|
I am presently QRV from 160 to 2 meters.
I am in the process of putting up my beam on my recently installed tower and hazer. This will be for 20/15/10, and six meters. Dan/W4NTI "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... [snip] How many folks on rrap have an 80 meter setup? As in "at least a G5RV that works on 80, 35 feet up at least") There's W4NTI, N2EY, K8MN, K0HB, and probably W3RV. I do ... 160m-70cm here ... with digital modes as well as voice. [snip] Let's cut to the chase. It's about more room for 'phone and less for Morse Code and digital modes. Some folks talk big about "new directions" and "modernization" and "fresh ideas", but what they really mean is more bandspace for SSB. I, for one, do NOT support more bandspace for SSB ... I think it's unnecessary. The main problems are on contest weekends and a lot of those problems are caused by too much testosterone and not enough operating courtesy from *some( but not all) contesters and the "retaliations" from some equally discourteous non-contesters. Is that what is best? More room for SSB and AM, less for CW and digital modes? No ... see above. -- 73, Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c Grid Square FN20fm http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c ------------------------------------------------------ Life Member, ARRL Life Member, QCWA (31424) Member, TAPR Member, AMSAT-NA Member, LVARC (Lehigh Valley ARC) Member, Lehigh County ARES/RACES Fellow, The Radio Club of America Senior Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Standards Association Chair, IEEE 802.22 WG on Wireless Regional Area Networks ------------------------------------------------------ |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: John Smith on Aug 22, 3:22 pm Dan: What is "good for amateur radio" has to be "what is good for the people", and NOT "what is good for my klick." No, John, it IS for their clique...except they can't see anything but their clique as being "amateur radio." You have a point, Len. There is an amateur radio clique. Those who are radio amateurs are a part of it. You aren't. More lies on your part You and I are not part of the same clique Which is what you are really stating, it is just a bunch of "good ole cb buddies", but thinking of themselves in some glorified manner! To Dan the ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Is there proof of your statement? yes your support of morse code welfare cut Thank goodness. Well at least "old friend" knows he is not in the group. I for one am proud to hold a Amateur Radio License. I have NO REASON at all to not be. On the other hand we have.......well you know who you are. So am I proud of my license just not proud of many of the other holders of them, esp those that put their mode ahead of the interests of the rest of us Dan/W4NTI |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: [snip] Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective needs to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can accept and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that sort of result. With all due respect, that's what everybody says. The trouble is with the specifics. You've given us some good specifics, like support of a 'reasonable' subband for Morse Code only, and a similar 'reasonable' subband for 'robots'. The devil is in "what's reasonable"? The way I see it there's probably no way to please everyone 100%. That's a given. Therefore, I think the solution is to work with all of the interested "camps" to forge a compromise that at least a significant majority can accept. The optimum balance is probably something that will result in all of the "camps" being able to say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can accept it and 'sign up' to support it." Definition of "consensus". However the specifics are where the arguing will be. I think the suggestion from the CW folks for a modest "CW only" segement at the bottom of the band is reasonable and would ease a lot of concerns about getting "squeezed out of existence." Yup. Would also tend to gather up the activity rather than spread it out. I think that the proposal that some have made to "repurpose" the "refarming" of the novice bands to provide a "digital playground" for the experimenters who want to develop, test, and operate the higher speed, more robust digital modes that the emergency management agencies want is also something that merits consideration. There was an ARRL proposal some time back to "refarm" the Novice bands - which was just a slick way of saying "use them for SSB". Some of us (including both you and me, IIRC) commented that a better use would be to create that "digital playground", where all modes except analog voice/image would be allowed - with primary priority to digital modes not allowed elsewhere. I agree that "robots" should not be allowed to take over the bands at the expense of all of the other modes. Or even *any* other modes. All of this would require some degree of compromise, but I think that's what will be required to formulate something that gains widespread acceptance instead of massive resistance. Key question: Will the digital playground include the robots? Biggest problem: Convincing FCC to accept moving the Novices and Tech Pluses down into the "General" part of the band. For example, suppose 80 were "refarmed" like this: 3500-3575: Morse Code only 3575-3675: Digital and Morse Code, bandwidth less than 1000 Hz 3675-3725: "Digital playground" - all documented digital modes (including Morse Code) regardless of bandwidth. Extras have the whole band Generals and Advanceds have all but 3500-3525 Novices and Tech Pluses have 3525-3575 In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical knowledge and skill of hams, That was a prime reason for "incentive licensing" 40 years ago! I'm talking about improved educational programs ... it's clear that "incentive licensing" created a huge schysm in the amateur community and hasn't really worked. I think the big problem was that the causes of the apparent problems were misunderstood. There was a time when, to be a ham with an effective station, you needed to a pretty good mix of technical knowledge, skill, and other resources. There wasn't much manufactured equipment for hams, and what did exist was very expensive by the average incomes of the day. And what hams used not only had to be inexpensive, it had to be usable without a lot of test equipment. Then as technology, manufacturing and affluence advanced, more and more hams simply bought their equipment. And as the reliability improved, and operation simplified, the need to know how it all worked went down. And those who were less technically inclined found it easier to be hams. For quite some years now we've had rigs that require almost no technical knowledge to operate. No tune-up, no critical adjustments, self-protected against many operating errors. And so complex that most *professionals* wouldn't try to build one or even fix one without a lot of specialized test gear and information. Incentive licensing couldn't reverse that trend. How will voluntary education programs do it if the hams themselves don't want it? And remember all those arguments used against the Morse Code test? Most of them can be used against the written tests as well, particularly the General and Extra writtens. (I think part of the