From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner,
rec.radio.swap

wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap

On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read. It's all about
implications, inferences, and vague "truths" which don't
establish anything. Then you get ****ed off when others
don't accept your "word" on things.

I will ask directly: ARE you an olde-fahrt? Or long-timer?
If so, HOW LONG?

Try not to be too vague on this. Real truth will establish
your "rep" in here. So far you don't have much of a "rep"
except we all know you are a PRO-CODER.

"They didn't" ... "escape". Looks like the
impostor (as far as understanding simple English) isn't me.

I can't see anyone named "They didn't" in the Google message
list, nor that of "escape."

Simply put, if you can't establish any bona fides for your
alleged long-timerness, I'll just put you in the "imposter"
list. [lots of folks from here in there...]

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:

From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner,
rec.radio.swap

wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap

On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting color
coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 16 2006 6:15 pm

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting color
coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

Nice attempt at misdirection, but a very old technique. :-)

That sort of misdirection is puerile (meaning childish).
If you have some bona fides on English grammar and some
false idea that ALL must be literal with NO departure from
such literalness, please state them. Otherwise go into
auto-fornication mode since we ain't buyin that, homie. :-)

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded. You got called on that and corrected by more
than myself. Secondly, you've never admitted being wrong or
corrected. Third, you try to (badly) convince others that
those who corrected your statement are "wrong" or "at fault."

Amazing. You make mistakes and then try to convince all that
those mistakes never happened or that it is "wrong" to try to
correct your mistakes! :-)

Here's some more to chew on:

RFCs (Radio Frequency Chokes, inductors) in axial-lead plastic
tubular packages are STILL marked with color-code bands. There's
a MIL SPEC on that as all "long-time design engineers" should
know; such parts are even used in commercial market electronics.
It's really irrelevant HOW capacitors are marked as long anyone
using them can know their value and working voltage and
tolerance and apply them properly.

There are 7 (seven) amateur radio licensees in the USA that could
answer to "Al Klein." Are you one of those?

I can say without hesitation that I am NOT a licensed amateur.
I am a licensed commercial-professional in radio and have been
so for 50 years, beginning in military 24/7 big-time HF
communications 53 1/2 years ago. I have all sorts of valid
documentation on that and some in here have seen some of that.
Do you have ANYTHING in the way of ID? On the Internet?

Or, are you going to scribble meaningless misdirections in here,
attempting to portray some personal "outrage" for being
corrected? Especially about a well-known electronic component
identification method which you don't seem to know yet others
can verify?

I'll just put you down as an IMPOSTER poster, one of those
wanna-bees who might never have been anything but really,
really wants to be someone. That's up to you. I don't care.
I've seen your kind on the Internet, on the Bulletin Board
Systems since 1984. None have anything worthwhile to
contribute but all wanting to be a SOMEBODY on screens.

On 17 Aug 2006 15:26:18 -0700, "
wrote:

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded.

No, first YOU misunderstood "didn't escape being color coded" as
meaning "didn't get color coded". Then you tried to weasel out of
looking like the ass you are by looking even more stupid. You're not
worth my time.

plonk

From: Al Klein on Thurs, Aug 17 2006 6:46 pm

On 17 Aug 2006 15:26:18 -0700, "
wrote:

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded.

No, first YOU misunderstood "didn't escape being color coded" as
meaning "didn't get color coded".

What is to "misunderstand?" Brian Burke wrote in that fashion,
perhaps too colloquially for your absolutely-literal standards
of English, but it was perfectly clear to most readers here.

Then you tried to weasel out of
looking like the ass you are by looking even more stupid.

Trying to insult those who challenge your "knowledge" of
electronic components isn't going to win you any points.

The FACT is that capacitors and axial-lead inductors have
been color-coded for decades. That can be verified by looking
at component manufacturers' catalogs and several textbooks
(even going back to the ITT "Green Bible" of the 50s) as well
as the ARRL Handbooks (several years worth).

You call that "stupid?"

I wouldn't. Any self-respecting worker who has been in
electronics for years wouldn't.

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Your definition of "stupidity" seems to be that of ANYONE WHO
DISAGREES WITH YOU or one who DOES NOT HONOR AND BOW-DOWN TO
YOUR SUPPOSED MAJESTY AS AN AMATEUR.

Unfortunately, those "definitions" seem endemic to pro-coders,
those who insist on keeping a morse code test for amateur radio
into the far future. That viewpoint is entirely EMOTIONAL
based on your own experiences, has no validity in the supposed
"necessity" of keeping that morse code test in USA amateur
radio licensing.

"You did it so everyone else has to..."

That's a selfish, self-righteous viewpoint in my opinion.

It confuses the actual necessities of a government regulating
agency trying to mitigate many, many users of the civil radio
spectrum with some fraternal-organization in-house "rules" of
just one radio service out of many, "rules" that were
established decades ago.

