The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
N2EY
by N2EY - Part 1 of 3
Introduction
This is a brief history of the past 50 years of amateur radio licensing. We'll
look at how the current structure came to be, and what the future may hold.
Along the way we'll also take a look at the development of the amateur radio
service.
To really understand how we got where we are today, it's necessary to look back
at least 50 years, to 1949. Amateur radio has existed since the very first days
of radio, and licensing of hams goes back to a least 1912, but to save time
we'll start about 50 years ago.
The Postwar Period (1946 - 1950)
In the years following World War 2, ham radio was quite different than it is
today. The prewar 160 meter band had been taken over by LORAN during the war,
and was not available to hams. However, over the next several decades it would
be reopened to hams, a little at a time. The 15 meter band had been allocated
to amateurs in 1947, but had not been opened yet. The 30, 17 and 12 meter bands
were far in the future. VHF and UHF allocations were plentiful, but equipment
for those bands was primitive, and almost all homemade or converted surplus.
The prewar 5 and 2-1/2 meter bands had been shifted to the new 6 and 2 meter
allocations.
Most hams used the 80, 40, 20 and 10 meter bands. The 40 meter band had no
phone segment - it was all CW. The 11 meter band had not existed before the war
- it was a sort of compensation for the loss of 160, and was also odd in that
it was not harmonically related to the other bands, and was shared with medical
and industrial RF users.
Almost all operation was CW or AM phone. All equipment used tubes, and was
large, heavy and expensive by today's standards. The transistor was invented in
1948, but reasonably priced transistors would not be readily available to hams
until the mid '50s. Most ham stations were a mixture of homemade, commercially
built, and converted war surplus gear - a station with only manufactured gear
was rare. Separate transmitters and receivers were almost universal. Many
stations used crystal control, and it was common to work another station on a
different frequency, because crystals were expensive. Long CQs and replies to
CQs were common, because most hams tuned the entire band looking for replies.
Hams in the continental 48 states had callsigns like W1AW and W3ABT - W,
followed by a numeral, followed by two or three letters. Hams in the US
possessions had calls like KH6IJ and KL7ABT - K, followed by a letter/number
combination denoting the possession, followed by two or three letters. There
was a very limited "vanity call" program - if a ham wanted a 1X2 call and met
several criteria, such a call would be issued. If a ham moved to a different
call area, he/she had to get a new callsign that matched the district of the
new location. You could always tell where a ham station was located by its
callsign.
World War 2 had several effects on amateur radio. Amateur radio was shut down
soon after Pearl Harbor, due to the security risk. Amateurs in most of the rest
of the world had already gone off the air in 1939. Thousands of amateurs went
into the military and merchant marine services, and many did not come back. In
addition to those amateurs who did return, many thousands of newcomers who had
been exposed to radio in the service wanted to get ham licenses. The war also
sped up the rate of electronic development, and had forced mass production
methods on the electronics industry. The cost of producing high quality
components dropped dramatically. Technologies that were laboratory experiments
in 1938 were in common use less than five years later. The trend toward
miniaturization began during this time.
After the war, large quantities of radio and electronic equipment and parts
were declared surplus and offered for sale at pennies on the dollar. Much of it
was brand new, and easily adapted to amateur use. The cost of putting a station
on the air, and the time required to build it, dropped dramatically.
During this time there were also the first signs of things to come. Television,
first promised as far back as the late '20s and in limited operation before the
war, spread quickly after the war. Television interference became a major
concern of hams in TV areas. SSB, used by a few hams in the early '30s, became
much more practical for amateur radio use with the development of low cost
crystal and mechanical filters and phasing networks. Wartime developments in
VHF/UHF technology, as well as surplus parts and equipment, made that part of
the spectrum much more accessible to hams. The first amateur RTTY stations
began to appear, using mechanical teletype equipment obtained as surplus from
various sources. Some amateurs used narrow band FM voice, which required a less
expensive transmitter than AM.
Before and immediately World War 2 there were 3 classes of amateur license -
Class A, Class B, and Class C. The requirements for each license class were:
Class A - 13 wpm code test, sending and receiving. Basic and advanced written
tests on theory and regulations. At least one year of experience as a Class B
or C licensee. Exam given at FCC examination points only. All amateur
privileges were granted with a Class A license.
Class B - 13 wpm code test, sending and receiving. Basic written test on theory
and regulations. Exam given at FCC examination points only. All amateur
privileges EXCEPT 75 and 20 meter phone were granted with a Class B license.
Class C - Same as Class B, except tests given by mail.
There was also discussion of a "Class D" license, with privileges above 200 MHz
only. This was not acted upon until 1951.
All amateurs could operate on any amateur frequency, with up to the legal limit
of power - but only Class A hams could operate phone on the popular 20 and 75
meter bands. Class B and C hams' phone privileges were limited to what was left
of 160, 11 and 10 meters, and VHF/UHF.
Licenses were good for 5 years, and renewable. Renewal required that the
operator certify that he/she could meet all of the current requirements for
licensing. Also, renewal required that the license holder make least 3 contacts
on the amateur bands in the six months prior to the renewal application - and
the contacts had to be on CW, not voice. All licensees had to be US citizens.
An accurate log of all transmissions had to be kept. Mobile and portable
operation were allowed, but if a ham wanted to operate away from his fixed
station, and would be gone for a period of more than 48 hours, written notice
of the mobile/portable operation had to be sent to the FCC. Before 1949, mobile
operation was limited to the ham bands above 25 MHz. Mobile and portable
stations had to identify themselves on the air as "mobile" or "portable".
The FCC had district offices that conducted exams in many major cities. In
addition, the FCC would send out examiners to scheduled examining points on a
regular schedule. If you lived within 125 miles of a quarterly examining
point, you had to appear in person for the exam. Exams were usually given only
on weekdays, which meant taking at least a half day off from work for adults
and waiting for vacation if you were still in school. The district offices
usually required no appointment, but the quarterly exam points often required
advance notice.
All tests for a given license (code and written) had to be passed in the same
session. If you failed any test, you got no partial credit and had to wait 30
days or more to take the test again. If you passed, you could go on the air
only when you received your new license in the mail, which was typically a six
to eight week wait.
If you lived more than 125 miles from an examining point, or had a permanent
physical disability that prevented you from going to an exam session, or were
on active military duty, the Class C exam could be taken by mail. First, you
found a volunteer examiner to give you the test. This was usually another ham,
but could be a person with a commercial telegraph license as well. You then
sent away to the FCC for the proper forms, filled them out and had them
notarized. The written exam was in a sealed envelope. The volunteer examiner
gave you the code test, and if you passed, certified that you did so and gave
you the written test. The volunteer examiner acted as a proctor only - he/she
wasn't supposed to even look at the exam. The written exam was sent back to the
FCC for marking, and if you passed, your new license came in the mail, and you
could go on the air as soon as it arrived. If you failed, you had to do the
whole thing all over again. The process typically took about six to eight weeks
to complete.
If you had a Class C license and moved to within 125 miles of a quarterly
examining point, you had to appear for reexamination within a certain time, or
lose your license. If you had a Class C license and wanted to upgrade to Class
A, you not only had to travel to a quarterly examining point, but you would
have to take the Class B exams as well as the Class A written exam. No credit
was given for exam elements taken by mail.
There were about 60,000 U.S. amateurs in 1946, and about 90,000 in 1950. The
amateur allocations in 1949 looked like this: (Frequencies in MHz):
3.5-4 CW 3.85-4 Phone, Class A only
7-7.3 CW
14-14.4 CW
14.2-14.3 Phone, Class A only
26.96-27.23 CW/Phone
28-29.7 CW 28.5-29.7 Phone
50-54 CW/Phone
144-148 CW/Phone
220-225 CW/Phone
420-450 CW/Phone (50 watt power limit)
1215-1295 CW/Phone
2300-2450 CW/Phone
5250-5650 CW/Phone
10000-10500 CW/Phone
21000-22200 CW/Phone
The Time of Change (1951 - 1956)
In the early '50s ham radio changed very quickly. A major influence was growing
concern about television interference, or TVI. Transmitters had to be designed
and built for to produce a much higher level of harmonic rejection than was
possible with prewar designs. SSB was becoming common on the ham bands.
Manufactured equipment was more common and less expensive, and a few companies
were offering equipment in kit form, which resulted in substantial savings for
the builder. Coaxial cable and pi network output circuits, practically unused
by amateurs only 10 years earlier, rapidly replaced parallel tuned tank
circuits and open wire line.
But the biggest changes came in the area of licensing and regulations. In 1951
the FCC overhauled the venerable ABC system, and added three new licenses - the
Novice, Technician, and Extra. The new license requirements and privileges
were:
Novice - 5 wpm code test, sending and receiving. Simplified written test on
theory and regulations. No experience required or allowed - anyone who had
previously held any class of amateur license was ineligible for a Novice.
Extremely limited CW privileges in parts of the 80 and 11 meter bands, plus CW
and phone privileges on part of 2 meters. 75 watts maximum power input, crystal
control only. One year license term, nonrenewable. Exams given at FCC
examination points or by mail if conditions for mail exams were met. The Novice
was meant to be a sort of "learner's permit" to help new hams get started.
Technician - 5 wpm code test, sending and receiving. Basic written test on
theory and regulations - same written test as General class. All amateur
privileges above 220 MHz. Exams given at FCC examination points or by mail if
conditions for mail exams were met. The Technician was meant for those who were
more interested in VHF/UHF experimentation than HF operating. The proposed
Class D license was implemented as the Technician.
General (old Class B) - 13 wpm code test, sending and receiving. Basic written
test on theory and regulations. Exam given at FCC examination points only. All
amateur privileges EXCEPT 75 and 20 meter phone were granted with a General
license.
Conditional (old Class C) - Same as General, except tests given by mail.
Advanced (old Class A) - 13 wpm code test, sending and receiving. Basic and
advanced written tests on theory and regulations. At least one year of
experience as a General or Conditional licensee. Exam given at FCC examination
points only. All amateur privileges were granted with an Advanced license. This
license was to be phased out and replaced by the Extra. To this end, no new
Advanced class tests were given after 1952, but holders of Advanced class
licenses could renew them indefinitely.
Extra - 20 wpm code test, sending and receiving. Basic and higher level written
tests on theory and regulations. At least two years of experience as a General,
Conditional or Advanced licensee. Exam given at FCC examination points only.
All amateur privileges were granted with an Extra license.
The new Novice license was an instant success, and thousands of new Novices got
licenses and went on the air as soon as the license became available. The
Technician got off to a slower start, but became more popular when first 6
meter and later 2 meter privileges were added. These new licenses became so
popular that in 1954 the FCC made them available by mail only.
Some amateurs went after the Extra, but in early 1953 the FCC made a surprise
about-face and announced that all amateur privileges would be granted to all
holders of General, Conditional, Advanced and Extra class licenses.
Callsigns were changed slightly. In some districts all of the W prefix
callsigns were issued, so the prefix K began to be used. Novices got
distinctive callsigns, in the following fashion: In the continental US, Novices
got callsigns like KN5LZO and WV2ABC. The letter immediately preceding the
numeral was either an N or a V, denoting Novice. When the Novice upgraded, this
letter was dropped. In the possessions, the first letter of a Novice callsign
was made a W instead of a K, as in WL7DEF. Upon upgrading, the W became a K.
Several more changes also occurred in this time period. Limited amounts of 160
meters were returned to amateur use. In 1953, 40 meters got a phone segment,
and Novices got a place on 40. In 1954, the 15 meter band was opened to amateur
use and Novices got a place there, too, but lost 11 meters. 50 kHz of 20 meters
was lost to other services. The retest requirement for Conditionals was dropped
in 1952, and the distance requirement for a Conditional license was reduced to
75 miles in 1954. The procedures for mail and in person exams remained the
same.
By 1956 there were over 140,000 US hams, and growth was exceeding 10,000 per
year.
160 meters was returned to hams in a very limited fashion. There was a complex
chart describing what privileges hams had, depending on geographic location.
There were power limits based on location and time of day, ranging from 1000
watts to 25 watts. It was confusing, but better than losing the band
altogether. The amateur allocations in 1956 looked like this: (Frequencies in
MHz):
1.8-1.825 1.875-1.925 1.975-2 CW/Phone (Subject to geographic and power
limitations)
3.5-4 CW 3.8-4 Phone Novices 3.7-3.75 CW
7-7.3 CW 7.2-7.3 Phone Novices 7.15-7.2 CW
14-14.35 CW 14.2-14.3 Phone
21-21.45 CW 21.25-21.45 Phone Novices 21.1-21.25 CW
26.96-27.23 CW/Phone
28-29.7 CW 28.5-29.7 Phone
(Technicians had all privileges above 30 MHz except 144-148)
50-54 CW/Phone
144-148 CW/Phone Novices 145-147 CW/Phone
220-225 CW/Phone
420-450 CW/Phone (50 watt power limit)
1215-1300 CW/Phone
2300-2450 CW/Phone
3300-3500 CW/Phone
5650-5925 CW/Phone
10000-10500 CW/Phone
21000-22000 CW/Phone
All above 30000 CW/Phone
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
by N2EY – Part 2 of 3
Growth and Evolution (1957 - 1963)
By the mid '50s several trends in ham radio were obvious. There was continued
rapid growth in the number of amateurs. The popularity of SSB, RTTY and VHF
continued to increase. New modes and operating methods such as SSTV, ATV,
moonbounce, and amateur radio satellites appeared. The trend towards
manufactured and kit equipment continued.
In the late '50s the first HF SSB transceivers appeared. Although the idea of a
complete integrated station in one box with shared circuitry not new, and
homebrew transceivers had been built by a few skilled hams, the new HF SSB/CW
transceiver caused many more changes than were first apparent. Most
importantly, they paved the way for SSB to displace AM as the premier voice
mode. For a little more money than a good receiver, a ham could have a
transceiver with the effective power output of a much larger and more expensive
AM rig. Transceivers were also small enough, and attractive enough, to find
their way out of the basement or attic and into the den or living room of many
amateurs. Though simple to use, their electrical and mechanical complexity
meant that only a few advanced homebrewers would even attempt to build them.
SSB transceivers were soon followed by separate receiver/transmitter pairs
designed to work together, and able to transceive or work separately.
Transistors began to appear in amateur gear. The first amateur satellite was
launched in 1961, and the first 2 way amateur moonbounce QSO occurred that same
year.
Licensing during this time remained virtually unchanged. Most amateurs had
General class licenses, but only a few went for the Extra.
In 1958 the FCC announced the creation of the Class D Citizens Band (CB)
service. The 11 meter band was withdrawn from amateurs and reassigned to this
new service. This was opposed by many hams, but the FCC saw the need for a new
service, and rejected all opposition. 11 meters was never an amateur band by
treaty - US hams had it on a secondary shared basis.
From 1957 to 1962 there existed a set of regulations commonly referred to by
hams as "Conelrad". Hams were required to monitor a local broadcast station at
intervals of 10 minutes or less whenever they were operating, and if the
broadcast station went off the air due to an emergency, hams had to leave the
air as well.
During this time the number of hams in some districts became so great that new
prefixes were needed, and callsigns of the form "WB2LGJ" began to be issued.
The licensing structure remained basically unchanged through this time period,
as did the bands available to hams. Technicians gained access to 2 meters in
this time period. The number of US hams exceeded 250,000 by 1963, about three
times the total of just 15 years earlier. This figures out to an annual growth
rate of about 7%.
Incentive Licensing (1964 - 1969)
In 1958 the FCC began to rethink its earlier decision to grant all privileges
to General class amateurs. They noted that homebrewing and experimenting were
decreasing, phone operation was increasing, and the technical knowledge and
operating skills of many amateurs seemed mediocre at best. It's also possible
that the unexpected launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957, and the
Soviets' early space triumphs, led the FCC to think that American amateur radio
needed some kind of change in the licensing area.
At that time, many new hams followed a fairly straightforward path. First, a
new ham got a Novice license, and set up a simple station, often with homebrew,
secondhand, or converted surplus gear. The Novice year was marked by rapid
learning and improvement of skills - it had to be, because if the new ham did
not upgrade before the license term ended, he/she would be off the air until a
higher level license could be earned. Most new hams upgraded to General or
Conditional, but some went to Technician. However, once the General or
Conditional license was passed, many hams bought new manufactured gear and lost
interest in increasing their skills or technical knowledge. The FCC thought
this was a problem, and began to inquire about ways to change what they saw as
an undesirable trend.
The ARRL responded in 1963 with a simple proposal: Reactivate the Advanced
license, and restrict the 75, 40, and 20 meter phone bands to Advanced and
Extra licensees. The idea was to add one more step on the ladder from beginner
to full privileges, and thus extend the learning time and raise the level of
knowledge required for an all amateur privileges license. The concept became
known as "Incentive Licensing".
The FCC responded with a general call for ideas, and from the responses came up
with a complex plan. The HF bands would be divided into segments, or subbands,
with some segments reserved for Extras, some for Advanceds and Extras, and some
for all classes General and above. Novices and Technicians were unaffected by
these changes. Several proposals and counterproposals went back and forth, each
with different features, all hotly debated. Finally in 1967 the final plan was
announced. Enacted in two phases, much of the HF spectrum available to holders
of General and Advanced class licenses would be withdrawn from their use. The
plan as conceived by the FCC is shown below. Only the affected bands are shown.
Phase 1 Incentive Licensing plan - effective Nov. 22, 1968
Extra Class Only: (all frequencies in MHz):
3.5-3.525 CW 3.8-3.825 Phone 7-7.025 CW 14-14.025 CW 21-21.025 CW
21.250 21.275 Phone
Extra and Advanced Classes Only:
3.825-3.85 Phone 7.2-7.225 Phone 14.2-14.235 Phone 21.275-21.3 Phone
50-50.1 CW
Phase 2 Incentive Licensing plan - effective Nov. 22, 1969:
Extra Class Only: (all frequencies in MHz):
3.5-3.525 CW 3.8-3.825 Phone 7-7.025 CW 14-14.025 CW 21-21.025 CW
21.25-21.275 Phone
Extra and Advanced Classes Only:
3.825-3.9 Phone 7.2-7.25 Phone 14.2-14.275 Phone 21.275-21.35 Phone 50-50.1
CW
In addition, anyone with 25 years as a ham and an Extra class license could get
a 1X2 call.
Opinion on this change was deeply divided. A very slight majority favored the
plan, but many opponents felt cheated and had bitter resentment towards the
FCC, ARRL, or both. There was a feeling among some that they had the "right" to
all amateur privileges. Some left ham radio, but most grumbled but set about
getting a higher class license, to get back the lost privileges.
The trends in amateur radio did not change, however. More and more hams bought,
rather than built, their stations. HF SSB voice operation continued to increase
in popularity, while AM declined and CW stayed about the same. RTTY and SSTV
continued to progress, but the expense and complexity of those modes, and the
lack of commercially available gear limited their appeal. VHF operation became
more popular as compact transceivers for 6 and 2 meter AM were produced by
several manufacturers. There were also a growing number of VHF/UHF stations on
the air using more advanced equipment, usually homemade.