problem was linking increased voice frequency privileges to the totally unrelated Morse test The original ARRL proposal would have only required a written test. Remember too that at the time (1960s) there was a real need for Morse Code proficient radio operators. But most of all, consider that for the unrelated privileges of the bottom of four HF bands, Generals had to pass *two* written exams. and the other part was that it created in too many people's minds the idea that the license meant you "knew all there was to know" - thereby removing the motivation to progress even further.) Nope. Long before incentive licensing, there were hams who thought that because they passed the test they were fully qualified. I recall hams who, when they passed the General, would sell their Novice setup, buy a manufactured transceiver, give away their Handbooks and other materials, and consider themselves "done" with the serious learning of radio. growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for and involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems we face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into "factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity, because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia, in-fighting, and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS as it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with (or don't) each other. We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and constructively going forward into the future on the truly important issues facing ham radio and the ARRL. The trouble is that ham radio covers such a wide range of activities that there's trouble finding common ground in some cases. The common ground should be that we're all hams - with recognition that different people have different operating interests and cooperating instead of always being so defensive and turf-war oriented. Agreed! For example, you have folks who want to use equipment and modes that are decades old, and folks who think anything less than their concept of SOTA is "obsolete". Folks who want more room for SSB (and even "hi-fi SSB") and folks who want more room for digital. Folks who don't even have a computer in the shack and folks who never actually listen to a signal (they watch it on the waterfall display). Appliance ops and homebrew-from-scratch folks. DXers, contesters, ragchewers, emcomm folks. Those who are stuck with compromise and stealth antennas and those with tons of aluminum aloft. How do you get all those folks to see that there is value in what each of them brings to the table? Education, encouragement, and, in severe cases, peer pressure (through the clubs is one way) to "play nicer together." ALL hams should treat each other with respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating preferences. Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some inferior form of life. As mentioned before - that goes both ways. That's true ... newbies shouldn't "cop an attitude" and neither should OTs. Works for me! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: John Smith on Aug 23, 8:23 pm
Len: I would like to encourage you to an amateur license, it is men like you who will restore the caliber of the hobby... in some ways, your text reminds me of the "old phart" who coached me on how to be a decent "old phart." (well, I have been indecent too, but only around those of the opposite sex--with their permission mind you! grin) Sorry, John, but encouragment requires much training into being a human modem working with a 161-year-old code set. Further, I would have to go into detoxification of ANY THOUGHT of CHANGING AMATEUR RADIO FROM WHAT IT IS! Dan da Morse Man has SPOKEN! Change is NOT allowed. Dan da Macho Morse Man speaks in FIFTY CALIBER forbidding ALL change. Dan is a hidebound, set-in-concrete-with-armor-plate traditionalist conservative ready to go into combat with Weapons of Morse Dedication to rid the world of upstart, liberal (euywww, spit) thoughts of EVER removing the morse code test! Dan is in his command track right now directing traffic (through the nearest 2m repeater of course), ready to Flash Fire any least sign of disturbance of his thoughts. Meanwhile, from an undisclosed location, I am silently watching, monitoring all this from a high UAV loaded with missles...taking aim... :-) This is NOT about having fun with amateur radio, doing hobby things for personal pleasure. This is WAR to Dan da Morse Man. All do as HE SAY! bip bip |
|
|
Alun L. Palmer wrote: Yhr FCC has already agreed to let the Novices and Tech plusses use the General frequencies for CW. Where? It's mentionned in passing in the NPRM. However, I think they do envisage simply turning over an equivalent amount of spectrum to phone, that is to say equivalent to the size of the current Novice CW subbands. Not in NPRM 05-235. I just reread it - they specifically deny almost everything that is mentioned. Changes to the test process, new license classes, more license classes, fewer license classes, more privileges, free upgrades, and much more, are all discussed and specifically *denied* by FCC. FCC mentions several times that if Novices, Technicians, and Technician Pluses want more privileges, all they will have to do is pass one or two written tests. They even mention that all Tech Pluses and Novices have to do *right now* to get lots more privileges is to take those written tests. After all the discussion, the *only* proposed change is to eliminate Element 1. No other changes are proposed by FCC. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... wrote in oups.com: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Yhr FCC has already agreed to let the Novices and Tech plusses use the General frequencies for CW. It's mentionned in passing in the NPRM. However, I think they do envisage simply turning over an equivalent amount of spectrum to phone, that is to say equivalent to the size of the current Novice CW subbands. No that is not what the FCC has agreed to as of yet. They mention that there is another proposal out there to do this but they have not acted on it. There wording does seem to indicate that they favor the change though. It's not a really hot issue as there are very few active Novices and Tech Plus amateurs out there. Most of the active ones have upgraded and it's irrelevant to the inactive ones. Hopefully it will encourage them to become more active since there is much more activity in the General portion of the band. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: John Smith on Aug 22, 3:22 pm Dan: What is "good for amateur radio" has to be "what is good for the people", and NOT "what is good for my klick." No, John, it IS for their clique...except they can't see anything but their clique as being "amateur radio." You have a point, Len. There is an amateur radio clique. Those who are radio amateurs are a part of it. You aren't. More lies on your part You and I are not part of the same clique Which is what you are really stating, it is just a bunch of "good ole cb buddies", but thinking of themselves in some glorified manner! To Dan the ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Is there proof of your statement? yes your support of morse code welfare cut Thank goodness. Well at least "old friend" knows he is not in the group. I for one am proud to hold a Amateur Radio License. I have NO REASON at all to not be. On the other hand we have.......well you know who you are. So am I proud of my license just not proud of many of the other holders of them, esp those that put their mode ahead of the interests of the rest of us And by that you are infering that I do that, eh? Give me an example. Besides a quote from Lennie that is. Dan/W4NTI |