You cannot support your "cause" with anything but throwing
personal insults at your challengers. You have already LOST
your arguments concerning the morse code test issue. You
win NOTHING except in your imagination.

It is even worse, perhaps sociopathic in that over-the-top
self-righteousness, to claim you are a "better human being"
just for having taken a morse code test...as an AMATEUR.
You seem to look down your royal nose at all who wish to
remove the code test from amateur radio licensing. Especially
so when you cannot establish your bona fides of "long-term
experience" supposedly in radio beyond amateur activities.

You're not worth my time.

Obviously not, "your majesty." :-)

Here's a suggestion: Drop the "outraged" act and start
thinking about the SUBJECT, not your own emotionalism.
One good way to make you feel better to yourself is to find
a morsemanship-support group. Such a group can sit around
and praise one another. Makes all in the group warm and
fuzzy holding the same opinion. Its also a way to hold off
the future and any changes in regulations, but only within
your own fantasies.

An alternative is to just LEAVE rec.radio.amateur.policy.
Few in here see you as the Final Arbiter of what is "good"
and what is "bad" in amateurism.

Leave or stay. Your choice. Matters not to me. Government
will continue - in a democratic-process fashion - to serve
ALL citizens, not just one group of radio spectrum users. A
group, I might add, that is a distinct MINORITY of all radio
users.

Think on that. [few pro-coders do]

wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

wrote:
wrote:

Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply
acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest
out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not.
You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and
implied a number of things, all without any referencible data.

Very Robesonesque.

Hello Brian,

This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson
by centuries... :-)

Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and
was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed.

It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually
replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually
accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal
insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter
more than the former.

wrote:

Here's a suggestion: Drop the "outraged" act and start
thinking about the SUBJECT, not your own emotionalism.

Are you prepared to address the SUBJECT, Len? The subject is: "If you
had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?"

Go for it.

An alternative is to just LEAVE rec.radio.amateur.policy.
Few in here see you as the Final Arbiter of what is "good"
and what is "bad" in amateurism.

How do you know how many see Al as an arbiter? How many do you believe
think you'd make a good arbiter in discussions of amateur radio?

Dave K8MN

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:10:22 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:

Here's a suggestion: Drop the "outraged" act and start
thinking about the SUBJECT, not your own emotionalism.

Are you prepared to address the SUBJECT, Len? The subject is: "If you
had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?"

Go for it.
I will address it

certianly not

I myself with now skill at the mode could save a life if it came to
that

Mark, caution on Heil and his - usual - attempt at misdirection by
manufacturing a dispute over personalities. Heil does this
repeatedly as a means of attempting to discredit and humiliate
his "opponents."

This whole 500+ message thread was started by the usual
imaginative pipe-dream of morse code "saving lives" (as opposed
to any other mode) thereby "justifying" its existance as an
AMATEUR radio license test.

In the USA the amateur radio service is NOT specifically or
mainly involved in "life-saving" activities. The Public Safety
sub-parts of the PLMRS (Private Land Mobile Radio Service)
(non-amateur) define that. A look into Part 1 of Title 47 C.F.R.
will show that - for the safety of life - ANY mode of communication
on ANY part of the EM spectrum by ANYONE can be used for
the purposes of safety of life.

The "argument" over hypothetical scenarios formulated by someone
biasing their "proposed" condition is a pointless exercise. No one
can foresee the future clearly or definitively.

The morse code test was originally instituted in amateur radio
licensing testing after such testing was begun by the first
federal radio regulating agency in the USA. It was there because
that agency felt it was necessary for their radio-regulating
purposes (it was, essentially, the ONLY mode for amateurs at
the time). Morse code testing has remained in the USA
regulations concerning below-30-MHz amateur radio privileges
ever since the FCC was created in 1934...principally at the
lobbying of the ARRL to pacify their old-time membership.

Well before the WRC-03 beginning, the IARU had already taken
a position that morse code testing was NOT essential to obtaining
an amateur radio license. The ARRL refused to go along with that
position (it was the ARRL against the world). The ARRL still
refuses to take sides long after WRC-03 was finished, saying
(obliquely) that amateurs must obey regulations [in the USA]; good
words but they don't take any side in the code test v. no code test
issue.

That morse code skill is NOT considered essential to safety of life
should be evident on some international regulations (both via WRC
and with individual nations' radio regulations): Those radio
services
designated as Public Safety (as in medical as well as police and
fire services) do NOT require testing for morsemanship. The new
(relatively, since 1999) GMDSS (designed-specified by international
maritime SOLAS community) requires NO morsemanship skills or
demonstration of same to call for help at sea. The old 500 KHz
international distress and safety frequency (and morsemanship needs
to use it) were eliminated. The United States Coast Guard
announced (some years ago) that it had stopped monitoring 500
KHz. International airspace communications is carried out on HF
using voice modes (agreement by ICAO, a UN body like the ITU).