In 1964, the FCC imposed fees for amateur licenses (except the Novice). A new
or renewed license, or any exam except Novice, cost $4, a modification cost $2,
and the very limited "vanity call" program cost $20. Fees were charged whether
or not the applicant passed the test. While these fees may seem nominal today,
in the early '60s they represented a significant amount of money.
This time period also saw changes to the procedures for exams by mail. The
distance requirement for a Conditional license was extended from 75 to 175
miles, and more exam points included. The procedure for Novice and Technician
licenses became longer and more complicated.
First, you found a volunteer examiner to give you the test, as before. The
volunteer examiner gave you the code test, and when you passed, sent the proper
forms to the FCC certifying that you had passed the code and requesting the
written exam. There was typically a six to eight week wait for the written exam
to arrive from the FCC. The written exam was sent in a sealed envelope, and the
volunteer examiner acted as a proctor only - he/she wasn't supposed to even
look at the exam. The exam was sent back to the FCC for marking, and you had
another six to eight week wait to find out the results. If you passed, your new
license came in the mail, and you could go on the air as soon as it arrived. If
you failed, you had to do the whole thing all over again. The process typically
took about three months to complete.
In addition, the Advanced and Extra were available by mail, but only to those
with a physical disablity that prevented them from appearing at an FCC office.
In 1967 the Novice license term was extended to two years. This came about due
to concern about too many newcomers dropping out because a year was too short a
period in which to learn all that was needed to upgrade. Novices lost 2 meter
voice privileges, but retained CW privileges on 2. In 1969 the FCC revised the
"one time" provision of the Novice so that anyone who had been unlicensed for
at least a year could get a Novice. Also, simultaneous holding of Novice and
Technician licenses was prohibited.
After more than a decade and a half of rapid growth, the number of US hams
stabilized at about 250,000 in 1964 and stayed at about that level for several
years. By 1970 there were about 270,000 US hams.
In 1968, amateur access to 160 meters was increased significantly. US hams got
access to 1800 to 2000 kHz - but still subject to complex geographical and
power limitations.
In this time period the use of transistors and integrated circuits became
increasingly common in amateur equipment. Digital logic began to be used for a
variety of purposes, from CW keyers to frequency counters. This period also saw
the appearance of Japanese amateur gear in significant numbers.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
by N2EY - Part 3 of 3
The VHF/UHF Revolution (1970 - 1976)
Most of the VHF/UHF mobile services (police, fire, railroads, taxicabs, etc.)
were using channelized FM equipment as early as the late 1940s, but amateurs
continued to use AM and lacked any standardization of frequencies. In the '60s,
though, some of the land mobile equipment from commercial services became
obsolete for its original purpose and was offered to hams at low prices. At
first the idea of channelized FM operation did not get much of a response, but
by 1970 the idea was rapidly catching on all over the country. The deciding
factor was the practicality of FM repeaters for extending the range of mobiles,
portables and simple home stations.
In the AM days the range of VHF/UHF mobiles was unpredictable at best. Mobile
to mobile contacts were particularly undependable. FM repeaters greatly
increased the available range of most stations, because one only had to be able
to make solid radio contact with a repeater to enjoy the advantages of its
location, high power, and gain antennas. Repeaters also changed the way hams
operated on VHF, because no longer could one make long transmissions, or
monopolize a frequency. Repeaters made channelized operation a necessity. Once
the potential of the mode became apparent to most hams, FM quickly displaced AM
as the VHF/UHF mode of choice.
Most early FM amateur stations, both repeater and individual, were a
combination of homebrewing and conversion of surplus commercial equipment
originally used by other services. New equipment meant for other services was
usually too expensive, and ham gear capable of VHF/UHF FM did not appear for a
few years. This went against the trend toward manufactured gear. Getting a
repeater on the air was usually a group effort, and required many different
skills and resources. Many clubs organized around repeaters.
The existing FCC rules did not make it easy for repeater operation. Logging was
required of all stations, and all transmissions through a repeater were
considered third party traffic. This meant that all transmissions through the
repeater had to be recorded. Repeaters had special "WR" callsigns, such as
WR3ABZ, and a complex process more rigorous than used in other services was
used to process repeater license applications. Autopatch and crosslinking were
prohibited, power and antenna restrictions were in effect, and a control
operator had to be "on duty" at all times. Many changes in a repeater required
a modified license. Even with these hurdles, however, repeater popularity grew
rapidly.
From 1972 to 1977, these rules were eased considerably, after experience showed
that hams could manage their own problems with the new mode. Crossbanding,
linking, automatic operation, and autopatch became legal. Logging and
application requirements were reduced to no more than any other type of
station.
In 1974, logging requirements were eased. The only information still required
was the calls of stations worked, the starting and ending dates, and any
third-party traffic. Many hams still kept detailed logs, but it was no longer
required by law. Requirements for portable and mobile operation were eased
during this time period, as well. No longer would it be necessary to notify the
FCC when operating portable or mobile for extended periods.
In this time period the license fees were increased to $9 for new and renewed
licenses and exams, and $25 for vanity calls, then reduced to their former $4
and $20 levels.
For many years, hams had conducted "phone patches" - often for the families of
military personnel. Strictly speaking, this was illegal, because the phone
company prohibited the connection of non-phone-company equipment to their
lines. (This was the era of "Ma Bell" having an almost complete monopoly). In
1970 the rules were changed to permit interconnection, if your equipment met
the requirements.
Solid state equipment continued to displace tube gear, but there was still
plenty of "hollow state" equipment being made. Japanese gear had a strong
foothold in the amateur market. Many older American companies began to reduce
their product lines or go out of the amateur radio business entirely.
In 1972, the FCC widened the HF phone bands. In effect, this reduced much of
the impact of incentive licensing. The amateur allocations in 1972 looked like
this: (Frequencies in MHz:)
1.8-2 CW/Phone (Subject to geographic and power limitations)
3.5-4 CW 3.775-4 Phone Novices 3.7-3.75 CW
7-7.3 CW 7.15-7.3 Phone Novices 7.1-7.15 CW
14-14350 CW 14.2-14.35 Phone
21-21.45 CW 21.25-21.45 Phone Novices 21.1-21.25 CW
28-29.7 CW 28.5-29.7 Phone Novices 28.1-28.2 CW
(Technicians had all privileges above 30 MHz except 144-145)
50-54 CW 50.1-54 CW/Phone
144-148 CW 144.1-148 Phone
220-225 CW/Phone
420-450 CW/Phone
1215-1300 CW/Phone
2300-2450 CW/Phone
3300-3500 CW/Phone
5650-5925 CW/Phone
10000-10500 CW/Phone
21000-22000 CW/Phone
All above 40000 CW/Phone
Extra Class Only:
3.5-3.525 CW 3.775-3.8 Phone 7-7.025 CW 14-14.025 CW 21-21.025 CW
21.25-21.27 Phone
Extra and Advanced Classes Only:
3.8-3.9 Phone 7.15-7.225 Phone 14.2-14.275 Phone 21.27-21.35 Phone
Also in 1972 the EIA (Electronic Industry Association, a manufacturer's group)
petitioned the FCC to create a new "Class E" CB service by reallocating 224-225
MHz. The proposed new service would use channelized FM, and would not have many
of the problems of 27 MHz CB. This proposal took several years to defeat, but
was ultimately abandoned when 27 MHz CB was expanded to 40 channels.
In 1975 the FCC proposed yet another license restructuring. The basic proposal
was for a "two ladder" license system. The "HF ladder" would consist of the
existing Novice/General/Advanced/Extra sequence, while the "VHF/UHF" ladder
would consist a new sequence, Communicator/Technician/Experimenter and Extra.
(The Communicator and Experimenter were proposed new license classes, bringing
the total to 7 license classes). The Communicator would be a sort of "VHF
Novice" with no code test and very limited privileges above 220 MHz. The
Experimenter would be the VHF/UHF equivalent of the Advanced. Many hams would
hold two licenses simultaneously. The proposal required still more loss of
privileges by hams having licenses other than Extra. The ARRL made a
counterproposal that was simpler and consisted of a single "ladder", adding a
"Basic" license that would be easier to get than the Novice. Neither proposal
was very popular, and ultimately only minor changes were made to the license
structure.
There were other rules changes that appeared minor at the time, but had long
term consequences. The waiting period for an Extra class license was reduced to
a year in 1973 and eliminated in 1976. Also in 1976, Technicians got Novice
privileges, all hams were limited to 250 watts in the Novice subbands, and a
Novice no longer had to wait a year to retake the test if he/she did not
upgrade. The vanity call program was expanded, and the regulations on digital
modes were eased. New types of amateur calls began to appear - calls beginning
with N and A were added, as were "2X1" and "2X2" calls. The requirement to
change callsigns when moving to a different district was removed in the early
1970s. No longer would it be possible to determine a US ham's location based
solely on the callsign.
This period also saw the appearance of "Bash books". Although the written exams
were secret, a fellow named Dick Bash published "study guides" containing the
exact questions and answers on the tests. He gathered this information by
paying people who had taken a written test to recall as much of it as possible.
possible. He then collected all of the reported questions and answers and
published them in book form.
The number of hams grew slowly until about 1975, then began to increase
rapidly. By 1977 there were 327,000 US hams
Deregulation and WARC-79 (1977 - 1989)
In 1977 there were more changes to amateur radio regulations. Portable and
mobile identification requirements were eliminated, "instant upgrades" became
available, and license fees were abolished. The code sending test was waived
and repeater rules were simplified even more. 1978 saw the Novice license term
extended to 5 years and made renewable, the Conditional class license abolished
(existing Conditionals became Generals), and secondary station licenses were
abolished. ASCII and other standard data codes were authorized for amateur use.
The first use of spread spectrum radio by amateurs was authorized in 1981
Technicians got all privileges above 50 MHz at this time.
Many of these changes were driven by the need for the FCC to reduce its
workload. There were not only more hams, but many other new services were
appearing, and the FCC did not automatically get more funds to administrate the
new services. In this time period it became common for the FCC to conduct
testing sessions at hamfests and other gatherings. All that was needed was
advance notice to the FCC and an estimate of the number of people to be tested,
and the FCC would send an examiner if one was available. This reduced the
number of offices and examination points needed.
In 1978 the FCC banned the manufacture and sale of amplifiers that could be
used in the 24-35 MHz region. This ban was driven by the widespread use of
amplifiers in the CB service, but the way the rules were written affected
amateurs as well. Manufactured amplifiers could no longer cover 10 meters - but
a licensed amateur could still homebrew an amplifier, or modify a manufactured
one to cover 10 meters. Hams were limited to one amplifier per year, however.
This action was significant because it was the first time ham gear had come
under any kind of type acceptance rules.
In this period RFI became a major concern. Every day it seemed that new
electronic gadgets were coming on the market - and intererence problems were no
longer limited to TV and radio. The FCC eventually issued rules governing
interference susceptibility - but the took the form of Part 15 warning labels,
not technical requirements.
In late 1979 there was a World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-79) to
review international radio allocations. The result of this conference was three
new amateur radio HF bands - 30, 17, and 12 meters. These were the first new
ham bands in 32 years (15 meters was the result of the 1947 conference). It
would take several years for hams to gain access to these bands, however.
By the early 1980s Japanese made amateur equipment became the most common,
while most American manufacturers of ham radio gear had closed up or reduced
their product lines to a few items. Also in this time period, personal
computers began to appear in large numbers, and many of them were in ham
shacks.
Two new digital data modes, AMTOR (error correcting RTTY) and packet, first
appeared in the early '80s. Both became popular - AMTOR on HF and packet on
VHF. AMTOR eventually gave way to PACTOR and other digital modes.
In 1983 the FCC announced a fundamental change to the licensing process. The
FCC would no longer conduct examinations - instead, teams of volunteer
examiners (VEs) would conduct all amateur radio exams. But this was a minor
change compared to the fact that the test questions would no longer be secret -
instead, the question pools would be maintained by volunteer examiner
coordinators (VECs) overseen by the FCC. The "Bash books" of the '70s became
official and legal. In addition, "instant upgrading" was authorized. Hams who
upgraded would no longer have to wait for the actual license to arrive before
using their new privileges.
Also in 1983, the FCC proposed a codeless VHF/UHF amateur license. This was
opposed by a majority of hams, as it had been in the 1975 proposed
restructuring.
1983 also saw a change in the power limit. The old "1000 watts input" rule was
replaced by a new "1500 watt peak output" rule. This meant that hams could run
more power in most modes, but a few modes, like AM, actually lost power.
The term of all classes of amateur license went from 5 to 10 years in 1984. The
mandatory 30 day waiting period for retesting was eliminated in 1985.
1987 brought a restructuring called "Novice Enhancement" which gave Novices
access to 10 meter phone and some limited VHF/UHF bands. Also in 1987, the
Technician written test was made different than the General by splitting the
General test into two parts.
The amateur allocations in 1987 looked like this: (Frequencies in MHz:)
1.8-2 CW/Phone (Subject to geographic and power limitations)
3.5-4 CW 3.775-4 Phone Novice/Techs 3.7-3.75 CW
7-7.3 CW 7.15-7.3 Phone Novice/Techs 7.1-7.15 CW
10.1-10.15 CW
14-14.35 CW 14.15-14.35 Phone
21-21.45 CW 21.2-21.45 Phone Novice/Techs 21.1-21.2 CW
24.890-24.990 CW 24.93-24.99 Phone
28-29.7 CW 28.3-29.7 Phone Novice/Techs 28.1-28.5 CW 28.3-28.5 Phone
(Technicians had all privileges above 30 mHz)
50-54 CW 50.1-54 CW/Phone
144-148 CW 144.1-148 Phone
220-225 CW/Phone Novices 222.1-223.91 CW/Phone
420-450 CW/Phone
902-928 CW/Phone
1240-1300 CW/Phone Novices 1270-1295 CW/Phone
2300-2310 CW/Phone
2390-2450 CW/Phone
3300-3500 CW/Phone
5650-5925 CW/Phone
10000-10500 CW/Phone
24000-24250 CW/Phone
47000-47200 CW/Phone
75500-81000 CW/Phone
119980-120020 CW/Phone
142000-149000 CW/Phone
241000-250000 CW/Phone
All above 300000 CW/Phone
Extra Class Only: (all frequencies in kHz):
3.5-3.525 CW 3.75-3.775 Phone 7-7.025 CW 14-14.025 CW 14.15-14.175 Phone
21-21.025 CW
21.2-21.225 Phone
Extra and Advanced Classes Only:
3.75-3.85 Phone 7.15-7.225 Phone 14.175-14.225 Phone 21.225-21.3 Phone
The rapid growth in the number of hams continued in this period. By 1989 there
were over 500,000 US hams.
No-Code Licensing (1989 - 1997)
In 1989 the FCC once again raised the question of a nocode amateur license for
VHF/UHF. This time the response of hams was divided about equally pro and con,
and the ARRL, which had opposed all nocode licenses in the past, endorsed the
idea of a "Communicator" type license. The FCC did not want another class of
license, so in 1991 the Technician lost its code requirement. Since existing
Techs had Novice HF privileges and "new" Techs would have only VHF/UHF, another
license class, Technician Plus, was created. Existing Technicians, and those
who passed the 5 wpm code test, became Technician Plus class.
In 1991 the FCC also created a program to accomodate those with disabilities
that made it difficult or impossible for them to pass the 13 and 20 wpm code
tests. The code waiver program, as it is called, requires a doctor's
certification. Since 5 wpm code is a treaty requirement, no waiver for that
speed exists. This program came about at the request of the late King Hussein
of Jordan, JY1, to the White House, not because of any request on the part of
people with disabilites.
The number of hams continued to increase during this time. There were almost
680,000 hams by 1996 - but this total is inflated by the fact that the change
to 10 year licenses meant that from 1989 to 1994 there were no license
expirations at all. Recent years have shown a slight decline in the total
number of US hams, which now stands at about 670,000.
Restructuring (1998 - Present)
In mid-1998 rumors began to be heard that the FCC was planning another
restructuring of amateur licenses. The ARRL issued a proposal to the FCC,
outlining a simplification of the license structure. Shortly thereafter, the
FCC issued WT98-143, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was similar to the
ARRL proposal in some ways. Details of the various proposals are well
documented elsewhaere and are not presented here. Although the comment period
ended in December of 1998 and the reply comment period ended in January of
1999, as of this writing (early July, 1999) the FCC has made no announcement of
the final outcome of WT98-143, or even when they will make an announcement.
The outcome of this NPRM will probably be decided by the FCC sometime in 1999
or 2000. What the final decision will be is anyone's guess. Two things are
certain: The FCC wants simplification of the structure, and whatever is decided
will not make everyone happy. But by reviewing the history of amateur
licensing, it's clear that hams have always adapted to rules changes.
73 de Jim, N2EY
W6RCecilA
> Conditional (old Class C) - Same as General, except tests given by mail.
Hmmmm, that's what I said one time and you argued with me. Shall I dig
up your old arguments to prove that Conditional was NOT the "same as
General, except tests given by mail"? :-)
--
49H, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
N2EY
>From: W6RCecilA <Cecil....@IEEE.org>
>Date: Wed, 07 July 1999 03:40 PM EDT
>Message-id: <3783AD1A...@IEEE.org>
wrote:
>
>N2EY wrote:
>> Conditional (old Class C) - Same as General, except tests given by mail.
>
>Hmmmm, that's what I said one time and you argued with me.
Out-of-context quote, Cecil. You said the privileges and requirements were the
same. I said the operating privileges and test requirements were the same, but
other requirements were NOT the same. Look at the whole post, not just one
sentence, for the big picture.
> Shall I dig
>up your old arguments to prove that Conditional was NOT the "same as
>General, except tests given by mail"? :-)
Nope, because we all know you weren't, and aren't, serious about it.
I think it's pretty good that this one thing is all you could find to disagree
with in that three part post. Almost 100% - missed it by thaaaaaat much.
We're making progress.
111O de Jim, N2EY
Bill Christiansen
you are an old fart, support the change, it will happen with or without us. There
is no use in complaining. The new generation is into computers. My two sons, the
14 year old is KGCPN wants to do Packet, I like CW, even if I have been a ham only
since Feb this year. It is time for the hobby to growup with or without us.. Hope
to CU AGN on CW about 14.045 or so.
Bill Christiansen
KG4CPO
Jones
N2EY wrote:
>Fifty Years of Amateur Radio Licensing (1949-1999)
Very interesting reading Jim. Thanks for taking the trouble. Let me suggest that
you submit that to 73 magazine or Worldradio for publication as an article...
N2EY
<ici...@icomnet.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: Bill Christiansen <ici...@icomnet.com>
>Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 20:11:18 -0400
>
>So Jim,
>you are an old fart,
That's a heck of a greeting!