I agree, that way he can get his butt kicked in real style. Live on the
air. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I would like to encourage you to an amateur license, it is men like you who will restore the caliber of the hobby... in some ways, your text reminds me of the "old phart" who coached me on how to be a decent "old phart." (well, I have been indecent too, but only around those of the opposite sex--with their permission mind you! grin) John On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:34:35 -0700, LenAnderson wrote: Len: You might have said, I missed it if that is the case, when/if CW is dead, are you going to grab your extra ticket? Maybe, maybe not. That's MY option, not based on the puerile taunts of middle-schoolers who are of middle age going "nyah, nyah, can't get a ticket, can't get a ticket!!!" :-) Hmmm...I started out in HF communications with much more "action" than the average, doing 24/7 comms with high-power (up to 40 KW) transmitters shooting across the Pacific, plus doing VHF, UHF, and - finally - multi-channel microwave radio relay over a half century ago...winding up as an operations and maintenance supervisor NCO. Then, on release from active duty, getting a First 'Phone at an FCC field office (no COLEMs then) and working four broadcast stations as vacation relief or on weekends or full time for WREX-TV to gain enough money to come out west...having already interviewed for and secured a job at Hughes Aircraft. That led to a whole career, major major change to electronics engineering winding up as senior staff in design. I'm supposed to get a ham license to "prove I know something about radio?!?!?" I don't have anything to "prove" to a bunch of yokels who want to recreate the 1930s and 1940s in radiotelegraphy! Geezus, gimme a break from those neanderthallers! What the fork do think a ham license IS...some kind of Nobel Award for Science?!? :-) Amateur radio is fun, a recreational avocation done not for money but for personal pleasure. It involves NO different radio physics than any other radio service but it allows all the choice of buying state-of-the-art radios to use or in building them from their own designs. It requires a license to transmit RF due to a federal law (an act of Congress) that created a federal regulatory agency for ALL civil radio. The mindset of many hase been "conditioned" by a certain membership organization to be much, much more, a virtual lifestyle that has gotten too deep into the myth and fantasy of long-ago times and dreams of glory and heroism that never happened. One argument is that "a ham can have their OWN station." Yes, I've had "my own station" or properly, one-third of it in a business partnership with two others. I've built/converted three "stations" and checked them thoroughly befoe selling them, never once "using" them or caring to use them. I've designed and built two other transceivers for CB, one a prototype for a CB company in Burbank that went bankrupt when faced with off-shore CB products cut them out of profit action. "I can work the world on radio with an amateur license!!!" Yes, and I could pick up a handset in Tokyo, at ADA Control, and talk to Seattle, Anchorage, San Francisco, Hawaii, or Okinawa any time of the day or night, as I did for a while in 1955...without any "license" or even any specific HF with/without SSB schooling of any kind. I can "talk" to the rest of the world any time I want to on the Internet, and have, plus being able to share images with dozens of long-time friends (from pre-Internet days) faster than by surface mail, uninterrupted by vagaries of the ionosphere. "I can explore new radio territory and advance the state of the radio art" with a ham license. What the fork do some of these cretins think I was DOING FOR A LIVING since 1956? Without a ham license I've legally transmitted RF on frequencies ranging through EM bands from LF into EHF, on up to 4mm wavelengths. Gotten one patent as sole inventor, had a terrific time in the labs and in the field, still do it once in a while. I once "worked a station" ON the moon. No moonbounce stuff. I have to learn morse code in order to do THAT as an amateur?!? (I don't have to test for morse code at VHF and up, just for frequencies below 30 MHz...where I began doing HF communications a half century before...without having to know or use morse code then or any time afterwards) If so, ya wanna meet down on 3.840 and give art a run for his money--in a gentlemanly way of course. Don't go with disruptive actions myself... debate and argument yes, trouble no... suspect you might be the same... could be fun, ya never know... grin No. If anyplace on ham bands, it would be on 20m where a bunch of ex-RCA Corporation folks hang out on Saturday mornings. Talk there is shared-interest stuff, not the personal polemics of self-propelled radio potentates. Listen for KD6JG and W6MJN, among others. I know them by their real names, not callsigns. "I can be FEDERALLY-AUTHORIZED with MY OWN CALLSIGN if I get a ham license!!!" Wow, ain't that something (like I've already done that, but not with a ham license). I know where to get a good ham sandwich nearby, the vendors needing only a Health Department license to operate. [great pastrami at one place] I DO need to renew my Poetic License. Time to study for Mores Goad. :-) buy buy |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... I agree, that way he can get his butt kicked in real style. Live on the air. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I would like to encourage you to an amateur license, it is men like you who will restore the caliber of the hobby... in some ways, your text reminds me of the "old phart" who coached me on how to be a decent "old phart." (well, I have been indecent too, but only around those of the opposite sex--with their permission mind you! grin) John No decent "old phart" resorts to derogatory diminutives in his dealings with other people as Mr. Anderson has habitually done. You might want to think carefully about who you would really want to emulate when you become one yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut your support of morse code welfare cut Thank goodness. Well at least "old friend" knows he is not in the group. I for one am proud to hold a Amateur Radio License. I have NO REASON at all to not be. On the other hand we have.......well you know who you are. So am I proud of my license just not proud of many of the other holders of them, esp those that put their mode ahead of the interests of the rest of us And by that you are infering that I do that, eh? Give me an example. Besides a quote from Lennie that is. your own support of proetected segments for CW for one another you attitutde that new comers must mind there place all your words not lens Dan/W4NTI |
Dee:
