"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

(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!

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... :-)

(William) wrote in message . com...
(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?

Uhh . . when did you ever see me post anywhere on that topic??


Not even a Heathkit in there anywhere?

Yeah, one of the amps was a Heathkit. Why do you ask?


Sheesh!

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


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 . . . .

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

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.

'Nother whole discussion but I'll pass this time.

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.

His blather reminds me of my days out in school yard during recess
arguing with "the guys".

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.


OBVIOUSLY!


. . . 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.

Nah, not today or in 1988 for that matter, there's a bunch more valid
reasons for using current-tech synthesized VHF/UHF FM rigs than just
getting rid of the old xtal packs. It's all in the plethora of tricks
2M mobile rigs do today which go far beyond just their "synthetic"
frequency generation circuitry.

Size per watt, (my FT-1500M cranks 50W out of a package about the size
of a couple packs of smokes), computer control, both internally and
computer programmable, memories, the availability of all the PL & DTMF
tones, odd splits, band scanning, wideband receivers, digital
displays, etc.

The '70s boat anchor 2M rigs like the Heath 2036 certainly did get rid
of the xtal packs which was their Big Thing but that's about all they
did vs. the xtal controlled rigs of the 1960s.


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.

I'm not talking abt using my boat anchors in FMTs. I sed "I could
comfortably transmit CW within 200Hz or subband edge with my Collins
75A4" and know I was legal. As in being able to quickly swish within
200 hz of a band edge in the heat of a contest pileup and know I
wasn't out of band. That's a whole different ballgame from taking the
time to carefully diddle a bunch of knobs in a FMT. The proper
comparison in your context would be between the BC-348 without the
BC-221 and the A4 under real operating condx. Or get into a FMT with
the 75S-3B vs. the BC-348/BC-221.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

(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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. Again. Gets boring.

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.