More Real Estate Follies
 

wrote

Do you?

Do you have a short memory? If so, scroll up a few messages for a refresher.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Definitely Not Qualified
 

wrote:
From: on Dec 17, 4:27 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 16, 3:41 pm
wrote:

Sorry, but the last REAL SERVING IN THE MILITARY President
was James Earle Carter, USN,

His middle name is spelled "Earl". Not "Earle".
Can't you get anyhting right? ;-)

You screwed up typing the word "anything" and now try to get
out of it by saying it was "deliberate."

Gee, Len, Can't you recognize *satire* and *parody*?

Can't you get *anything* right? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Bull****.

Now there's something you're familiar with!

Go to: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm

You WILL find that it is EARLE with an ending E, just like
his father spelled it.

Other sources say differently.

"Other sources?"

Yes. Other sources say "Earl".

The United States Navy, from whose Naval Academy James Earle
Carter graduated, spelled it "Earle."

How do you know? Did you go there?

The United States Navy, in which Lieutenant James Earle
Carter served, spelled it "Earle."

How do you know? Did you see his DD-214?

James Earle Carter, when he chooses to use his full legal
name, spells it "Earle."

Really? Did you ever meat the man?

But, Jimmie Miccolis, self-proclaimed Master of All Things,
is "other sources" who claim to "know better." shrug

No, Len, that's not true.

I don't use the name "Jimmie".

Second, I've never proclaimed myself to the Master of All Things.

Third, the other sources don't claim to know better.

Spelling isn't rocket science, Len :-)

I've worked WITH rocket scientists (and engineers) at
Rocketdyne Division of (then) Rockwell International
(now a Division of Boeing who purchased them a few
years ago).

As you flitted from job to job....

Advancing in salary and responsibility each time...

Inflation will result in rising salary. Responsibility is subjective.

Fact is, you don't seem to have stayed with any employer or
job very long.

Does having worked for "rocket scientists" somehow make
your opinions about amateur radio policy better or superior
to those of anyone else, Len?

You seem to think it does.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, "other sources," don't try to bulldoze a
mountain out of your little ant-hill faux pas.

Just answer the question.

When you've had some experience in REAL wordsmithing as
an article-seller and editing, you come on back.

I've had experience as both a writer and an editor, Len. Been
paid to do both.

Nowhere in Title 47 C.F.R. is it stated that an AMATEUR
radio license grant makes YOU "superior" to anyone in
anything, regardless of license class.

I'm superior to you in some things, Len. That's just a plain,
simple fact. Live with it.

So far in here, all you've done is to posture and post
(seemingly endlessly) about how "right" you are in
everything and how everyone who disagrees with you is
so terribly "wrong."

Len, you're projecting your behavior onto others - again.

Does that somehow make
your opinions about amateur radio policy better or superior
to those of anyone else, Len?

If I want to find out the correct spelling of the legal
name of a President of the United States, I can find it.
I don't need "other sources."

O rilly?

So far your little toy bulldozer hasn't made much of a
dent in that faux pas "spelling" ant-hill of yours.

Spelling isn't rocket science, Len.

Here's a DOS Tip, "official sources:" Don't try to
correct the USN, the Naval Academy, the Naval Bureau
of Personnel, the official United States Navy History
site, the state of Georgia, or the United States
Government on the spelling of a former President's name.

I'm not trying to correct them, Len. I'm simply correcting
*your* mistakes....

I've had my hands inside all kinds of things, Len.

Then isn't it time you washed your hands of this little
spelling faux pas of yours?

You sure do get upset about nothing.

Besides - how do we know any of these "rocket scientist" claims
of yours are true? You're big on demanding "proof" of
all sorts of stuff, and rejecting people's claims. Why
should we accept your claims? Pictures and verbiage on
someone's website aren't "proof".

Contact the Personnel Department of Rocketdyne Division
of Boeing Aircraft in Canoga Park, CA.

Do you need their mailing address? If so, contact your
"other sources."

That's just one employer, Len.

I can name ALL of my employers from part-time during
high school onward, and have.

So can I. In fact I can name them back to part-time during *grade*
school.

So what?

Have you done the same?
No? Why not?

Why should I? What difference would it make to
amateur radio policy?

Anyone who has read your posts here long enough
knows how you react to other people's employment
information. There's *no* job someone could hold
or have held that would earn your civil behavior, let
alone respect, if that person disagrees with you.

Perhaps those "other sources" have your employment
details? I'm sure they must, since you carefully AVOID
stating anything yourself.

Is there any reason I should?

Perhaps what really bothers you about K0HB is that
he has better stories, and tells them better, than you do.

I have no stories of "CW operating," Jimmie.

Hans does. They're good stories, too.

Never used morse code mode in over a half century,
haven't been required to in either military or
civilian occupations.

So what? There's lots of things I haven't done either, but
I don't make a point of bragging about them.

As to "telling them better," show your chops as a
PAID-by-others editor and wordsmith FIRST.

I've been paid to do both writing and editing, Len.

But such employment is not needed for me to express
an opinion of others' writing.