From the text and exchanges here, I honestly wonder how most here got their tickets! Then, they have the audacity to act like judges on who should have tickets--I hope you all stick together, you are all you guys have got! John On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:24:56 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message nk.net... I agree, that way he can get his butt kicked in real style. Live on the air. Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I would like to encourage you to an amateur license, it is men like you who will restore the caliber of the hobby... in some ways, your text reminds me of the "old phart" who coached me on how to be a decent "old phart." (well, I have been indecent too, but only around those of the opposite sex--with their permission mind you! grin) John No decent "old phart" resorts to derogatory diminutives in his dealings with other people as Mr. Anderson has habitually done. You might want to think carefully about who you would really want to emulate when you become one yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Len:
Most here are a prime example of why some look at amateur radio and just say--HELL NO! I get the feeling I am in a room of blind people on an LSD trip, and they think they have vision! John On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:24 -0700, wrote: From: John Smith on Aug 23, 8:23 pm Len: I would like to encourage you to an amateur license, it is men like you who will restore the caliber of the hobby... in some ways, your text reminds me of the "old phart" who coached me on how to be a decent "old phart." (well, I have been indecent too, but only around those of the opposite sex--with their permission mind you! grin) Sorry, John, but encouragment requires much training into being a human modem working with a 161-year-old code set. Further, I would have to go into detoxification of ANY THOUGHT of CHANGING AMATEUR RADIO FROM WHAT IT IS! Dan da Morse Man has SPOKEN! Change is NOT allowed. Dan da Macho Morse Man speaks in FIFTY CALIBER forbidding ALL change. Dan is a hidebound, set-in-concrete-with-armor-plate traditionalist conservative ready to go into combat with Weapons of Morse Dedication to rid the world of upstart, liberal (euywww, spit) thoughts of EVER removing the morse code test! Dan is in his command track right now directing traffic (through the nearest 2m repeater of course), ready to Flash Fire any least sign of disturbance of his thoughts. Meanwhile, from an undisclosed location, I am silently watching, monitoring all this from a high UAV loaded with missles...taking aim... :-) This is NOT about having fun with amateur radio, doing hobby things for personal pleasure. This is WAR to Dan da Morse Man. All do as HE SAY! bip bip |
From: John Smith on Aug 24, 7:08 pm
Dee: From the text and exchanges here, I honestly wonder how most here got their tickets! Then, they have the audacity to act like judges on who should have tickets--I hope you all stick together, you are all you guys have got! Lissen up, witeboy, dey gots da 'HOOD organ-ized! Nobody mess wif no homeboys, you got dat yanno? ^^^^^ - That's the way they come across. On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:24:56 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: No decent "old phart" resorts to derogatory diminutives in his dealings with other people as Mr. Anderson has habitually done. Tsk. Poor Dee is miffed and a half because I didn't liberally apply nice-nice oil to her transcript of recorded ARRL maxims some time ago. Her feelings are still hurt. Boo hoo. You might want to think carefully about who you would really want to emulate when you become one yourself. Tsk. Dee's vision suffers extreme League-induced astigmatism. The PCTA are about as OLDE-PHARTE as one can possibly be. Look at them: A middle-aged-going-on-ninety "renowned historian" desperately wanting to come across as numero uno guru; a nearly past middle-aged snarlygram-spouting "veteran of the holy foreign service" who thinks his velvet glove is an iron fist; a middle-aged "veteran of foreign wars" spouting off like it was well-drink time at the Legion Hall; a past-middle-age hoagie-muncher who shot bears for navel intelligence. Then we have the female acolyte worshiping at the Church of St. Hiram repeating the beloved maxims of the order as if she were mama superior. All must do as they DICTATE. In a hobby. All who do not obey are sub-human for they believe intelligence only shines through morsemanship. All will have fun whether we like it or not... Wow. Show some individuality, some freedom of expression, some free thinking OUTSIDE of the cloister and they become unglued, unable to cope with new thoughts, new ideas, differing opinions. All must be as ordained by the Ancients, never ever to be changed... Amen. all sam |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... wrote in oups.com: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Yhr FCC has already agreed to let the Novices and Tech plusses use the General frequencies for CW. It's mentionned in passing in the NPRM. However, I think they do envisage simply turning over an equivalent amount of spectrum to phone, that is to say equivalent to the size of the current Novice CW subbands. No that is not what the FCC has agreed to as of yet. They mention that there is another proposal out there to do this but they have not acted on it. There wording does seem to indicate that they favor the change though. It's not a really hot issue as there are very few active Novices and Tech Plus amateurs out there. Most of the active ones have upgraded and it's irrelevant to the inactive ones. Hopefully it will encourage them to become more active since there is much more activity in the General portion of the band. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE It does say it will be in a different NPRM, but as you say, they seem to favour it, so I beleive that means it will happen. |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut your support of morse code welfare cut Thank goodness. Well at least "old friend" knows he is not in the group. I for one am proud to hold a Amateur Radio License. I have NO REASON at all to not be. On the other hand we have.......well you know who you are. So am I proud of my license just not proud of many of the other holders of them, esp those that put their mode ahead of the interests of the rest of us And by that you are infering that I do that, eh? Give me an example. Besides a quote from Lennie that is. your own support of proetected segments for CW for one another you attitutde that new comers must mind there place all your words not lens Dan/W4NTI Well at least I have the gonads to use a real call and name. First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. I have been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. Total failure. So why should I expect anything better? Of course BB you wouldn't know that would you? So why not just stick with what you KNOW about? And do us all a favor. You are obviously a product of the 1960 feel good free love society. You were most certainly TAUGHT by them. I feel sorry for you. This actually explains your problem. So I can't blame you for your "problems". Don't forget to send in those dues to the ACLU. Dan/W4NTI |
|
