"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...

"Just a month ago" I was "all over your case" not about the notion of a
lerners permit, but about your dump huck "can't operate without a
supervisor" license proposal.

Good luck on this one now!

72, de Hans, K0HB

I can see Steve as the Lord High Commander of the Corps that oversees
those newly licensed hams. He's a Gotta be in Charge kind of guy.

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message news:
...

All it took for a ham to stay inside the subbands was a frequency standard
of
known accuracy. This could take the form of an accurately-calibrated
receiver,
transmitter or transceiver, an external frequency meter (WW2 surplus BC-221
and
LM units were relatively inexpensive in the 1960s) or a 100 kHz oscillator
with
suitable dividers.

He's clueless.

Of course. What else is new?

As usual. I could comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz
of any band edge or subband edge with my Collins 75A4 and know I was
"legal".

Sure - mentioned earlier in the post.

I simply tweaked the 100Khz xtal oscillator to get it dead
on against WWV on several freqs and took it from there. The
out-of-the-box Collins PTO and linear dial with it's adjustable cursor
*is* a frequency meter and it's far more accurate than any of W2
surplus units. Not to mention being much more convenient to use.

Point is, even those who couldn't afford Drake or Collins could get almost as
close to a band or subband edge - using '50s technology.

So Len's claim of needing "modern frequency synthesizers" is utterly bogus.
Also his claim that it was "all about staking territory" or some such nonsense.
False. Without any facts to back it up.

It's clear that he doesn't really understand what amateur HF operation is/was
like at all, nor amateur radio economics, nor even what really happened
historically.

He wasn't alone. B&W came out with their 6100 transmitter and it was a flop.
The synthesizer feature in it was neat but nobody wanted to pay $700 for one
when they could have a Collins or Drake for the same or less.

Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it.

The A4 served me well into the early 1980s. The 75S-3B and Drake R4B
were just as accurate as the A4. I didn't own or need a synthesized
xcvr "to stay within the bands" until I bought a used Icom 2M mobile
FM rig around 1988.

Yup.

And the only reason that thing was synthesized is that it was cheaper than
buying lots of xtals.

My 1976 vintage HW-2036 was Heath's synthesizer replacement for the HW-202,
which used crystals.

Dredge up some of the results of the 1950s FMTs to really drive the
point home.

Back about 1979 I had a BC-348 and BC-221 in good shape. Just for the heck of
it I I tried 'em out in the FMT. Error on each band was better than your 200
Hz.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: "KØHB"
Date: 9/24/2004 8:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote


Just a month ago you were all over my case about a suggest
VOLUNTARY "learner's permit" kind of license.


Damn, Steve, you're taking on the habits of Len in getting your facts
all muddled up! For years I've been arguing for a learners permit
similar to the old Novice one-term permit. Point your browser to
http://tinyurl.com/wce9 for the proposal I've sent to FCC.

"Just a month ago" I was "all over your case" not about the notion of a
lerners permit, but about your dump huck "can't operate without a
supervisor" license proposal.

Good luck on this one now!

No "luck" needed, Hans.

Two faced is two faced, and you've shown both of yours.

Good luck to YOU.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 9/24/2004 5:56 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote
.

Sounds like socialism.


One of the most effective* amateur-radio-license-qualification systems
known was the ex-USS(ocialist)R's.

de Hans, K0HB


*effective: Licensees were acknowledged among the most competent
(technically and operationally) anywhere.

Yep.

Part of that was their license system, which required things like
demonstrated
ability as an SWL before getting a transmitting license, and *required* the
construction of equipment of a certain complexity from scratch.

Another part was economic - homebrewing was effectively the only way many
Soviet hams could get on the air.

You've both left out the most important point:

Soviet (and now Russian) operators had/have to LEARN the material they
were/are going to be tested on.

73

Steve. K4YZ

In article , PAMNO
(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message news:
...

All it took for a ham to stay inside the subbands was a frequency standard
of
known accuracy. This could take the form of an accurately-calibrated
receiver,
transmitter or transceiver, an external frequency meter (WW2 surplus
BC-221
and
LM units were relatively inexpensive in the 1960s) or a 100 kHz oscillator
with
suitable dividers.

He's clueless.

Of course. What else is new?

As usual. I could comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz
of any band edge or subband edge with my Collins 75A4 and know I was
"legal".

Sure - mentioned earlier in the post.

I simply tweaked the 100Khz xtal oscillator to get it dead
on against WWV on several freqs and took it from there. The
out-of-the-box Collins PTO and linear dial with it's adjustable cursor
*is* a frequency meter and it's far more accurate than any of W2
surplus units. Not to mention being much more convenient to use.

Point is, even those who couldn't afford Drake or Collins could get almost as
close to a band or subband edge - using '50s technology.

