|
wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. |
|
bb wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. |
Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - Brian seems to be of the opinion that anyone who support morse testing operates nuttin' but CW. Dave K8MN Jim told me that a Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to CW use. Hi! Some people can only think in terms of CW. |
"bb" wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. There is no wall but what people create in their own minds. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun 12 Jun 2005 18:10
"bb" wrote in message roups.com... Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. There is no wall but what people create in their own minds. There is no wall the deaf cannot hear through. There is no wall that the blind cannot see through. There is no wall that the paraplegic cannot walk through. There is no wall that bars the physical being from doing anything they dream of... ...in their DREAMS. |
|
|
Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. There is no wall but what people create in their own minds. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
Mike Coslo wrote: Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use, which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr) coverage? Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch and wire up a new switch for you. |
bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use, which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr) coverage? Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch and wire up a new switch for you. It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too. Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on, and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would probably just have to be written off as a loss. Newer equipment would be more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would possibly not be convertible Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most all of the digital equipment up to date of change. Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. All in all, no thanks. - Mike KB3EIA - |
bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. So what are you in HERE complaining for, Brian...?!?! It's those unlicensed commissioners that Lennie's always interjecting into his rants who are in control of that... And what do YOU care...In your master's opinion, anyone who's already been tested on something and for which a regulation change would not affect should not have any say in the matter... Are you again disagreeing with your admired master but unwilling to just stand up and say it? Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote: Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch and wire up a new switch for you. More lessons learned from Lennie? Jim Miccolis has spoken to you in nothing but civil terms. Yet here you are addressing him in diminutives. What's up with that? Steve, K4YZ |
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use, which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr) coverage? Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch and wire up a new switch for you. It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too. Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on, and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would probably just have to be written off as a loss. Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station. Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they are on. Newer equipment would be more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would possibly not be convertible People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever held a position of "authority" in MARS? Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most all of the digital equipment up to date of change. Knock yourself out. Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related. All in all, no thanks. - Mike KB3EIA - Congrats. You've just made "Full" member. |
bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too. Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on, and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would probably just have to be written off as a loss. Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station. True. Tell us about yours, Brian. Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they are on. Whoa....poignant. Newer equipment would be more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would possibly not be convertible People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever held a position of "authority" in MARS? Just write the letter and find out, Brian. Ooops...I forgot...You're a coward...Never mind. Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most all of the digital equipment up to date of change. Knock yourself out. As opposed to YOU walking around that way? Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related. Not if the passband you want to operate on falls within the other desired band. In most cases you still need a tuner for bands other than the ones the antenna is cut for. All in all, no thanks. - Mike KB3EIA - Congrats. You've just made "Full" member. As opposed to you who is just full of it...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too. Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on, and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would probably just have to be written off as a loss. Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station. True. Tell us about yours, Brian. Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they are on. Whoa....poignant. Newer equipment would be more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would possibly not be convertible People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever held a position of "authority" in MARS? Just write the letter and find out, Brian. Ooops...I forgot...You're a coward...Never mind. Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most all of the digital equipment up to date of change. Knock yourself out. As opposed to YOU walking around that way? Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related. Not if the passband you want to operate on falls within the other desired band. In most cases you still need a tuner for bands other than the ones the antenna is cut for. All in all, no thanks. - Mike KB3EIA - Congrats. You've just made "Full" member. As opposed to you who is just full of it...?!?! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ Oh, the irony, no-documentation Nursie. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! |
bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use, which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr) coverage? Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch and wire up a new switch for you. It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too. Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on, and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would probably just have to be written off as a loss. Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station. Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they are on. Newer equipment would be more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would possibly not be convertible People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever held a position of "authority" in MARS? Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most all of the digital equipment up to date of change. Knock yourself out. Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related. Perhaps we should go back to what Jim posted with his original question: Jim's quote * Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in * the "60 meter" region. * * Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: * * 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to * 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. * * or * * 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such * as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the * same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. * * Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz * overall? End Jim's quote. Under Jim's scenario, we would be adding several bands. That trap dipole would be interesting indeed! Likely mostly traps. Maybe I'll try to design one. Jim will have to give me the specific frequencies that will be added in his scenario. And trsp dipoles are not a very universal answer. In my situation I would have to make a loaded trapped dipole for 80 meters and to cover other bands. Now *that* would be a hoot! And quite heavy. All in all, no thanks. - Mike KB3EIA - Congrats. You've just made "Full" member. Full member of what? I've given my opinion, and it is based on some technical and practical reasons. Your reason is that my opinion makes me a full member of something because I gave an answer based on those reasons. If you want to say I'm wrong, then fine. I don't care about being proven wrong. Show me *why* my opinion is wrong. If I can't refute it, I'll admit it and I'll learn something from you. But otherwise you're just castigating me for the sake of doing it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: snippage Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related. Not if the passband you want to operate on falls within the other desired band. In most cases you still need a tuner for bands other than the ones the antenna is cut for. You noticed that too? I'm waiting for the specific frequencies Jim is thinking about, so I can design a multiband antenna for this idea. I suspect I'll not be too successful. Maybe some others might have more success. Hopefully they will share their design with me. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use, which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr) coverage? Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch and wire up a new switch for you. It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too. Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on, and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would probably just have to be written off as a loss. Newer equipment would be more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would possibly not be convertible Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most all of the digital equipment up to date of change. Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. All in all, no thanks. - Mike KB3EIA - Build transverters. Lots and lots of transverters. Then equipment of any age could be made to work. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Michael Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use, which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr) coverage? Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch and wire up a new switch for you. It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too. Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on, and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would probably just have to be written off as a loss. Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station. Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they are on. Newer equipment would be more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would possibly not be convertible People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever held a position of "authority" in MARS? Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most all of the digital equipment up to date of change. Knock yourself out. Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related. Perhaps we should go back to what Jim posted with his original question: Jim's quote * Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in * the "60 meter" region. * * Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: * * 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to * 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. * * or * * 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such * as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the * same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. * * Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz * overall? End Jim's quote. Under Jim's scenario, we would be adding several bands. That trap dipole would be interesting indeed! Likely mostly traps. Maybe I'll try to design one. Jim will have to give me the specific frequencies that will be added in his scenario. And trsp dipoles are not a very universal answer. In my situation I would have to make a loaded trapped dipole for 80 meters and to cover other bands. Now *that* would be a hoot! And quite heavy. So there is no problem so large nor complex that it cannot be run away from? All in all, no thanks. - Mike KB3EIA - Congrats. You've just made "Full" member. Full member of what? I've given my opinion, and it is based on some technical and practical reasons. Your reason is that my opinion makes me a full member of something because I gave an answer based on those reasons. Sorry that Jim's idea presented too many problems to be overcome. Relax, it's not likely to happen. You're off the hook for needing a light weight multi-multi-band antenna. If you want to say I'm wrong, then fine. I don't care about being proven wrong. Show me *why* my opinion is wrong. If I can't refute it, I'll admit it and I'll learn something from you. Emergency communications requires propagation. The more band segments that you have, no matter that they are narrower, the more likely that you will be able to communicate. Passing on more bands for want of a band switch or a light weight antenna doesn't appear, at least to me, to be in the best interest of amateur radio. But otherwise you're just castigating me for the sake of doing it. - Mike KB3EIA - Status Quo Forever! |
Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. Or a random wire fed against ground. That's one that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the major HF bands will not be harmonically related. ??? There are solutions to both the rig and antenna problems. But they aren't as easy as some would have us believe. More important, unless a considerable number of hams equip themselves to use the new bands, they aren't much help. And does propagation varies that much between most of the bands we have now? I don't think so. It was argued that the difference in propagation between 80 and 40 could be great enough that access to a band near 60 was needed. And we almost got a full band there, except that NTIA reversed its support after 9/11. But the jump from 80 to 40 is a doubling of frequency. From 40 to 20 is a doubling also, but we have 30 meters in between. Would a band at, say, 8.5 MHz be that much different from 7 and 10 MHz? Or would we be better off with more worldwide-exclusive-amateur-kHz on 40 and 30? Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related. I've built and used trap dipoles. The more bands you add, the more complex the adjustment procedure becomes. Does anyone else here have experience building trap dipoles from scratch? Perhaps we should go back to what Jim posted with his original question: Jim's quote * Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in * the "60 meter" region. * * Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: * * 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to * 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. * * or * * 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such * as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the * same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. * * Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz * overall? End Jim's quote. Under Jim's scenario, we would be adding several bands. Under one of my scenarios, anyway. That trap dipole would be interesting indeed! Likely mostly traps. Maybe I'll try to design one. Jim will have to give me the specific frequencies that will be added in his scenario. Let's say the following additions/changes were made: A new band 50 kHz wide at 2.7 MHz A new band 50 kHz wide at 8.6 MHz A new band 50 kHz wide at 11.9 MHz A new band 50 kHz wide at 16.0 MHz A new band 50 kHz wide at 19.6 MHz A new band 50 kHz wide at 23.2 MHz A new band 50 kHz wide at 26.4 MHz or 5.1 to 5.2 MHz instead of 5 channels 7.0 to 7.3 worldwide exclusive amatuer 10.1 to 10.2 worldwide exclusive amateur 18.05 to 18.2 worldwide exclusive amateur And trsp dipoles are not a very universal answer. In my situation I would have to make a loaded trapped dipole for 80 meters and to cover other bands. Now *that* would be a hoot! And quite heavy. Some folks can't even get a random wire up and radiating HF RF.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote:
From: on Tues 14 Jun 2005 14:39 wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun 12 Jun 2005 18:10 "bb" wrote in message roups.com... Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. All purposeful action starts with an idea - a dream, as it were. First the idea, then the actions to make the idea become a reality. Sort of like showing one's REAL patriotism by volunteering for milirary service? Milirary service is not a requirement nor a qualfication for an FCC-issued amateur radio license. Military service is not a requirement nor a qualfication for an FCC-issued amateur radio license. The FCC is NOT a regulator of "dreams." All it does is mitigate interference in the civil side of the EM spectrum by U.S. citizens. There's much more to the regulation of radio than interference mitigation. The FCC is NOT any "moral arbiter" of anything but its own regulations and rulings in regards to U.S. law. That claim is incorrect. The FCC determines "moral", "character" and "content" standards in all the radio services it regulates. The person who will not allow him/herself to believe they can do something is already defeated. tries to sound like a Reverend on morse code, preaching from some ivy-covered pulpit. [pulpit fiction but without a Travolta] Is this a prelude to (roll drums) ...A Sermon On The Antenna Mount? Can become an artist-illustrator, traveling from place to place, painting portraits? Artistic ability is not a requirement nor a qualfication for an FCC-issued amateur radio license. Sam Morse did that. Sam and his financial backer Al Vail invented morse code. ART with minor success at it in any media REQUIRES a built-in aptitutde for that (or an excellent PR/gallery person to sell "great art"). Artistic ability is not a requirement nor a qualfication for an FCC-issued amateur radio license. The level of skill in Morse Code required to pass Element 1 is about equal to the artistic skill required to do simple pencil drawings, not "great art". I started out WORKING as an artist-illustrator because I did have the built-in talent/aptitude for that. But you did not succeed at it, did you? You left that career at an early stage. Could *you* become an artist-illustrator, traveling from place to place, painting portraits? Not only that, my completed works were BETTER in any media than Sam Morse's. Yet he made a living at it, and you could not. Besides, you are hardly an independent judge of whose work is "better"... That reply has very little to do with "moral imperatives" or the FCC or with other than totally refute the specious (and irrelevant) supposition that a government agency is a moral/motivational arbiter of what some do as a HOBBY. You're presuming your conclusion. --- The current Morse Code test in the USA requires the correct recognition of 25 consecutive Morse Code symbols, or correct answers to 7 out of 10 fill-in-the-blank questions based on 5 minutes of Morse Code text. The entire text used for the test consists of no more than 125 Morse Code symbols transmitted in no less than 5 minutes. Duhhhhh... Is that your professional response? This test has been compared to learning to recognize 41 words of a foreign language, which is a fair analogy. Ridiculous, specious "comparison." Not at all. If anything, learning to recognize 41 words of a foreign language requires more learning (depends on the language). Morse code is simply the arhythmic monotonic tone patterns to represent the letters, numbers, and some punctuation in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. And many other languages - there are code characters for letters and punctuation not used in English. But to pass Element 1, the code characters