|
24 GHz woes?
The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17
GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. It's getting that way here in Ducktown. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Barry OGrady wrote:
On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. Barry, I think you're new to the group. As far as I can figure, Lenover21 kind of speaks out against Morse qualified Hams, or at least those who support Morse code testing every chance he gets. He has some pretty strong feelings in that way. That is how we get Morse related comments here in this thread. In the US of A, there is no Morse code testing for access to Ham frequencies above 30 MHz, so this thread doesn't have much to do with Morse code testing. But that's Len, and we all like him anyhow (at least I do) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:27:19 -0800 (PST), "Phil Kane" wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. There are no bands above 2 meters. Where you thinking of two metres? Ahhhh, now I get it. Here we use "meter" as the spelling where you would use "metres". Just like color vs. colour. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. It's getting that way here in Ducktown. Do you have more repeaters than hams? It can be a problem! In my investigations into near space ballooning, we are pretty much prevented from using 2 meters for a band unless we go for a simplex repeater. There are a LOT of 2 meter repeaters. Just about everywhere we would be hitting a lot of repeaters when we keyed up from 100,000 feet. So we will probably use the 70 centimeter band for our repeater. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:32:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
Barry, I think you're new to the group. BarryO has posted here for quite a while. He appears to be an Australian ham and keeps making statements about his license (excuse me - "licence") privileges and other off-the-wall things designed merely to pull chains rather than to contribute to the discussion at hand. On things like FCC amateur radio policy, he rarely hits the mark. I can't decide whether to put him back in my killfile or not. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
In article , Barry OGrady
writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. |
Hello, Phil and Barry
As a kind hearted soul who is willing to assist some folks having communications difficulties, I have asked a friend of mine in the U.K. for some assistance. Here is his reply: ********* start of copied message********** Hi James and All, I will willingly help you with your project Jim, just send me what you want to say in your words and I will convert it to an English style of your choosing. I can do you, the Queens English, London Cockney, London North, London South, not that I have ever been south of the river, Middle England, West Country or Welsh (real Welsh mind, not Canadian Welsh), LOL. ********* end copy********* So, if Barry would be so kind to inform us as to what kind of colour should be applied to our conversation, I shall ask my friend, Bernie, in the U.K. to translate for us. With all due regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:27:19 -0800 (PST), "Phil Kane" wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. There are no bands above 2 meters. Where you thinking of two metres? We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. It's getting that way here in Ducktown. Do you have more repeaters than hams? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane -Barry ======== "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." [A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)] Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information. |
|
In article , Barry OGrady
writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] Barry would appear to be from Australia, Len. I'm not up on the Australian amateur rules, but I guess they are different than the US with regard to HF access. My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Sure isn't! Some are just born that way - then they get a ham license! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
Hello, Phil and Barry As a kind hearted soul who is willing to assist some folks having communications difficulties, I have asked a friend of mine in the U.K. for some assistance. Here is his reply: ********* start of copied message********** Hi James and All, I will willingly help you with your project Jim, just send me what you want to say in your words and I will convert it to an English style of your choosing. I can do you, the Queens English, London Cockney, London North, London South, not that I have ever been south of the river, Middle England, West Country or Welsh (real Welsh mind, not Canadian Welsh), LOL. ********* end copy********* So, if Barry would be so kind to inform us as to what kind of colour should be applied to our conversation, I shall ask my friend, Bernie, in the U.K. to translate for us. Too bad he doesn't do Scottish. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. The second class ticket was a joke. 45 ohms resistance with 45 ohms inductive reactance. What is the phase angle? a) voltage leads current by 90 degrees b) current leads voltage by 90 degrees c) voltage leads current by 45 degrees d) current leads voltage by 45 degrees Not exactly IEEE stuff. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) |