So Len's claim of needing "modern frequency synthesizers" is utterly bogus.
Also his claim that it was "all about staking territory" or some such
nonsense.
False. Without any facts to back it up.

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

You just can't do that with a '50s VFO in that time frame. You can,
long, long after the fact, brag about "being able to do so" but it
couldn't be done in second it takes to move a tuning knob...nor
could you as easily do "split" to another, pre-selected frequency
with that VFO. Not even with a garage full of BC-221s. :-)

It's clear that he doesn't really understand what amateur HF operation is/was
like at all, nor amateur radio economics, nor even what really happened
historically.

You should tell more about how you became a ham the moment
you were born into that era. Talk about child prodigies... :-)

It's true I can't understand the fantasy mindset of some hams. I've
perhaps been "held back" by the harsh reality of the real world. :-)

Some real world: 1954, the first visit to Camp Owada in Japan, the
huge radio receiving site for the FEC Hq run jointly by the USA and
USAF. Seeing the "388" and "390" Collins receivers for the first
time...able to tune in within 1 KHz on an analog dial (the 390 series
had a digital indicator but it was mechanical since the tuning was
ALL analog). Remarkable stuff, I admit.

But "synthesized?" No. Far from it. All heterodyning on the analog
level. Not a PLL, not a Fractional-N, not a DDS in any of them.

He wasn't alone. B&W came out with their 6100 transmitter and it was a flop.
The synthesizer feature in it was neat but nobody wanted to pay $700 for one
when they could have a Collins or Drake for the same or less.

Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it.

There are "experts" whose entire experience is leafing through
catalogs. Then there are the few "drudges" (like myself) who've
gotten our hands dirty doing the design and testing of synthesizers.

The A4 served me well into the early 1980s. The 75S-3B and Drake R4B
were just as accurate as the A4. I didn't own or need a synthesized
xcvr "to stay within the bands" until I bought a used Icom 2M mobile
FM rig around 1988.

Yup.

What? No "inventiveness" or "innovation" that all right-thinking hams
are supposed to have? Kellie actually bought a ready-made VHF HT
and "went channel?!?!?" :-)

"Real hams" (PCTA extras) shouldn't soil their whatevers going up
above 30 MHz! Tsk. [not even if they wanted to work Frenchmen
out of band on 6]

And the only reason that thing was synthesized is that it was cheaper than
buying lots of xtals.

So, you still think that "frequency synthesizers" began with banks of
quartz crystals in oscillators heterodyned to produce many frequencies?

The civilian avionics industry was a step ahead of hams in that regard,
perhaps the first to have light transceivers for small civilian aircraft
using the international VHF civil aviation bands.

My 1976 vintage HW-2036 was Heath's synthesizer replacement for the HW-202,
which used crystals.

Dredge up some of the results of the 1950s FMTs to really drive the
point home.

Back about 1979 I had a BC-348 and BC-221 in good shape. Just for the heck of
it I I tried 'em out in the FMT. Error on each band was better than your 200
Hz.

Tsk. You should contribute your knowledge and expertise to NIST.
Show them how good you are. Atomic standards are nothing to
one who can tweak a '221. :-)

[talk about "spin resonance" at the molecular level... :-) ]

In article ,
(William) writes:

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

All it took for a ham to stay inside the subbands was a frequency
standard of
known accuracy. This could take the form of an accurately-calibrated
receiver,
transmitter or transceiver, an external frequency meter (WW2 surplus
BC-221 and
LM units were relatively inexpensive in the 1960s) or a 100 kHz
oscillator with
suitable dividers.

He's clueless. As usual. I could comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz
of any band edge or subband edge with my Collins 75A4 and know I was
"legal". I simply tweaked the 100Khz xtal oscillator to get it dead
on against WWV on several freqs and took it from there. The
out-of-the-box Collins PTO and linear dial with it's adjustable cursor
*is* a frequency meter and it's far more accurate than any of W2
surplus units. Not to mention being much more convenient to use.

Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it.

All of it?

So I guess all the hoopla about constructing one's own station to be a
real ham was just a bunch of smoke going up someones hamstring?

Not even a Heathkit in there anywhere?

Sheesh!

Heathkits are for "drudges."

Those who sit at captain's tables (natuarlly) had Collins... :-)

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

Nobody has, it's just a diversion away from the original nonsense about hams
needing rigs with synthesizers.

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

Irrelevant to 99% of amateur HF operations. With a very few special exceptions
(like 60m) we're not required by law to be on any specific freq on HF. We *are*
required, and have long been required, to be within the band or subband. Len
can't seem to grasp that concept.

In fact, in almost all HF ham operations, good operators decide their QRG based
on non-interference, not any specific channel or spot frequency.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example. And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.

You mean synthesizers aren't perfect in every way?

Remember the HRO-500?

But "synthesized?" No. Far from it. All heterodyning on the analog
level. Not a PLL, not a Fractional-N, not a DDS in any of them.