I'm 45 - is that "old"? Been a ham for 32 years, though.
>support the change, it will happen with or without us.
Which change? I filed detailed comments on WT98-143. I supported changes to the
current license structure and test requirements.
>There is no use in complaining.
Who's complaining? Please point out any complaints in those posts.
>The new generation is into computers. My two
>sons, the
>14 year old is KGCPN wants to do Packet,
I'm into computers, too. Have been for 27+ years. Nothing new there. Lots of
fun.
> I like CW, even if I have been a ham
>only
>since Feb this year.
Great! Join FISTS
Great bunch of folks.
> It is time for the hobby to growup with or without us..
I don't understand. Ham radio has been around since 1906 or so. The ARRL has
existed since 1914. Looks pretty grown up to me. And I'm not going away anytime
soon.
>Hope
>to CU AGN on CW about 14.045 or so.
Very good! Or 7035 - 7040
My point in posting this history is not to argue for or against any changes.
It's just to present a concise history of how things got to be the way they
are. From reading many posts on this and other NGs, it was clear to me that too
many hams have a very poor understanding of the history of this wonderful radio
service.
Where in these posts is there any argument for or against change? Do you see
any factual or historical errors?
To know where we are going, it's important to know where we have been.
73 de Jim, N2EY
James Rosenthal
interesting to see a quick review of the period up to the begining of
your article's starting point in the final version.
Most of us just know the start of ARRL, 1936 and other hi (low?) points,
not having read the various prewar books on the history of the ARS.
TNX Jim,
--
Jim Rosenthal, WA4STJ
N2EY
>Date: Thu, 08 July 1999 12:01 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7m2i0f$e...@nntp.seflin.org>
wrote:
>
>Very good article Jim.
Thanks! The posts are actually the handout that goes along with a talk I have
done at a few local ham club meetings. I have tried to keep the code test
debate out of the article.
> I agree with Jones, get it published.
I don't think QST would want it - they did a short article on the same basic
article a while back. Maybe Electric Radio.
> It would be
>interesting to see a quick review of the period up to the begining of
>your article's starting point in the final version.
200 Meters and Down does the job up to 1936 very well. Researching the very
early history requires access to archives that I don't have yet.
The real point of the article is to show how the current system evolved. That
only requires going back about 50 years or so.
>
>Most of us just know the start of ARRL, 1936 and other hi (low?) points,
>not having read the various prewar books on the history of the ARS.
Books alone aren't enough. One needs to go through the periodicals of the time,
and follow the events as they happened, to get the context of what was going
on. Talking to oldtimers is also necessary - but you have to talk to lots of
them to get the whole story.
Too many folks here grab onto one isolated historic factoid, out of context,
and build a set of misinterpretation on it. Carl Stevenson's recent (probably
unintentional) spin doctoring of the 1936 code speed increase is a case in
point.
And the further back you go, the more things read like a foreign language.
Give a 1920's QST to a "modern" ham, and see how much he/she understands on the
first read.
>
>TNX Jim,
You're welcome.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Lenof21
writes:
>>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>From: z005...@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal)
>>Date: Thu, 08 July 1999 12:01 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <7m2i0f$e...@nntp.seflin.org>
>
>wrote:
>>
>>Very good article Jim.
>
>Thanks! The posts are actually the handout that goes along with a talk I have
>done at a few local ham club meetings. I have tried to keep the code test
>debate out of the article.
Well crafted. Maybe a little "polishing" for publication? :-)
>> I agree with Jones, get it published.
>
>I don't think QST would want it - they did a short article on the same basic
>article a while back. Maybe Electric Radio.
The last half-century has had a number of similar histories, nearly all
of them concentrating solely on amateur activities (usually as seen in
the author's country) and making only passing mention of OTHER
radio. "Other" radio now far outnumbers amateurs and amateur gear
in both quantity and technical accomplishment.
>> It would be
>>interesting to see a quick review of the period up to the begining of
>>your article's starting point in the final version.
>
>200 Meters and Down does the job up to 1936 very well. Researching the very
>early history requires access to archives that I don't have yet.
The Internet is chock full of early radio history, including "other" radio
and accomplishments. A good search engine is helpful. AOL Netfind
has turned up a number of sites for my own investigations...but then
I'm not stuck on reliving "200 Meters and Down" or perpetuating the
Official League History Of Radio. :-)
>The real point of the article is to show how the current system evolved. That
>only requires going back about 50 years or so.
It's all, entirely, to do with Saint Hiram Going To Washington after WW1.
:-)
<snip>
>Too many folks here grab onto one isolated historic factoid, out of context,
>and build a set of misinterpretation on it. Carl Stevenson's recent (probably
>unintentional) spin doctoring of the 1936 code speed increase is a case in
>point.
Careful there, laddie. If there is any "spin doctoring" going on, it is the
totally emotional mythos of OOK CW being the "best way to get through
under all conditions." THAT started around the late 30s and has
perpetuated into the end of this century beyond all technical viability.
If you are going to write credible history of anything, you had best
divorce yourself of the personal preferences and stand up to assault
through other media. That's the way in ANY subject.
> And the further back you go, the more things read like a foreign language.
>Give a 1920's QST to a "modern" ham, and see how much he/she understands on
>the first read.
I don't understand this preoccupation with the PAST. Radio is a technical
field and does not remain rooted in the old state of the art. PRINCIPLES
of radio remain but that does not mean that APPLICATION of such
principles using old-technology components are necessarily worthwhile
except in a historical context. The same is true of modes/modulations
used in the past.
I go farther back IN radio than you do, Jim, and find nothing in old
methods except some curiosity and brief nostalgia. If you insist on
rooting an avocational pursuit in the past, then you should give the
same effort to promoting a renaming of the ARS to be the
Anachronistic Radio Service.
User Na4g Boatanchor Bob
>>Too many folks here grab onto one isolated historic factoid, out of context,
>>and build a set of misinterpretation on it. Carl Stevenson's recent (probably
>>unintentional) spin doctoring of the 1936 code speed increase is a case in
>>point.
> Careful there, laddie. If there is any "spin doctoring" going on, it is the
> totally emotional mythos of OOK CW being the "best way to get through
> under all conditions." THAT started around the late 30s and has
> perpetuated into the end of this century beyond all technical viability.
Lennie... there is a reference (I think in Bucher, 1917) relating to
testing spark and arc transmitters for getting through, and it was
found that the arc transmitter consistently performed better than the
spark transmitter in transoceanic transmissions. Not exactly different
modes, but early precedent for continuous waves performing well.
That related to 100kw point-to-point installations.
>> And the further back you go, the more things read like a foreign language.
>>Give a 1920's QST to a "modern" ham, and see how much he/she understands on
>>the first read.
Easy reading, even for this modern ham.
> I don't understand this preoccupation with the PAST. Radio is a technical
> field and does not remain rooted in the old state of the art. PRINCIPLES
> of radio remain but that does not mean that APPLICATION of such
> principles using old-technology components are necessarily worthwhile
> except in a historical context. The same is true of modes/modulations
> used in the past.
There is nothing wrong with the past....
One thing folks seem to forget. CW is CW is CW. That mode has been around
since 1907. Its method of generation has changed, but the reception has
not materially changed since 1907, when local arc generators were used
as heterodynes with crystal detectors for the reception of continuous
waves, from arc transmitters or from timed spark transmitters. We now
call such receivers, re-invented, ``direct conversion'' sets, thinking
we have a new ball of wax, but it is actually the same old thing. Vacuum
tubes became commonplace in WWI, and transistors in the 50's, but the
basics remain the same, in the block diagram of the receiver. We don't
use arc transmitters anymore, but still use vacuum tubes or transistors
(and related devices) for generation of continuous waves.
Thus, the application of principles to CW, can be quite old and still
quite effective. Age of the technology has little to do with it,
realistically. That is its beauty, or its simplicity, if we want
to take a divergent point of view.
(SSB has been around commercially since the early 20's, so that, too,
is a mode/modulation of the past. PROC IRE, 1925 or thereabouts.)
The technology, is a re-inventing or recombination of methods to
accomplish the principles. The methods and devices have changed,
but, the application of those methods and devices has not really
changed.
Interesting twists on things past, in radio.....
Bob/NA4G
N2EY
(Lenof21) writes:
>ubject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>Date: 08 Jul 1999 18:56:34 GMT
>
>In article <19990708123403...@ng-fr1.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com
>(N2EY)
>writes:
>
>>>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>>From: z005...@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal)
>>>Date: Thu, 08 July 1999 12:01 PM EDT
>>>Message-id: <7m2i0f$e...@nntp.seflin.org>
>>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Very good article Jim.
>>
>>Thanks! The posts are actually the handout that goes along with a talk I
>have
>>done at a few local ham club meetings. I have tried to keep the code test
>>debate out of the article.
>
>Well crafted. Maybe a little "polishing" for publication? :-)
If it is well crafted, what needs polishing?
>
>>> I agree with Jones, get it published.
>>
>>I don't think QST would want it - they did a short article on the same basic
>>article a while back. Maybe Electric Radio.
>
>The last half-century has had a number of similar histories, nearly all
>of them concentrating solely on amateur activities (usually as seen in
>the author's country) and making only passing mention of OTHER
>radio.
So? The title is "The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing". Why should
"other" radio be mentioned at all, except in relation to amateur radio?
>"Other" radio now far outnumbers amateurs and amateur gear
>in both quantity and technical accomplishment.
So? If the subject were the history of radio, or radio licensing, "other radio"
would be mentioned. But the subject is strictly amateur radio. The title
should, however, read "The Past 50 Years of US Amateur Radio Licensing" to be
precise.
>>> It would be
>>>interesting to see a quick review of the period up to the begining of
>>>your article's starting point in the final version.
>>
>>200 Meters and Down does the job up to 1936 very well. Researching the very
>>early history requires access to archives that I don't have yet.
>
>The Internet is chock full of early radio history, including "other" radio
>and accomplishments. A good search engine is helpful.
And much of that information is not about amateur radio. The purpose of the
article is to explain the developments that led up to the current system, which
is still basically the same as the 1951 system.
>>The real point of the article is to show how the current system evolved.
>That
>>only requires going back about 50 years or so.
>
>It's all, entirely, to do with Saint Hiram Going To Washington after WW1.
>:-)
It seems that you wish Hiram Percy Maxim had not done so, and that amateur
radio had ceased to exist after WW1.
>
>>Too many folks here grab onto one isolated historic factoid, out of context,
>>and build a set of misinterpretation on it. Carl Stevenson's recent
>(probably
>>unintentional) spin doctoring of the 1936 code speed increase is a case in
>>point.
>
>Careful there, laddie.
Careful who you call laddie.
>If there is any "spin doctoring" going on, it is the
>totally emotional mythos of OOK CW being the "best way to get through
>under all conditions." THAT started around the late 30s and has
>perpetuated into the end of this century beyond all technical viability.
Where is that mentioned in the article in any way? Where does the posted
article argue for or against code testing?
>
>If you are going to write credible history of anything, you had best
>divorce yourself of the personal preferences and stand up to assault
>through other media.
I do not understand what is meant by "stand up to assault through other media".
> That's the way in ANY subject.
Then show where there are any factual errors in the article.
>
>> And the further back you go, the more things read like a foreign language.
>>Give a 1920's QST to a "modern" ham, and see how much he/she understands on
>>the first read.
>
>I don't understand this preoccupation with the PAST.
It's a history article. History is about the past.
>Radio is a technical
>field and does not remain rooted in the old state of the art.
>PRINCIPLES
>of radio remain but that does not mean that APPLICATION of such
>principles using old-technology components are necessarily worthwhile
>except in a historical context.
Does the article propose reverting to the techniques of the past? Or the
license structure of the past? No, not at all.
> The same is true of modes/modulations
>used in the past.
What about those widely used today?
>
>I go farther back IN radio than you do, Jim, and find nothing in old
>methods except some curiosity and brief nostalgia.
At first you tell us that the past holds nothing for us, then cite your time in
radio as justification for your opinion. That is a contradiction.
And to be precise, Len, you have no experience in AMATEUR radio at all, except
as an observer, bystander, watcher. Never as a real participant. And the
comments are always of a negative sort - what should not be done, what hams
should not be thinking of, what should not be tested. Never is there a clear
vision of what you think should be. I think that either you do not have a clear
vision for the ARS, or if you do, that it is of a sort of highpowered multiband
CB service.
>If you insist on
>rooting an avocational pursuit in the past, then you should give the
>same effort to promoting a renaming of the ARS to be the
>Anachronistic Radio Service.
It is interesting to note that your attack is pure diversion. No factual errors
in the article have been pointed out. Instead, you simply repeat YOUR
prejudices and biases in the hope of starting an argument.
N2EY
N2EY
writes:
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: "Jones" <no_e...@none.com>
>Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:04:25 -0700
wrote:
>
>N2EY wrote:
>>Fifty Years of Amateur Radio Licensing (1949-1999)
>
>
>Very interesting reading Jim. Thanks for taking the trouble.
You're welcome!
>Let me suggest
>that
>you submit that to 73 magazine or Worldradio for publication as an article...
Well, 73 means Wayne Green - no thanks. Worldradio? Maybe, but then again Mr.
Sterba might not approve.
111O de Jim, N2EY
>
Lenof21
writes:
>In article <19990708145634...@ngol06.aol.com>, len...@aol.com
>(Lenof21) writes:
>
>>ubject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>>Date: 08 Jul 1999 18:56:34 GMT
>>
>>In article <19990708123403...@ng-fr1.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com
>>(N2EY)
>>writes:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>>>From: z005...@bc.seflin.org (James Rosenthal)
>>>>Date: Thu, 08 July 1999 12:01 PM EDT
>>>>Message-id: <7m2i0f$e...@nntp.seflin.org>
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Very good article Jim.
>>>
>>>Thanks! The posts are actually the handout that goes along with a talk I
>>have
>>>done at a few local ham club meetings. I have tried to keep the code test
>>>debate out of the article.
>>
>>Well crafted. Maybe a little "polishing" for publication? :-)
>
>If it is well crafted, what needs polishing?
Some in the way of English, more in the area of relationship to the rest
of the radio world.. However, I realize that an Amateur Extra knows
much more, can do much more than any professional writer so I won't
argue that further.
>>>> I agree with Jones, get it published.
>>>
>>>I don't think QST would want it - they did a short article on the same
>basic
>>>article a while back. Maybe Electric Radio.
>>
>>The last half-century has had a number of similar histories, nearly all
>>of them concentrating solely on amateur activities (usually as seen in
>>the author's country) and making only passing mention of OTHER
>>radio.
>
>So? The title is "The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing". Why should
>"other" radio be mentioned at all, except in relation to amateur radio?
Nearly all of the technology of TODAY's amateur equipment is the
result of pioneering of "other" radio technology. Ham histories may
not like that, but it is nevertheless truth.
The history of radio, ALL radio is hardly mentioned in Official histories.
That is unfortunate considering that so many League members get
their entire continuing education in radio from League publications.
The result is de facto brainwashing of many hams who get a Belief
System wherein hams "pioneered and developed" everything about
radio. They didn't. That does not mean that amateurs cannot have
an enjoyable hobby pursuit in amateur radio...they just cannot enjoy
undeserved bragging rights in the development of radio.
>>"Other" radio now far outnumbers amateurs and amateur gear
>>in both quantity and technical accomplishment.
>
>So? If the subject were the history of radio, or radio licensing, "other
>radio"
>would be mentioned. But the subject is strictly amateur radio. The title
>should, however, read "The Past 50 Years of US Amateur Radio Licensing" to be
>precise.
Correct. UNITED STATES Amateur Radio history. More specifically,
the viewpoint of a certain membership organization based in CT.
<snip>
>>The Internet is chock full of early radio history, including "other" radio
>>and accomplishments. A good search engine is helpful.
>
>And much of that information is not about amateur radio. The purpose of the
>article is to explain the developments that led up to the current system,
>which is still basically the same as the 1951 system.
OK, just HOW is such devoted attention to higher-speed code to fulfill
any sort of "pool of trained radio operators" for the nation? The nation
doesn't have any need for morse-code-skilled individuals in radio...
except to continue the rank/status/privileges based on morse code
skills used solely in amateur radio...and to continue to maintain the
absurd requirement that ALL newcomers to HF must do as They did.
>>It's all, entirely, to do with Saint Hiram Going To Washington after WW1.
>>:-)
>
>It seems that you wish Hiram Percy Maxim had not done so, and that amateur
>radio had ceased to exist after WW1.
Saint Hiram in Excelsius. :-)
Lighten up. The League has brainwashed you into thinking that Maxim was
the ONLY one who could have "saved" amateur radio after WW1. You
can't see the propaganda if you've never seen the rest of radio or the
evolution of US radio agencies or the evolution of MANY radio special
interest groups. If you wish, feel free to continue an insular knowledge
base...it will make other, less knowledgeable hams feel good.
>>>Too many folks here grab onto one isolated historic factoid, out of
>context,
>>>and build a set of misinterpretation on it. Carl Stevenson's recent
>>(probably
>>>unintentional) spin doctoring of the 1936 code speed increase is a case in
>>>point.
>>
>>Careful there, laddie.
>
>Careful who you call laddie.
OK, Jimmie boy. About the time you were born I was tuning up a 1 KW
single-channel RTTY transmitter to send SigC messages across the
Pacific. :-)
>>If there is any "spin doctoring" going on, it is the
>>totally emotional mythos of OOK CW being the "best way to get through
>>under all conditions." THAT started around the late 30s and has
>>perpetuated into the end of this century beyond all technical viability.
>
>Where is that mentioned in the article in any way? Where does the posted
>article argue for or against code testing?
YOU were attacking a director of NCI by declaring them to be "guilty" of
"spin doctoring." (NCI is organized to eliminate the morse code test)
>>If you are going to write credible history of anything, you had best
>>divorce yourself of the personal preferences and stand up to assault
>>through other media.
>
>I do not understand what is meant by "stand up to assault through other
>media".
OK, I don't have time to illustrate the point with OTHER historians and
their problems with "critics" who take them to task...either verbally,
by print, or by newsgroup. If they take you to task, then be prepared
to endure it or quit trying to say you are absolutely accurate.
>Then show where there are any factual errors in the article.
That is the "Eric June" apporach to "debate." Such uses the ego as
a battle shield. History is not based on an author's ego, it is based
on FACT, and should not be biased towards one particular group or
another. You show bias, some, not a great deal. However, as an
amateur historian you are (typically) offended if a professional (or even
another amateur) challenges you. Live with it.
>>I don't understand this preoccupation with the PAST.
>
>It's a history article. History is about the past.
No s**t?!?! OK, then reread your work honestly and tell me it is
absolutely, positively objective and shows no bias towards one
activity or another. (you won't admit it, but that bias exists)
You tried to use a 1920s QST as some kind of point maker for
TODAY's ham. Irrelevant relationship. The past is past, not
something to keep forever, intact and without change.