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) Hello, Len Well, I never did have any Q&A manuals. I also never studied for any of the exams I took, including Novice, General, Amateur Extra, 2nd phone, and 2nd telegraph. I was simply up on the material (other than the band plans, which I learned through exposure as a Novice. Didn't help a bit when I retested in 93; I was quite wrong on at least where 40 meters was). The only study I did do was when I did fail the 1st phone and realized that I needed to know *exactly* what the numbers were to be. I must admit that the CW was a bit shaky in 1993 when I simply retested for everything through extra, however; I hadn't copied CW since 1969 (excluding the fact that I couldn't help myself when the Moose Cud was sent during the movie "Fantastic Voyage" back when ;) I didn't mean to imply a slam against the commercial license; I did serve in 4 AM radio stations, 2 FM stations, and 2 television stations. Two stints as a disk jockey, all as an "engineer" (LOL), and one as chief engineer (5,000 watt am/fm station). Never forget the first job when I tore off the teletype from the A-P. Went to do the news (running late; didn't read everything. Crossed out some I wouldn't use) and the stupid thing took a hit and went into figures for about two sentences. Fortunately, serving for 4 years as a radioman in the Navy (much of it with teletype) allowed me to simply read it. Impressed the heck out of the guy breaking me in. Of course, I had to go clean my drawers out in the W.C. right after that :)) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) Hello, Len I don't know how many amateurs are going to even get much above 1 GHz. As you point out, high power is not necessary due to high gain antennas being easy to make (or, perhaps, purchase). The problem might be in the aiming. I got a bit lucky when I put in my Direct Tv system some years ago. Running the coax and feeding into the house was easy; the antenna pointing became a bit more problematic, both due to a bad compass and a poor choice of help. I invited a couple of friends over. Since they weren't hams and I didn't have (as I now do) a cordless phone with both a base and remote (that is *great* for work on the antenna), nor did we have cell phones, I needed one guy to watch the set and report signal strength and holler to the second guy in the kitchen who would holler to me on the roof. I checked the mount to set up and verify the supporting rod was indeed vertical, set the elevation, and, using a compass, set the direction of the antenna. They reported nothing. I went to check the compass again as the elevation was easy to set. I noticed that the needle was *not* pointing where it should be. I know that from my porch, the North star sits exactly in line with the back of my neighbor's house and I was in the proper position, albeit higher, and North should be exactly in line with the end of my neighbor's house. The needle should have pointed a bit East of that, but was pointing considerably towards the East. Sigh. I came back down and got the manual as it shows the deviation from true North. I went back on the roof, pointed the N on the compass exactly towards the neighbor's house, and carefully looked across the compass to see where the antenna should point (with the proper true headings from the installation manual). I made the adjustment to the antenna and yelled down. I tried for a couple of minutes and got no response from below. Irritated, I packed up the tools and went back down - and found everyone drinking my beer!!!! Sigh ... ok, I went in to the television to turn it off - and there was a signal indication of 85! I pulled out the credit card and called Direct Tv. Bam! On came the whole 9 yards. Further testing the following day revealed that I could not get a better signal. Lucky indeed. BTW, by the next day, I had run coax both upstairs to the bedroom and also into the kitchen, so I only needed one helper. He could watch the signal strength in the kitchen and yell directly out the window to me. I chose my helper a bit more judiciously ;) What does that have to do with 10 GHz transmission? Even purchasing equipment, someone is going to have to be able to aim the darn thing (gain comes at the expense of beamwidth, naturally) - and have some idea of local topography if they wish to take advantage of either natural or man-made objects. Of course, if the object is moonbounce, taking a dish which will develop the proper gain (and I'm guessing here - likely approaching 30 dBi), that thing is going to have to be fairly accurately pointed. My Morse key has two settings: up and down. I can handle that, but some folks might not be able to handle something a bit more complex than that (although many can). Interplanetary QSOs might prove *very* interesting. You certainly can't call CQ. You'd have to set up pre-arranged transmit times. Both could transmit information at a given time and the both wait .... and wait ... and wait whilst the