Hans tells better stories than you. And he tells them better.

They're concise, not wordy, yet all necessary details are
included. They are interesting from a human standpoint
as well as a radio standpoint, because they include a
theme that is universal (the supposed hotshot Young
Squirt getting his comeuppance for being a bit too brash).

Hans is able to express the pride, arrogance and embarrassment
in such a way as to be humorous rather than annoying. He's able
to laugh at himself in a way that makes the reader both laugh and
sympathize.

A good story well told.

You are
so highly biased in favor of morse mode that you are
incapable of objectively critiquing any "story" for any
mass media publication other than some "CW organization."

O rilly?

Seems to me, Len, that you are so highly biased against
Morse Code in any form that you are incapable of objectively
critiquing any story involving Morse Code, Amateur Radio, or
many other things.

Hans sent me a copy of his "Speed Key" credential from
the United States Navy.

Pretty neat isn't it?

Do you have one of those?

I don't think I have a copy of Hans' Speed Key certification, no.
Perhaps he'll send me one if I ask nicely.

I do have Morse Code proficiency certificates. And an Amateur
Extra FCC license.

Is it wrong for me to have those things and be proud of them?

Or do your "other sources" have it?

??

You were never in the USN or USNR.

How do you know for sure, Len?

If you can somehow know for sure who has and has not
served in the US military services, then you know whether
or not K4YZ served in the US Marine Corps. Yet you demand
to see his DD-214.

I think you're just trolling.

You were never in
the Persian Gulf region.

How do you know for sure, Len?

You were never in the service
of the military of the United States.

How do you know for sure, Len?

And what does it matter? We've seen how you treat other veterans
if they disagree with you in any way.

We (other than "other sources") don't know if you
ever did any radio communications in professional/commercial
radio other than AMATEUR.

What difference would it make?

You are carefully ambiguous and
non-specific about that. Just like Dudly the Imposter.

[on living Presidents of the United States]

None of them had any direct contact with amateur radio.

How do you know for sure, Len?

If they did, QST would have had an orgasmic issue
special! :-)

Nope. They didn't have one about K7UGA.

Senator Barry Goldwater was never elected President of the
United States. He LOST.

That's true. But he was a candidate, yet there was never any
sort of special issue in QST. In fact, his candidacy and campaign
were hardly mentioned in that mag.

Go play with your AMATEUR radios.

That I can do. You can't - not legally, anyway.

You're definitely Not Qualified
to operate an Amateur Radio Station.

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Dec 13 2005 4:32 pm
Jim has tatoos?
I was imagining his performances in here to be the equivalent of
James Mitchum's creepy "preacher" in an old, scary black-and-white
film released in the 1950s.
Robert Mitchum. 1954. Night of the Hunter from the novel by Davis Grubb.
The author was from up the road in Moundsville. The story is set in
this area.

That character had L-O-V-E on one
hand, H-A-T-E on the other...liked to off folks that didn't
believe in him.
Believing in him had nothing to do with it. He killed prostitutes and
dancers because he thought they were evil and he killed widows for their
money. The guy wasn't even a real preacher.

Don't you get anything right?

Did they ever catch him, or is he still running around the hills of
Moundsville?

I can see how you'd become confused. It was a movie, Brian. You can
rest easy now.

Was he a ham preacher?

No, he was a ham salad sandwich.

You may now continue your red-hatted monkey routine. Perhaps the old
organ grinder will crank up another tune so you can dance for us.

Dave K8MN

Thanks, Dave. You can always be counted on to call names and ridicule
people (profile).

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Definitely Not Qualified
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:19:28 GMT, Dave Heil wrote
in et:

wrote:
snip
part of the military that wasn't glamorous, didn't wear flashy
or cute uniforms, and bore the brunt of national defense as it
always has since 1776...with the casualty rates the highest of
any branch, from battlefields of Pennsylvania to the Persian
Gulf area of Dubya's rule.

The Signal Corps has the highest casualty rate, or did you mean the U.S.
Army?


The Signal Corps. The first target of any combat unit is the guy (or
tank, amtrack, jeep, etc.) with the antennas. The second target is the
guy -next- to the guy with the antenna because he is usually an
officer.


Is that something to brag about?


Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield
carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy
shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to
limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even
higher than EOD.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:58:21 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote in . net:


Anyway, this is not about you -- it's about Major Dud.

At least you'd like it to be.

Now if you and
I can post -our- DD-214's, why can't Dudly?

Why can't he or why does he choose not to? Is he under some sort of
mandate to do so, base upon the baying of Len, Brian and you?


Major Dud might be a ham, and you might share some similar beliefs
and/or opinions, but are those valid reasons to defend his fraudulent
military service?

Would that be the fraudulent military service about which you, Len
Anderson and Brian Burke have been wildly speculating?

Dave K8MN

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Definitely Not Qualified
 

From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 11:00 am

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:19:28 GMT, Dave Heil wrote
wrote:

part of the military that wasn't glamorous, didn't wear flashy
or cute uniforms, and bore the brunt of national defense as it
always has since 1776...with the casualty rates the highest of
any branch, from battlefields of Pennsylvania to the Persian
Gulf area of Dubya's rule.