As if that was somehow important.

He wasn't alone. B&W came out with their 6100 transmitter and it was a
flop.
The synthesizer feature in it was neat but nobody wanted to pay $700 for
one
when they could have a Collins or Drake for the same or less.

Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it.

There are "experts" whose entire experience is leafing through
catalogs.

Well, I'm not one of 'em.

My FT-847, which is not much as ham xcvrs go, can be tuned in 1 Hz
increments vs. the "make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz
increments" thingey you cite above.

That *is* a nice rig. Did a good job on FD.

You obviously need to spend
considerable time leafing thru the ham catalogs to get up to speed on
the equipment we use before you spout off and continue to goose up
your "coefficient of ignornace" on the subject of ham radio in general
and the equipment we use.

Don't hold yer breath...

Again. Gets boring.

Maybe that's the point.

Then there are the few "drudges" (like myself) who've
gotten our hands dirty doing the design and testing of synthesizers.

Then there are drudges like me who have ham licenses and and put
technoligies to work on the airwaves whilst all you're allowed to do
is bafflegab about 'em with your keyboard.

And there are drudges who can design and build a rig from top to bottom, power
supply to antenna, put it on the air and work the world with it on the ham
bands. Using a whole bunch of different modes and technologies. For which we
are called names and insulted here.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

And there are drudges who can design and build a rig from top to bottom,
power
supply to antenna, put it on the air and work the world with it on the ham
bands. Using a whole bunch of different modes and technologies. For which we
are called names and insulted here.

Poor baby. Life is tough isn't it?

There you dwell on Mt. Olympus...or was it along the "sure-kill"
expressway? Nobody worships you. Tsk.

You aren't getting the accolades and perquisites you so richly
deserve, are you?

Are you wanting the "tithe that binds?"

Tsk. Show everybody who's the BOSS around here! Make
everyone do a morse code test!!! Force them. "Do code or die!"

The Four Morsemen of the Acropolis ride again!

Lotsa fun. snicker

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

And there are drudges who can design and build a rig from top to bottom,
power
supply to antenna, put it on the air and work the world with it on the ham
bands. Using a whole bunch of different modes and technologies. For which we
are called names and insulted here.

Poor baby. Life is tough isn't it?

It sure it, Leonard, old boy. You still have no ham ticket, do you?

There you dwell on Mt. Olympus...or was it along the "sure-kill"
expressway? Nobody worships you. Tsk.

Oh some might worship him, Leonard. If you meant that you don't worship
him, you could come out and write that (though most of us have figured
it out). You wouldn't want your popularity here up against Jim's in a
vote, would you?

You aren't getting the accolades and perquisites you so richly
deserve, are you?

Are you getting them here, Leonard, old bean?

Are you wanting the "tithe that binds?"

Jim isn't soliciting funds. I'm the guy attempting to have one million
usenet readers to send me a dollar each.

Tsk. Show everybody who's the BOSS around here! Make
everyone do a morse code test!!! Force them. "Do code or die!"

You needn't take a morse test or even a written exam. Just do as you've
always done.

The Four Morsemen of the Acropolis ride again!

Those are the guys signing the SV1 calls.

Lotsa fun. snicker

It certainly is *grin*

Dave K8MN

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea,
although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's
licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine
need for more than two licences, though.

Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose
written test would at least be equivalent to the current written
requirements for Extra - all in one go.

Not really, although the element 4 questions should be included in the pool
for it.

Devil's Advocate mode = ON

But why are the Element 4 questions needed at all? For that matter, why are
most of the Element 3 questions needed (See below)

Also, I don't think subband restrictions by
licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same
for the whole band.

They are a good idea because they act as an incentive. Of course if
there were only one class of license, they would no longer exist.

Incentive subbands run counter to the core purpose of testing - to ensure
competency. The appropriate level of competency for access to a different
part of the same band at the same power level is, um, let me see - the
same. Big surprise, huh?

By that logic, (insuring competency) there is no reason for any of the Element
4 questions at all, because a General has all of the bands, modes and power
levels of Extras.

So *if* we accept the idea that the only reason for license testing is to
insure competency, and that the General test insures competency for the bands
and modes allocated to it, then there's no reason for the Extra at all.

In fact, we can go a step farther. The Technician allows full power on all
authorized modes and bands above 30 MHz. Therefore, if the reason for testing
beyond the Tech is to insure HF competency, then the only questions that should
be on the General are those specific to HF competency.

Devil's Advocate mode = OFF

The problem with the above argument is that there are reasons for license
testing beyond simply insuring competency.

Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on
the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the
spectrum.

How restricted, and which bands?

I'm not sure how much, maybe QRP, maybe a bit more. It doesn't really
matter exactly which bands, harmonically related combinations such as 40
and 15 would be good.

The power level and bands *do* matter IMHO!