electromagnetic radiation made its' way at the speed of light for a number of minutes (or hours, depending upon how close the planet - likely mars - was at the time). Obviously, mars is quite close to us only at certain times and even then is what - 35 million miles away? Don't forget to adjust for Doppler shift as the planets are moving closer or farther away. Narrow bandwidths can give you better signal to noise ratio, but narrow bandwidths can also make that Doppler shift a lot more difficult to deal with. I doubt wideband FM would cut the mustard due to a *huge* increase in noise with the much larger bandwidth over narrow bandwidth modes. I don't think I'm likely to be around by the time ordinary folks can take a trip to mars .... ;) Dang, where'd I put my Morse key? :)) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) Hello, Len I don't know how many amateurs are going to even get much above 1 GHz. As you point out, high power is not necessary due to high gain antennas being easy to make (or, perhaps, purchase). The problem might be in the aiming. That is a big part of it. Even if a lot of hams were there, it would be pretty much a sked only comms. This leads to prospective users having a need to work in pairs or teams. It will not be about making QSO's with multiple people, you will be wanting to put your equipment together, and try it out. So right away, the users will need to be interested in mainly putting a station together and using it a few times, then moving along to the next goal. And of course, the major attraction of these GHz and up frequencies is that they DON'T go very far. You have to be the type of user that doesn't care to make long distance QSO's! Despite the ARRL's promotion and record keeping, for AIAP's these frequencies are *very* local. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Tony VE6MVP
writes: On 31 Dec 2004 06:31:51 GMT, (Lenof21) wrote: However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Ah, but to them it is an academic, PhD level stuff. smile ...and so is an Ohm's Law of Resistance formula with one unknown. Some need Java calculator programs on their PCs in order to solve such difficult "rocket science." Sheesh. |
In article , Tony VE6MVP
writes: On 31 Dec 2004 06:31:51 GMT, (Lenof21) wrote: However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Ah, but to them it is an academic, PhD level stuff. smile ...and so is an Ohm's Law of Resistance formula with one unknown. Some need Java calculator programs on their PCs in order to solve such difficult "rocket science." Sheesh. |
"Len Over 21" wrote in message ... : ...and so is an Ohm's Law of Resistance formula with one : unknown. Some need Java calculator programs on their : PCs in order to solve such difficult "rocket science." Sheesh. Is there an echo in here? ........Is there an echo in here? LenOver, Your crapola is hard enuf to read once, let alone 2-3 times. Take a course in computer basics. M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
In article et, "Mel A.
Nomah" writes: Your crapola is hard enuf to read once, let alone 2-3 times. Take a course in computer basics. It's the fault of that wonderful ISP called AOL and their very latest softwares...at THEIR end, not here. AOL has been advised. Again. BTW, I've done commercial and amateur computer programming in addition to electronic design engineering and was a member of the ACM in the past, though always with the IEEE since '73. You are welcome to file TOS charges against me with AOL any time you wish. TOS = Terms Of Service. Tell them that the cancer man doesn't like me. Let us see if cancer can spread. Meanwhile on your "computer suggestion," go shove it up your I/O port. With fondest regards, |
Subject: 24 GHz woes?
From: (Lenof21) Date: 1/11/2005 7:27 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article et, "Mel A. Nomah" writes: Your crapola is hard enuf to read once, let alone 2-3 times. Take a course in computer basics. It's the fault of that wonderful ISP called AOL and their very latest softwares...at THEIR end, not here. AOL has been advised. Again. It has absolutely nothing to do with AOL. It has to do with your reams-long rants and self-promoting diatribes. BTW, I've done commercial and amateur computer programming in addition to electronic design engineering and was a member of the ACM in the past, though always with the IEEE since '73. I am sure the Church of IEEE aprpeciated it. You are welcome to file TOS charges against me with AOL any time you wish. TOS = Terms Of Service. Tell them that the cancer man doesn't like me. Let us see if cancer can spread. In your case, we could only hope. Meanwhile on your "computer suggestion," go shove it up your I/O port. More professional expression, followed by... With fondest regards A blatant lie and a rip-off of Hans. Steve, K4YZ |