The Signal Corps has the highest casualty rate, or did you mean the U.S.
Army?

The Signal Corps. The first target of any combat unit is the guy (or
tank, amtrack, jeep, etc.) with the antennas. The second target is the
guy -next- to the guy with the antenna because he is usually an
officer.

Frank, I originally wrote ARMY, relative to Navy, Air Force, etc.

Davie, in an effort to be as dick-tatorial as possible, edited
the quote to set up a following rebuke of the Signal Corps.

Department of Defense casualty figures are the reference as to
which branch gives the most. Anyone can look those up.

In the Army the "front-line" (we called them just "line")
radio users were just ordinary infantry, artillery, or armor
troops who've had quickie courses in using their radios.

Those aren't Signal Corpsmen per se.

Is that something to brag about?

Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield
carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy
shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to
limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even
higher than EOD.

That used to be true but the paradigm has flipped over today.
The common manpack radio is the SINCGARS for land forces, both
Army and Marines. The SIP or SINCGARS Improvement Program has
resulted in a manpack radio that is half the bulk and half the
weight of the original (beginning 1989) SINCGARS sets. Some
250 thousand total R/Ts were manufactured and operational as of
the end of 2004, making that the most-produced military radio
of all time...roughly double that of the PRC-25/-77 of the
Vietnam era. I don't have any current figures on the SIP
production-fielding, but the older SINCGARS cases-chassis
(PRC-119) have been turning up on E-Bay, so there is a new
beginning "surplus" area for "green" (military) collectors.

When I was in, we "rear echelon" troops would exercise in
infantry training using PRC-6s and PRC-9s (manpack). Those
VHF whips aren't that noticeable and the (about) 20 pound
manpack radio was half the weight and bulk of the old WW2
SCR-300 Walkie-Talkie. Being of average height and build,
I never found it limited my mobility much then.

During the Korean War active phase, the highest casualty rate
got specialized to the pole linemen...extremely vulnerable
targets at work with absolutely no cover but the pole. The
Army got wise unusually quickly and set about getting lay-on-
the-ground multi-channel cable such as the "Spiral-4" stuff
used in newer terminal/radio-relay equipments. That was used
more than aerial line pairs in Vietnam. I doubt that big,
hairy ball USAF MARS operators in SE Asia ever noticed that.

The SE Asian topography and dictated limited movement of troops
led to concentrations of communications on whatever hilltops
could be secured. That led to concentration of enemy fire on
those relatively concentrated units with resulting heavy
casualties. The Army was stuck with most of those tasks
although the Marines did some of those radio hilltops. USAF
MARS operators weren't doing those things, despite their
claims of "being in-country" as much as combat troops.

By 1990-1991 the "command track" concept of concentration of
radios in certain vehicles was already lessening. Newer
radios were more multi-purpose, multi-band, more agile and
there were fewer tell-tale antennas to spot. Desert Storm
isn't a good model for comparison since EVERYONE on land was
ON THE MOVE in perhaps the quickest panzerfaust operation of
any military at any time. It was largely armor-against-armor
in an overwhelming over-run condition. The USAF and Navy Air
had cut the Iraqi communications centers already during
Desert Shield, leaving their ground forces with limited
command track capability and little coordination. It was a
rout for our side, taking only five days of ground war.

By the time of Dubya's War, things were turned around again.
Humvees are the local "command tracks" all over and the
targets of hidden bombs and mines. Those are indiscrimate
as to whether they have visible radio equipment or not.
Different game, different rules, different playing field.

While land forces have radios with excellent resistance to
interception and jamming, we are up against Iraqis (and
Afghanis) who aren't "radio knowledgeable" to any useful
degree and don't know enough to look for "command tracks"
or antenna concentrations. EVERYONE who wears a uniform
in those areas needs big, hairy balls to venture about.

Happy Christmas

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Definitely Not Qualified
 

More Real Estate Follies
 

KØHB wrote:
wrote

Do you?

Do you have a short memory? If so, scroll up a few messages for a refresher.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

What exactly are you going on about?

Definitely Not Qualified
 

KØHB wrote:
wrote


Hans doesn't believe in U.S. amateur radio being "self-
regulating?" Ach, zo!


This is amateur radio? I thought it was rec.amateur.tennis.policy! Silly me!

Ach, ptuey!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

I hope this isn't an indication of how hams act on the air.

Do you think Steve would transmit "raped an old friend" in CW?

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:19:28 GMT, Dave Heil wrote
in et:

wrote:
snip
part of the military that wasn't glamorous, didn't wear flashy
or cute uniforms, and bore the brunt of national defense as it
always has since 1776...with the casualty rates the highest of
any branch, from battlefields of Pennsylvania to the Persian
Gulf area of Dubya's rule.

The Signal Corps has the highest casualty rate, or did you mean the U.S.
Army?

If that's correct, then what about Len's statement that "it bore the
brunt of national defense as it always has since 1776"? The Signal
Corps did all that? I'm sure my dad would have made some comment to
that effect if he'd seen it at Utah Beach. He never said anything about
the Naval units rushing signalmen to the beach.