>
>>Radio is a technical
>>field and does not remain rooted in the old state of the art.
>>PRINCIPLES
>>of radio remain but that does not mean that APPLICATION of such
>>principles using old-technology components are necessarily worthwhile
>>except in a historical context.
>
>Does the article propose reverting to the techniques of the past? Or the
>license structure of the past? No, not at all.
Not the previous "history" article by itself. Your particular stance on How
Everything Should Be over the past year or so give every indication that
you glorify the past and seem to wish it to remain so forever. That kind
of bias creeps into your writing of "history" to prevent it from being truly
objective.
>> The same is true of modes/modulations used in the past.
>
>What about those widely used today?
What about them? Please don't start that mythos about OOK CW
being the "most used" or even "second used" mode by hams
everywhere. That still doesn't justify the existance of a code test for
any license.
>>I go farther back IN radio than you do, Jim, and find nothing in old
>>methods except some curiosity and brief nostalgia.
>
>At first you tell us that the past holds nothing for us, then cite your time
>in radio as justification for your opinion. That is a contradiction.
Not "justification." Just tweaking your nose a bit. You keep trying to
come off as some crusty old-timer who Knows What Is Good For
Everyone because of "tenure" in ham radio. You've even alluded to
being a "radio engineer" because you've "designed" your own gear.
(or at least the "same as" a radio engineer...)
>And to be precise, Len, you have no experience in AMATEUR radio at all,
>except
>as an observer, bystander, watcher. Never as a real participant. And the
>comments are always of a negative sort - what should not be done, what hams
>should not be thinking of, what should not be tested. Never is there a clear
>vision of what you think should be. I think that either you do not have a
>clear
>vision for the ARS, or if you do, that it is of a sort of highpowered
>multiband CB service.
All I've stated was reasons for the elimination of the morse code test for
an amateur radio license examination. If you think that US amateur radio
is All About Morse Code, then you will be offended. You ARE offended,
therefore US amateur radio is All About Morse Code to you. The US
government's regulations do not state that.
>It is interesting to note that your attack is pure diversion. No factual
>errors
>in the article have been pointed out. Instead, you simply repeat YOUR
>prejudices and biases in the hope of starting an argument.
So...YOUR prejudices and biases are the "best" relative to mine? :-)
All I'm advocating is removal of an anachronism in one small part of
the overall US radio regulations...eliminating the code test. That
promotes Freedom, removes unneeded barriers and hazing rituals,
provides a more flexible future. Such freedom gained would be the
loss of rank/status/privilege based on old standards to those already
licensed. Is it better to serve a minority of the elite or to open the
doors to more in the future? You've already given the answer by
promoting the status quo. Feel good about that.
Jones
>The history of radio, ALL radio is hardly mentioned in Official histories.
>That is unfortunate considering that so many League members get
>their entire continuing education in radio from League publications.
I enjoyed N2EY's post on amateur licensing. How about posting your differing
view of radio history. That would be interesting also...
>The League has brainwashed you into thinking that Maxim was
>the ONLY one who could have "saved" amateur radio after WW1. You
>can't see the propaganda if you've never seen the rest of radio or the
>evolution of US radio agencies or the evolution of MANY radio special
>interest groups.
If you have read the group recently you know that I was taken to task for
suggesting that ham radio might have survived without Maxim. My argument was
only an exercise in pure logic. It's illogical to say that it was *impossible*
for ham radio to have survived without Maxim. I couldn't have argued if they had
said it was *improbable* that ham radio would have survived without Maxim. But I
while was making an argument over wording, I had no facts.
Judging from your post you have *the facts* on these other radio groups (besides
the ARRL) that would have developed ham radio. Please publish them here and let
us know the *rest of the story*...
Lenof21
<na...@weedcon1.cropsci.ncsu.edu> writes:
>Lenof21 <len...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Too many folks here grab onto one isolated historic factoid, out of
>context,
>>>and build a set of misinterpretation on it. Carl Stevenson's recent
>(probably
>>>unintentional) spin doctoring of the 1936 code speed increase is a case in
>>>point.
>
>> Careful there, laddie. If there is any "spin doctoring" going on, it is
>the
>> totally emotional mythos of OOK CW being the "best way to get through
>> under all conditions." THAT started around the late 30s and has
>> perpetuated into the end of this century beyond all technical viability.
>
>Lennie... there is a reference (I think in Bucher, 1917) relating to
>testing spark and arc transmitters for getting through, and it was
>found that the arc transmitter consistently performed better than the
>spark transmitter in transoceanic transmissions. Not exactly different
>modes, but early precedent for continuous waves performing well.
>That related to 100kw point-to-point installations.
Whatever that reference is relates to one OOK CW transmitter versus
another OOK CW transmitter. 1917 was not exactly a hotbed of
comparisons of other modes simply because there weren't enough
other modes to compare with OOK CW. The "CW gets through
when other modes fail" is largely due to a comparison of OOK CW
to AM Voice (double sideband, no carrier suppression) back in
the 1930s.
>> I don't understand this preoccupation with the PAST. Radio is a technical
>> field and does not remain rooted in the old state of the art. PRINCIPLES
>> of radio remain but that does not mean that APPLICATION of such
>> principles using old-technology components are necessarily worthwhile
>> except in a historical context. The same is true of modes/modulations
>> used in the past.
>
>There is nothing wrong with the past....
Except in trying to perpetuate the past into the future for no other reason
than emotional/nostalgia reasons. Newcomers to amateur radio do not
relate well to the "magic" of the 1930s and 1940s when radio was "new"
and mysterious since most of their life experiences do not begin until
later.
>One thing folks seem to forget. CW is CW is CW. That mode has been around
>since 1907. Its method of generation has changed, but the reception has
>not materially changed since 1907, when local arc generators were used
>as heterodynes with crystal detectors for the reception of continuous
>waves, from arc transmitters or from timed spark transmitters. We now
>call such receivers, re-invented, ``direct conversion'' sets, thinking
>we have a new ball of wax, but it is actually the same old thing.
Yes, Bobbie, and a 1992 Chevrolet Cavalier wagon is the "same" as an
1890 horse and oversize buggy. Invalid comparison and you know it.
By the way, morse code dates back to prior to 1840, not 1907. Marconi
is credited with the first OOK CW transmission in 1896, not 1907.
>Vacuum
>tubes became commonplace in WWI, and transistors in the 50's, but the
>basics remain the same, in the block diagram of the receiver. We don't
>use arc transmitters anymore, but still use vacuum tubes or transistors
>(and related devices) for generation of continuous waves.
I find little reference to "vacuum tubes becoming commonplace in WW1."
The commercial communications area did use expensive (then) vacuum
tubes for telephony applications but on a small scale, not any sort of
"commonplace" situation.
>Thus, the application of principles to CW, can be quite old and still
>quite effective. Age of the technology has little to do with it,
>realistically. That is its beauty, or its simplicity, if we want
>to take a divergent point of view.
If all you want is "simplicity," then by all means go to LF and VLF
and petition for ham bands THERE, then use alternators for
transmitting and crystal sets for reception. Can't be any simpler
than that. Keep the Very Old Days, beep all you want, and be
sure to say that the Old Ways are the "best" ways, "most
effective" and all those other myths from before WW2.
The FCC does NOT endorse "simplicity." FCC makes allusions
to "improving the state of the (radio) art" rather than keeping the
"glory" of the past.
>(SSB has been around commercially since the early 20's, so that, too,
>is a mode/modulation of the past. PROC IRE, 1925 or thereabouts.)
COMMERCIAL SSB (typically 12 KHz bandwidth) on HF was coming
into use in the early 1930s...carrying voice and teleprinter. You have
regressed to a reducto ad absurdum comparison. Radio, ALL radio
began in 1897 using the ONLY practical means of communication
THEN...on-off keyed RF.
>The technology, is a re-inventing or recombination of methods to
>accomplish the principles. The methods and devices have changed,
>but, the application of those methods and devices has not really
>changed.
Wrong. Modern transmitters and receivers (in other radio services)
are using NEW means and modes, taking advantage of information
theory, symmetric codings of many kinds enabled through
microprocessor-assisted digital circuitry...capable of communications
throughput greater than conventional OOK CW rates and at lower
signal levels. Few of those means are useable on ham bands in the
USA courtesy of the obsessive love-affair with half-century old modes
lobbied for by old-timers and the so-called representative membership
organization based in Connecticutt. Obsession so entrenched that
demands that all newcomers test as radiotelegraphers but has
never once demanded that newcomers demonstrate operating
skill at any other allocated mode.
>Interesting twists on things past, in radio.....
Not really. The only "twist" is that some insist/demand on keeping
old standards well past any viability for interference mitigation.
Constant promotion of the past as some sort of "role model" for
newcomers does little, if any at all to entice newcomers or make
US amateur radio below 30 MHz attractive...when there eixst MANY
other venues of communication today. The NO-CODE Technician
license continues to be the fastest-growing class in the USA and
remains the most populous of all of the six US classes. Very few
newcomers are buying into anachronistic standards of testing.
You are welcome to continue a love affair with vacuum tube "boat
anchors." I'm sure they mean a great deal to you. However, to
insist that all newcomers share your infatuation in technology OR
the modes/methods/modulations of the "boat anchor" era is just
desperation in trying to preserve the status quo.
N2EY
(Lenof21) writes:
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>Date: 09 Jul 1999 18:05:31 GMT
>
N2EY wrote:
>>If it is well crafted, what needs polishing?
>
>Some in the way of English, more in the area of relationship to the rest
>of the radio world..
It's already in English. The subject is "The Past 50 Years of [US] Amateur
Radio Licensing". Other services are only significant when they had an effect
on amateur radio licensing.
> However, I realize that an Amateur Extra knows
>much more, can do much more than any professional writer so I won't
>argue that further.
I am gald to see you appreciate that.
>
>>>>> I agree with Jones, get it published.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think QST would want it - they did a short article on the same
>>basic
>>>>article a while back. Maybe Electric Radio.
>>>
>>>The last half-century has had a number of similar histories, nearly all
>>>of them concentrating solely on amateur activities (usually as seen in
>>>the author's country) and making only passing mention of OTHER
>>>radio.
>>
>>So? The title is "The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing". Why should
>>"other" radio be mentioned at all, except in relation to amateur radio?
>
>Nearly all of the technology of TODAY's amateur equipment is the
>result of pioneering of "other" radio technology. Ham histories may
>not like that, but it is nevertheless truth.
Nowhere in the history do I claim differently. In fact, the trend away from
homebrewing is shown as a cause of concern to the FCC, which it was.
>
>The history of radio, ALL radio is hardly mentioned in Official histories.
It's an article about amateur radio licensing, not all of radio.
>That is unfortunate considering that so many League members get
>their entire continuing education in radio from League publications.
Not this writer.
>The result is de facto brainwashing of many hams who get a Belief
>System wherein hams "pioneered and developed" everything about
>radio. They didn't.
Never said they did. You are getting way off topic.
>That does not mean that amateurs cannot have
>an enjoyable hobby pursuit in amateur radio...they just cannot enjoy
>undeserved bragging rights in the development of radio.
It seems you would have us believe that amateurs never developed anything in
radio. They did. But that's not the subject of the article.
>
>>>"Other" radio now far outnumbers amateurs and amateur gear
>>>in both quantity and technical accomplishment.
>>
>>So? If the subject were the history of radio, or radio licensing, "other
>>radio"
>>would be mentioned. But the subject is strictly amateur radio. The title
>>should, however, read "The Past 50 Years of US Amateur Radio Licensing" to
>be
>>precise.
>
>Correct. UNITED STATES Amateur Radio history. More specifically,
>the viewpoint of a certain membership organization based in CT.
Not at all. The viewpoint of a certain radio amateur in southeastern PA.
And it is intersting that you do not refute a single fact in the article.
>
>>>The Internet is chock full of early radio history, including "other" radio
>>>and accomplishments. A good search engine is helpful.
>>
>>And much of that information is not about amateur radio. The purpose of the
>>article is to explain the developments that led up to the current system,
>>which is still basically the same as the 1951 system.
>
>OK, just HOW is such devoted attention to higher-speed code to fulfill
>any sort of "pool of trained radio operators" for the nation?
I do not understand the question. The FCC required a 13 wpm code test for an
all privileges amateur radio license until 1968, at which time the speed
necessary for an all privileges license increased to 20 wpm. The FCC thought it
was necessary in 1968, and still does, 31 years later. Perhaps that will change
soon.
>The nation
>doesn't have any need for morse-code-skilled individuals in radio...
By itself, that is not a reason to discontinue code testing.
>except to continue the rank/status/privileges based on morse code
>skills used solely in amateur radio...
If something is widely used in amateur radio, it should NOT be tested? That
makes no sense.
>and to continue to maintain the
>absurd requirement that ALL newcomers to HF must do as They did.
The requirement is mandated by treaty. And the same can be said of most of the
written tests as well.
>
>>>It's all, entirely, to do with Saint Hiram Going To Washington after WW1.
>>>:-)
>>
>>It seems that you wish Hiram Percy Maxim had not done so, and that amateur
>>radio had ceased to exist after WW1.
>
>Saint Hiram in Excelsius. :-)
Your lack of response indicates that you DO wish amateur radio had died out
then. Interesting.
>
>Lighten up.
>The League has brainwashed you into thinking that Maxim was
>the ONLY one who could have "saved" amateur radio after WW1.
Nope. The fact is that Maxim and Stewart and the other League founders did the
job. Not somebody else. Perhaps some other group might have stepped in - but
they didn't. Maxim's job would have been easier if there had been several
groups sending people to Washington, but there were not. And the battle did not
end in 1919 - there were international radio conferences in the '20s in which
other countries wished to eliminate or strangle amateur radio by means of
narrow bands and low power limits. What other US amateur radio organization
sent representatives to Paris then?
>You
>can't see the propaganda if you've never seen the rest of radio or the
>evolution of US radio agencies or the evolution of MANY radio special
>interest groups.
But I have seen the rest of radio and the evolution of other services and
agencies.
> If you wish, feel free to continue an insular knowledge
>base...it will make other, less knowledgeable hams feel good.
You have not posted any facts which contradict the history I have posted. Only
insinuations of bias and inaccuracy.
>
>>>>Too many folks here grab onto one isolated historic factoid, out of
>>context,
>>>>and build a set of misinterpretation on it. Carl Stevenson's recent
>>>(probably
>>>>unintentional) spin doctoring of the 1936 code speed increase is a case in
>>>>point.
>>>
>>>Careful there, laddie.
>>
>>Careful who you call laddie.
>
>OK, Jimmie boy.
OK, Lennie baby.
> About the time you were born I was tuning up a 1 KW
>single-channel RTTY transmitter to send SigC messages across the
>Pacific. :-)
So? You read a manual and followed the instructions.
>
>>>If there is any "spin doctoring" going on, it is the
>>>totally emotional mythos of OOK CW being the "best way to get through
>>>under all conditions." THAT started around the late 30s and has
>>>perpetuated into the end of this century beyond all technical viability.
>>
>>Where is that mentioned in the article in any way? Where does the posted
>>article argue for or against code testing?
>
>YOU were attacking a director of NCI by declaring them to be "guilty" of
>"spin doctoring." (NCI is organized to eliminate the morse code test)
It WAS spindoctoring. Stevenson claimed that the FCC raised the code speed from
10 to 13 wpm in 1936 to slow down the growth of the ARS - which is partly true.
However, he failed to mention that the written tests were also made more
comprehensive at the same time, for the same purpose. He also claimed that
concerns of amateur band crowding at the time were unfounded, without
consideration of the technologies then in use. He misstated the number of
amateurs at the time. Spin, spin, spin.
Which of the facts that I posted about the 1936 code speed increase were
incorrect?
>>>If you are going to write credible history of anything, you had best
>>>divorce yourself of the personal preferences and stand up to assault
>>>through other media.
>>
>>I do not understand what is meant by "stand up to assault through other
>>media".
>
>OK, I don't have time to illustrate the point with OTHER historians and
>their problems with "critics" who take them to task...
You have all the time in the world to attack anyone who disagrees, but no time
to be constructive.
>either verbally,
>by print, or by newsgroup. If they take you to task, then be prepared
>to endure it or quit trying to say you are absolutely accurate.
They have to prove their criticisms. Saying "It ain't so" doesn't cut it.
>
>>Then show where there are any factual errors in the article.
>
>That is the "Eric June" apporach to "debate." Such uses the ego as
>a battle shield.
In other words, you cannot show ANY factual errors in the article.
> History is not based on an author's ego, it is based
>on FACT, and should not be biased towards one particular group or
>another.
So show where my FACTS are incorrect, instead of attacking me.
> You show bias, some, not a great deal.
Yet you do not show any factual errors in the article.
>However, as an
>amateur historian you are (typically) offended if a professional (or even
>another amateur) challenges you. Live with it.
I am not offended. And I haven't been challenged - at least not by you. You
haven't shown a single fact of mine to be incorrect. Just ad hominem attacks.
>
>>>I don't understand this preoccupation with the PAST.
>>
>>It's a history article. History is about the past.
>
>No s**t?!?! OK, then reread your work honestly and tell me it is
>absolutely, positively objective and shows no bias towards one
>activity or another. (you won't admit it, but that bias exists)
I reread my work honestly, and it is absolutely, positively objective. It shows
no bias towards one activity or another. I'd admit it if it existed.
You have not shown that any bias exists at all. Had the exact same article peen
posted by a nocodetest advocate, you would not be attacking the author, but
praising him.
>
>You tried to use a 1920s QST as some kind of point maker for
>TODAY's ham. Irrelevant relationship. The past is past, not
>something to keep forever, intact and without change.
The point was that things have changed ENORMOUSLY since that time, even to the
language used to describe the same things.
Knowing history does not mean that things must stay the same.
Your biases are obvious, Lennie boy. Anything good said about the League, the
Morse code, or the technologies of the past must be attacked by you. So
predictable.
>>
>>>Radio is a technical
>>>field and does not remain rooted in the old state of the art.
>>>PRINCIPLES
>>>of radio remain but that does not mean that APPLICATION of such
>>>principles using old-technology components are necessarily worthwhile
>>>except in a historical context.
>>
>>Does the article propose reverting to the techniques of the past? Or the
>>license structure of the past? No, not at all.
>
>Not the previous "history" article by itself. Your particular stance on How
>Everything Should Be over the past year or so give every indication that
>you glorify the past and seem to wish it to remain so forever.
Your hatred of the amateur radio service shows in every post.
> That kind
>of bias creeps into your writing of "history" to prevent it from being truly
>objective.
Show where there is any bias in the history article - other than your reading
of it.
>
>>> The same is true of modes/modulations used in the past.
>>
>>What about those widely used today?
>
>What about them? Please don't start that mythos about OOK CW
>being the "most used" or even "second used" mode by hams
>everywhere.
On HF, it is the second most used mode on the amateur bands. Live with it.
>That still doesn't justify the existance of a code test for
>any license.