I think that an ideal entry level license would include parts or all of
*all* HF/MF amateur bands. Here's why:

1) Propagation on the various bands varies widely with time of day,
time of year and sunspot cycle. Having the widest possible selection of
bands would allow an entry-level amateur to use the best band for a
given set of conditions and resources, and also affords an opportunity
to learn about the various bands, propagation, etc.

Bands spread throughout the spectrum would acheive that without giving them
every band.

But why not give them every band and let them make the choice?

2) One of the biggest problems facing many amateurs is antenna
restrictions. Another is equipment cost. Often an amateur has to make
do with compromise antennas and equipment which limit the choice of
bands. Having the widest possible selection of bands would allow an
entry-level amateur to use the best band for a given antenna/rig
combination, and also affords an incentive to upgrade so more space on
most bands could be earned.

Or gaining those bands that their random wire works best on might be an
incentive to upgrade, if you look at it from another angle.

How are they to know which bands work best with their setup if they cannot use
some of them?

Why not simply give the broadest selection possible and let the newcomer sample
whatever looks/sounds interesting?

Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The
problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a
scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make
this idea impracticable.

Not at all!

All that would be required would be:

1) Existing license classes other than Extra closed off to new licenses
after a certain date. They keep their existing privileges and can
renew/modify indefinitely.

2) Existing license holders could upgrade to Extra by passing the
required written tests.

3) The new entry-level license class has its own privilege set.

4) Existing license holders other than Extra get the combined
privileges of their existing license and the new entry level license.

Eventually everyone in the closed-off license classes will either
upgrade or leave by attrition, and the rules governing them can be
removed without an NPRM. For example, we're down to about 30,000
Novices now, and dropping every month. When the last Novice is gone
from the database, the rules about that license class can be removed
from Part 97.

Your transition plan is messy, and unlikely to appeal to the FCC as it
leaves many loose ends.

FCC was offered some very neat transition plans before the last restructuring.
All were turned down. So they obviously aren't in any hurry to tie up loose
ends.

"Messy" is in the eye of the beholder. Under the above plan, we would probably
have a less-complicated band chart than today.

There are all kinds of variations possible. For example, consider this one:

- Extra renamed "Full", otherwise stays as is.

- Advanced gets all 'phone privileges

- "Entry", General, and Tech/Novice get General privileges. Only difference is
power level allowed.

- All classes except "Full" and "Entry" are closed off to new issues.

This isn't my ideal, just an example. Why wouldn't FCC go for it if a majority
of comments supported it?

K0HB/Hans' proposal makes more and more sense....

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
PAMNO
(always write even when wrong) writes:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Whatever you say. You can imagine getting within 10 Hz of the
correct frequency with the '50s designs all you want...but that
won't make it happen.

What?? Where, exactly, has anybody claimed 10Hz frequency resolution
with '50s analog radios?

Nobody has, it's just a diversion away from the original nonsense about hams
needing rigs with synthesizers.

Big surprise huh? NOT!

Creative PLL and DDS subsystems of today, designed by others,
make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz increments on any
HF band (30,000 frequencies within 300 KHz) with crystal-
controlled accuracy.

Irrelevant to 99% of amateur HF operations. With a very few special exceptions
(like 60m) we're not required by law to be on any specific freq on HF.

Right, but sometimes inband operational requirements dictate that we
get dead on some freq or another. Within reason of course. Spots
pouncing, etc.

We *are*
required, and have long been required, to be within the band or subband. Len
can't seem to grasp that concept.

He understands the law but he doesn't understand how we meet it's
req'mts so he bafflegabs over the horizon on the subject often wrong
all the way.

In fact, in almost all HF ham operations, good operators decide their QRG based
on non-interference, not any specific channel or spot frequency.

Analog VFOs are continuously variable. Making it possible for anyone
to select an *infinite* number of "increments" within a 300Hz
bandwidth much less your coarse 300 Khz wide example. And they do it
without generating any phase noise or other forms of crud synthesizers
toss out.

You mean synthesizers aren't perfect in every way?

Remember the HRO-500?

You bet. Disaster box. W3WPG was both a beta and a production version
tester of the 500 and I twiddled bofum myself at his place in Chester.
Both sounded like a bag of radio canaries (species phaseum noisium
boids) and National forthwith went bust despite Hal's imploring them
not to put that POS on the market. .


But "synthesized?" No. Far from it. All heterodyning on the analog
level. Not a PLL, not a Fractional-N, not a DDS in any of them.

As if that was somehow important.

Or anywhere near even slightly relevant.

He wasn't alone. B&W came out with their 6100 transmitter and it was a
flop.
The synthesizer feature in it was neat but nobody wanted to pay $700 for
one
when they could have a Collins or Drake for the same or less.

Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it.

There are "experts" whose entire experience is leafing through
catalogs.