The Signal Corps. The first target of any combat unit is the guy (or
tank, amtrack, jeep, etc.) with the antennas. The second target is the
guy -next- to the guy with the antenna because he is usually an
officer.

What would be the odds of getting hit by a stray round if you were in a
different country than where the action was going on?

Is that something to brag about?


Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield
carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy
shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to
limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even
higher than EOD.

Not if the fighting is in Korea and you happen to be in a big building
in Japan, Frank.

Dave K8MN

Definitely Not Qualified
 

On 18 Dec 2005 14:04:25 -0800, wrote in
. com:

snip
In the Army the "front-line" (we called them just "line")
radio users were just ordinary infantry, artillery, or armor
troops who've had quickie courses in using their radios.

Those aren't Signal Corpsmen per se.


My bad. I thought they came from the same stock -- I guess that shows
how old I'm not :-0


Is that something to brag about?

Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield
carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy
shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to
limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even
higher than EOD.

That used to be true but the paradigm has flipped over today.


Very true. Real sci-fi stuff they have these days. Won't be long and
every grunt will be equipped with a helmet-mounted sat-comm complete
with bio-telemetry and "black box" A/V recorders.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Definitely Not Qualified
 

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:20:06 GMT, Dave Heil wrote
in . net:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
snip
Yep. It takes some big, hairy balls to walk onto the battlefield
carrying a piece of equipment that will be the first thing the enemy
shoots at, especially when the radio is bulky and/or heavy enough to
limit your mobility. The casualty rate for radiomen in combat is even
higher than EOD.

Not if the fighting is in Korea and you happen to be in a big building
in Japan, Frank.


I wouldn't know, Dave. I got my leg perforated in Beirut and I was
only packing a Simpson 260. Not much experience, I grant you. But
since that happened several months after most of 1/8's comm platoon
got wiped out by the barracks bombing, I really didn't have a chance
to get -their- opinion on the subject.

I take it that -you- have a different opinion?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Definitely Not Qualified
 

From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 6:54 pm

On 18 Dec 2005 14:04:25 -0800, wrote in

snip

In the Army the "front-line" (we called them just "line")
radio users were just ordinary infantry, artillery, or armor
troops who've had quickie courses in using their radios.

Those aren't Signal Corpsmen per se.

My bad. I thought they came from the same stock -- I guess that shows
how old I'm not :-0

No problem. "All parts are interchangeable" in the land forces,
something that's been mentioned for decades...before I was in
and will be long after today. Soldiers are soldiers first,
specialists second.

USUALLY, but not always, the infantry radio ops are infantrymen
with some short training in their manpack radios. Signalmen
are found from Battalion level and up to Brigades, and do the
mass-communication stuff for Brigade through Division command.

Field radio equipment has been designed for wired-remote
control (many hundreds of feet away, as needed) of transmitters
for over a half century. Major reason being RDF *might* be
able to pinpoint an emitter and drop some nasty stuff on it.
The personnel at the control point won't necessarily be hit
so those are still survivable. If the comms equipment is
destroyed and no replacements are available, the signalmen
revert to their basic duty: Soldiering the infantry way.


That used to be true but the paradigm has flipped over today.

Very true. Real sci-fi stuff they have these days. Won't be long and
every grunt will be equipped with a helmet-mounted sat-comm complete
with bio-telemetry and "black box" A/V recorders.

Not quite. That stuff is PR material that's been out for
years. The Army tried out the "squad radio" concept in
Vietnam during the early 1970s. Didn't work out well and
that was generally abandoned for wholesale use on the line.
I don't know WHY it didn't work out since I've never been
involved directly with it, just the manpack-to-high-power-
vehicular-amp families of "regular" (in ham ideas) radios
and some other interesting DoD stuff. :-)

Back in 1990 the land forces had the AN/PSC-3 radio with
voice and data capability on the military aviation band,
three different antennas from whip to wire mesh parabolic
reflector. The data part had a "chiclet" keyboard and a
small LCD-like screen and messages could be typed in,
stored, sent at 1200 BPS on UHF, either to an airborne
radio relay or through military comm sats. Can't verify
if the data part could be encrypted, but today's PSC-7
can do that. The PSC-3 was used in unfriendly territory
during Desert Shield and none were compromised. Some old-
timers in here thought the military was still using
something like WW2 OSS HF sets with morse code during the
first Gulf War! :-)

The present-day survival radios (HT size) can cooperate
with the DME of TACAN to yield distance information and
their voice is both digitized and encryptable. Same size
as 20-year-old survival radio-beacons but have more
electronic features and better battery packs.

The AN/PRC-104 HF manpack transceiver (operational 1986,
will be replaced soon by an updated unit) by Hughes Ground
Systems has an automatic antenna tuner integral to the
manpack R/T. One can physically shorten the whip by
removing sections to cut down visibility and the antenna
tuner will compensate for the shorter sections. Won't be
quite as efficient as the full whip but it is less visible
on the ground. The lil 20 W PEP transmitter will shove as
much RF into the whip as it can without damaging itself.