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message cut s And by that you are infering that I do that, eh? Give me an example. Besides a quote from Lennie that is. your own support of proetected segments for CW for one another you attitutde that new comers must mind there place all your words not lens Dan/W4NTI Well at least I have the gonads to use a real call and name. First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. I have After for a CW Only segment and expecting to gte what you want is plain nuts. look what happend in VHF you got a couple right at the top of 2M and at the top of some other band been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. Total failure. So why should I expect anything better? Of course BB you Total failure meaning CW can't compete as I have beens aying for years wouldn't know that would you? So why not just stick with what you KNOW about? And do us all a favor. why don't you grow up and stop asking for protection of your petty interests? You are obviously a product of the 1960 feel good free love society. You were most certainly TAUGHT by them. I feel sorry for you. This actually explains your problem. So I can't blame you for your "problems". Naw you have it wrong again. I am a bit too old to taught by the 1960's folks Don't forget to send in those dues to the ACLU. No way the ACLU isn't the demon say Bill O'Riealy wants to make them out as as but they are not folks that I support either Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. It's actually a very good idea. I have been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. ?? I'm not sure what you mean, Dan. For decades it's been legal to operate "digital modes" (RTTY, PSK31, etc.) everywhere in the non-voice parts of the HF ham bands. Including 40 meters. I dunno which gentleman's agreement you mean, but the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal is just that - a proposal, nothing more. Needs more work IMHO. Total failure. Well, I just worked a K4 station not far from you. Nice QSO. Neither of us had high power or big antennas, but we did fine. 7037 kHz. Morse Code, of course. btw, there were many Morse Code signals on 40 between 7000 and 7050 - and it's not even dark out yet. So why should I expect anything better? Well, I hope for the best. See you in 40, Dan. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: Dan/W4NTI on Aug 25, 3:41 pm
"an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Well at least I have the gonads to use a real call and name. Is "W4NTI" your legal surname? :-) We can't see your "gonads." Is having some a requirement of being licensed as an amateur? I don't think so. First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. That is NOT a subject of NPRM 05-143 nor for WT Docket 05-235. You CAN Petition the FCC to get a RADIOTELEGRAPHY only sub-band. You CANNOT run Continuous Wave (CW) any longer than is required for tune-up purposes. That's in the regulations. Didn't you see it? You WILL have to make a good, reasonable case for this sole- mode segment of 40m band. Remember that the government of the United States does NOT run solely on your personal wishes. Meanwhile, WT Docket 05-235 is solely about the elimination or retention of the morse code test for a U.S. amateur radio license having below-30-MHz operating privileges. Try to remember that. I have been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. Total failure. Try using a radio and a decent antenna. That works better. So why should I expect anything better? Of course BB you wouldn't know that would you? So why not just stick with what you KNOW about? And do us all a favor. Dannie boy, will you PLEASE quit hopping up and down when you get so angry? Remember you are on disability...if the authorities catch you being so physically aggressive you might lose your benefits. Tsk, tsk. You are obviously a product of the 1960 feel good free love society. I thought the 1960s were an EXCELLENT time. That's when I met my late first wife. Whatsamatta, Dannie, couldn't you "get any?" :-) You were most certainly TAUGHT by them. I feel sorry for you. Now, now, you are sending nastygrams again. Remember when the Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse were TAUGHT. You are insulting your morse brethren. This actually explains your problem. So I can't blame you for your "problems". Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still more of the nastygrams. Did you get those off the NTS? Don't forget to send in those dues to the ACLU. Don't forget to return your rented uniform of General George Patton to Western Costume Company. Late fees are steep. Tenshion-HUTT! salute one-finger |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message cut s And by that you are infering that I do that, eh? Give me an example. Besides a quote from Lennie that is. your own support of proetected segments for CW for one another you attitutde that new comers must mind there place all your words not lens Dan/W4NTI Well at least I have the gonads to use a real call and name. First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. I have After for a CW Only segment and expecting to gte what you want is plain nuts. look what happend in VHF you got a couple right at the top of 2M and at the top of some other band Dang......are you saying we had a CW assignment at the 147.995 range or something? If we did, I don't remember it. been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. Total failure. So why should I expect anything better? Of course BB you Total failure meaning CW can't compete as I have beens aying for years No dummy that is not what I said, or mean. It is the non CW qualified types that just dump on top of a on-going CW communication....because they have no idea it is a real communication. Because they can't copy it. Clear now? And that is exactly what will happen in the event of NOT having a exclusive CW segement. wouldn't know that would you? So why not just stick with what you KNOW about? And do us all a favor. why don't you grow up and stop asking for protection of your petty interests? Why can't you admit that you know NOTHING about the subject and just go away??? You are obviously a product of the 1960 feel good free love society. You were most certainly TAUGHT by them. I feel sorry for you. This actually explains your problem. So I can't blame you for your "problems". Naw you have it wrong again. I am a bit too old to taught by the 1960's folks Then I really feel sorry for you. You must have grown up in the 60s and your MaryJane brain is still screwed up from all the sessions. Don't forget to send in those dues to the ACLU. No way the ACLU isn't the demon say Bill O'Riealy wants to make them out as as but they are not folks that I support either Wow.....so when are you going to start acting right? Dan/W4NTI |
wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. It's actually a very good idea. I have been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. ?? I'm not sure what you mean, Dan. For decades it's been legal to operate "digital modes" (RTTY, PSK31, etc.) everywhere in the non-voice parts of the HF ham bands. Including 40 meters. I dunno which gentleman's agreement you mean, but the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal is just that - a proposal, nothing more. Needs more work IMHO. Total failure. Well, I just worked a K4 station not far from you. Nice QSO. Neither of us had high power or big antennas, but we did fine. 7037 kHz. Morse Code, of course. btw, there were many Morse Code signals on 40 between 7000 and 7050 - and it's not even dark out yet. So why should I expect anything better? Well, I hope for the best. See you in 40, Dan. 73 de Jim, N2EY Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend. Like when the NAQP CW is on this winter season. It is just an example of what it will be like with massive digital action. Just watch and see. There are no more gentlemen Jim. Take away their ability to recognize CW as a real communication method and you will have chaos. This is what I'm referring to. Dan/W4NTI |