Well, I'm not one of 'em.

Neither is anybody else around here amongst us who "have been around"
.. . .


My FT-847, which is not much as ham xcvrs go, can be tuned in 1 Hz
increments vs. the "make it possible for anyone to select 10 Hz
increments" thingey you cite above.

That *is* a nice rig. Did a good job on FD.

Prolly not a good idea for me to loiter on this subject in this NG
James but much to my surprise yes that slick little rig has proven to
be a diamond in the rough. But to hell with it, I'll loiter anyway,
the bandwidth is free.

Radio story (diatribe):

When I went radio hunting a couple years ago I had a very specific set
of 'wants' centered around very high portability but also with the
ergonomnics and front-panel controlability of a full-size
competition-grade home station desktopper. A five pound underdash
Omni. With a full panel of KNOBS, not menus dammit!

(Reminds me of the time I participated in a brain-storming session
pulled together by some of the guys from the Boeing Helicopters power
transmission group. The chief Boeing gearbox wonk started the session
off with "OK gentlemen the mission here is to come up with a
transmission which is capable of transmitting an infinite number of
horsepower to the rotors, weighs nothing and does not require any
installation space.")

I put a bunch of effort into my quest for what amounted to my
particular vision of an ultimate 100W all modes Field Day xcvr. I
didn't care where it came from. Current catalog units new or used,
out-of-production types on the used gear market, etc. I paid a lot of
attention to the online users reviews and lab test reports of a bunch
of candidate rigs. It didn't take long for me to write off all of the
current crop of whizzy do-it-all underdash xcvrs because of their
absolutely lousy basic performance. Bottom-end BDRs, IMDs, fershtink
selectivities (ceramic filters . . . gimmee a break!) along with a
lack of open filter slots, menu-dipping galore. IC-706, FT-897, etc.
Toy radios for the no-clues, fuhgeddit, allum. But (almost) all of
those writeoffs do offer the ability to get on the VHF/UHF bands with
all modes, a capability I added to my "gotta-have" list. I just
*gotta* do some 6 & 2M cw & ssb.

Can't imagine how that sweet old thing from Smog Central came up with
his whacky comments about PCTAs not being into the VHF/UHF bands. He
needs his head bolts retorqued.

Did not take long for me to zero in on the FT-847 because it's the
only xcvr out there anywhere which meets all of my basic objectives.
Despite it's reputation for being a heap of compromises and having a
collection of goofy warts and quirks. I also discovered that most of
it's numerous warts can be fixed with a soldering iron. No-brainer
there if one isn't afraid to perform surgery on a new kilobuck+
radio's innards.

So I popped for one knowing full well that I'd bought something of a
Yaesu "'kit radio".

Out-of-the-box and tuning around the HF bands it was it was, shall we
say, pretty unimpressive. Dismal? Woulda turned you off five seconds
into a test listen. But I expected that. The killer mod was the
installation of the 400Hz and 2.1Khz 8-pole INRAD IF filters a few
weeks before you got your mitts on it during this past FD and
commented it's an acceptable if not a rather decent performer. Given
the fact that you ain't got much tolerance for lousy front ends, phase
noise, birdies, menus, crummy selectivity and such.

I might even have the temerity to take it into the upcoming CQ WW CW
meatgrinder barefoot with a G5RV depending on how the plans work out
for a go at it with K3NL from his place. The K3NL "planning committee"
meets tomorrow at Casey's on Lansdowne Ave. Heh.

The dollars I've invested to date my moded 847 are not trivial, I'm
already at a bit over $1,500 and climbing as I keep adding
"enhancements"to the thing . . . yeah, I know, I could have bought a
used FT-1000MP (Not a "Field"!) for those kind of bucks. But an MP is
not a pack 'n go rig like the 847 nor is it usable 30Mhz. so that was
the end of that. I'll pick up an MP later and have the best of both
worlds. I did draw some lines on the monies though. My original intent
was to spend around $800 for a used 847 which are everywhere in the
used market. The street price from HRO at the time was around $1,500.
No way! But I ran into a sale on new 847s for $1250 gulped hard, bit
the bullet and bought it. The two filters cost $155 each. Current HRO
price is $1,400 which I still wouldn't go for.

I rattle on too much as usual. My point is that if there's anybody out
there still awake and looking for a nice little portable xcvr which
covers 12 bands and does all modes much better than the really compact
(junkers) the 847 is coming up a good choice for this particular OF.

It's about 11 x 11 x 3.5 inches big and only weighs 16 pounds.

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/hamhf/1467.html

**This one is a gotta-do for any radio buyer**:

http://www.sherweng.com/presentation.html

Others:

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/135

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FT847/

http://www.supercontrol.de/cat/ft847faq/ft847faq.htm


You obviously need to spend
considerable time leafing thru the ham catalogs to get up to speed on
the equipment we use before you spout off and continue to goose up
your "coefficient of ignornace" on the subject of ham radio in general
and the equipment we use.