In your opinion. To others, something so popular belongs on the test.
>
>>>I go farther back IN radio than you do, Jim, and find nothing in old
>>>methods except some curiosity and brief nostalgia.
>>
>>At first you tell us that the past holds nothing for us, then cite your time
>>in radio as justification for your opinion. That is a contradiction.
>
>Not "justification." Just tweaking your nose a bit.
You seem to enjoy arguing and insulting.
> You keep trying to
>come off as some crusty old-timer who Knows What Is Good For
>Everyone because of "tenure" in ham radio.
"Old Timer" in amateur radio is defined as "licensed for 20 years or more".
With 32 years licensed, I more than qualify as an oldtimer.
My opinions are just that.
> You've even alluded to
>being a "radio engineer" because you've "designed" your own gear.
I have designed, built, tested, aligned, repaired, modified, and OPERATED my
own gear since before I was licensed. That is radio engineering, and the person
doing it is a radio engineer.
And the equipment was built on a very limited budget, with limited tools and
test equipment. I've also used manufactured, kit and surplus gear.
>(or at least the "same as" a radio engineer...)
For the record, I have both bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical
engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University,
respectively. My work is not in radio, however, but in other areas of
electrical engineering.
>
>>And to be precise, Len, you have no experience in AMATEUR radio at all,
>>except
>>as an observer, bystander, watcher. Never as a real participant. And the
>>comments are always of a negative sort - what should not be done, what hams
>>should not be thinking of, what should not be tested. Never is there a clear
>>vision of what you think should be. I think that either you do not have a
>>clear
>>vision for the ARS, or if you do, that it is of a sort of highpowered
>>multiband CB service.
>
>All I've stated was reasons for the elimination of the morse code test for
>an amateur radio license examination.
No, you have stated much more. You have pushed for an age limit to get an
amateur radio license. You constantly insult and belittle the ARRL and
individual amateurs, without facts to back you up.
> If you think that US amateur radio
>is All About Morse Code, then you will be offended. You ARE offended,
>therefore US amateur radio is All About Morse Code to you.
Illogical. Other things in your posts are offensive. The fact that someone is
offended merely proves that your post was offensive, nothing more.
>The US
>government's regulations do not state that.
They DO state that code tests are required for HF access amateur licenses.
>
>>It is interesting to note that your attack is pure diversion. No factual
>>errors
>>in the article have been pointed out. Instead, you simply repeat YOUR
>>prejudices and biases in the hope of starting an argument.
>
>So...YOUR prejudices and biases are the "best" relative to mine? :-)
My FACTS have not been disproved - or even challenged with other facts.
>
>All I'm advocating is removal of an anachronism in one small part of
>the overall US radio regulations...eliminating the code test.
It's not an anachronism to many if not most hams.
N2EY
Lenof21
writes:
>Lenof21 wrote
>>The history of radio, ALL radio is hardly mentioned in Official histories.
>>That is unfortunate considering that so many League members get
>>their entire continuing education in radio from League publications.
>
>I enjoyed N2EY's post on amateur licensing. How about posting your differing
>view of radio history. That would be interesting also...
A nice history of radio was published by McGraw-Hill's Electronics
magazine (then a subscription publication anyone could pay for) on
April 17, 1980. Ask Vince Biancomano about it...he worked for
them at that time. :-)
>If you have read the group recently you know that I was taken to task for
>suggesting that ham radio might have survived without Maxim. My argument was
>only an exercise in pure logic. It's illogical to say that it was
>*impossible*
>for ham radio to have survived without Maxim. I couldn't have argued if they
>had
>said it was *improbable* that ham radio would have survived without Maxim.
>But I
>while was making an argument over wording, I had no facts.
If the League said It Was So, it was so. :-) One cannot speak against
the League without being considered a troll/troublemaker.
>Judging from your post you have *the facts* on these other radio groups
>(besides
>the ARRL) that would have developed ham radio. Please publish them here and
>let us know the *rest of the story*...
Take up a collection and put me on commission for writing such a tome.
I'm a pro writer in addition to being an engineer. I'd say about $25,000
ought to be good for an advance. We can negotiate the final payment
later. But, you forget, I'm "not supposed to be in here" according to
some who have said so in the past...ergo, the medium of the ALL
radio history has to be somewhere else. The final compensation will be
higher than expected because of that. :-)
In the meantime, feel free to accept the "history of radio" viewpoint of the
League...even if they've left out masses of data. Wouldn't want to spoil
your Belief System.
K4YZ
>>>If the League said It Was So, it was so. :-) One cannot speak against
the League without being considered a troll/troublemaker.<<<
Untrue. YOU simply can't prove that the information provided in League
historical texts ARE anything less than truthful, although you blatantly
insinuate that they are.
>>>Take up a collection and put me on commission for writing such a tome.
I'm a pro writer in addition to being an engineer. I'd say about $25,000 ought
to be good for an advance. We can negotiate the final payment later.<<<
Nothing less than what we'd expect from the "professional engineer"...the
TRUE bottom line...MONEY.
>>>But, you forget, I'm "not supposed to be in here" according to some who
have said so in the past...ergo, the medium of the ALL radio history has to be
somewhere else. The final compensation will be higher than expected because of
that. :-)<<<
It's not that you're not "supposed to be here"...it's that your sarcastic
slanderings are not WANTED here.
>>>In the meantime, feel free to accept the "history of radio" viewpoint
of the League...even if they've left out masses of data. Wouldn't want to
spoil your Belief System.<<<
Why don't YOU try to accept the idea that the League publications are for
persons interested in AMATEUR radio, not necessarily the entire history of
professional radio, engineering, etc.
A "One Text Tells All" would be massive and for the most part wasted on
the potential purchaser. If League members (or other Amateurs in general since
the League does not restrict sale of it's texts to members) want other texts
on other aspects of radio history, most of them have the intelligence and
wherewithall to research other sources of historical reference. Or is such
initiative restricted to the domain of the professional engineer?
K4YZ
Jones
>Take up a collection and put me on commission for writing such a tome.
>I'm a pro writer in addition to being an engineer.
You have written 1000's of words here for free up to now. If you have the facts
why not a few hundred more on the *true* amateur radio history? If you don't
have the facts, then I can understand the $25,000 demand...
D. Townsend
Jones <no_e...@none.com> wrote in message
news:7map38$6ob$1...@news.orbitworld.net...
Forget it Len the when you write the history and yours is the only version
out there on a subject the rest of the world took little notice of when it
is happening. Proving that the Leagues version fifty or sixty years later is
a distortion of the facts is almost impossible. No matter what proof you
offered like parrots the true believers will merely quote what the ARRL has
spoon fed them for the last fifty years.
Ex-KF4HMN
Brian
Which is why it is so important for somebody, anybody to write the truth
about Clinton. His cadre of historians are busily writing the
"official" version of his legacy at our expense. In my opinion, he is
unworthy of holding any public office including dog catcher (he might
'do' the pooches), and he has single handedly restarted the Cold War.
Invest in defense stocks. If America is smart (aren't we???) we'll be
building Star Wars and beefing up our military.
In fifty years, Matt Drudge will be the only dissenting voice.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Lenof21
writes:
>In article <19990709140531...@ngol02.aol.com>, len...@aol.com
>(Lenof21) writes:
>
>>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>>Date: 09 Jul 1999 18:05:31 GMT
>>
>N2EY wrote:
<snip>
>>The history of radio, ALL radio is hardly mentioned in Official histories.
>
>It's an article about amateur radio licensing, not all of radio.
Okay, so you are under the assumption that amateur radio has
different physics laws than every other radio service? Radios are
radios and nearly every bit of technology involved in amateur
radio originated in other radio service applications.
<snip>
>>The result is de facto brainwashing of many hams who get a Belief
>>System wherein hams "pioneered and developed" everything about
>>radio. They didn't.
>
>Never said they did. You are getting way off topic.
True. But...the "history" looked so much like all the other amateur-
only radio histories (usually published by the League) that it
SEEMED to be more of the same. Error acknowledged. :-)
>>That does not mean that amateurs cannot have
>>an enjoyable hobby pursuit in amateur radio...they just cannot enjoy
>>undeserved bragging rights in the development of radio.
>
>It seems you would have us believe that amateurs never developed anything in
>radio. They did. But that's not the subject of the article.
Before WW2 (nearly six decades ago) they probably did invent/develop
things in regard to radio. Not much today except ADAPTATIONS.
<some snippage>
>>OK, just HOW is such devoted attention to higher-speed code to fulfill
>>any sort of "pool of trained radio operators" for the nation?
>
>I do not understand the question.
Amateur radio is NOT defined as being a pool or reserve of radio-
trained individuals?
>The FCC required a 13 wpm code test for an
>all privileges amateur radio license until 1968, at which time the speed
>necessary for an all privileges license increased to 20 wpm. The FCC thought
>it was necessary in 1968, and still does, 31 years later. Perhaps that will
>change soon.
The FCC was under quite a bit of lobbying from a SIG in 1968, said SIG
taking its opinion from the BoD allegedly "representing" US amateur
radio. Back three decades ago, the "best" in ham radio was
considered to be CODE PROFICIENCY.
>>The nation
>>doesn't have any need for morse-code-skilled individuals in radio...
>
>By itself, that is not a reason to discontinue code testing.
True, but is part of the overall reasoning. The FCC does not require
ANY US radio amateur to USE OOK CW modes. All allocated modes
and modulations are optional. But...there's never been any direct
operator test of any mode EXCEPT OOK CW.
>>except to continue the rank/status/privileges based on morse code
>>skills used solely in amateur radio...
>
>If something is widely used in amateur radio, it should NOT be tested? That
>makes no sense.
Testing ONE mode out of all that are optional makes even less sense.
>>and to continue to maintain the
>>absurd requirement that ALL newcomers to HF must do as They did.
>
>The requirement is mandated by treaty. And the same can be said of most of
>the written tests as well.
Everything defined as standards in the ITU-R can be CHANGED. They
aren't engraved in everlasting marble to remain forever and ever.
>>Saint Hiram in Excelsius. :-)
>
>Your lack of response indicates that you DO wish amateur radio had died out
>then. Interesting.
Lighten up. The League has been puffing their first president for decades,
the same story. They may have canonized him by now for all we know.
I'm poking fun at the LEAGUE of TODAY, not at what happened in the
past, eight decades ago. :-)
<more canonization statements elided>
>You have not posted any facts which contradict the history I have posted.
>Only insinuations of bias and inaccuracy.
I'm not contradicting the history, only criticizing OMISSIONS in regard
to other radio services which seem directly related.
>So? You read a manual and followed the instructions.
There were operating instruction manuals for BC-339s and BC-340s?
Press Wireless PW-15s? Nope, just a schematic and parts list.
The Western Electric LD-T2 had a full manual but it was
commercial. Much the same with lots of other equipment, but how
is that different than reading the manual and following instructions
for a ready-built ham transceiver?!?
>>YOU were attacking a director of NCI by declaring them to be "guilty" of
>>"spin doctoring." (NCI is organized to eliminate the morse code test)
>
>It WAS spindoctoring. Stevenson claimed that the FCC raised the code speed
>from
>10 to 13 wpm in 1936 to slow down the growth of the ARS - which is partly
>true.
>However, he failed to mention that the written tests were also made more
>comprehensive at the same time, for the same purpose. He also claimed that
>concerns of amateur band crowding at the time were unfounded, without
>consideration of the technologies then in use. He misstated the number of
>amateurs at the time. Spin, spin, spin.
You are dizzy, dizzy, dizzy. The pre-WW2 "crowding" belief EXISTED
and is verified by documentation. That belief was unfounded. NO spin.
>You have all the time in the world to attack anyone who disagrees, but no
>time to be constructive.
Hmmm...every time someone disagrees with your viewpoint it is an
"attack?!?" Tsk, tsk. I'm for eliminating the code test, removing that
unneccessary barrier so as to allow more to enter. Freedom allows
anyone to BE constructive rather than following many restrictive
rules, bandplans, etc.
>>>Then show where there are any factual errors in the article.
>>
>>That is the "Eric June" apporach to "debate." Such uses the ego as
>>a battle shield.
>
>In other words, you cannot show ANY factual errors in the article.
I was originally commenting on the following response AFTER the
"article," not going into the "article" per se. You have confused the
two as one and the same or are deliberately making them the same
so as to feign "insult" and "attack."
See the following responses -
>So show where my FACTS are incorrect, instead of attacking me.
>Yet you do not show any factual errors in the article.
I wasn't criticizing fact or fallacy in the article, only the following
responses. Those were predictable. :-)
>I am not offended. And I haven't been challenged - at least not by you. You
>haven't shown a single fact of mine to be incorrect. Just ad hominem attacks.
"Ad hominem attacks?!?" Ok, I understand the new definition operative
in this newsgroup: If a maximum-upgraded licensed amateur makes a
statement and anyone else makes a counter statement, the counter
statement is considered "ad hominem." Gotcha. :-)
>I reread my work honestly, and it is absolutely, positively objective. It
>shows no bias towards one activity or another. I'd admit it if it existed.
Heh heh heh... Okay...
>You have not shown that any bias exists at all. Had the exact same article
>peen
>posted by a nocodetest advocate, you would not be attacking the author, but
>praising him.
Amazing. Not only is there "no bias" in the article and the article is
"factually correct" but now the writer KNOWS THE FUTURE AND WHAT
ANOTHER WILL SAY!!! Damn, wish I was that good a writer!
>>You tried to use a 1920s QST as some kind of point maker for
>>TODAY's ham. Irrelevant relationship. The past is past, not
>>something to keep forever, intact and without change.
>
>The point was that things have changed ENORMOUSLY since that time, even to
>the
>language used to describe the same things.
>Knowing history does not mean that things must stay the same.
Did you SAY that "things have changed enormously?" No, you described
change that took place. You could, as an example, have taken a ham
from 1920 and have him read one of this year's QSTs and see if He
understood it...:-)
>Your biases are obvious, Lennie boy. Anything good said about the League, the
>Morse code, or the technologies of the past must be attacked by you. So
>predictable.
The ARRL has had the appearance of a stuffy, regional lodge hall, full of
self-puffery with the implication that They and They alone are the Saviors
of American radio amateurs. That's not an "attack," just an observation
based on their publications and what they write, how they write. If you
love and cherish the League I can understand your anguish, but you get
no sympathy from me in that regard. The League is your shepherd, you
shall not want...
I'm not "attacking" morse code, simply trying to get rid of the morse
code TEST for ANY license class. As to proof of that, I've cited the
FCC's own option of ANY allocated mode, ANY band and NO
requirement to USE OOK CW above all others. Since OOK CW is
optional, there should not be a test solely for code.
I'm not against USING morse codings. I'm against the self-puffery of
its "usefulness, efficacy, etc." when other modes have proved more
"useful, efficacious, etc." as a communications medium. That SOME
hams LIKE code is fine, but that is NOT some compelling reason for
ALL NEWCOMERS to have to test for something not required to be
used.
>Your hatred of the amateur radio service shows in every post.
Nonsense. What you seem to want is for everyone to agree with
YOUR VIEWPOINT. Any other viewpoint is "hatred" of the sacred
beliefs you hold. That's prideful and self-importance, not suitable
for all those newcomers not yet licensed.
>On HF, it is the second most used mode on the amateur bands. Live with it.
I'm still wondering about the "truth" of that factoid. Listening in the
southwestern part of the USA doesn't indicate that to be true.
Why must all amateur band activities concentrate on HF? The pro-
coders dismiss all the no-coders by saying "go use the 99+ percent
of the ham bandwidths above 30 MHz."
>>That still doesn't justify the existance of a code test for
>>any license.
>
>In your opinion. To others, something so popular belongs on the test.
The FCC doesn't require OOK CW mode over and above all other
modes even on HF. If OOK CW was "so popular," why wouldn't the
FCC mandate OOK CW over and above other modes? They don't.
There's NO operator manual test to show operating proficiency in
ANY OTHER MODE.
>> You keep trying to
>>come off as some crusty old-timer who Knows What Is Good For
>>Everyone because of "tenure" in ham radio.
>
>"Old Timer" in amateur radio is defined as "licensed for 20 years or more".
>With 32 years licensed, I more than qualify as an oldtimer.
Wonderful. Now explain why such experience means you are
capable of directing what is to be done in the future...other than
following the past and all its standards.
>My opinions are just that.
>
>> You've even alluded to
>>being a "radio engineer" because you've "designed" your own gear.
>
>I have designed, built, tested, aligned, repaired, modified, and OPERATED my
>own gear since before I was licensed. That is radio engineering, and the
>person doing it is a radio engineer.
OK, go get a job as a RADIO ENGINEER. Attend those design reviews,
make those worst-case analyses, write those ECNs, go out in the field
and show the customers how its done, work with production in all their
little problems, sit around all night in environmental testing, keep those
notebooks full, write those contract bids and hope for the best. :-)
>For the record, I have both bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical
>engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University,
>respectively. My work is not in radio, however, but in other areas of
>electrical engineering.
Whatever suits your fancy...
>>All I've stated was reasons for the elimination of the morse code test for
>>an amateur radio license examination.
>
>No, you have stated much more. You have pushed for an age limit to get an
>amateur radio license. You constantly insult and belittle the ARRL and
>individual amateurs, without facts to back you up.
"Age Limit:" I don't think FOUR YEAR OLDS can comprehend the
written material on a test...and put that as the last item in a Reply to
Comment on 98-143. So shoot me... :-)
The ARRL is a BIG political organization, amateur-wise. If they can't
take the flak, tough toenails. They've not represented more than a
quarter of all licensed US amateurs for over a half century yet they
imply they speak for "all." That's not an "insult," that's a charge of
misrepresentation.
I've insulted individuals who've insulted me because they chose
personal attack instead of trying to debate a subject. The grant of
a radio license does not make them immune from "attack." Some
DO think they are immune and the postings in here show it.
>> If you think that US amateur radio
>>is All About Morse Code, then you will be offended. You ARE offended,
>>therefore US amateur radio is All About Morse Code to you.
>
>Illogical. Other things in your posts are offensive. The fact that someone is
>offended merely proves that your post was offensive, nothing more.
I love that one. :-) Someone reads things into my posts which weren't
there and they are "offended" by it! Wowzers, no comeback possible
to that one, no siree!
Lenof21
writes:
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: "Jones" <no_e...@none.com>
>Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 11:45:24 -0700
>
>Lenof21 wrote
>>Take up a collection and put me on commission for writing such a tome.
>>I'm a pro writer in addition to being an engineer.
>
>You have written 1000's of words here for free up to now. If you have the
>facts
>why not a few hundred more on the *true* amateur radio history? If you don't
>have the facts, then I can understand the $25,000 demand...