While I haven't been with the Army units testing anything
in the last half-dozen years, I can see that the "command
track" concept (actually a command vehicle, a Humvee now
more than a Bradley tracked vehicle) is still strong. That
lends itself to the "many antennas" visibility for un-
friendlies who have some smarts on sorting out targets.
With two NVIS whips (bent-over long ones) and a couple
VHF, UHF antennas on a Humvee, those stand out pretty well
from the ordinary gunner-style Humvee. There are "mini-
huts" for making up a Humvee into a radio command vehicle
holding lots of radios inside...similar to the full-size
hut on a deuce and a half flatbed.

Armor units have the flashy toys now with a couple dynamic
(on the move) automatic positioning location and reporting
systems still undergoing more field testing. [why, I don't
know, they were first out in the field a decade ago]
Artillery can confirm its position super-accurately with
military-mode GPS in the little HT-size "plugger" or
AN/PSN-11 receiver. The same plugger can connect to any
SINCGARS radio to update its calendar clock for good
networking in FHSS mode; GPS provides a super-accurate
time base. Plugger was in use during Desert Storm.

I haven't followed the progress of the SIDs (Seismic
Intrusion Device) that first saw service in later years
of the SE Asia Live-Fire exercise. My RCA division in
Van Nuys did the casing and geophone amplifier-filter-
processor, me doing the final whip design desired to be
a simple wire rather than the original OD tape style.
Buryable unit intended for Vietnam but that war ended
early without full deployment. It could distinguish
between two-footed and four-footed creatures and report
back (by coded radio signal) detection of the two-
footed variety. In the three decades since there must
have been improvement in that area. shrug

There's more stuff coming along with the first signs of
in SIGNAL magazine published by AFCEA along with Defense
Industry Newsletter.

The latest is an RF psycho weapon using ultra-wideband
microwave stuff to scare-shock-disturb unfriendlies at a
distance. First operational test contract was awarded
a couple months ago. While it uses radio, it might not
be handled by signalmen at all, probably not by artillery
types either. Psy-war units? :-)

The first NODs (Night Observation Devices) were
operational during the latter half of the 1960s and
used in Vietnam. Too many were stolen/captured with
the USSR making their own versions. Now those "Buck
Rogers" devices can be bought at sports stores as
a regular consumer electronics product. shrug

Definitely Not Qualified
 

On 19 Dec 2005 10:38:46 -0800, wrote in
. com:

From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 6:54 pm
snip
Very true. Real sci-fi stuff they have these days. Won't be long and
every grunt will be equipped with a helmet-mounted sat-comm complete
with bio-telemetry and "black box" A/V recorders.

Not quite. That stuff is PR material that's been out for
years. The Army tried out the "squad radio" concept in
Vietnam during the early 1970s. Didn't work out well and
that was generally abandoned for wholesale use on the line.
I don't know WHY it didn't work out since I've never been
involved directly with it, just the manpack-to-high-power-
vehicular-amp families of "regular" (in ham ideas) radios
and some other interesting DoD stuff. :-)


One version of the "squad radio" was the PRC-68, a cool little VHF-lo
rig. The problem was the radio wasn't built very well (mic screen kept
falling off, battery boxes dented easily, antennas broke, etc), and
the batteries were expensive, didn't last very long, and weren't
compatible with any commercial equivalent.


snip
The AN/PRC-104 HF manpack transceiver (operational 1986,
will be replaced soon by an updated unit) by Hughes Ground
Systems has an automatic antenna tuner integral to the
manpack R/T. One can physically shorten the whip by
removing sections to cut down visibility and the antenna
tuner will compensate for the shorter sections. Won't be
quite as efficient as the full whip but it is less visible
on the ground. The lil 20 W PEP transmitter will shove as
much RF into the whip as it can without damaging itself.


We had the PRC-104 in the early '80s; the RT was used as the exciter
for the MRC-109/110 (400/1000W) jeep radios. Mechanical push-button
tuning from 2-30 MHz. I still want one.


snip
The latest is an RF psycho weapon using ultra-wideband
microwave stuff to scare-shock-disturb unfriendlies at a
distance. First operational test contract was awarded
a couple months ago. While it uses radio, it might not
be handled by signalmen at all, probably not by artillery
types either. Psy-war units? :-)


I heard about that a couple years ago. Not a psych weapon -- it causes
significant "discomfort" in the eyes and skin at a distance. It is/was
intended for domestic purposes (i.e, riot control -- make sure to wear
your aluminum-foil hat to the upcoming anti-war rallies).


The first NODs (Night Observation Devices) were
operational during the latter half of the 1960s and
used in Vietnam. Too many were stolen/captured with
the USSR making their own versions. Now those "Buck
Rogers" devices can be bought at sports stores as
a regular consumer electronics product. shrug


Yeah, I have a Soviet unit that takes 2 AA batteries. Hmmmm.....