used are the 26 letters A to Z, the ten numerals 0 through 9, and five punctuation symbols. No umlauts, breves, accent marks, etc. It was never intended to be anything else. That claim is incorrect. Morse Code characters for letters and punctuation not used in English exist. They're just not part of the Element 1 test. I already KNOW, have used, all without ANY license or "test," MORE than 41 words in each of three foreign languages. So it should be easy for you to learn Morse Code - if you want to. You don't want to. Your "comparison" is preposterous. Not at all! There's no real difference between learning that "benjo" means "bathroom" and learning that a sound similar to "dahdididit" means the letter "B". It seems incredible that such a simple test of such a basic radio communication skill would be the cause of so much controversy and acrimony from those opposed to it. Oh, my, incredulosity puzzles , possibly because of his incredible stubborn attitude of maintaining the OLD STANDARDS forever and ever...and his unmitigated gall and arrogance by insisting that some long-ago morse test passing SHALL be passed by newcomers. Forever. Let's see: "incredible stubborn attitude" "OLD STANDARDS" "unmitigated gall and arrogance" Yep - acrimony on your part, Len. Not mine. The FCC uses "licensing" as a means of EM spectrum mitigation, NOT to "control the moral/ethical behavior of hobbyist hams." That claim is incorrect. There's much more to radio regulation than "EM spectrum mitigation" - whatever that phrase is supposed to mean. For example, a few amateurs convicted of felonies have lost their amateur radio licenses even though they were never accused or convicted of any violations of FCC rules for the amateur radio service. The content of amateur radio transmissions is regulated by FCC rules. For example, amateurs cannot transmit music except in certain specific circumstances. The FCC is NOT an academic institution whose "tests" are any sort of equivalent to academic skill/knowledge "qualification." That Test Element 1 remains IN the amateur radio regulations is due primarily to the incredible acrimony of those olde-tyme hammes who cannot bear to lose the one link to their personal "fame" that set them "up above their fellows" (as hobbyists). That claim is incorrect. Element 1 remains a requirement because FCC has not yet decided to remove it. Previous to July, 2003, the provisions of ITU-R treaty section S25.5 required some form of Morse Code testing, and FCC cited that treaty requirement as its basis for Element 1. Although that treaty requirement was removed almost 2 years ago, FCC has not changed the rules - yet. "Incredible acrimony" does not cause FCC to change its rules, nor to keep them as they are. Now, , study hard, devote yourself to the Morse art of painting, but you won't be in anything but small-bore in the caliber of Morse art. How do you know what my painting abilities are, Len? They could be much better than yours... APTITUDE lack cannot be overcome by DREAMS. Aptitude alone accomplishes nothing. Those who succeed are often not those of the greatest aptitude or talent, but those who simply tried, and exerted the necessary effort. I think you are really bothered by the "Great Equalizer" effect of learning the Morse Code, Len. Perhaps you were/are one of those folks for whom most things you try come easily, with little effort. The kind of student who can read the book once and get an A on the test - in some subjects, anyway. Big fish in a small pond. Some people who have that sort of aptitude also become good at avoiding things they don't learn easily. You seem to be that way, Len. It seems that when you are confronted by something that you don't learn easily, you get angry, frustrated, and abusive. You don't want to accept that others may be better at something than you are, so you attack the something as meaningless or useless. And you attack those who are good at the something you find difficult, rather than exerting a bit more effort. |
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: on Tues 14 Jun 2005 14:39 wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun 12 Jun 2005 18:10 "bb" wrote in message roups.com... [snip] The level of skill in Morse Code required to pass Element 1 is about equal to the artistic skill required to do simple pencil drawings, not "great art". Actually about equal to drawing the stick figures that children create. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: on Tues 14 Jun 2005 14:39 wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun 12 Jun 2005 18:10 "bb" wrote in message oglegroups.com... [snip] The level of skill in Morse Code required to pass Element 1 is about equal to the artistic skill required to do simple pencil drawings, not "great art". Actually about equal to drawing the stick figures that children create. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Funny, I can make proficient art, but I had a lot more trouble learning Morse! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
wrote:
From: on Tues 14 Jun 2005 14:39 wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun 12 Jun 2005 18:10 "bb" wrote in message legroups.com... Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. All purposeful action starts with an idea - a dream, as it were. First the idea, then the actions to make the idea become a reality. Sort of like showing one's REAL patriotism by volunteering for milirary service? Let's see if we have your thinking down, Leonard. Someone who doesn't volunteer for military service, especially in time of peace, isn't a patriot? Is that what you're saying? The person who will not allow him/herself to believe they can do something is already defeated. tries to sound like a Reverend on morse code, preaching from some ivy-covered pulpit. [pulpit fiction but without a Travolta] Is this a prelude to (roll drums) ...A Sermon On The Antenna Mount? Can become an artist-illustrator, traveling from place to place, painting portraits? Sam Morse did that. Sam and his financial backer Al Vail invented morse code. ART with minor success at it in any media REQUIRES a built-in aptitutde for that (or an excellent PR/gallery person to sell "great art"). Aptitutde, dutde? I started out WORKING as an artist-illustrator because I did have the built-in talent/aptitude for that. Not only that, my completed works were BETTER in any media than Sam Morse's. If you DO say so yourself... That Test Element 1 remains IN the amateur radio regulations is due primarily to the incredible acrimony of those olde-tyme hammes who cannot bear to lose the one link to their personal "fame" that set them "up above their fellows" (as hobbyists). You have incredible acrimony over the issue of morse testing, yet the test remains. Go figure. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com