True RADIO history, "jones." Amateur radio is only a small part of the
overall radio field. (I gave you an excellent history document that also
includes electronics and computers...try looking outside the League...
if you can...ELECTRONICS magazine special 50th anniversary
edition, April 17, 1980)
Geez, you guys are sure uptight on this subject, aincha?!? :-)
N2EY
>Message-id: <19990714163637...@ngol03.aol.com>
wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>The history of radio, ALL radio is hardly mentioned in Official histories.
>>
>>It's an article about amateur radio licensing, not all of radio.
>
>Okay, so you are under the assumption that amateur radio has
>different physics laws than every other radio service?
Not at all. But the article was about LICENSING. The RULES of the ARS are
different from other services.
>Radios are
>radios and nearly every bit of technology involved in amateur
>radio originated in other radio service applications.
So? I've never said otherwise. You attribute stuff to me that I have never
said.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>The result is de facto brainwashing of many hams who get a Belief
>>>System wherein hams "pioneered and developed" everything about
>>>radio. They didn't.
>>
>>Never said they did. You are getting way off topic.
>
>True.
Well, there you go. False attribution.
>But...the "history" looked so much like all the other amateur-
>only radio histories (usually published by the League) that it
>SEEMED to be more of the same.
In other words, you read it with such bias, bigotry and prejudice that you
inferred things that were not there at all. So much for YOUR ability to be an
impartial critic - or any sort of editor.
The use of quotes around the word history is unnecessary, also.
To give just one example: The fact that hams began to widely use channelized
VHF/UHF FM and repeaters only when surplus equipment from other services began
to appear in the surplus market was mentioned in the article. Same for RTTY.
> Error acknowledged. :-)
With a "smiley", allowing future deniability. I've never seen a "professional"
writer of any ability use "smileys".
>
>>>That does not mean that amateurs cannot have
>>>an enjoyable hobby pursuit in amateur radio...they just cannot enjoy
>>>undeserved bragging rights in the development of radio.
>>
>>It seems you would have us believe that amateurs never developed anything in
>>radio. They did. But that's not the subject of the article.
>
>Before WW2 (nearly six decades ago) they probably did invent/develop
>things in regard to radio. Not much today except ADAPTATIONS.
The phasing and high frequency filter methods of SSB were largely amateur
developments. The concept of the heterodyne transceiver was largely an amateur
development. More recently, APRS and PSK31 come to mind.
Are these earth shaking developments, resulting in a technology revolution? Of
course not. But they are significant, particularly from the standpoint that
they are done as a spare-time, self-funded, nonprofit effort by amateurs.
>
> <some snippage>
>
>>>OK, just HOW is such devoted attention to higher-speed code to fulfill
>>>any sort of "pool of trained radio operators" for the nation?
>>
>>I do not understand the question.
>
>Amateur radio is NOT defined as being a pool or reserve of radio-
>trained individuals?
That is part of the definiton, but not all of it. There is much more to being a
radio-trained individual than having passed what is left of the code tests. I
have a list of operating skills that every ham should strive for - and NONE of
the skills are code-only skills. There is also the need for technical knowledge
and skills as well.
I challenge you to find one instance where I claimed that ANY radio amateur who
has passed the required tests for their class of license, and who follows the
FCC rules, is not "a real ham".
>
>>The FCC required a 13 wpm code test for an
>>all privileges amateur radio license until 1968, at which time the speed
>>necessary for an all privileges license increased to 20 wpm. The FCC thought
>>it was necessary in 1968, and still does, 31 years later. Perhaps that will
>>change soon.
>
>The FCC was under quite a bit of lobbying from a SIG in 1968, said SIG
>taking its opinion from the BoD allegedly "representing" US amateur
>radio.
Prove that they did NOT represent the majority opinion at the time.
In addition, note these facts:
1) The FCC began to rethink its 1953 decision to give all privileges to all
hams except Novices and Technicians as early as 1958.
2) The FCC asked the ARRL leadership in 1963 for ways to change the license
structure. The original ARRL proposal was simple: First, reopen the Advanced
class license to new applicants. Second, require an Advanced or Extra class
license to operate VOICE in the 80, 40, 20, and 15 meter bands. In other words,
revert to the pre-1953 system.
3) Had the FCC adopted the original 1963 ARRL suggestion, NO additional code
speed beyond 13 wpm would have been required for all amateur privileges
4) The FCC asked for general comment, and it was from those comments - NOT THE
1963 ARRL BOD IDEA - that the concepts of restricted subbands and the
requirement for an Extra (with the 20 wpm code test) to get all privileges
developed.
5) The FCC proposed, on their own, to demote Advanced class hams to General,
and create a new "Amateur First Class" to replace it. The proposed "Amateur
First Class" would have required a 16wpm test, thereby giving FOUR levels of
code testing. The ARRL leadership OPPOSED that change.
6) The final proposal that went into effect was a compromise between the ARRL
proposal, the FCC proposal, and at least TEN other proposals, all of which had
RM numbers and were taken seriously by the FCC.
> Back three decades ago, the "best" in ham radio was
>considered to be CODE PROFICIENCY.
By the FCC. THEY raised the speeds. Had the FCC enacted their plan, they would
have required even more code testing than eventually resulted.
They ALSO required more WRITTEN tests, but that fact is often ignored.
>
>>>The nation
>>>doesn't have any need for morse-code-skilled individuals in radio...
>>
>>By itself, that is not a reason to discontinue code testing.
>
>True, but is part of the overall reasoning. The FCC does not require
>ANY US radio amateur to USE OOK CW modes.
True - but they do not require any amateur to use the license at all. It's ALL
totally optional - unlike most other radio services, where an unused license
will often be revoked.
> All allocated modes
>and modulations are optional. But...there's never been any direct
>operator test of any mode EXCEPT OOK CW.
So let's test some more modes. I'm all for it. In fact, I have proposed letting
the prospective ham choose his/her favorite mode, and pass an operating skill
test in that mode only.
>
>>>except to continue the rank/status/privileges based on morse code
>>>skills used solely in amateur radio...
>>
>>If something is widely used in amateur radio, it should NOT be tested? That
>>makes no sense.
>
>Testing ONE mode out of all that are optional makes even less sense.
Not in my book. Test more modes, not less. Let the prospective amateur choose
the mode.
>
>>>and to continue to maintain the
>>>absurd requirement that ALL newcomers to HF must do as They did.
>>
>>The requirement is mandated by treaty. And the same can be said of most of
>>the written tests as well.
>
>Everything defined as standards in the ITU-R can be CHANGED.
Of course. But until it is, the test must stay.
>They
>aren't engraved in everlasting marble to remain forever and ever.
Never said they were. You keep attributing things that I have not said.
>
>>>Saint Hiram in Excelsius. :-)
>>
>>Your lack of response indicates that you DO wish amateur radio had died out
>>then. Interesting.
>
>Lighten up.
In other words, I hit the nail right on the head.
> The League has been puffing their first president for decades,
>the same story.
The same TRUE story. You have presented NO objective facts to disprove it.
Saying "It ain't so!" over and over is not convincing.
And my article only covered the past 50 years or so.
>They may have canonized him by now for all we know.
>I'm poking fun at the LEAGUE of TODAY, not at what happened in the
>past, eight decades ago. :-)
No, you are slinging mud at the League in general, at a man who's been dead for
63 years, and at anyone who doesn't accept the Len Anderson Universal Right Way
For Everything To Be program.
Lighten up, huh
>
>>You have not posted any facts which contradict the history I have posted.
>>Only insinuations of bias and inaccuracy.
>
>I'm not contradicting the history, only criticizing OMISSIONS in regard
>to other radio services which seem directly related.
Either the facts presented in the history are accurate, or they are not. You
have not shown any inaccuracies. You have not shown any facts that should be
included which would materially affect the article.
>
>>So? You read a manual and followed the instructions.
>
>There were operating instruction manuals for BC-339s and BC-340s?
I think they were called TMs.
>Press Wireless PW-15s? Nope, just a schematic and parts list.
Right. And you had to teach yourself everything about how to tune one up, all
alone, in your basement, on your own time. OK, fine.
>The Western Electric LD-T2 had a full manual but it was
>commercial.
So?
> Much the same with lots of other equipment, but how
>is that different than reading the manual and following instructions
>for a ready-built ham transceiver?!?
Not much different - except that most hams do not go to radio school at
taxpayer expense.
And THIS ham, as well as tens of thousands of others, does not use ready-built
equipment.
How much of that radio gear did you design, build, test, align, debug, and
operate all by yourself, using only your own finances and resources?
>
>>>YOU were attacking a director of NCI by declaring them to be "guilty" of
>>>"spin doctoring." (NCI is organized to eliminate the morse code test)
>>
>>It WAS spindoctoring. Stevenson claimed that the FCC raised the code speed
>>from
>>10 to 13 wpm in 1936 to slow down the growth of the ARS - which is partly
>>true.
>>However, he failed to mention that the written tests were also made more
>>comprehensive at the same time, for the same purpose. He also claimed that
>>concerns of amateur band crowding at the time were unfounded, without
>>consideration of the technologies then in use. He misstated the number of
>>amateurs at the time. Spin, spin, spin.
>
>You are dizzy, dizzy, dizzy.
Not me.
> The pre-WW2 "crowding" belief EXISTED
>and is verified by documentation.
Exactly. It was a FACT. Carl Stevenson DENIED that it was true, yet the facts
speak otherwise.
> That belief was unfounded. NO spin.
Bull. Prove that it was unfounded.
>
>>You have all the time in the world to attack anyone who disagrees, but no
>>time to be constructive.
>
>Hmmm...every time someone disagrees with your viewpoint it is an
>"attack?!?" Tsk, tsk.
Nope. Using phrases like "the League has brainwashed you" rather than pointing
out factual inconsistencies is an attack. You don't argue facts, you attack the
messenger.
> I'm for eliminating the code test, removing that
>unneccessary barrier so as to allow more to enter.
And I'm against removing the code test unless other changes are made. Like the
"Chinese menu" system I proposed with Jim R. more than a year ago. Or the
"horizontal/vertical" system with Dick Plourde.
I'm not against looking at the big picture, and exploring other options. My
posting record here proves that.
> Freedom allows
>anyone to BE constructive rather than following many restrictive
>rules, bandplans, etc.
You mean anarchy that results in the sort of "freedom" found around 27 MHz.
>
>>>>Then show where there are any factual errors in the article.
>>>
>>>That is the "Eric June" apporach to "debate." Such uses the ego as
>>>a battle shield.
>>
>>In other words, you cannot show ANY factual errors in the article.
>
>I was originally commenting on the following response AFTER the
>"article," not going into the "article" per se.
In other words, you can find no factual errors. Interesting.
>You have confused the
>two as one and the same or are deliberately making them the same
>so as to feign "insult" and "attack."
Nope, just responding to your attacks and insults.
>
>See the following responses -
>
>>So show where my FACTS are incorrect, instead of attacking me.
>
>>Yet you do not show any factual errors in the article.
>
>I wasn't criticizing fact or fallacy in the article, only the following
>responses. Those were predictable. :-)
Nonsense.
>
>>I am not offended. And I haven't been challenged - at least not by you. You
>>haven't shown a single fact of mine to be incorrect. Just ad hominem
>attacks.
>
>"Ad hominem attacks?!?" Ok, I understand the new definition operative
>in this newsgroup: If a maximum-upgraded licensed amateur makes a
>statement and anyone else makes a counter statement, the counter
>statement is considered "ad hominem." Gotcha. :-)
Nope. When phrases such as "brainwashed" are used, and one's work is described
as faulty without proof of the faults, that's an attack.
>
>>I reread my work honestly, and it is absolutely, positively objective. It
>>shows no bias towards one activity or another. I'd admit it if it existed.
>
>Heh heh heh... Okay...
Certainly more objective than your reading of it.
>
>>You have not shown that any bias exists at all. Had the exact same article
>>peen
>>posted by a nocodetest advocate, you would not be attacking the author, but
>>praising him.
>
>Amazing. Not only is there "no bias" in the article and the article is
>"factually correct" but now the writer KNOWS THE FUTURE AND WHAT
>ANOTHER WILL SAY!!! Damn, wish I was that good a writer!
You have NEVER, to my knowledge, had ANY criticism for anyone who favors code
test elimination. No matter what they post. It is therefore logical, and
PREDICTABLE, that you would not criticize that article, or its author, had that
person been a nocodetest advocate.
>
>>>You tried to use a 1920s QST as some kind of point maker for
>>>TODAY's ham. Irrelevant relationship. The past is past, not
>>>something to keep forever, intact and without change.
>>
>>The point was that things have changed ENORMOUSLY since that time, even to
>>the
>>language used to describe the same things.
>>Knowing history does not mean that things must stay the same.
>
>Did you SAY that "things have changed enormously?" No, you described
>change that took place. You could, as an example, have taken a ham
>from 1920 and have him read one of this year's QSTs and see if He
>understood it...:-)
More nonsense.
The "boatanchor" drivers that I know understand "modern" technology quite well.
I don't know a single "glowbugger" or homebrewer that cannot sit down at any
modern ham rig and use it effectively.
>
>>Your biases are obvious, Lennie boy. Anything good said about the League,
>the
>>Morse code, or the technologies of the past must be attacked by you. So
>>predictable.
>
>The ARRL has had the appearance of a stuffy, regional lodge hall, full of
>self-puffery with the implication that They and They alone are the Saviors
>of American radio amateurs.
In your view only. For some reason you see an image that is not there. Not
surprising.
> That's not an "attack," just an observation
>based on their publications and what they write, how they write.
Nonsense. You should objectively read what YOU write sometime, before throwing
stones.
> If you
>love and cherish the League I can understand your anguish, but you get
>no sympathy from me in that regard. The League is your shepherd, you
>shall not want...
Ad hominem all the way.
>
>I'm not "attacking" morse code, simply trying to get rid of the morse
>code TEST for ANY license class. As to proof of that, I've cited the
>FCC's own option of ANY allocated mode, ANY band and NO
>requirement to USE OOK CW above all others. Since OOK CW is
>optional, there should not be a test solely for code.
Apply that logic to the written test, then. By that logic, since practically
all of the questions on the written test involve optional activities, almost
all of them should all be removed.
I say test the modes that the ham intends to use most.
>
>I'm not against USING morse codings.
Bull.
> I'm against the self-puffery of
>its "usefulness, efficacy, etc." when other modes have proved more
>"useful, efficacious, etc." as a communications medium.
You deny that is useful and effective, then, because it does not meet the
criteria YOU have set as "most useful and effective".
> That SOME
>hams LIKE code is fine, but that is NOT some compelling reason for
>ALL NEWCOMERS to have to test for something not required to be
>used.
Where have I said that all newcomers MUST pass a code test? I have proposed
several alternatives.
>
>>Your hatred of the amateur radio service shows in every post.
>
>Nonsense. What you seem to want is for everyone to agree with
>YOUR VIEWPOINT.
Nope. You're the one that cannot stand a dissenting view, and must attack the
dissenter.
>Any other viewpoint is "hatred" of the sacred
>beliefs you hold.
Nonsense.
>That's prideful and self-importance, not suitable
>for all those newcomers not yet licensed.
You are describing only yourself, Lennie baby.
>
>>On HF, it is the second most used mode on the amateur bands. Live with it.
>
>I'm still wondering about the "truth" of that factoid. Listening in the
>southwestern part of the USA doesn't indicate that to be true.
Listening and OPERATING in the northeastern part of the US, it seems to be very
true.
>
>Why must all amateur band activities concentrate on HF? The pro-
>coders dismiss all the no-coders by saying "go use the 99+ percent
>of the ham bandwidths above 30 MHz."
Where have I said that? A code test is only required for HF access. That is the
subject of the debate. Access to VHF/UHF without a code test is old news.
>
>>>That still doesn't justify the existance of a code test for
>>>any license.
>>
>>In your opinion. To others, something so popular belongs on the test.
>
>The FCC doesn't require OOK CW mode over and above all other
>modes even on HF. If OOK CW was "so popular," why wouldn't the
>FCC mandate OOK CW over and above other modes? They don't.
They don't have to. It's popular on its own merits.
>There's NO operator manual test to show operating proficiency in
>ANY OTHER MODE.
There should be.
>
>>> You keep trying to
>>>come off as some crusty old-timer who Knows What Is Good For
>>>Everyone because of "tenure" in ham radio.
>>
>>"Old Timer" in amateur radio is defined as "licensed for 20 years or more".
>>With 32 years licensed, I more than qualify as an oldtimer.
>
>Wonderful. Now explain why such experience means you are
>capable of directing what is to be done in the future...other than
>following the past and all its standards.
Judgement and experience formed over 32 years as an active radio amateur
qualifies me to have a reasoned opinion. You obviously do not want that opinion
to be heard.
>
>>My opinions are just that.
>>
>>> You've even alluded to
>>>being a "radio engineer" because you've "designed" your own gear.
>>
>>I have designed, built, tested, aligned, repaired, modified, and OPERATED my
>>own gear since before I was licensed. That is radio engineering, and the
>>person doing it is a radio engineer.
>
>OK, go get a job as a RADIO ENGINEER.
I have a job, as an electrical engineerin a different field. Do only those who
do something for money deserve the title?
> Attend those design reviews,
>make those worst-case analyses, write those ECNs, go out in the field
>and show the customers how its done, work with production in all their
>little problems, sit around all night in environmental testing, keep those
>notebooks full, write those contract bids and hope for the best. :-)
I do all that and far more - just not in the field of radio.
You seem to oppose the idea that an amateur can be a radio engineer.
>
>>For the record, I have both bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical
>>engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University,
>>respectively. My work is not in radio, however, but in other areas of
>>electrical engineering.
>
>Whatever suits your fancy...
In other words, you don't want to admit that maybe I know what I'm talking
about. Where are YOUR engineering degrees from, Len?
>
>>>All I've stated was reasons for the elimination of the morse code test for
>>>an amateur radio license examination.
>>
>>No, you have stated much more. You have pushed for an age limit to get an
>>amateur radio license. You constantly insult and belittle the ARRL and
>>individual amateurs, without facts to back you up.
>
>"Age Limit:" I don't think FOUR YEAR OLDS can comprehend the
>written material on a test...and put that as the last item in a Reply to
>Comment on 98-143. So shoot me... :-)
Do you know the four year olds in question? Unless you do, and are an expert in
early childhood development, do not expect a lot of credence to be given to
your comments.
And you have STILL never shown where the licensing of young children has
resulted in ANY problems for the ARS.
>
>The ARRL is a BIG political organization, amateur-wise. If they can't
>take the flak, tough toenails. They've not represented more than a
>quarter of all licensed US amateurs for over a half century yet they
>imply they speak for "all."
All benefit from the good the League does. And you will have to back up your
claim of not representing more than a quarter of all hams for it to be
credible. Show us some verifiable numbers, Len.
>That's not an "insult," that's a charge of
>misrepresentation.
Show us the numbers.
>
>I've insulted individuals who've insulted me because they chose
>personal attack instead of trying to debate a subject.
Where did I insult you, without being insulted by you repeatedly first?