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Definitely Not Qualified
 

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 10:38:46 -0800, wrote in

snip
The latest is an RF psycho weapon using ultra-wideband
microwave stuff to scare-shock-disturb unfriendlies at a
distance. First operational test contract was awarded
a couple months ago. While it uses radio, it might not
be handled by signalmen at all, probably not by artillery
types either. Psy-war units? :-)


I heard about that a couple years ago. Not a psych weapon -- it causes
significant "discomfort" in the eyes and skin at a distance. It is/was
intended for domestic purposes (i.e, riot control -- make sure to wear
your aluminum-foil hat to the upcoming anti-war rallies).


All the NPR types that riot at the economic summits might be
interested. And Bono.

hans suffers delusion
 

On 16 Dec 2005 21:38:54 -0800, "KØHB" wrote:


wrote:


Maybe you have an old SP brassard you can put on and police
Google, read them the Articles of the UCMJ?


Should I cite the Chemical Corps Colonel for violations of Article 125?

more of your fantasy


you were never in my chain of comand

thank god

Maybe Article 112a for his recreational association with the "Chemical
Corps"?

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Definitely Not Qualified
 

From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 19, 1:28 pm

On 19 Dec 2005 10:38:46 -0800, wrote in
From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 6:54 pm


The AN/PRC-104 HF manpack transceiver (operational 1986,
will be replaced soon by an updated unit) by Hughes Ground
Systems has an automatic antenna tuner integral to the
manpack R/T. One can physically shorten the whip by
removing sections to cut down visibility and the antenna
tuner will compensate for the shorter sections. Won't be
quite as efficient as the full whip but it is less visible
on the ground. The lil 20 W PEP transmitter will shove as
much RF into the whip as it can without damaging itself.

We had the PRC-104 in the early '80s; the RT was used as the exciter
for the MRC-109/110 (400/1000W) jeep radios. Mechanical push-button
tuning from 2-30 MHz. I still want one.

I'm not familiar with the MRC-109 or MRC-110, but a reference
on C4I has that compatible with the AN/VRC-49 which is FM in the
30 to 76 MHz region.

The AN/PRC-104 basic R/T was used in the AN/GRC-213, a vehicle
mount configuration with audio amplifier and DC vehicle power
supply conditioning, 20 W PEP SSB output. The AN/GRC-193 is
also for vehicle mounting, uses the basic R/T, but includes
a 100/400 Watt linear amplifier for transmitter and a higher-
power antenna coupler/tuner.

The basic R/T has digit push-wheel frequency selection (like
digit thumbwheels but with a single button mover). The
AN/VRC-11 through AN/VRC-49 had, variously, 10 push-button
or rotary switch selection of frequencies in the 30 to 76 MHz
region, FM, and were compatible with the AN/PRC-25 and -77
VHF FM sets. The lower number VRCs I've seen all have
chromed push buttons, something left over from WW2. :-)


The latest is an RF psycho weapon using ultra-wideband
microwave stuff to scare-shock-disturb unfriendlies at a
distance. First operational test contract was awarded
a couple months ago. While it uses radio, it might not
be handled by signalmen at all, probably not by artillery
types either. Psy-war units? :-)

I heard about that a couple years ago. Not a psych weapon -- it causes
significant "discomfort" in the eyes and skin at a distance. It is/was
intended for domestic purposes (i.e, riot control -- make sure to wear
your aluminum-foil hat to the upcoming anti-war rallies).

I'll have to get out my aluminized Nomex full-body suit! :-)

The "riot control" version was an R&D model. DoD has
upped the ante with a fieldable system contract awarded
for testing on whoever wherever they want to try it.


The first NODs (Night Observation Devices) were
operational during the latter half of the 1960s and
used in Vietnam. Too many were stolen/captured with
the USSR making their own versions. Now those "Buck
Rogers" devices can be bought at sports stores as
a regular consumer electronics product. shrug

Yeah, I have a Soviet unit that takes 2 AA batteries. Hmmmm.....

In 1967 the U.S. military had three field models of
NODs. Electro-Optical Systems division of Xerox in
Pasadena produced one of those models. Three were
stolen/turned-up-mission that year, feds in there asking
questions after. The production manager "resigned."
I have no idea where those missing NODs wound up but I
read reports in 1970 where the USSR military now had
them. First ones were "blotchy" in imaging and sensitivity
didn't have any automatic gain control but they could
enable anyone to "own the night." They have improved
considerably since 1967.

hans suffers delusion
 

wrote


you were never in my chain of comand


You were never in any chain of command.

hans suffers delusion
 

KØHB wrote:
wrote


you were never in my chain of comand


You were never in any chain of command.

wrong again

does Hans think like stevei he determine something with the right name
or ss

Definitely Not Qualified
 

On 19 Dec 2005 20:41:35 -0800, wrote in
. com:

From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 19, 1:28 pm

On 19 Dec 2005 10:38:46 -0800, wrote in
From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 6:54 pm


The AN/PRC-104 HF manpack transceiver (operational 1986,
will be replaced soon by an updated unit) by Hughes Ground
Systems has an automatic antenna tuner integral to the
manpack R/T. One can physically shorten the whip by
removing sections to cut down visibility and the antenna
tuner will compensate for the shorter sections. Won't be
quite as efficient as the full whip but it is less visible
on the ground. The lil 20 W PEP transmitter will shove as
much RF into the whip as it can without damaging itself.