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: "Lenof21" wrote in message ... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) With the correct integer divisor and correct integer multiplier, it comes out to 500 KHz fairly exact. Most TV stations of the old days had color subcarrier generators that were beat against WWV on HF. It was picked for that very reason. Smart pickers even back then. Irritated, I packed up the tools and went back down - and found everyone drinking my beer!!!! Sigh ... ok, I went in to the television to turn it off - and there was a signal indication of 85! I pulled out the credit card and called Direct Tv. Bam! On came the whole 9 yards. Further testing the following day revealed that I could not get a better signal. Lucky indeed. BTW, by the next day, I had run coax both upstairs to the bedroom and also into the kitchen, so I only needed one helper. He could watch the signal strength in the kitchen and yell directly out the window to me. I chose my helper a bit more judiciously ;) Heh. You are probably too young to get involved in a post-war event called the "beer can vertical." Back when cans were made of solderable materials, some WW2-age guys had beer parties to get the cans, solder them together to make a thick vertical radiator. By the end of one such "vertical," the soldering started to get rather out of line. I was a young teener at that time and never did like beer. Still don't. Don't mix beer and ham construction projects, especially with a group that doesn't know what they are doing. Never heard of a "beer can vertical" that stayed up. :-) What does that have to do with 10 GHz transmission? Even purchasing equipment, someone is going to have to be able to aim the darn thing (gain comes at the expense of beamwidth, naturally) - and have some idea of local topography if they wish to take advantage of either natural or man-made objects. Of course, if the object is moonbounce, taking a dish which will develop the proper gain (and I'm guessing here - likely approaching 30 dBi), that thing is going to have to be fairly accurately pointed. At S-Band (2 to 4 GHz), engineer-author-ham George O. Smith calculated that a KiloWatt into a 30 db gain dish at S-Band could honk into Mars with the receiver using another 30 db gain dish and running wide-spread (850 Hz) FSK RTTY. Over all distances in planetary orbits and within seeing distance (planetary occlusion would be obviously prohibitive). Smith was at Harry Diamond Labs during WW2 designing/debugging proximity fuses as well as the long-running series of "Venus Equilateral" stories involving a radio relay asteroid between Earth and Venus and Mars. In the 1940s, of course...we've learned that the other planets aren't hospitable. My Morse key has two settings: up and down. I can handle that, but some folks might not be able to handle something a bit more complex than that (although many can). I've met some hams who can't work a single-unknown variable algebra problem yet proclaim themselves to be "designers." They might need a four-week course class to learn to set a VCR or DVD recorder. :-) Interplanetary QSOs might prove *very* interesting. You certainly can't call CQ. You'd have to set up pre-arranged transmit times. Both could transmit information at a given time and the both wait .... and wait ... and wait whilst the electromagnetic radiation made its' way at the speed of light for a number of minutes (or hours, depending upon how close the planet - likely mars - was at the time). Obviously, mars is quite close to us only at certain times and even then is what - 35 million miles away? Don't forget to adjust for Doppler shift as the planets are moving closer or farther away. Narrow bandwidths can give you better signal to noise ratio, but narrow bandwidths can also make that Doppler shift a lot more difficult to deal with. I doubt wideband FM would cut the mustard due to a *huge* increase in noise with the much larger bandwidth over narrow bandwidth modes. The Deep Space Network out of JPL done solved a lot of those problems long ago. Using lower powers than seemed practical with bandwidths that seemed impractical in the 50s. All the numbers are available: Path loss, antenna gain, bandwidth, just plug them into an equation or nomograph (or search for a "program" also called a Java aplet somebody tossed together). The major problem is TIME DELAY and trying to adjust traditional methods to meet future needs. There's a discernable audio pause when talking to someone via a comm sat sitting in geosynchronous orbit and it isn't even at a tenth the distance to the moon. It's 2 1/2 seconds (give or take) doing a Lunar "QSO." Obviously the old tradition has to be tossed for interplanetary stuff and so the avowed ham morsemen will have their keys pried out of cold, dead terrestrial fingers. Besides, just who is going to deliver the QSLs saying "UR SIG 599!" ? :-) I don't think I'm likely to be around by the time ordinary folks can take a trip to mars .... ;) I'm optimistic. :-) Having worked IN the field of electronics and communications for a mere half century, the changes to all kinds of comms have been so vast as to be overpowering the imagination of even science-fiction writers (George O. Smith didn't think servos could keep tracking the planets, used humans to do it in his 1940s stories). Back in 1954, 1.8 GHz communications equipment was considered very high-tech. Special vacuum tubes, coaxial resonators, wave- guide based bandpass filters. Big, expensive, fussy to tune. 50 years later we have consumer electronics cordless phones