The long-time pro-coders' arguments to preserve code testing in last
year's FCC NPRM Comment period had only these essential
arguments to preserve it: Ability to communicate with the least
transmitter power; some kind of 'unbreakable' system to thwart
terrorists; some fancied that amateur (CW) communications would
be the 'only' possible means available during emergencies. All of
those are invalid and were shown as such by Replies to Comments.
All that was left was the EMOTIONALISM of the long-timers having
to take the test, their rising to the 'top' of the amateur ranking
by
means of that demonstrated ability, and a refusal to change from
their self-righteous views on amateur radio. Some long-timers
achieved rank-position-title-privileges under old rules (that were
lobbied for by ARRL) that gave the most privileges to morsemen;
they fear loss of 'prestige' and privilege if the morse code test
goes
away, yet are too proud to admit their fear (which is almost
palpable in some of these messages).

As a counterpoint to elimination of the code test, many of the more
'vocal' pro-coders have taken their 'side' to rather severe (and
highly misplaced) lengths. They accuse the 'no-coders' of
everything
from homosexuality to perversion to unpatriotic activies to
bestiality.
Most of the personal-insult pro-coder group use pseudonyms on
newsgroups, possibly afraid of revealing their true identity; none
the
less these 'anony-mousies" behave in immature fashion, more like
middle-school males trying to assert their machismo even though
they try to hide via anonymity.

---

Heil, a pro-coder, tries to misdirect things by attempting to make a
flame war about personalities:

How do you know how many see Al as an arbiter? How many do you believe
think you'd make a good arbiter in discussions of amateur radio?

"Arbeit macht frei" - sign over one of the entrances to Auschwitz.

["work sets you free"]

Let's everyone WORK for that amateur radio license!!! :-)

wrote:
From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 16 2006 6:15 pm

On 15 Aug 2006 23:21:32 -0700, "
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Tues, Aug 15 2006 5:35 am
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap
wrote:
From: Al Klein on Sun, Aug 13 2006 9:15 pm
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend" wrote:
wrote:
How did capacitors escape getting color coded?
ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Klein, you said you were an OF. Any olde-fahrt ought to KNOW that
silver-mica capacitors were color-dot-coded for about a quarter
century. [look in the 1976 ARRL Handbook] Those flat cases
were eventually displaced by dipped silver-mica.

Paper tubular capacitors in molded plastic tubular casings were
marked with color bands and were on the market for at least
15 years, maybe 20...until aced out by ceramic disc capacitors
for general bypassing and coupling applications (by both tube
and transistor architecture electronics).

ANYONE with hands-on experience in electronics between 1950
and about 1970 would KNOW that. [okay, folks, looks like
there's another imposter here...at least this one isn't
trying to pass hisself off as some marine NCO...:-)

Try reading what I wrote.

Tsk, Klein, you don't write enough to read.

I'm not the one who misread "capacitors didn't *ESCAPE* getting color
coded" for "capacitors didn't *GET* color coded" - YOU DID!

Nice attempt at misdirection, but a very old technique. :-)

That sort of misdirection is puerile (meaning childish).
If you have some bona fides on English grammar and some
false idea that ALL must be literal with NO departure from
such literalness, please state them. Otherwise go into
auto-fornication mode since we ain't buyin that, homie. :-)

Let's reprise. First you state that capacitors were never
color coded. You got called on that and corrected by more
than myself. Secondly, you've never admitted being wrong or
corrected. Third, you try to (badly) convince others that
those who corrected your statement are "wrong" or "at fault."

Amazing. You make mistakes and then try to convince all that
those mistakes never happened or that it is "wrong" to try to
correct your mistakes! :-)

who that we know does that Sound Like Len

remind you of a certain exMarine we know and loathe

Here's some more to chew on:

RFCs (Radio Frequency Chokes, inductors) in axial-lead plastic
tubular packages are STILL marked with color-code bands. There's
a MIL SPEC on that as all "long-time design engineers" should
know; such parts are even used in commercial market electronics.
It's really irrelevant HOW capacitors are marked as long anyone
using them can know their value and working voltage and
tolerance and apply them properly.

There are 7 (seven) amateur radio licensees in the USA that could
answer to "Al Klein." Are you one of those?

I can say without hesitation that I am NOT a licensed amateur.
I am a licensed commercial-professional in radio and have been
so for 50 years, beginning in military 24/7 big-time HF
communications 53 1/2 years ago. I have all sorts of valid
documentation on that and some in here have seen some of that.
Do you have ANYTHING in the way of ID? On the Internet?

Or, are you going to scribble meaningless misdirections in here,
attempting to portray some personal "outrage" for being
corrected? Especially about a well-known electronic component
identification method which you don't seem to know yet others
can verify?

I'll just put you down as an IMPOSTER poster, one of those
wanna-bees who might never have been anything but really,
really wants to be someone. That's up to you. I don't care.
I've seen your kind on the Internet, on the Bulletin Board
Systems since 1984. None have anything worthwhile to
contribute but all wanting to be a SOMEBODY on screens.