Don't hold yer breath...

Again. Gets boring.

Maybe that's the point.

Seems like.

Then there are the few "drudges" (like myself) who've
gotten our hands dirty doing the design and testing of synthesizers.

Then there are drudges like me who have ham licenses and and put
technoligies to work on the airwaves whilst all you're allowed to do
is bafflegab about 'em with your keyboard.

And there are drudges who can design and build a rig from top to bottom, power
supply to antenna, put it on the air and work the world with it on the ham
bands. Using a whole bunch of different modes and technologies.

Right!

For which we
are called names and insulted here.

Writeoff . . .

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

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

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.

Dave K8MN

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:
...

All it took for a ham to stay inside the subbands was a frequency
standard of
known accuracy. This could take the form of an accurately-calibrated
receiver,
transmitter or transceiver, an external frequency meter (WW2 surplus
BC-221 and
LM units were relatively inexpensive in the 1960s) or a 100 kHz
oscillator with
suitable dividers.

He's clueless. As usual. I could comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz
of any band edge or subband edge with my Collins 75A4 and know I was
"legal". I simply tweaked the 100Khz xtal oscillator to get it dead
on against WWV on several freqs and took it from there. The
out-of-the-box Collins PTO and linear dial with it's adjustable cursor
*is* a frequency meter and it's far more accurate than any of W2
surplus units. Not to mention being much more convenient to use.

Straight out of the 1950s ham catalogs bub . . all of it.

All of it?

So I guess all the hoopla about constructing one's own station to be a
real ham was just a bunch of smoke going up someones hamstring?

Not even a Heathkit in there anywhere?

Sheesh!

Heathkits are for "drudges."

Those who sit at captain's tables (natuarlly) had Collins... :-)



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

Or, on the cheap side of the coin, "recycled" parts using mainly
technology that is 50 to 40 years old (K4YZ homepage). Geez,
absolutely zilch time spent in trying to make any of it attractive.
Not the stuff of "marketable design!"

Collins Radios, back when tubes were king, were REAL boat-
anchors...and performed very well although their specifications
were not great in sensitivity nor in IMD. I've aligned and
calibrated enough R-391s (the R-390 with motorized tuning
added, electronics the same) to be familiar with them.

Kellie is going to name- and number-drop (once he refreshes his
memory on old advertisements) that HIS gear is "the best" and
"superior" and anything that an NCTA has is "crap." HIS
"engineering examples" all involve machinery things, never
electronic stuff. Must be difficult for those who "sit at captain's
tables" to regress and crack open a theory book, huh?

We can't complain about that because the PCTA are royalty
and thus above reproach...but I complain anyway since I know
that electrons, fields, and waves don't much give a snit which
radio service it is or how the modulation is made. Can't
convince the PCTA of that. Color them inviolate.

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?

Geez,
absolutely zilch time spent in trying to make any of it attractive.
Not the stuff of "marketable design!"

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

Collins Radios, back when tubes were king, were REAL boat-
anchors...and performed very well although their specifications
were not great in sensitivity nor in IMD.

Have I told you lately just how much you remind me of John Kerry?

Dave K8MN

"Joe Guthart" wrote in message
...

Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled.

The dust will not settle in our time. And when it does some
great roaring machine will come and whirl it all skyhigh again.

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: Dave Heil
Date: 10/1/2004 10:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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?

Because, Dave...As usual, Lennie was looking for a quick jab to render to
his "opponents".

But as usual, he swung blindly, solidly landing a punch in his own eye!

There's only a picture of me on my QRZ page with verbal descriptions of my
station. None of the gear therein mentioned is based on "technology that is 50
to 40 years old"...

Neither of the two pages I maintain on AOL (one for myself, the other for
my deceased daughter) has any radio gear mentioned therein either.

Geez,
absolutely zilch time spent in trying to make any of it attractive.
Not the stuff of "marketable design!"

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

Yeppers...there's that "built to experiment with" thing again.

And yet another example of why Lennie the Lame is wrong yet again about
Amateur Radio, even if it is over a piece of nostalgia gear.

Collins Radios, back when tubes were king, were REAL boat-
anchors...and performed very well although their specifications
were not great in sensitivity nor in IMD.

Have I told you lately just how much you remind me of John Kerry?

Now I don't care for his politics, but WHY would you want to insult John
Kerry like THAT, Dave...?!?! Lennie's an overbearing, pompous "almost been"
who insists on trying to make the world fit into his several-decades old
perception of the world.

Kery is an overbearing, pom.....

Oh...Yeah...I guess so...CARRY ON ! ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ

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.

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.

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.

Collins Radios, back when tubes were king, were REAL boat-
anchors...and performed very well although their specifications
were not great in sensitivity nor in IMD.