>The grant of
>a radio license does not make them immune from "attack."
Nor does the lack of one grant you any immunity, either.
>Some
>DO think they are immune and the postings in here show it.
Yours, in particular.
>
>>> If you think that US amateur radio
>>>is All About Morse Code, then you will be offended. You ARE offended,
>>>therefore US amateur radio is All About Morse Code to you.
>>
>>Illogical. Other things in your posts are offensive. The fact that someone
>is
>>offended merely proves that your post was offensive, nothing more.
>
>I love that one. :-) Someone reads things into my posts which weren't
>there and they are "offended" by it! Wowzers, no comeback possible
>to that one, no siree!
I read what IS there, and am highly offended.
You obviously don't want a civilized discussion, but rather a flamefest. Too
bad.
N2EY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jones
Jones wrote in message ...
>Lenof21 wrote
>>The League has brainwashed you into thinking that Maxim was
>>can't see the propaganda if you've never seen the rest of radio or the
>>evolution of US radio agencies or the evolution of MANY radio special
>>interest groups.
>
>>overall radio field. (I gave you an excellent history document that also
>>includes electronics and computers...try looking outside the League...
>>if you can...ELECTRONICS magazine special 50th anniversary
>>edition, April 17, 1980)
>
>besides Maxim's group could have saved amateur radio. But when I asked who, you
>dodged with the $25000 fee. Now you want me to try to find the facts you
implied
>you had. So we are apparently in the same boat. We both agree that ham radio
>might have survived without Maxim, and we both don't have any facts to back it
>up...
>
>
>
>
K4YZ
>From: n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
>Date: Wed, 14 July 1999 06:26 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990714182647...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
>
>
Lennie the Licesenless One: I've insulted individuals who've insulted me
because they chose personal attack instead of trying to debate a subject.
N2EY: Where did I insult you, without being insulted by you repeatedly first?
Thank-you. Now I don't feel like the Lone Ranger.
Excellent post and rebuttal. As usual, Lennie will be frothing over his
keyboard tonight, madly typing until the dawn, desperate to "One-Up'smanship"
those dastardly Hams. Too bad he doesn't just shut up and take the test and
get on the air. But that's too simple and would defeat his need to be an
antagonist.
73 de K4YZ
Lenof21
writes:
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: k4...@aol.com (K4YZ)
>Date: 15 Jul 1999 14:52:54 GMT
>
>Dear Jim,
>
>>From: n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
>>Date: Wed, 14 July 1999 06:26 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <19990714182647...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
>>
>>
>Lennie the Licesenless One: I've insulted individuals who've insulted me
>because they chose personal attack instead of trying to debate a subject.
>
>N2EY: Where did I insult you, without being insulted by you repeatedly
>first?
>
> Thank-you. Now I don't feel like the Lone Ranger.
...wait until you find out what "kimosabe" REALLY means!!! :-)
Lenof21
>Jones wrote in message ...
>>Lenof21 wrote
>>>The League has brainwashed you into thinking that Maxim was
>>>the ONLY one who could have "saved" amateur radio after WW1. You
>>>can't see the propaganda if you've never seen the rest of radio or the
>>>evolution of US radio agencies or the evolution of MANY radio special
>>>interest groups.
>>
>>>True RADIO history, "jones." Amateur radio is only a small part of the
>>>overall radio field. (I gave you an excellent history document that also
>>>includes electronics and computers...try looking outside the League...
>>>if you can...ELECTRONICS magazine special 50th anniversary
>>>edition, April 17, 1980)
>>
>>Another dodge Len. You originally (above) sounded like you *knew* who else
>>besides Maxim's group could have saved amateur radio. But when I asked who,
>>you dodged with the $25000 fee.
No dodge. The past is past and cannot be altered. But let's examine
that past -
Did H. P. Maxim save the current amateur radio scene? Absolutely not.
He only persevered enough (with his own money) to save amateur radio
AS IT WAS right after WW1. ALL of radio was considerably different
way back then. Would or could Maxim do the same with amateur radio
of today? I doubt it...Maxim know only OOK CW with primitive radio
technology...a self-made fortune and inventor of note, there is no real
measure of whether or not he could have done the same NOW given
his standing of then. Remember that the League was quite small way
back then, didn't have the vast publication arm to spread the League's
Word (or rather the League's view of radio), didn't have the law firm
to lobby the FCC (actually its two-times predecessor).
>>Now you want me to try to find the facts you implied you had.
No...I TOLD you of an excellent overview of ALL radio and electronics
that appeared in a 1980 special issue of ELECTRONICS magazine
published by McGraw-Hill. From that you can get a wider view of the
radio/electronics world than you can get from ham publications.
>> So we are apparently in the same boat.
Nope. I'm not even in a boat. The past is recorded history. What
is really under discussion is HOW MUCH of that past is put forth in
various articles.
>> We both agree that ham radio might have survived without Maxim,
>> and we both don't have any facts to back it up...
I don't know if ham radio would have survived or not without H.P.M.
The past is not, repeat NOT alterable. There MIGHT have been
others who had the personal fortunes to take time off and travel to
Washington DC and lobby the first radio regulating agency...and
there might not have been such. That's only supposition, not "fact."
What the League can say is that H.P.Maxim DID "save" ham
radio (almost entirely OOK CW) of the pre-1920 period. It's far from
that now, indeed was far from that in the 1960s. What the League
can do is to reduce its continuing canonization of St. Maxim and
mention him as the first League president/leader (of the first two
decades). He was a good inventor/organizer, not a saint.
Lenof21
writes:
>>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>>Date: Wed, 14 July 1999 04:36 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <19990714163637...@ngol03.aol.com>
>
>wrote:
<snip>
>In other words, you read it with such bias, bigotry and prejudice that you
>inferred things that were not there at all. So much for YOUR ability to be an
>impartial critic - or any sort of editor.
Words of the wounded writer. Heard before on other subjects.
>To give just one example: The fact that hams began to widely use channelized
>VHF/UHF FM and repeaters only when surplus equipment from other services
>began
>to appear in the surplus market was mentioned in the article. Same for RTTY.
>
>> Error acknowledged. :-)
>
>With a "smiley", allowing future deniability. I've never seen a
>"professional" writer of any ability use "smileys".
This is an INTERNET NEWSGROUP. There are pro writers all over other
newsgroups that use emoticons IN A NEWSGROUP.
Technically, "channelized" (multiple fixed frequency) selection was being
done early on by one of two ways in amateur radio: Two or more banks
of switched crystals mixing to provide a number of fixed frequencies;
PLLs that could accomplish the same thing with only one reference
crystal. Both of these ways were also being done in commercial radio.
RTTY was already an accomplished fact on HF prior to WW2 in the
commercial and military radio areas.
>>Before WW2 (nearly six decades ago) they probably did invent/develop
>>things in regard to radio. Not much today except ADAPTATIONS.
>
>The phasing and high frequency filter methods of SSB were largely amateur
>developments. The concept of the heterodyne transceiver was largely an
>amateur development. More recently, APRS and PSK31 come to mind.
Sorry, but that is wrong. Commercial radio on HF used extensive filter
methods and landline "carrier" systems tried phasing systems for "long
distance" service (hampered only by competition from filter systems
which were suited to multiple channels in frequency separation). See
the history of the Costas Loop, particularly for demodulation. All prior
to the USA being in WW2.
The concept of "heterodyne transceivers" in the military and commercial
HF radio service is found in the Collins Sideband book (Pappenfus,
Bruene, and Shoenike). Sorry, it was done elsewhere first.
<snippage of retread material already done and disproven>
>>The FCC was under quite a bit of lobbying from a SIG in 1968, said SIG
>>taking its opinion from the BoD allegedly "representing" US amateur
>>radio.
>
>Prove that they did NOT represent the majority opinion at the time.
Heh heh heh...prove they DID represent a majority opinion. [since there
were no polls done, and your balls not being crystal, all you have as
"proof" is the published statements of the League that This Is So]
<more retreading of the FCC as whipping boy deleted>
>>True, but is part of the overall reasoning. The FCC does not require
>>ANY US radio amateur to USE OOK CW modes.
>
>True - but they do not require any amateur to use the license at all. It's
>ALL
>totally optional - unlike most other radio services, where an unused license
>will often be revoked.
Not quite. Mass Media radio service affects the most citizens and has
specific rules to serve the public interest...but that is the actually one of
the smallest groups of radio emitters. Land Mobile Radio Service may
have the largest group of radio emitters and is there such a clause?
You are being misleading (or misdirecting everyone) by the "it's all
optional" nonstuff. OOK CW codings are not required above all other
used modes in amateur radio, any band, any class. Further, there is
no longer any need for OOK CW codings to communicate with other
radio services for interference mitigation. No other radio service uses
OOK CW codings.
>So let's test some more modes. I'm all for it. In fact, I have proposed
>letting
>the prospective ham choose his/her favorite mode, and pass an operating skill
>test in that mode only.
That's already been "discussed" in here and found to be impractical. Such
a "suggestion" may be fun to use as a comeback in a newsgroup but it is
absurd in that it would force all VEs to have more equipment to use in
testing and to take more time in the testing process. Not only that, it would
complicate the licensing process at the FCC, requiring far more records
keeping than it has now...at a time when it is trying to reduce that records
keeping.
>>Testing ONE mode out of all that are optional makes even less sense.
>
>Not in my book. Test more modes, not less. Let the prospective amateur choose
>the mode.
That would limit the number of modes available...since no one can guess
NEW MODES MADE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE.
>>Everything defined as standards in the ITU-R can be CHANGED.
>
>Of course. But until it is, the test must stay.
Not really. International treaties are maintained on an honor system.
There is no real "international law" in that there are "officers" of that
"law." Trying to naysay changes in the law by "until it is changed it
is the law" is really saying nothing at all.
>>>>Saint Hiram in Excelsius. :-)
>>>
>>>Your lack of response indicates that you DO wish amateur radio had died out
>>>then. Interesting.
>>
>>Lighten up.
>
>In other words, I hit the nail right on the head.
Not at all. St. Maxim was an ordinary man of several good abilities. The
League has constantly propagandized Maxim as far more than what he
was...the leader of a New England origin amateur radio organization for
the first two decades of its existance.
>> The League has been puffing their first president for decades,
>>the same story.
>
>The same TRUE story. You have presented NO objective facts to disprove it.
>Saying "It ain't so!" over and over is not convincing.
If the League was successful in canonization of its first president, then
I'm sure you would object to anyone saying he wasn't the Saint/Savior
so depicted in publications. Belief systems do not necessarily accept
truth in contrary opinions.
<snip>
>Either the facts presented in the history are accurate, or they are not. You
>have not shown any inaccuracies. You have not shown any facts that should be
>included which would materially affect the article.
Actually, I wasn't criticizing the history article per se...I was criticizing
the
author's response to others AFTER "publication" of the article.
<snip>
>> Much the same with lots of other equipment, but how
>>is that different than reading the manual and following instructions
>>for a ready-built ham transceiver?!?
>
>Not much different - except that most hams do not go to radio school at
>taxpayer expense.
Heh heh heh...just wait until the Master Chiefs and Gunnery Sergeants
come out of hiding, waving their extra class Form 610s...especially
those who learned their morse code craft IN the service. :-) :-) :-)
Most of what I learned of radio and electronics and most everything else
I learned as an adult AT MY EXPENSE, not the "taxpayers." Everyone
who went to public school were educated at taxpayer's expense.
<snip>
>>Freedom allows anyone to BE constructive rather than following many
>>restrictive rules, bandplans, etc.
>
>You mean anarchy that results in the sort of "freedom" found around 27 MHz.
Didn't mean that. There are several radio services "found around 27 MHz."
Which ones did you mean?
<snip>
>>You have confused the
>>two as one and the same or are deliberately making them the same
>>so as to feign "insult" and "attack."
>
>Nope, just responding to your attacks and insults.
OK, so an OPPOSITE OPINION is newly defined as "attacks" and
"insults." So be it.
>Nonsense. You should objectively read what YOU write sometime, before
>throwing stones.
>
>> If you
>>love and cherish the League I can understand your anguish, but you get
>>no sympathy from me in that regard. The League is your shepherd, you
>>shall not want...
>
>Ad hominem all the way.
Sarcastic, cynical, yes. "ad hominem," no. IF you love and cherish the
League, then I can understand the anger...IF you love and cherish it... :-)
>Apply that logic to the written test, then. By that logic, since practically
>all of the questions on the written test involve optional activities, almost
>all of them should all be removed.
Nope. Written test elements cover radio regulations and technical
regulations concerning radio emitters. NOTHING optional about either.
<massive snip>
>I read what IS there, and am highly offended.
Then newsgroupts are clearly not for you! :-)
>You obviously don't want a civilized discussion, but rather a flamefest. Too
>bad.
I've tried "civilized discussions" over two years ago. I got NO "civilized"
replies from pro-coders. I'm still trying "civilized discussions" once in a
while but find new newsgroup pro-coders who insist and insist and insist
that Their Way Is The ONLY Way. Ech.
>
>N2EY
K4YZ
>>>What the League can say is that H.P.Maxim DID "save" ham radio (almost
entirely OOK CW) of the pre-1920 period. It's far from that now, indeed was
far from that in the 1960s. What the League can do is to reduce its continuing
canonization of St. Maxim and mention him as the first League president/leader
(of the first two
decades). He was a good inventor/organizer, not a saint.<<<
That Ham Radio is here today is a direct result of the intervention of
Hiram P Maxim, and THAT is history. Could someone else have pulled it off?
Maybe. But, as you say, the past IS the past, and the fact is HPM **DID** save
pre-1920's Ham Radio. Therefore he created a foundation upon which today's
Amateur Radio Service sits.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C. Very basic engineering theorems. Guess you
forgot them all these years, huh Lennie?!?
And dem's da facts.
73 de K4YZ
K4YZ
>Words of the wounded writer. Heard before on other subjects.,
Uh-huh...usually from YOU!
N2EY
(Lenof21) writes:
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>Date: 19 Jul 1999 06:11:45 GMT
(N2EY wrote:)
>
>>In other words, you read it with such bias, bigotry and prejudice that you
>>inferred things that were not there at all. So much for YOUR ability to be
>an
>>impartial critic - or any sort of editor.
>
>Words of the wounded writer. Heard before on other subjects.
Nope. Simple statement of fact. You inferred things that were not stated,
because of bias on your part.
>
>>To give just one example: The fact that hams began to widely use channelized
>>VHF/UHF FM and repeaters only when surplus equipment from other services
>>began
>>to appear in the surplus market was mentioned in the article. Same for RTTY.
>>
>>> Error acknowledged. :-)
>>
>>With a "smiley", allowing future deniability. I've never seen a
>>"professional" writer of any ability use "smileys".
>
>This is an INTERNET NEWSGROUP. There are pro writers all over other
>newsgroups that use emoticons IN A NEWSGROUP.
So? They are a crutch to avoid having to write clearly. The fact that someone
is a "pro" simply means they get paid for something. I've gotten paid to write,
so I'm a "pro writer". And I don't use smileys.
>
>Technically, "channelized" (multiple fixed frequency) selection was being
>done early on by one of two ways in amateur radio: Two or more banks
>of switched crystals mixing to provide a number of fixed frequencies;
Mixing? Nope. One for receive, one for transmit, just like in commercial gear.
>PLLs that could accomplish the same thing with only one reference
>crystal. Both of these ways were also being done in commercial radio.
>RTTY was already an accomplished fact on HF prior to WW2 in the
>commercial and military radio areas.
In both my article and in the previous post, I wrote that hams only began to do
these things when commercial gear became available as inexpensive surplus. That
means they copied them from the commercial services.
>
>>>Before WW2 (nearly six decades ago) they probably did invent/develop
>>>things in regard to radio. Not much today except ADAPTATIONS.
>>
>>The phasing and high frequency filter methods of SSB were largely amateur
>>developments. The concept of the heterodyne transceiver was largely an
>>amateur development. More recently, APRS and PSK31 come to mind.
>
>Sorry, but that is wrong.
No, it's true. You just don't understand what I wrote.
> Commercial radio on HF used extensive filter
>methods
They used LOW FREQUENCY filters. They generated SSB at frequencies of tens of
kilohertz, filtered the unwanted sideband with LC filters, then heterodyned
them to the desired frequency. To use such a system on the ham bands would
require at least two mixers just to get to 80 or 160 meters.
The much-ballyhoed transatlantic SSB telephone system that went on the air in
the early '20s was at 55 kHz. Hams were on the air with SSB as early as 1931,
but it did not become popular with hams until after WW2, for reasons of cost
and complexity. The typical postwar ham SSB rigs used HIGH FREQUENCY (455 kHz)
filters, often made from surplus crystals. Only one heterodyne was needed to
reach 80 meters with such a system.
>and landline "carrier" systems tried phasing systems for "long
>distance" service (hampered only by competition from filter systems
>which were suited to multiple channels in frequency separation). See
>the history of the Costas Loop, particularly for demodulation. All prior
>to the USA being in WW2.
Landwire is not radio. The phasing networks were not practical until the
developments of the late '40s. The work of Oswald "Mike" Villard, W6QYT, at
Stamford University was an important step.
>
>The concept of "heterodyne transceivers" in the military and commercial
>HF radio service is found in the Collins Sideband book (Pappenfus,
>Bruene, and Shoenike). Sorry, it was done elsewhere first.
There were articles on heterodyne transceivers, and operational heterodyne
transceivers in regular use by others, before 1949? Details, please.
>
>>>The FCC was under quite a bit of lobbying from a SIG in 1968, said SIG
>>>taking its opinion from the BoD allegedly "representing" US amateur
>>>radio.
>>
>>Prove that they did NOT represent the majority opinion at the time.
>
>Heh heh heh...prove they DID represent a majority opinion. [since there
>were no polls done, and your balls not being crystal, all you have as
>"proof" is the published statements of the League that This Is So]
The action of the League BOD was based on feedback from both members and
nonmembers that FAVORED an incentive system - by a small margin.
>>>True, but is part of the overall reasoning. The FCC does not require
>>>ANY US radio amateur to USE OOK CW modes.
>>
>>True - but they do not require any amateur to use the license at all. It's
>>ALL
>>totally optional - unlike most other radio services, where an unused license
>>will often be revoked.
>
>Not quite. Mass Media radio service affects the most citizens and has
>specific rules to serve the public interest...but that is the actually one of
>the smallest groups of radio emitters. Land Mobile Radio Service may
>have the largest group of radio emitters and is there such a clause?
>
>You are being misleading (or misdirecting everyone) by the "it's all
>optional" nonstuff.
Not at all. It's a simple fact: No ham is required to operate at all, or use
any particular mode or technology. There are only a few regulations that can be
considered "type acceptance", and they govern either spurious emissions or the
use of external RF power amplifiers.
> OOK CW codings are not required above all other
>used modes in amateur radio, any band, any class.
That's exactly what I am saying. Neither are FSK ASCII, or SSB voice, or
anything else. It's ALL optional.