operating at 2 GHz and the 5.8 GHz units' cost hovering close to $75 over-the- counter, plug-and-play. One in three Americans has a cellular telephone subscription now and those operate around 1 GHz and some cell phones have digital cameras built in. Look for VOIP to make inroads on the traditional wired telephone service making hash out of the old, reliable, trustworthy "long-distance" calls for ordinary citizens. All them old 'phone gabbers will have a ball denouncing that damn upstart Voice Over Internet Protocal and hollering "you can't send telephone calls over the Internet!" :-) Dang, where'd I put my Morse key? :)) Yup. Don't be late for the ham party where everyone recreates the grand old "pioneer" days of the 1920s and 1930s with the morse- Vail "code." Not for me. I love the future just around the corner just like I've enjoyed all the new developments over the last half century. Remember what Brian Burke said: "Morse code gets through when everything else does..." |
In article .com, "bb"
writes: wrote: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/ba/eme/ http://www.eham.net/articles/9988 Many of those involved in the project were hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY Ahh, yes. Hams doing non-ham stuff. I wonder if they calculated the distance to the moon correctly? Well, Brian, Jimmie done took the post bus out of Monmouth often enough, could see the big bedspring radar antennas at The Labs (there were 3 laboratory installations along the highway). I'm sure he has contributed his Oral History recording for the archives as have all the veterans of Project Diana. [hand salute!] Maybe he forgot to mention the First Ham in Space! According to tonight's Jeopardy program clues, Ham the Chimp was the first "American" in space. :-) Oook, oook! |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article .com, "bb" writes: wrote: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/ba/eme/ http://www.eham.net/articles/9988 Many of those involved in the project were hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY Ahh, yes. Hams doing non-ham stuff. I wonder if they calculated the distance to the moon correctly? Well, Brian, Jimmie done took the post bus out of Monmouth often enough, could see the big bedspring radar antennas at The Labs (there were 3 laboratory installations along the highway). I'm sure he has contributed his Oral History recording for the archives as have all the veterans of Project Diana. [hand salute!] Maybe he forgot to mention the First Ham in Space! According to tonight's Jeopardy program clues, Ham the Chimp was the first "American" in space. :-) That reminds me--I wonder how Mike Coslo's gas bag launch project is going. How high will "Leonard" go? Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) With the correct integer divisor and correct integer multiplier, it comes out to 500 KHz fairly exact. "Fairly exact"? What's that mean? Any repeating decimal can be written as a rational number, a/b. That particular decimal above is exactly 315/88: Set that decimal equal to N. Since two digits repeat, multiply both sides of the equation by 10^2; we now have: 100N = 357.9545454... Next, subtract the first equation from this second one; all the repeating 54 pairs cancel due to this subtraction, giving us 99N = 354.375, a terminating decimal. To eliminate the decimal point, multiply both sides by 1000: 99000N = 354375. Now divide both sides by 99000: N = 354375/99000. This fraction simplifies to N = 315/88. Hence, that original repeating decimal, 3.579545454... is exactly equal to 315/88. Note that if you have a repeating decimal with 3 repeating digits, you'd multiple both sides of the initial equation by 10^3, etc. Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
|
Dave Heil wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote: In article .com, "bb" writes: wrote: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/ba/eme/ http://www.eham.net/articles/9988 Many of those involved in the project were hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY Ahh, yes. Hams doing non-ham stuff. I wonder if they calculated the distance to the moon correctly? Well, Brian, Jimmie done took the post bus out of Monmouth often enough, could see the big bedspring radar antennas at The Labs (there were 3 laboratory installations along the highway). I'm sure he has contributed his Oral History recording for the archives as have all the veterans of Project Diana. [hand salute!] Maybe he forgot to mention the First Ham in Space! According to tonight's Jeopardy program clues, Ham the Chimp was the first "American" in space. :-) That reminds me--I wonder how Mike Coslo's gas bag launch project is going. How high will "Leonard" go? Dave K8MN It is going okay. I just stopped writing about it here since it was "impossible to do" 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: In article .com, "bb" writes: wrote: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/ba/eme/ http://www.eham.net/articles/9988 Many of those involved in the project were hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY Ahh, yes. Hams doing non-ham stuff. I wonder if they calculated the distance to the moon