Lab tests prove differently - particularly for a meatball 75S3C. See the
Sherwood Engineering receiver comparison chart.

What amateur radio HF receivers, transmitters and/or transceivers has Len
designed and built on his own time, with his own resources?

Where is Len's home page?

The whole world wonders....

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 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?

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

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.

Dave K8MN

Nothing earlier?

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 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.

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.

Dave K8MN

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.

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. Jim's radio did just that. 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.

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

WE do what we do for FUN!

Lennie's NOT a "fun" person.

Collins Radios, back when tubes were king, were REAL boat-
anchors...and performed very well although their specifications
were not great in sensitivity nor in IMD.

Lab tests prove differently - particularly for a meatball 75S3C. See the
Sherwood Engineering receiver comparison chart.

What amateur radio HF receivers, transmitters and/or transceivers has Len
designed and built on his own time, with his own resources?

Where is Len's home page?

The whole world wonders....

Lennie once HAD an AOL page...No pictures or even a remote mention of
radios, but he did make allusion to fantasizing about being the old man that
Ruth Buzzy (the comedienne) used to pelt with her purse on the park bench on
the old :Laugh In" series.

Some imagination, eh? Musta be reeeeeeeeal proud of that "radio
professional" background.

73

Steve, K4YZ

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 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.

I know. And the last QST had a nice ad for it. To be honest, I don't
know what I want in my next rig. That's why I keep looking.

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.

I've only seen photos.

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.

Dave K8MN

If you build it, you'll be tempted to use it.

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.

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.

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. 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 . .

Dave K8MN

w3rv

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.

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

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.

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

Nothing wrong with that!

WE do what we do for FUN!

Also service to our country.

Lennie's NOT a "fun" person.

I'm sure some people think he's fun.

Collins Radios, back when tubes were king, were REAL boat-
anchors...and performed very well although their specifications
were not great in sensitivity nor in IMD.

Lab tests prove differently - particularly for a meatball 75S3C. See the
Sherwood Engineering receiver comparison chart.

What amateur radio HF receivers, transmitters and/or transceivers has Len
designed and built on his own time, with his own resources?

Where is Len's home page?

The whole world wonders....

Lennie once HAD an AOL page...No pictures or even a remote mention of
radios, but he did make allusion to fantasizing about being the old man that
Ruth Buzzy (the comedienne) used to pelt with her purse on the park bench on
the old :Laugh In" series.

I missed that...

Some imagination, eh? Musta be reeeeeeeeal proud of that "radio
professional" background.

Whatever

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/3/2004 9:11 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve

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.

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

Nothing wrong with that!

There is when you try to force square pegs into round holes.

Lennie has that very hammer in his hands, determined to make the wrong
pegs fit for the wrong reasons.

WE do what we do for FUN!

Also service to our country.

Yep...Of course now that you alluded to "service" and Amateur Radio in the
same sentence, His High Holiness of Radio will launch into yet another analogy
between us and the Nazi Party.

Lennie's NOT a "fun" person.

I'm sure some people think he's fun.

The Marque deSade...?!?!

Lennie once HAD an AOL page...No pictures or even a remote mention of
radios, but he did make allusion to fantasizing about being the old man that
Ruth Buzzy (the comedienne) used to pelt with her purse on the park bench on
the old :Laugh In" series.

I missed that...

You didn't miss much. Lennie had made a point of making fun of some thing
I had on my AOL profile, so naturally I checked his. I had to wonder WHAT in
the WORLD this Bozo was talking about!

Oh...and BTW...it wasn't a "page"...My bust...It was just an AOL profile.

Some imagination, eh? Musta be reeeeeeeeal proud of that "radio
professional" background.

Whatever

"Whatever", indeed.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Lennie once HAD an AOL page...No pictures or even a remote mention of
radios, but he did make allusion to fantasizing about being the old man that
Ruth Buzzy (the comedienne) used to pelt with her purse on the park bench on
the old :Laugh In" series.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. WRONG. INCORRECT. ERROR.

Nursie is relapsing into his fantasyland behavior.

Never had an AOL "homepage." Don't need one. I have a nice home.

Some imagination, eh? Musta be reeeeeeeeal proud of that "radio
professional" background.

Just proud and satisfied. I have one. Nursie doesn't. Tsk.

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Kellie is going to name- and number-drop (once he refreshes his
memory on old advertisements) that HIS gear is "the best" and
"superior" and anything that an NCTA has is "crap." HIS
"engineering examples" all involve machinery things, never
electronic stuff. Must be difficult for those who "sit at captain's
tables" to regress and crack open a theory book, huh?

How about just being a good appliance OP and opening an operations
manual or TO? He can't even get the power supply voltage correct.
Wonder how many radios he's fried over the years?