We had the PRC-104 in the early '80s; the RT was used as the exciter
for the MRC-109/110 (400/1000W) jeep radios. Mechanical push-button
tuning from 2-30 MHz. I still want one.

I'm not familiar with the MRC-109 or MRC-110, but a reference
on C4I has that compatible with the AN/VRC-49 which is FM in the
30 to 76 MHz region.

The AN/PRC-104 basic R/T was used in the AN/GRC-213, a vehicle
mount configuration with audio amplifier and DC vehicle power
supply conditioning, 20 W PEP SSB output. The AN/GRC-193 is
also for vehicle mounting, uses the basic R/T, but includes
a 100/400 Watt linear amplifier for transmitter and a higher-
power antenna coupler/tuner.


Well hell, I guess I -am- getting old. I found references to the 400
watt MRC-138 but not the 1000 watt version. I could have sworn they
were called the MRC-109/110.......


The basic R/T has digit push-wheel frequency selection (like
digit thumbwheels but with a single button mover). The
AN/VRC-11 through AN/VRC-49 had, variously, 10 push-button
or rotary switch selection of frequencies in the 30 to 76 MHz
region, FM, and were compatible with the AN/PRC-25 and -77
VHF FM sets. The lower number VRCs I've seen all have
chromed push buttons, something left over from WW2. :-)


Got a couple of tuners like that in the parts pile.


The latest is an RF psycho weapon using ultra-wideband
microwave stuff to scare-shock-disturb unfriendlies at a
distance. First operational test contract was awarded
a couple months ago. While it uses radio, it might not
be handled by signalmen at all, probably not by artillery
types either. Psy-war units? :-)

I heard about that a couple years ago. Not a psych weapon -- it causes
significant "discomfort" in the eyes and skin at a distance. It is/was
intended for domestic purposes (i.e, riot control -- make sure to wear
your aluminum-foil hat to the upcoming anti-war rallies).

I'll have to get out my aluminized Nomex full-body suit! :-)

The "riot control" version was an R&D model. DoD has
upped the ante with a fieldable system contract awarded
for testing on whoever wherever they want to try it.


The FEMA bunkers come to mind.


The first NODs (Night Observation Devices) were
operational during the latter half of the 1960s and
used in Vietnam. Too many were stolen/captured with
the USSR making their own versions. Now those "Buck
Rogers" devices can be bought at sports stores as
a regular consumer electronics product. shrug

Yeah, I have a Soviet unit that takes 2 AA batteries. Hmmmm.....

In 1967 the U.S. military had three field models of
NODs. Electro-Optical Systems division of Xerox in
Pasadena produced one of those models. Three were
stolen/turned-up-mission that year, feds in there asking
questions after. The production manager "resigned."
I have no idea where those missing NODs wound up but I
read reports in 1970 where the USSR military now had
them. First ones were "blotchy" in imaging and sensitivity
didn't have any automatic gain control but they could
enable anyone to "own the night." They have improved
considerably since 1967.


Sounds about right. On this one the lens is pretty good quality but
the electronics are nothing more than a noisy inverter and a finger
trigger. Suprisingly sensitive tho, especially to short IR.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Definitely Not Qualified
 

From: Frank Gilliland on Tues, Dec 20 2005 12:42 am

On 19 Dec 2005 20:41:35 -0800, wrote in
From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 19, 1:28 pm
On 19 Dec 2005 10:38:46 -0800, wrote in
From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 18, 6:54 pm

The AN/PRC-104 HF manpack transceiver (operational 1986,
will be replaced soon by an updated unit) by Hughes Ground
Systems has an automatic antenna tuner integral to the
manpack R/T. One can physically shorten the whip by
removing sections to cut down visibility and the antenna
tuner will compensate for the shorter sections. Won't be
quite as efficient as the full whip but it is less visible
on the ground. The lil 20 W PEP transmitter will shove as
much RF into the whip as it can without damaging itself.

We had the PRC-104 in the early '80s; the RT was used as the exciter
for the MRC-109/110 (400/1000W) jeep radios. Mechanical push-button
tuning from 2-30 MHz. I still want one.

I'm not familiar with the MRC-109 or MRC-110, but a reference
on C4I has that compatible with the AN/VRC-49 which is FM in the
30 to 76 MHz region.

The AN/PRC-104 basic R/T was used in the AN/GRC-213, a vehicle
mount configuration with audio amplifier and DC vehicle power
supply conditioning, 20 W PEP SSB output. The AN/GRC-193 is
also for vehicle mounting, uses the basic R/T, but includes
a 100/400 Watt linear amplifier for transmitter and a higher-
power antenna coupler/tuner.