correctly? Well, Brian, Jimmie done took the post bus out of Monmouth often enough, could see the big bedspring radar antennas at The Labs (there were 3 laboratory installations along the highway). I'm sure he has contributed his Oral History recording for the archives as have all the veterans of Project Diana. [hand salute!] Maybe he forgot to mention the First Ham in Space! According to tonight's Jeopardy program clues, Ham the Chimp was the first "American" in space. :-) That reminds me--I wonder how Mike Coslo's gas bag launch project is going. How high will "Leonard" go? Dave K8MN It is going okay. I just stopped writing about it here since it was "impossible to do" 8^) Don't let 'em grind you down, Mike. If you don't stencil "LEONARD" on the first one, justice will not have been done. A web site with corroborating photos will be a must. Dave K8MN |
In article , (Jeffrey Herman)
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: ... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) With the correct integer divisor and correct integer multiplier, it comes out to 500 KHz fairly exact. "Fairly exact"? What's that mean? Heh heh heh...as "exact" as you can calibrate it to some accepted standard of frequency. Hint: It isn't W1AW. :-) Any repeating decimal can be written as a rational number, a/b. That particular decimal above is exactly 315/88: Set that decimal equal to N. Since two digits repeat, multiply both sides of the equation by 10^2; we now have: 100N = 357.9545454... Next, subtract the first equation from this second one; all the repeating 54 pairs cancel due to this subtraction, giving us 99N = 354.375, a terminating decimal. To eliminate the decimal point, multiply both sides by 1000: 99000N = 354375. Now divide both sides by 99000: N = 354375/99000. This fraction simplifies to N = 315/88. Hence, that original repeating decimal, 3.579545454... is exactly equal to 315/88. Note that if you have a repeating decimal with 3 repeating digits, you'd multiple both sides of the initial equation by 10^3, etc. Suggestion: Why don't you expound over in the math newsgroup? On the other hand, how would you get a "fairly exact" color burst oscillator on-frequency and keep it that way? You have to understand the ELECTRONICS part in order to do that. That ties into "RADIO." Get the connection? It's peachy keen to know all about continuing fractions and stuff but let's look at the number "88." Factoring it out results in an 11. If you are generating, say a color burst frequency, that 11 would be in the numerator, not the denominator. That implies a MULTIPLIER of 11. [ever have to build a frequency multiplier?] A multiplication of 11 is a bit hard to do even though GE (among others) solved it with tubes back about a half century or so in the past. [I can tell you how they did it even if it isn't explained in the ARRL Handbook] Hint: 56.818 181 818 ... KHz is involved. How? The numbers only APPEAR to relate, but the numbers aren't oscillating and generating RF. Try to stay focussed HERE. So...how much RF have you done up at Ku-Band territory? |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Note that if you have a repeating decimal with 3 repeating digits, you'd multiple both sides of the initial equation by 10^3, etc. Suggestion: Why don't you expound over in the math newsgroup? We can always tell when Lennie's feeling "cramped"...as in someone else has the temerity to DEMONSTRATE the skills Lennie BRAGS about. Sheeesh. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote: Note that if you have a repeating decimal with 3 repeating digits, you'd multiple both sides of the initial equation by 10^3, etc. Suggestion: Why don't you expound over in the math newsgroup? We can always tell when Lennie's feeling "cramped"...as in someone else has the temerity to DEMONSTRATE the skills Lennie BRAGS about. Sheeesh. You'll note that Len hasn't bothered to entertain folks in rec.radio.former.professional or alt.war-stories.half-century. He often tells others that they "aren't the moderator in here". It doesn't stop him from attempting to be "the moderator in here". Fact is, Len's a tired old piranha in his eighth decade. He has, depending upon the season of the year, a decades-old interest in amateur radio or no interest in obtaining an amateur radio license. He chides others for "living in the past" but regales us with tales from his military experiences of fifty plus years ago or from his working days. Stories from others with equal or more experience are dismissed and ridculed. He writes of denigration and insult by others but he dishes out heaping helpings of it toward others. A few things remain clear: 1. Len isn't part of amateur radio; he has no amateur radio license. 2. Len isn't likely to obtain an amateur radio license with or without a morse code exam--ever. 3. Len has some sort of issue with those who have accomplishments in amateur radio and who are proud of them. These people, he defines as "overly proud". 4. Nobody can have more experience or knowledge than Len in radio, electronics or the military. 5. Len is the only person on the planet who knows what "message knuckles" are. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com