scheme to cover the 80, 40, and 20 meter ham bands

That was done well before 1990 by others. :-)

Tsk. You should have read all about the past. Try Collins Radio circa
the end of the 1940s for some examples. You need the TMs for their
government designs?


It seems that you would rather have all of us amateurs simply purchase
whatever the manufacturers put out, without question or comments.

Nooooo...NOT what "I seem to be doing." :-)

I called your kluge pile a KLUGE. My opinion. I didn't try to misdirect
into a discussion of ready-builts. The picture of your transceiver (the
collection of tube-holding chassis) spoke for itself.


Not at all. The Yankee word for it is "frugal".

CHEAP is still cheap. You can dress it up in fine words but it is
still CHEAP.


Not me. "Kluge' is a familiar term in aerospace. Too bad you never
worked in that...

Why would I want to?

Tsk. I doubt anyone in the aerospace industry really cares what you
want to do personally, but that's just an off-the-cuff opinion. :-)

Exciting work in aerospace in the USA in the last half century,
really advancing the state of all electronics' art in most disciplines,
making high-performance aircraft and spacecraft that landed on the
moon, plus many other achievements.


How is that imposing my standard of beauty on others? It's music to *my*
ears.

Whatever floats your auditory boat. :-)


Your experience is limited and flawed, then.

It always is according to the PCTA extras. :-) Hi hi.


Nothing worth showing, huh? That means you're all talk and no action, Len.
All show and no go. Vaporware.

Tsk, tsk. It's been shown but not as a single-photo home page on
AOL. :-)


Your response is as expected, Len. You don't have any homebrew HF radio
projects to show us. Not receivers, transmitters or transceivers anyway.

Heh heh heh.

You'd be at a loss to actually design and build one yourself, in your home
workshop, on your own time, with only your own resources. You talk a lot
about articles written by others and technical details, but when it comes to
designing and building a complete radio.......

Tsk. Still incorrect, Jimmie.

Nothing worth showing.

Tsk. Still snarly and angry about your collection of un-enclosed chassis
(using tubes) built in the 1990s being called a KLUGE?


Not "put out" at all. You behaved exactly as expected and predicted.

Oooooo..."as expected" and "as predicted!" :-)

"Predicted" to whom? :-)


There's a lot more to building a rig like the Type 7 than "chassis punching"
and remembering circuits.

Can't see that. You haven't documented any of that.

All us readers saw was a single photo of a bunch of tube-holding un-
enclosed chassis.

You didn't show anything else. No show, no blow...by your "rules." :-)


Your behavior is very predictable, Len.

You are the Nostradamus of the last millennium... :-)


Everyone who reads your stuff here knows what you would have done, Len.

Yas...insofar as talking against the morse code test! :-)


It's very clear that you are more interested in the superficial (appearance,
parts used, cost) rather than the significant (performance, reliability,
usable features, unique methods) of homebrew radio equipment.

"Very clear?" :-)

Tsk. I didn't see any MTBF figures or environmental test reports
on the Famous Type 7 home page on AOL. :-)


Nope. But you seem to have one. Somebody has a website that shows a homebrew
ham station, and you have to attack its appearance and the technology used,
even though you know little or nothing about it.

"Attack?" :-)

One picture. A collection of tube-holding chassis reportedly built
in the 1990s. :-)

Looked like a kluge to me. shrug


Meanwhile, readers may note that you talk of "homebrewing" and "technical
subjects", but have nothing to show that isn't work-related except perhaps
having purchased a ready-built receiver 20+ years ago. For "CASH"...

Tsk. Someone else having money gets you UPSET does it?

Awwwwww....

It may also be noted that while you talk about only being against the Morse
Code test (not use), and being in favor of hams doing technical stuff, that
talk rapidly turns negative and critical when someone actually does such
things.

Awwwwww....


You seem to think that "the military" is the only way to be of service to our
country. You're wrong about that.

Tsk. You are getting repetitious with your "you're wrong about that."

Are you "in the service of your country" because you hold an
amateur radio license?!?

That's as bad as nursie claiming "MARS IS amateur radio!" :-)


*you*. Len. You're not a ham, have never been one, have no apparent
intentions
to become one despite that "out of the box" claim of almost 5 years ago.

Tsk. You're still going on and on with that schtick, aintcha? :-)

Did you pledge your allegiance to amateur radio? Take your vows
as a good little morseman, never to sully your soul with an evil
microphone used for speech?