wrote in message oups.com... plonk Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. Total failure. So why should I expect anything better? Of course BB you Total failure meaning CW can't compete as I have beens aying for years No dummy that is not what I said, or mean. It is the non CW qualified types that just dump on top of a on-going CW communication....because they have no idea it is a real communication. Because they can't copy it. Clear now? The you are full of Bull**** I can reconize CW for what it is. If Cw can't survive in the real world then I am all for having a wake for it What you are saying is that CW can't survive amoungst other modes, plain and simple I don't buy your CW welfare program And that is exactly what will happen in the event of NOT having a exclusive CW segement. Then CW can't compete and will very properly fold, but I doubt it. Cw Ops will just have to work a bit harder, they do Claim to enjoy a challange wouldn't know that would you? So why not just stick with what you KNOW about? And do us all a favor. why don't you grow up and stop asking for protection of your petty interests? Why can't you admit that you know NOTHING about the subject and just go away??? I know quite a bit about it I know you are lobbing for protection of YOUR mode, and for the FCC to continue in some form the Morse Code Welfare State that has existed for years There may be a case for more restrictions on robots ( am not convinced either way on that point), but no case at all for CW needing protection form ALL other mode You are obviously a product of the 1960 feel good free love society. You were most certainly TAUGHT by them. I feel sorry for you. This actually explains your problem. So I can't blame you for your "problems". Naw you have it wrong again. I am a bit too old to taught by the 1960's folks Then I really feel sorry for you. You must have grown up in the 60s and your MaryJane brain is still screwed up from all the sessions. I was Born in 1964 I was 6 when the 60's ended Never touched that weed Don't forget to send in those dues to the ACLU. No way the ACLU isn't the demon say Bill O'Riealy wants to make them out as as but they are not folks that I support either Wow.....so when are you going to start acting right? i act just fine, just not the way you want me to, so grow up Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. It's actually a very good idea. I have been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. ?? I'm not sure what you mean, Dan. For decades it's been legal to operate "digital modes" (RTTY, PSK31, etc.) everywhere in the non-voice parts of the HF ham bands. Including 40 meters. I dunno which gentleman's agreement you mean, but the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal is just that - a proposal, nothing more. Needs more work IMHO. Total failure. Well, I just worked a K4 station not far from you. Nice QSO. Neither of us had high power or big antennas, but we did fine. 7037 kHz. Morse Code, of course. btw, there were many Morse Code signals on 40 between 7000 and 7050 - and it's not even dark out yet. So why should I expect anything better? Well, I hope for the best. See you in 40, Dan. 73 de Jim, N2EY Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend. Like when the NAQP CW is on this winter season. It is just an example of what it will be like with massive digital action. Just watch and see. There are no more gentlemen Jim. cut Well you got one right but you know what they say about broken clocks cut Take away their ability to recognize CW as a real communication method and you will have chaos. This is what I'm referring to. But here you are just lying, No one is taking the ability to reconize CW. It can't be done even if someone wants to try Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. It's actually a very good idea. I have been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. ?? I'm not sure what you mean, Dan. For decades it's been legal to operate "digital modes" (RTTY, PSK31, etc.) everywhere in the non-voice parts of the HF ham bands. Including 40 meters. I dunno which gentleman's agreement you mean, but the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal is just that - a proposal, nothing more. Needs more work IMHO. Total failure. Well, I just worked a K4 station not far from you. Nice QSO. Neither of us had high power or big antennas, but we did fine. 7037 kHz. Morse Code, of course. btw, there were many Morse Code signals on 40 between 7000 and 7050 - and it's not even dark out yet. So why should I expect anything better? Well, I hope for the best. See you in 40, Dan. Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend. Like when the NAQP CW is on this winter season. That's a different story. It is just an example of what it will be like with massive digital action. Just watch and see. All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say 7000 to 7050. There are no more gentlemen Jim. Sure there are! But it only takes a few bad apples to make a mess. Take away their ability to recognize CW as a real communication method and you will have chaos. This is what I'm referring to. Then the thing to do is to get a place for Morse Code. There's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. There are sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes, etc. There are large parts of state and national parks and wilderness areas where motor vehicles are not allowed. Some will say "but it's 'just a hobby'". Well, camping and backpacking are 'just a hobby' for most people - yet there are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: cut Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend. Like when the NAQP CW is on this winter season. That's a different story. It is just an example of what it will be like with massive digital action. Just watch and see. All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say 7000 to 7050. why? why is it that Morse Code supporter are always insisting that Morse Code needs props in order to survive? Nope. It needs reasonable bandwidth in order to avoid interference. OOK signals to not mix well with digital and modes such as PSK31 are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code? They are not left just for theose hobbists. Many hunderd acres ar ein this area and never hiked to preserve the tree and lifefroms like deer and wolves and Mtn lions "those" "hobbyist" "lifeforms" Sure they are left for "hobbyists", although in your example "naturalists" is the appropriate term. the question is why is Morse Code entitled to a such a preserve all to itself? Why not? The ONLY mode that OOK is compatable with is Single Side Band. And why if it is Such an EFECTIVE mode does it need the protection? "EFFECTIVE" We could ask the same about who needs the ADA, Mark. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: cut Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend. Like when the NAQP CW is on this winter season. That's a different story. It is just an example of what it will be like with massive digital action. Just watch and see. All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say 7000 to 7050. why? why is it that Morse Code supporter are always insisting that Morse Code needs props in order to survive? Nope. It needs reasonable bandwidth in order to avoid interference. All modes need reasonable bandwidth in order to avoid interference. OOK signals to not mix well with digital and modes such as PSK31 But not because of bandwidth. are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code? They are not left just for theose hobbists. Many hunderd acres ar ein this area and never hiked to preserve the tree and lifefroms like deer and wolves and Mtn lions "those" "hobbyist" "lifeforms" Sure they are left for "hobbyists", although in your example "naturalists" is the appropriate term. There are wilderness areas/preserves where human access is strictly limited in an attempt to maintain the "wild" nature of the place. The radio analogy to such preserves is the quiet zone (both geographic and spectrum) around some radio astronomy observatories. But that's not what I'm talking about. There are parks, recreational areas, seashores, lakes, and other areas reserved from "development" and access in various ways. The rules for their use are aimed at letting "hobbyists" have the best possible experience (as in "fun") from the area - even though the rules limit the use of the area by some. For example, there are plenty of such places where motor vehicles are simply not allowed. In many cases the only way to reach such places is to walk in and walk out. The presence of motor vehicles would change the place, and the experience, so much that they are simply not allowed. There's a nature trail near my home that just opened last fall. Used to be an interurban right-of-way. It's a favorite for walkers, runners, bicyclists and rollerbladers. No motor vehicles of any type are allowed, even though the surface is paved. At the other end of that spectrum is the Appalachian Trail, stretching from Stone Mountain in Georgia to Mount Katahdin (sp?) in Maine. No motor vehicles or even wheeled vehicles allowed on most of it. Does walking need "props" in order to survive? the question is why is Morse Code entitled to a such a preserve all to itself? Why not? The ONLY mode that OOK is compatable with is Single Side Band. In some ways yes, but in most ways no. Even those two modes are incompatible in many ways. That's why they have separate subbands. Consider the fact that most "data" modes are not allowed in the voice/image subbands. Is that a "prop" so that SSB and AM will survive? Imagine a stretch of band where there are Morse Code signals every 1 kHz. Is there anyplace in such a band where an SSB voice signal can operate without causing interference to at least one Morse Code signal? And why if it is Such an EFECTIVE mode does it need the protection? "EFFECTIVE" There's a fundamental divide appearing in radio modes nowadays. Modes like Morse Code and the analog voice modes are real time, "direct experience" modes. A human listens to the demodulated signal directly, in real time. The "digital" modes are fundamentally different in that there is decoding beyond the demodulation process. A machine does the decoding - the human does not 'listen' to the signal at all in most cases. Look at PSK31 - you see a particular pattern on the waterfall, click on it, and the decoded text appears. If there is interference, the text is garbled, and there's not very much you can do about it. And what you can do is a matter of equipment adjustment, not skill in listening. Because of this difference, it makes sense to allow certain modes - like Morse Code - a place free of interference from "machine modes", just like the trails where motor vehicles are not allowed. Voice modes like SSB and AM are protected from modes like PSK31 and RTTY. The spectrum allowed to those modes in the US HF ham bands amounts to more than half the total spectrum available! If such protection is good enough for SSB and AM, why not Morse Code? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: snip There's a fundamental divide appearing in radio modes nowadays. Modes like Morse Code and the analog voice modes are real time, "direct experience" modes. A human listens to the demodulated signal directly, in real time. The "digital" modes are fundamentally different in that there is decoding beyond the demodulation process. A machine does the decoding - the human does not 'listen' to the signal at all in most cases. Which is great for people such as myself! Agreed! One more tool in the toolbox. Look at PSK31 - you see a particular pattern on the waterfall, click on it, and the decoded text appears. If there is interference, the text is garbled, and there's not very much you can do about it. And what you can do is a matter of equipment adjustment, not skill in listening. Thank goodness for that! If listening skill was the main criteria, I wouldn't be much of a Ham! Well hearing skills maybe..... Actually, Mike, your *listening* skills are probably excellent. Because of this difference, it makes sense to allow certain modes - like Morse Code - a place free of interference from "machine modes", just like the trails where motor vehicles are not allowed. I'm certainly all for keeping those accursed robot stations in their own section of the bands (actually, I am not in favor of their existance - I think they violate the spirit if not the law). Repeaters, satellites and beacons are robots of a sort. Should we ban those too? How is a robot station that wipes out sometimes dozens of QSO's any different from certain Amateurs who have been known to broadcast "bulletins right over top of ongoing QSOs? Several important measures: 1) Does the bulletin station operate on a published schedule of times and frequencies? 2) Does the bulletin station transmit only information of clear and special interest to radio amateurs? (IOW, not general news and such?) 3) Is the bulletin station using an approved method of control? Voice modes like SSB and AM are protected from modes like PSK31 and RTTY. The spectrum allowed to those modes in the US HF ham bands amounts to more than half the total spectrum available! If such protection is good enough for SSB and AM, why not Morse Code? I have to smile at the concept of SSB and AM being protected from my wimpy little PSK31 signal. But they are! You can legally transmit PSK31 anywhere on the HF ham bands where voice modes are *not* allowed. Why does SSB need protection from PSK31 but not Morse Code? This sort of thing has some odd ramifiactions. Imagine if you wanted to use a combined text/voice mode. Such a mode might use SSB *with carrier* for the voice part, with the carrier phase-shifted to send the text. Such a mode is not allowed on amateur HF. One can even imagine a mode consisting of SSB on one sideband, SSTV-type images (digitally encoded) on the other, and text on the phase-shifted carrier. Something neat to try out, huh? Except it's not allowed on the amateur HF bands either. Butfull-carrier double-sideband AM voice is allowed. In both cases the prohibition is not due to the bandwidth used but because of the content (voice/image vs. text) I understand your analogy, but I don't think it quite hits the fundamental divide point. Certainly RTTY and SSTV and ATV and HELL mode have been around for quite a while. Sure - but they've been of limited use until recently because of the difficulty of implementation. With the drastic reduction in the cost of a computer, the increased computing power, and the wide selection of easy-to-use freeware, the game is very different than even 10 years ago. Of course none of this prevents someone from having "happy fingers".... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