I'll have to amend what I said on the PRC-104. Hughes Aircraft
Ground Systems got the initial development contract for it from
the USMC some time between 1975 and 1977; seems there was a bit
of disagreement between a couple of ex-HAC people who worked on
it south of here as to exact year. :-)

The Army got into the act on seeing field performance of the
first USMC ones and they wanted one, too. :-) Army changed a
few things (not much) and - probably - they added the "IHFR"
moniker to the series ("Improved High Frequency Radio")...which
meant an "A" suffix to the original PRC-104 and its R/T unit
(RT-1209). Not to be outdone, the USMC wanted some changes
after that with a resulting "B" suffix. :-)

USMC had them first in the latter half of the 1970s, Army got
theirs in the first half of the 1980s. :-)

Somewhere in the era between 1977 and 1985, Hughes incorporated
a microprocessor in the synthesizer. One result was the change
from a single push button per digit with mechanical display to
an LCD screen with rubber-sealed push buttons on frequency
control of the R/T. That, plus some more minor revisions
inside resulted in a re-issue of TMs in 1985 - 1986. Same basic
R/T that is a full SSB receiver plus Tx exciter (the 20 W PEP
Amp is in the automtic tuning unit alongside the manpack, higher
power Amp and auto antenna tune in the vehicular or "ground"
version (GRC-193).

I tried to find a better description of the MRC-138 but could not.
Maybe that was the Marines' own version of the GRC-193? Either
way, it was described as selectable 100 W or 400 W PEP on HF.
Note: A lot of "MRC-" radios out there but all for Marines;
I find no direct Army "MRC-"s described.

Well hell, I guess I -am- getting old. I found references to the 400
watt MRC-138 but not the 1000 watt version. I could have sworn they
were called the MRC-109/110.......

Given a mere 64 years since we got into WW2 until now, there's
a whole potfull of different radios, radar sets, transponders,
gizmos that have gotten the U.S. military nomenclature. A few
of those were civilian developments, bought intact, and given
MIL monikers (AN/FRC-93 for the Collins KWM-2 all-band HF
transceiver; AN/FRC-23 and FRC-35 for a GE microwave terminal).
I'm glad I "took notes" with my camera during my 4 active years
just to jog the memory much later; came easy enough with visual
clues to pull out certain technical details. :-)


The basic R/T has digit push-wheel frequency selection (like
digit thumbwheels but with a single button mover). The
AN/VRC-11 through AN/VRC-49 had, variously, 10 push-button
or rotary switch selection of frequencies in the 30 to 76 MHz
region, FM, and were compatible with the AN/PRC-25 and -77
VHF FM sets. The lower number VRCs I've seen all have
chromed push buttons, something left over from WW2. :-)

Got a couple of tuners like that in the parts pile.

Probably from the old BC-603 and BC-604 "tank radios." [add
80 to the numbers for corresponding non-tank radios] Those were
all-tube, FM, and definitely crystal-controlled using 1 to 10
FT-241 holder crystals with "channel numbers" on them plus the
air frequency (highest end of HF). Those just selected the
crystal and cam-operated a couple variable capacitors. Those
"tank radios" were among the first to get their nomenclature
changed to "AN/VRC-" in the last year of WW2.



In 1967 the U.S. military had three field models of
NODs. Electro-Optical Systems division of Xerox in
Pasadena produced one of those models. Three were
stolen/turned-up-mission that year, feds in there asking
questions after. The production manager "resigned."
I have no idea where those missing NODs wound up but I
read reports in 1970 where the USSR military now had
them. First ones were "blotchy" in imaging and sensitivity
didn't have any automatic gain control but they could
enable anyone to "own the night." They have improved
considerably since 1967.

Sounds about right. On this one the lens is pretty good quality but
the electronics are nothing more than a noisy inverter and a finger
trigger. Suprisingly sensitive tho, especially to short IR.

The sensitivity is due - according to a PhD in Optics I worked
under at Rocketdyne - an innovative expansion of the basic
photomultiplier tube still used for light level measurements
down to single photon level. The difference with the NOD is
that it does it as a wavefront of EM light as opposed to the
"stages" of the photomultiplier tube with a small target area.
That requires the higher voltages from the internal battery
supply. Sensitivity is best at IR due to less wavefront energy
there, thus the photon multiplication has higher gain at IR.

Weird science! First time I looked through one at EOS in
Pasadena (test area completely enclosed in double black
plastic sheet), the "illumination" came from a guy's radium-
marked wris****ch dial! "Eye opening" experience! :-)

More "Raped an Old Friend" Follies
 

On 10 Dec 2005 15:03:02 -0800, wrote:


K4YZ wrote:

WHOA! There's the pot calling the kettle black!

Whoa! Steve writes "raped an old friend" and thinks it's OK.

stevei think everything he does is ok and nothing anybody else does is
ok
it is the very picture of the word "phyco"

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

More "Raped an Old Friend" Follies
 

On 10 Dec 2005 15:03:02 -0800, wrote:


K4YZ wrote:

WHOA! There's the pot calling the kettle black!

Whoa! Steve writes "raped an old friend" and thinks it's OK.

stevei think everything he does is ok and nothing anybody else does is
ok
it is the very picture of the word "phyco"

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account