Yet you post here probably more than anyone else, clutter the ECFS with long
repetitious commentary on a single small facet of amateur radio testing, and
argue even with those who agree with you.

Tsk. Up till last night, I'd made ONE post in five days. I guess that's
"posting more than anyone else!" :-)

I "clutter the ECFS" [at the FCC website] with "long repetitious commentary
on a single small facet of amateur radio testing?" Tsk. Mikey Powell
should ban me for "overcrowding" the gullfoss server? HAR! Hi hi. :-)

There are no less than 18 petitions on the ECFS towards a proposed
NPRM on amateur radio restructuring. Nearly all of those 18 involve
the manual morse code test. I've commented on nearly all of the 18.

Sunnuvagun!

Thousands and thousands of others have made Comments to the FCC.

Sunnuvagun!

Jimmie no like non-hams commenting about ham regulations? Awwww.

Jimmie wanna repeal the First Amendment? :-)

Very illogical.

Yes, isn't it? Jimmie got all put out by not having his handiwork loved
admired, praised, etc. and then made a bunch of factual ERRORS in
closing. Tsk.

A kluge is a kluge. A picture of one speaks for itself.

On 14 Oct 2004 15:55:53 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

snip

Forget the transistor got invented in the 1940s.

1948, actually. So what?

1947, actually - at Bell Labs.

http://www.computer.org/history/development/1947.htm
http://www.cedmagic.com/history/transistor-1947.html

snip

The Type 7 is a unique design. No similar amateur radio transceiver exists,
either in current production nor in the past.

Hmmmmm - judging from the photos on your website, I'd have to agree
with that one! :)

snip

73, Leo

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


Not me. "Kluge' is a familiar term in aerospace. Too bad you never
worked in that...

Why would I want to?

Tsk. I doubt anyone in the aerospace industry really cares what you
want to do personally, but that's just an off-the-cuff opinion. :-)

I see your point, Len. I doubt that there are many in amateur radio who
care what you want to do "personally".


Not "put out" at all. You behaved exactly as expected and predicted.

Oooooo..."as expected" and "as predicted!" :-)

"Predicted" to whom? :-)

....to the entire newsgroup on quite a number of occasions :-) :-)


Meanwhile, readers may note that you talk of "homebrewing" and "technical
subjects", but have nothing to show that isn't work-related except perhaps
having purchased a ready-built receiver 20+ years ago. For "CASH"...

Tsk. Someone else having money gets you UPSET does it?

I didn't see any statement about someone else having money, Leonard. We
have an indication that you had, at one time, enough surplus "CASH" to
purchase an Icom R-70.



A kluge is a kluge. A picture of one speaks for itself.

Len, you are a rude churl. If we had a photo of you, perhaps it could
speak for itself.

Dave K8MN

In article , Leo
writes:

On 14 Oct 2004 15:55:53 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

snip

Forget the transistor got invented in the 1940s.

1948, actually. So what?

1947, actually - at Bell Labs.

http://www.computer.org/history/development/1947.htm
http://www.cedmagic.com/history/transistor-1947.html

Heh...I knew that and you knew that, but Sir James would make
it a Federal Case of misdirection in this thread to disagree with
his royal Type-Seveness. :-)

Bell Labs made the announcement of the transistor invention
in 1948. The actual invention was done in 1947.

No doubt Sir James wishes the announcement would also have
been done on a broadcast transmitter using a microphone in
series with the antenna a la Reggie Fessenden. :-)


snip

The Type 7 is a unique design. No similar amateur radio transceiver exists,
either in current production nor in the past.

Hmmmmm - judging from the photos on your website, I'd have to agree
with that one! :)

Heap glowing gratuitous praise for the wonderful workmanship, the
beauty of the design, the ethereal glow of the mighty vacuum tubes.

If not, Sir James will raise the Hue and Cry agin ya with multitudes
of mighty paragraphs. :-)

After all, this was Sir James' "state of the art" in amateur radio as
of the early 1990s!

In article , Leo
writes:

n 14 Oct 2004 15:55:53 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

snip

Forget the transistor got invented in the 1940s.

1948, actually. So what?

1947, actually - at Bell Labs.

http://www.computer.org/history/development/1947.htm
http://www.cedmagic.com/history/transistor-1947.html

Right you are!

Thanks, Leo!

snip

The Type 7 is a unique design. No similar amateur radio transceiver exists,
either in current production nor in the past.

Hmmmmm - judging from the photos on your website, I'd have to agree
with that one! :)

Indeed!

73 de Jim, N2EY