I am arguing with a child. I should have known better. He knows nothing
about anything. Dan/W4NTI "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. Total failure. So why should I expect anything better? Of course BB you Total failure meaning CW can't compete as I have beens aying for years No dummy that is not what I said, or mean. It is the non CW qualified types that just dump on top of a on-going CW communication....because they have no idea it is a real communication. Because they can't copy it. Clear now? The you are full of Bull**** I can reconize CW for what it is. If Cw can't survive in the real world then I am all for having a wake for it What you are saying is that CW can't survive amoungst other modes, plain and simple I don't buy your CW welfare program And that is exactly what will happen in the event of NOT having a exclusive CW segement. Then CW can't compete and will very properly fold, but I doubt it. Cw Ops will just have to work a bit harder, they do Claim to enjoy a challange wouldn't know that would you? So why not just stick with what you KNOW about? And do us all a favor. why don't you grow up and stop asking for protection of your petty interests? Why can't you admit that you know NOTHING about the subject and just go away??? I know quite a bit about it I know you are lobbing for protection of YOUR mode, and for the FCC to continue in some form the Morse Code Welfare State that has existed for years There may be a case for more restrictions on robots ( am not convinced either way on that point), but no case at all for CW needing protection form ALL other mode You are obviously a product of the 1960 feel good free love society. You were most certainly TAUGHT by them. I feel sorry for you. This actually explains your problem. So I can't blame you for your "problems". Naw you have it wrong again. I am a bit too old to taught by the 1960's folks Then I really feel sorry for you. You must have grown up in the 60s and your MaryJane brain is still screwed up from all the sessions. I was Born in 1964 I was 6 when the 60's ended Never touched that weed Don't forget to send in those dues to the ACLU. No way the ACLU isn't the demon say Bill O'Riealy wants to make them out as as but they are not folks that I support either Wow.....so when are you going to start acting right? i act just fine, just not the way you want me to, so grow up Dan/W4NTI |
wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that far fetched. It's actually a very good idea. I have been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the latest "gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW ranges. ?? I'm not sure what you mean, Dan. For decades it's been legal to operate "digital modes" (RTTY, PSK31, etc.) everywhere in the non-voice parts of the HF ham bands. Including 40 meters. I dunno which gentleman's agreement you mean, but the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal is just that - a proposal, nothing more. Needs more work IMHO. Total failure. Well, I just worked a K4 station not far from you. Nice QSO. Neither of us had high power or big antennas, but we did fine. 7037 kHz. Morse Code, of course. btw, there were many Morse Code signals on 40 between 7000 and 7050 - and it's not even dark out yet. So why should I expect anything better? Well, I hope for the best. See you in 40, Dan. Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend. Like when the NAQP CW is on this winter season. That's a different story. It is just an example of what it will be like with massive digital action. Just watch and see. All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say 7000 to 7050. There are no more gentlemen Jim. Sure there are! But it only takes a few bad apples to make a mess. Take away their ability to recognize CW as a real communication method and you will have chaos. This is what I'm referring to. Then the thing to do is to get a place for Morse Code. There's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. There are sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes, etc. There are large parts of state and national parks and wilderness areas where motor vehicles are not allowed. Some will say "but it's 'just a hobby'". Well, camping and backpacking are 'just a hobby' for most people - yet there are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code? 73 de Jim, N2EY Uh Jim, your preaching to the choir here. I agree with you. Just I think 25khz is enough. Dan/W4NTI |
You can't argue with Brian Burke. He has his mind made up and no matter
what you say he comes back with the same ole dry BS. Why bother? Dan/W4NTI "K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: cut Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend. Like when the NAQP CW is on this winter season. That's a different story. It is just an example of what it will be like with massive digital action. Just watch and see. All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say 7000 to 7050. why? why is it that Morse Code supporter are always insisting that Morse Code needs props in order to survive? Nope. It needs reasonable bandwidth in order to avoid interference. OOK signals to not mix well with digital and modes such as PSK31 are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code? They are not left just for theose hobbists. Many hunderd acres ar ein this area and never hiked to preserve the tree and lifefroms like deer and wolves and Mtn lions "those" "hobbyist" "lifeforms" Sure they are left for "hobbyists", although in your example "naturalists" is the appropriate term. the question is why is Morse Code entitled to a such a preserve all to itself? Why not? The ONLY mode that OOK is compatable with is Single Side Band. And why if it is Such an EFECTIVE mode does it need the protection? "EFFECTIVE" We could ask the same about who needs the ADA, Mark. Steve, K4YZ |
From: Dan/W4NTI on Aug 26, 4:26 pm
You can't argue with Brian Burke. He has his mind made up and no matter what you say he comes back with the same ole dry BS. Why bother? Dan/W4NTI "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: Jeswald's Nett Kopp days are numbered. Brian Burke is NOT in that series of quotes. I seriously suggest a good eye doctor and perhaps a tranquilizer from your general-care physician. |
wrote in message oups.com... plonk |
|
"Michael Coslo" wrote I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur bands. Period. No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations? No code practice sessions? No remote control of satellites? No remote control of model airplanes? No remote control of repeaters? No telemetry from satellites? No propagation beacons? No APRS? (Not even in balloons?) No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system? No................ "Period" Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com