"Stir-fry" as the napalm unloaders were wont to call it... :-)

We can't complain about that because the PCTA are royalty
and thus above reproach...but I complain anyway since I know
that electrons, fields, and waves don't much give a snit which
radio service it is or how the modulation is made. Can't
convince the PCTA of that. Color them inviolate.



Done.

Ooops! Here comes the flying bricks.

Incoming! Incoming! :-)

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/3/2004 9:11 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve

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.

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

Nothing wrong with that!

There is when you try to force square pegs into round holes.

This newsgrope is full of square pegs. Those are also called
"PCTA extras." :-)

Lennie has that very hammer in his hands, determined to make the wrong
pegs fit for the wrong reasons.

Tsk, tsk. I have three hammers, one a very heavy-duty type, but
need none of them in here. An ounce of pressure off the end of
my finger tips is enough to cause most PCTA extras to go berserk.
Such as yourself. :-)

WE do what we do for FUN!

Also service to our country.

Yep...Of course now that you alluded to "service" and Amateur Radio in
the
same sentence, His High Holiness of Radio will launch into yet another analogy
between us and the Nazi Party.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAAAWHOOOOOHOOOHOOO...!!!!!

"Service to the country!!!!" For engaging in a part-time HOBBY!

Tsk. Delusional nursie, off on another bender. No degree needed
to see the irrationality of delusion.

Lennie's NOT a "fun" person.

I'm sure some people think he's fun.

The Marque deSade...?!?!

Coming from Sader and Masoch, that's a typical comment...even if
"marquis" is spelled wrong.

Poor nursie, nuts to the core, an all-year celebratory fruitcake
eating himself delusional on high-calorie irrationality.

Make that "call," nursie, have YOURSELF committed. Do a REAL
service for your country.

Lennie once HAD an AOL page...No pictures or even a remote mention of
radios, but he did make allusion to fantasizing about being the old man
that
Ruth Buzzy (the comedienne) used to pelt with her purse on the park bench
on
the old :Laugh In" series.

I missed that...

You didn't miss much. Lennie had made a point of making fun of some
thing
I had on my AOL profile, so naturally I checked his. I had to wonder WHAT in
the WORLD this Bozo was talking about!

Oh...and BTW...it wasn't a "page"...My bust...It was just an AOL profile.

There was NEVER any such "page."

That's another example of nursie's emotinal instability...trying to shoot
off his keyboard without any ammo loaded. No wonder the USMC
didn't want him anymore...

Some imagination, eh? Musta be reeeeeeeeal proud of that "radio
professional" background.

Whatever

"Whatever", indeed.

I had, and continue to have, a long, good career in radio-electronics.
For over half a century.

Nursie hasn't. Tsk.

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

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.

He's confused?

"Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio!"

Hi, hi!

In that case the Department of Defense (before Donny R.) is also
"confused." :-)

Nursieworld requires that all radio amateurs be "qualified" by
having a "healthcare professional" license and be members of
the Civil Air Patrol. :-)

It's still possible that nursie is suffering from Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder as a result of those "seven hostile actions."
Tsk.

In article , PAMNO
(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.

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

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

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

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

Why are the designer-manufacturers continuing (after years of doing
so) to design such "unattractive" exteriors? Is it all a conspiracy
against the superior esthetic sense of Jimmie?

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. :-)

Decals for radio markings have been around for a half century...are
clearer to read that scribbled felt-tip marker pen markings. But, if
those are "beauty" to you, feel free to enjoy it. Try NOT to impose
your "standards of beauty" (radio-wise) on others.

Jim's radio did just that.

And much more.

Kluges are still kluges.

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.

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

Nothing wrong with that!

"Nothing wrong?" Tsk. That's a hypocritical statement in here!

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?"

Jimmie must have a Visa to be a tourist in nursieworld.


Lennie once HAD an AOL page...No pictures or even a remote mention of
radios, but he did make allusion to fantasizing about being the old man that
Ruth Buzzy (the comedienne) used to pelt with her purse on the park bench on
the old :Laugh In" series.

I missed that...

It was easy to "miss." It never existed. :-)

Nursie went off the deep end without his little water wings again.

Tsk. You name-callers ought to look in MSN. :-)


Some imagination, eh? Musta be reeeeeeeeal proud of that "radio
professional" background.

Whatever

I am very pleased with my career choice...interesting, challenging
work doing many things over the last half century in radio and
electronics. Am still involved, though not in "regular hours." :-)

Do you need a resume? A little precis of my places of employment?
I've given that in here before...but that only caused nursie to go off
into some strange orbit and get very angry. I realize that it is a
"felonious" act to irritate another PCTA extra in here so I don't
volunteer such information except on request. We can't irritate the
ultra-thin-skinned mighty macho morsemen in this newsgrope. :-)

"William" wrote


Hi, hi!


OGosh(awara)!William should go on DX-pedition to Ha-Ha-Jima, be
honolable N0IMD/JD1!