wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Brits commonly use the term "CV"

robesin isn't a brit, is he?
he anscestor likely was and likely was asked to leave of forcibly
shiped to geogia as a guest of the Crown for some form of robbery

geogia started as a penal colony served as such till the revolaution
and then the later guest of the crown were ship to Botany Bay

an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Brits commonly use the term "CV"

robesin isn't a brit, is he?

he anscestor likely was and likely was asked to leave of forcibly
shiped to geogia as a guest of the Crown for some form of robbery

geogia started as a penal colony served as such till the revolaution
and then the later guest of the crown were ship to Botany Bay

That would suck to do some geneology and discover your family tree went
back to the graybar hotel.

an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I'm curious what's really holding up the FCC on the issue.

So am I. It's nine months since the official close of
Comments on the NPRM.

Nine months? Gestation almost complete? "Birth" of an R&O
soon? :-)

That actually scares me. Recall the one that was so poorly written in
1998?

R&O poorly written or NPRM

That's just the thing. They didn't know what it was. It was a R&O
advertised as an NPRM.

I'll just put it down to the FCC very busy with lots and lots
of other things to attend to in DC.

Ed's got them busy with BPL, and that needs to go away.

Amateur radio is small
stuff in the big scheme of things in all of radio. FCC prolly
has only one staffer working on the old NPRM and that one may
be time-sharing other work in progress.

Sounds like government. They rarely hire enough people or the right
people to get a really good end result.

it is the right people generaly have too much to work for them.

10% of the people do 90% of the work?

wrote:
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I'm curious what's really holding up the FCC on the issue.

So am I. It's nine months since the official close of
Comments on the NPRM.

Nine months? Gestation almost complete? "Birth" of an R&O
soon? :-)

That actually scares me. Recall the one that was so poorly written in
1998?

R&O poorly written or NPRM

That's just the thing. They didn't know what it was. It was a R&O
advertised as an NPRM.

ah well at least I have my rotos will make eme easier and satelite ops
a lot easier when the thing the g-5500 is a realy weaird spend about an
hour half assembling the unit will alow fo r pointing at full sky have
not picked out an computer interface yet figured get the thing on the
tower and set up and then worry about that

an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote:
wrote:
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I'm curious what's really holding up the FCC on the issue.

So am I. It's nine months since the official close of
Comments on the NPRM.

Nine months? Gestation almost complete? "Birth" of an R&O
soon? :-)

That actually scares me. Recall the one that was so poorly written in
1998?

R&O poorly written or NPRM

That's just the thing. They didn't know what it was. It was a R&O
advertised as an NPRM.

ah well at least I have my rotos will make eme easier and satelite ops
a lot easier when the thing the g-5500 is a realy weaird spend about an
hour half assembling the unit will alow fo r pointing at full sky have
not picked out an computer interface yet figured get the thing on the
tower and set up and then worry about that

I was thinking about putting a 2m/440 beam up for satellite, but I
don't want to spend the bucks on an az/el and interface controller.
Instead, I thought about putting them on a mast bent 30 to 45 degrees.
With a beamwidth of 30 deg, it should pick up everything except a
direct overhead pass. No cable wrap.

wrote:
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote:
wrote:
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I'm curious what's really holding up the FCC on the issue.

So am I. It's nine months since the official close of
Comments on the NPRM.

Nine months? Gestation almost complete? "Birth" of an R&O
soon? :-)

That actually scares me. Recall the one that was so poorly written in
1998?

R&O poorly written or NPRM

That's just the thing. They didn't know what it was. It was a R&O
advertised as an NPRM.

ah well at least I have my rotos will make eme easier and satelite ops
a lot easier when the thing the g-5500 is a realy weaird spend about an
hour half assembling the unit will alow fo r pointing at full sky have
not picked out an computer interface yet figured get the thing on the
tower and set up and then worry about that

I was thinking about putting a 2m/440 beam up for satellite, but I
don't want to spend the bucks on an az/el and interface controller.
Instead, I thought about putting them on a mast bent 30 to 45 degrees.
With a beamwidth of 30 deg, it should pick up everything except a
direct overhead pass. No cable wrap.
I have used something like that but not had the best of luck

In my case I using about 10 percent on the money from a selective cut
of my forest and I decided that it a good use for it and not going over
board

Cecil Moore wrote in news:XzIHg.720$Cq4.117
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Al Klein wrote:
You're preaching to the choir, Dave. I've had to handle foreign
language traffic phonetically by voice and by CW - and I much prefer
CW for that kind of work, even though I prefer voice for most
rag-chewing. As you say, needing it spelled out is quite slow.

I prefer phonetics myself. So are you advocating using the
coercive force of the federal government to enforce your
preferences instead of mine? Of course you are!

Not me. MY federal government dropped the code requirement a while
back--and with my blessing. The sky didn't fall (at least not any
further than it already had). But having used CW professionally for
years, I know both its strengths and its weaknesses. Its main weakness
is that not everyone can do it. PSK31 and PACTOR get a bit of an edge on
it when there is no large ionospheric phase distortion happening, but
require significantly more equipment.

Back in 1976 when I was doing weather observing for a living on Sable
Island, we were required to send the results of two balloon soundings and
hourly surface observations to Halifax by RTTY. At night that 2mhz RTTY
circuit often became impossible. Nor was the AM circuit any good. I
frequently got out a key and sent it on CW. It was actually funny when
one of the department's high mucky-muck techs came out to the island to
fix the problem. I pointed out that verticals were great on 2mhz for a
192 mile path in the daytime but that they got bogged down in DX signals
and QRN at night and suggested that he could improve things by giving us
dipoles at both ends for night use. I also suggested that a properly
designed VHF link would be superior. He laughed at me. Funny thing is,
that man's son went out to Sable afterwards and installed a beacon that I
could ALWAYS hear in Halifax, running 8 watts on 144mhz.

The thing is, you don't always know what is saving a life. Those weather
observations may have made no difference to anything or they may have
made a huge difference to how someone flew a 747.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ

Cecil Moore wrote in news:KPJHg.39$6R7.22
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:

Al Klein wrote:
Of course you don't understand a thing Dave and I are discussing. It's
surprising that you can find the "on" switch on your computer.

My MENSA membership number is 1006281. What's yours?

I don't bother with low-IQ clubs myself. Or high-IQ ones for that matter.

I did do some work on the question of human intelligence back in the 60's.
It was interesting. We used factor analysis (now called PCA) and came to
the conclusion that it is a six-dimensional vector quantity--to the extent
you can measure it at all.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
David's choice was Spanish. My choice was a language one couldn't
understand. Pay attention.

Sorry Al, here's what you said:
Even if you didn't know "ola" from
"adios", you can copy Spanish in CW and hand it to the recipient, who
can read it. Try that with a mic.

Your words, not David's. You implied *Spanish* couldn't
be copied with a mic by a non-Spanish speaking person.
I showed that it can be done.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I'll bet copying a message by voice from someone with the cyrillic
alphabet would end up a lot better results than copying the same
message with cw.

My MENSA membership number is 1006281. What's yours?

What's your Social Security number?