|
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote And thier licensing system was not a "once size fits all" Nope, it was a "two sizes fits all", including an enforced "apprentice" permit, sort of like my proposal. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB Socialism likes lots of government oversight - like a lot of tests to make sure that you really, really, really want to be a ham. |
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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote And thier licensing system was not a "once size fits all" Nope, it was a "two sizes fits all", including an enforced "apprentice" permit, sort of like my proposal. Uh huh...enforced. Just a month ago you were all over my case about a suggest VOLUNTARY "learner's permit" kind of license. Now you're praising the idea. Sunuvagun! Sunnuvagun indeed. Usual two-faced, It's OK as long as I think about it rhetoric, Hans. You really ought to work a bit ahrder to keep your stories straight. Sheeesh. Steve, K4YZ |
"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! 72, de Hans, K0HB |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Ohhhhhhhh--many radio services! They weren't at all common in amateur radio, Leonard. Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) Do you mean if he wants to nit-pick over the fact that you were wrong? You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Super. What were you doing in amateur radio during the years mentioned? Tsk. But, you DO have to be "judgemental," don't you? :-) Did you mean "correct"? Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil mother inferior writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Ohhhhhhhh--many radio services! They weren't at all common in amateur radio, Leonard. Well, if that's true then it shows that amateurs were indeed Behind The Times insofar as ready-made radios goes... :-) Then that wasn't the point, was it? Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) Do you mean if he wants to nit-pick over the fact that you were wrong? Who was wrong? Not I. Yes, you--beyond the shadow of a doubt. Radio amateurs were quite capable of staying within the sub-bands authorized them prior to the period mentioned by you. Deal with it. Are you the walter ego of Hans Brakob? Did I post as such? You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Super. What were you doing in amateur radio during the years mentioned? Working alongside a few hams also gainfully employed in the electronics industry. :-) You should have taken some time to ask them what was going on in amateur radio :-) Was there anything else? Not for now. If you want to take pot-shots at folks, best get some ammunition. Pot shots? You were simply in error. If you are sticking to your claim, you are still in error. So far, all you've got is short rounds or blanks... They seem to have gotten your attention, kindly, old, uninformed gent. Dave Heil |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil mother inferior writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Hans is correct about amateur HF gear. Len is completely mistaken on the subject. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. Yet they were not at all common in amateur radio. More important, those that existed were not "modern" frequency synthesizers. The claim made by Len was: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers ...." which is clearly false because the "subdivision" existed any synthesizers as a necessary condition. 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. It should be remembered, too, that in the early 1950s the amateur 160 meter band was subdivided into eight 25 kHz subbands. There was a complex system of subbands, showing allowed use by hams depending on location, frequency and time of day. It was by far the most complex system of "subdivision" in amateur radio, it required hams to stay within 25 kHz subbands, and it predated the 1960s by almost a decade. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Incorrect on many points. There were homebrew amateur synthesizers in use as early as 1962 (see QST for October, 1962, "The Ultimate Exciter", by Clifford Harvey, W1RF, and December, 1964 "A Crystal VFO With Full-Band Coverage" by Frank Noble, W3QLV, to name just two). These units were "analog" synthesizers using heterodyne techniques. They were very complex, physically large and required a large number of quartz crystals on exact frequencies. The W1RF unit uses 30 crystals, four oscillators, three mixers and elaborate bandswitching in the synthesizer section alone. The W3QLV unit (which I owned from about 1985 to 1995) was less complex but still required 35 crystals on exact frequencies just to cover the 80 meter amateur band. While within the capabilites of the advanced homebrewing amateur, they never became popular for reasons explained below. In 1963, the manufactured B&W 6100 transmitter appeared on the market, with a heterodyne-type frequency synthesizer built in. It was not a commercial success, due in part to its high cost and lack of a matching receiver. Besides cost, size and complexity considerations, those 1960s-era synthesizers were unpopular with hams for a very fundamental reason: They did not reflect the way hams operate on HF/MF. Most "other services" are channelized or operate on specific predetermined frequencies. They need equipment that can be set to a specific frequency, and stay there, without the need to interpret a dial. Being able to tune through a band is not an important consideration. The "user interface" for these synthesizers (such as found in the military R-1051 receiver, the B&W 6100 transmitter, and the above homebrew units) is a set of switches for each digit of the frequency. Which works fine for operating on predetermined frequencies but very inferior to a simple mechanical "one knob" dial for tuning through a band looking for a clear spot or other QSOs. This user interface issue was resolved by making synthesizers that could emulate a mechanical "one knob" dial. Additionally, the stability, precision and accuracy of self-controlled variable-frequency oscillators in quality 1960s amateur equipment such as Drake and Collins was more than adequate for amateur purposes when used by a skilled operator. One more point: Frequency synthesizers *did* become popular in amateur *VHF FM* gear in the early-mid 1970s. This was driven by the channelized nature of repeater operation. US manufacturers such as Heath with the HW-2036 produced amateur transceivers with true modern PLL synthesizers. Ohhhhhhhh--many radio services! They weren't at all common in amateur radio, Leonard. For the precise reasons mentioned above. Well, if that's true then it shows that amateurs were indeed Behind The Times insofar as ready-made radios goes... :-) Not at all. The available 1960s frequency synthesizers simply did not meet amateur requirements. Then that wasn't the point, was it? The claim made by Len was: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers ...." which has clearly been proved to be false. Len was wrong, mistaken, in error, out in left field. He won't admit it, of course, but it is a clear fact nonetheless. Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) Do you mean if he wants to nit-pick over the fact that you were wrong? It's not nit-picking. Just plain facts. Who was wrong? Not I. Yes, you--beyond the shadow of a doubt. As proved here. Radio amateurs were quite capable of staying within the sub-bands authorized them prior to the period mentioned by you. Deal with it. Exactly. A 100/50/25 kHz frequency standard could be built with three tubes in the early 1960s. By the late 1960s it could be done with a few ICs. There was no need for synthesizers just to stay in the band. You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. Then Len should just admit he was wrong and move on. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Completely irrelevant to the claim that: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers ...." which has been shown to be false. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: I don't know if you saw the poll results posted by Jim N2EY? Maybe it's time for a new pool because so many of us predicted dates that are now in the past! THe best we can do is make predictions. I had predicted 2007, or at least 4 years from the change in the treaty. I might extend that if the republicans are in power at that time. It isn't a diss, it is just that republican administrations are *much* less likely to participate in international treaties. Interesting thought! In fact, I would bet a six pack that as long as we have republicans in the White House, there is little chance of Element 1 being dropped. Not because they like Morse code, but because they hate treaties. Or at least the current administration seems to. Some good advice: Get the license now, regardless of the Morse code test. the ARS is simply too much FUN to miss time on. Not only that, but you may discover that Morse Code itself is a lot of fun and a very useful mode in amateur radio. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com