> Further, there is
>no longer any need for OOK CW codings to communicate with other
>radio services for interference mitigation. No other radio service uses
>OOK CW codings.
The military and marine services still do. Not much, of course. Interference
mitigation hasn't really been a concern for decades, anyway.
>
>>So let's test some more modes. I'm all for it. In fact, I have proposed
>>letting
>>the prospective ham choose his/her favorite mode, and pass an operating
>skill
>>test in that mode only.
>
>That's already been "discussed" in here and found to be impractical.
No, it was attacked by you for some reason. It's eminently practical,
particularly considering the computer hardware and software available today.
You just don't like the idea of ANY kind of operating skills testing. I wonder
why.
>Such
>a "suggestion" may be fun to use as a comeback in a newsgroup but it is
>absurd in that it would force all VEs to have more equipment to use in
>testing and to take more time in the testing process.
So? A ten minute test is too much to require?
> Not only that, it
>would
>complicate the licensing process at the FCC, requiring far more records
>keeping than it has now...at a time when it is trying to reduce that records
>keeping.
Straw, all of it straw. The record keeping would be minimal. You just don't
want to see operating skills of any kind given any value.
>>>Testing ONE mode out of all that are optional makes even less sense.
>>
>>Not in my book. Test more modes, not less. Let the prospective amateur
>choose
>>the mode.
>
>That would limit the number of modes available.
No it wouldn't. When new modes arrive, tests can be developed for them.
>..since no one can guess
>NEW MODES MADE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE.
They will mostly take the form of either voice modes or keyboard modes. Maybe
some image modes. No big deal. Somebody who passes a voice test using SSB isn't
going to need another test to work digital voice.
>
>>>Everything defined as standards in the ITU-R can be CHANGED.
>>
>>Of course. But until it is, the test must stay.
>
>Not really. International treaties are maintained on an honor system.
>There is no real "international law" in that there are "officers" of that
>"law." Trying to naysay changes in the law by "until it is changed it
>is the law" is really saying nothing at all.
So you would have the US violate a treaty.
>
>>>>>Saint Hiram in Excelsius. :-)
>>>>
>>>>Your lack of response indicates that you DO wish amateur radio had died
>out
>>>>then. Interesting.
>>>
>>>Lighten up.
>>
>>In other words, I hit the nail right on the head.
>
>Not at all. St. Maxim was an ordinary man of several good abilities.
He was an exceptional fellow, involved in many different things. You seem to be
jealous of the recognition and honor he gets. Too bad.
>The
>League has constantly propagandized Maxim as far more than what he
>was...the leader of a New England origin amateur radio organization for
>the first two decades of its existance.
Did you know him? On what basis do you make such statements? Proof, please.
Also an inventor, engineer, pioneer of flight, automobiles, and noise
reduction. It's not propaganda, it's the truth. He was much more than you
credit him for.
What proof do you have that he was not what I have stated?
>
>>> The League has been puffing their first president for decades,
>>>the same story.
>>
>>The same TRUE story. You have presented NO objective facts to disprove it.
>>Saying "It ain't so!" over and over is not convincing.
>
>If the League was successful in canonization of its first president, then
>I'm sure you would object to anyone saying he wasn't the Saint/Savior
>so depicted in publications. Belief systems do not necessarily accept
>truth in contrary opinions.
You have no facts, then. Just complaints and insults.
>
>>Either the facts presented in the history are accurate, or they are not. You
>>have not shown any inaccuracies. You have not shown any facts that should be
>>included which would materially affect the article.
>
>Actually, I wasn't criticizing the history article per se...I was criticizing
>the
>author's response to others AFTER "publication" of the article.
Then the article stands as written. You accuse me of all sorts of bias, but
cannot find a single factual error in that article. Interesting.
>
>>> Much the same with lots of other equipment, but how
>>>is that different than reading the manual and following instructions
>>>for a ready-built ham transceiver?!?
>>
>>Not much different - except that most hams do not go to radio school at
>>taxpayer expense.
>
>Heh heh heh...just wait until the Master Chiefs and Gunnery Sergeants
>come out of hiding, waving their extra class Form 610s...especially
>those who learned their morse code craft IN the service. :-) :-) :-)
So? They still have to pass the tests to get the license. They are all welcome.
>Most of what I learned of radio and electronics and most everything else
>I learned as an adult AT MY EXPENSE, not the "taxpayers."
The military didn't send you to radio school, or any other schools?
> Everyone
>who went to public school were educated at taxpayer's expense.
I didn't go to public school.
>
>>>Freedom allows anyone to BE constructive rather than following many
>>>restrictive rules, bandplans, etc.
>>
>>You mean anarchy that results in the sort of "freedom" found around 27 MHz.
>
>Didn't mean that. There are several radio services "found around 27 MHz."
>Which ones did you mean?
CB, and the "freebanders" who developed from CB. Are those services what you
consider the ideal of personal radio services?
>
>>>You have confused the
>>>two as one and the same or are deliberately making them the same
>>>so as to feign "insult" and "attack."
>>
>>Nope, just responding to your attacks and insults.
>
>OK, so an OPPOSITE OPINION is newly defined as "attacks" and
>"insults." So be it.
No, name calling and disputing my facts without any proof. Claiming bias on my
part without any proof.
>
> >Apply that logic to the written test, then. By that logic, since
>practically
>>all of the questions on the written test involve optional activities, almost
>>all of them should all be removed.
>
>Nope. Written test elements cover radio regulations and technical
>regulations concerning radio emitters. NOTHING optional about either.
Sure there are. The two services around 27 MHz mentioned above don't have any
written tests. Why do hams need them?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Lenof21
writes:
>In article <19990719021145...@ngol01.aol.com>, len...@aol.com
>(Lenof21) writes:
>
>>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>>Date: 19 Jul 1999 06:11:45 GMT
<snip of smiley objections>
>>Technically, "channelized" (multiple fixed frequency) selection was being
>>done early on by one of two ways in amateur radio: Two or more banks
>>of switched crystals mixing to provide a number of fixed frequencies;
>
>Mixing? Nope. One for receive, one for transmit, just like in commercial
>gear.
"Just like in commercial gear" is wrong, going back to at least 1960...
about the time that civil airways aircraft transceivers were switching
their Rx/Tx frequencies...two banks of crystals. Yes, a lot of mobile
commercial gear was fixed frequency, needing only a single crystal
for receive and another for transmit frequencies. You want more
examples of commercial or military equipment using "crystal bank"
switching and mixing?
>>PLLs that could accomplish the same thing with only one reference
>>crystal. Both of these ways were also being done in commercial radio.
>>RTTY was already an accomplished fact on HF prior to WW2 in the
>>commercial and military radio areas.
>
>In both my article and in the previous post, I wrote that hams only began to
>do
>these things when commercial gear became available as inexpensive surplus.
>That
>means they copied them from the commercial services.
Well, gosh and golly old-timer, I expected another triumphant shout
that hams (two or three) had pioneered RTTY! :-)
>>>>Before WW2 (nearly six decades ago) they probably did invent/develop
>>>>things in regard to radio. Not much today except ADAPTATIONS.
>>>
>>>The phasing and high frequency filter methods of SSB were largely amateur
>>>developments. The concept of the heterodyne transceiver was largely an
>>>amateur development. More recently, APRS and PSK31 come to mind.
>>
>>Sorry, but that is wrong.
>
>No, it's true. You just don't understand what I wrote.
Oh, okay, whatever you write is correct and whatever I write is wrong.
Playing field rules now understood. :-)
>> Commercial radio on HF used extensive filter methods
>
>They used LOW FREQUENCY filters. They generated SSB at frequencies of tens of
>kilohertz, filtered the unwanted sideband with LC filters, then heterodyned
>them to the desired frequency. To use such a system on the ham bands would
>require at least two mixers just to get to 80 or 160 meters.
Is 100 KHz carrier frequency "too low" for hams to use?
Oh, I see further rules: The PRINCIPLE of sideband modulation and
demodulation, that existed long before ham adaptation, DOESN'T COUNT!
Thank you for that clarification and that using "two mixers just to get to
80 or 160 meters" is somehow too complex for amateurs.
>The much-ballyhoed transatlantic SSB telephone system that went on the air in
>the early '20s was at 55 kHz. Hams were on the air with SSB as early as 1931,
>but it did not become popular with hams until after WW2, for reasons of cost
>and complexity. The typical postwar ham SSB rigs used HIGH FREQUENCY (455
>kHz)
>filters, often made from surplus crystals. Only one heterodyne was needed to
>reach 80 meters with such a system.
Ah, so 455 KHz is "high frequency" is it? (so much higher than 100 KHz?)
>>and landline "carrier" systems tried phasing systems for "long
>>distance" service (hampered only by competition from filter systems
>>which were suited to multiple channels in frequency separation). See
>>the history of the Costas Loop, particularly for demodulation. All prior
>>to the USA being in WW2.
>
>Landwire is not radio. The phasing networks were not practical until the
>developments of the late '40s. The work of Oswald "Mike" Villard, W6QYT, at
>Stamford University was an important step.
Yes, you've already explained that the PRINCIPLES of single sideband
modulation and demodulation do not count and that the only thing that
counts is RADIO linkage. (as if RF behaves differently in a cable or in
free space other than velocity of propagation, duhhhh)
>>The concept of "heterodyne transceivers" in the military and commercial
>>HF radio service is found in the Collins Sideband book (Pappenfus,
>>Bruene, and Shoenike). Sorry, it was done elsewhere first.
>
>There were articles on heterodyne transceivers, and operational heterodyne
>transceivers in regular use by others, before 1949? Details, please.
There existed several commercial "heterodyne transceivers" in military
and commercial use prior to 1949. If you want SSB transceivers, then
try the US AN/ARC-58 and AN/ARC-65. (why the "1949" date?) For
that matter, the Motorola-designed "handy-talkie" of WW2 was a
"heterodyne transceiver" if you want to get picky about it. :-)
>>Heh heh heh...prove they DID represent a majority opinion. [since there
>>were no polls done, and your balls not being crystal, all you have as
>>"proof" is the published statements of the League that This Is So]
>
>The action of the League BOD was based on feedback from both members and
>nonmembers that FAVORED an incentive system - by a small margin.
Well, the League is omnipotent and omniscient...I'm sure that they are
REPRESENTING AND HAVE REPRESENTED *ALL* US RADIO
AMATEURS. (how could I have been so nasty as to infer otherwise?)
<snip of logical rebuttal illogically dismissed...>
>Not at all. It's a simple fact: No ham is required to operate at all, or use
>any particular mode or technology. There are only a few regulations that can
>be
>considered "type acceptance", and they govern either spurious emissions or
>the
>use of external RF power amplifiers.
OK, so, because morse coding OOK CW is optional to use by US hams,
it MUST BE TESTED FOR to secure a license grant. All else in the US
ham regulations is unimportant?
>> OOK CW codings are not required above all other
>>used modes in amateur radio, any band, any class.
>
>That's exactly what I am saying. Neither are FSK ASCII, or SSB voice, or
>anything else. It's ALL optional.
...but, but...the morse code test is MANDATORY for privileges below
30 MHz...and all other modes/modulations are not tested. Well, that's
one way of looking at it, but an eye doctor and psychiatrist are suggested
for those who "see" that kind of logic...
>> Further, there is
>>no longer any need for OOK CW codings to communicate with other
>>radio services for interference mitigation. No other radio service uses
>>OOK CW codings.
>
>The military and marine services still do. Not much, of course. Interference
>mitigation hasn't really been a concern for decades, anyway.
Ah...the US military STILL USES OOK CW CODINGS FOR ROUTINE
AND TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS?!?!? (better get Arnie Macy in
there to back you up, old-timer, heh heh heh) (maybe his "wife" will
help you?) (oh, yes, and forget Phil Kane's message about the last
US shore station to use CW)
<snip>
>> Not only that, it would
>>complicate the licensing process at the FCC, requiring far more records
>>keeping than it has now...at a time when it is trying to reduce that records
>>keeping.
>
>Straw, all of it straw. The record keeping would be minimal. You just don't
>want to see operating skills of any kind given any value.
Jimmie, you should try to put words in my messages or mind that aren't
there. Tsk, tsk, bad form, old-timer. Tell us why ANY "operating skill" is
desired to prove to the government that a prospective licensee is going
to follow rules and regulations (other than treaty matters of S25.5).
>>>>Testing ONE mode out of all that are optional makes even less sense.
>>>
>>>Not in my book. Test more modes, not less. Let the prospective amateur
>>choose
>>>the mode.
>>
>>That would limit the number of modes available.
>
>No it wouldn't. When new modes arrive, tests can be developed for them.
>
>>..since no one can guess
>>NEW MODES MADE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE.
>
>They will mostly take the form of either voice modes or keyboard modes. Maybe
>some image modes. No big deal. Somebody who passes a voice test using SSB
>isn't going to need another test to work digital voice.
Heh. Whatever you say, old-timer. :-)
>>>>Everything defined as standards in the ITU-R can be CHANGED.
>>>
>>>Of course. But until it is, the test must stay.
>>
>>Not really. International treaties are maintained on an honor system.
>>There is no real "international law" in that there are "officers" of that
>>"law." Trying to naysay changes in the law by "until it is changed it
>>is the law" is really saying nothing at all.
>
>So you would have the US violate a treaty.
Nope. Didn't say that. (you are getting better at mind-fornicating,
Jimmie, good newsgroup technique)
>>>In other words, I hit the nail right on the head.
>>
>>Not at all. St. Maxim was an ordinary man of several good abilities.
>
>He was an exceptional fellow, involved in many different things. You seem to
>be jealous of the recognition and honor he gets. Too bad.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You went off the deep end again, Jimmie.
>>The
>>League has constantly propagandized Maxim as far more than what he
>>was...the leader of a New England origin amateur radio organization for
>>the first two decades of its existance.
>
>Did you know him? On what basis do you make such statements? Proof, please.
DID YOU?!?!? A 1978 ARRL Handbook and a 1999 one both say that
Maxim was president of the League from 1914 to 1936, 22 years. The
text copy is almost exactly the same in both handbooks. The amount
of material in League publications concerning Maxim should be enough
to show anyone. Anyone except staunch Believers who accept the
League's Word as Divine.
>Also an inventor, engineer, pioneer of flight, automobiles, and noise
>reduction. It's not propaganda, it's the truth. He was much more than you
>credit him for.
>
>What proof do you have that he was not what I have stated?
Yup. You are a True Believer in the Faith.
<snip of more League Belief System agitprop>
>You have no facts, then. Just complaints and insults.
...only the League publications as the written record. :-)
>Then the article stands as written. You accuse me of all sorts of bias, but
>cannot find a single factual error in that article. Interesting.
ERRORS OF OMISSION regarding other, parallel radio service history in
the US and rest of the world.
>>Most of what I learned of radio and electronics and most everything else
>>I learned as an adult AT MY EXPENSE, not the "taxpayers."
>
>The military didn't send you to radio school, or any other schools?
Eight months at Fort Monmouth on RADAR. No morse code classes.
>> Everyone
>>who went to public school were educated at taxpayer's expense.
>
>I didn't go to public school.
La de da. I went to public school and didn't get any G.I. Bill benefits
so I worked to pay for my college education.
>>>>Freedom allows anyone to BE constructive rather than following many
>>>>restrictive rules, bandplans, etc.
>>>
>>>You mean anarchy that results in the sort of "freedom" found around 27 MHz.
>>
>>Didn't mean that. There are several radio services "found around 27 MHz."
>>Which ones did you mean?
>
>CB, and the "freebanders" who developed from CB. Are those services what you
>consider the ideal of personal radio services?
Why do you hate CB so much? (same kind of "logic" heh heh)
>No, name calling and disputing my facts without any proof. Claiming bias on
>my part without any proof.
Ok, so your ego was hurt because you OMITTED a few things. Tough.
<snip?>
>Sure there are. The two services around 27 MHz mentioned above don't have any
>written tests. Why do hams need them?
The FCC has made LAW that 2 of the 6 user allocations "around 27 MHz"
don't need any written tests. You MUST OBEY THE LAW, Jimmie. The
US LAW says one has to pass a code test for ham bands below 30 MHz
and the US LAW says that CB users do NOT have to take any tests. :-)
Arnie Macy
Lenof21 wrote in part:
>Ah...the US military STILL USES OOK CW CODINGS FOR ROUTINE
>AND TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS?!?!? (better get Arnie Macy in
>there to back you up, old-timer, heh heh heh) (maybe his "wife" will
>help you?) (oh, yes, and forget Phil Kane's message about the last
>US shore station to use CW)
Len of 21,
Jim is correct. Oh, did you happen to call the number I gave you yet? ...
or go to the web site URL I gave you yet? As for my wife's statements give
me a "good" e-mail address and I'll send my phone number (call collect) and
you can talk with her (and me, if you like) That should pretty much solve
this problem, huh?
Regards,
Arnie -
KT4ST
n2...@aol.com
len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
>
> >>Technically, "channelized" (multiple fixed frequency) selection was
being
> >>done early on by one of two ways in amateur radio: Two or more
banks
> >>of switched crystals mixing to provide a number of fixed
frequencies;
> >
> >Mixing? Nope. One for receive, one for transmit, just like in
commercial
> >gear.
>
> "Just like in commercial gear" is wrong, going back to at least
1960...
The equipment I was referring to was the VHF/UHF FM land mobile gear
that often was used by hams in the early days of repeaters on the
amateur bands. Transmitters and receivers were essentially separate
units in a common housing with a common power supply. GE Prog Line and
RCA Carfone are examples of the type. One crystal in the transmitter
and another in the receiver for each channel.
The claim you have made is that channel selection in ahm gear was done
"early on" by heterodyning the outputs of crystal oscillators using
sets of crystals. There were a few articles on such "synthesizers" in
the amateur press, and at least one complete transmitter (B&W 6100,
early 1960s). But they were used for transmitting only, and the idea
was never popular in amateur radio until the advent of VHF/UHF FM and
repeaters.
> about the time that civil airways aircraft transceivers were switching
> their Rx/Tx frequencies...two banks of crystals. Yes, a lot of mobile
> commercial gear was fixed frequency, needing only a single crystal
> for receive and another for transmit frequencies.
That does not involve heterodynig the crystal oscillator outputs
against each other.
> You want more
> examples of commercial or military equipment using "crystal bank"
> switching and mixing?
Nope. AMATEUR equipment.
>
> >>PLLs that could accomplish the same thing with only one reference
> >>crystal. Both of these ways were also being done in commercial
radio.
Hams started doing that in the early '70s.
> >>RTTY was already an accomplished fact on HF prior to WW2 in the
> >>commercial and military radio areas.
> >
> >In both my article and in the previous post, I wrote that hams only
began to
> >do
> >these things when commercial gear became available as inexpensive
surplus.
> >That
> >means they copied them from the commercial services.
>
> Well, gosh and golly old-timer, I expected another triumphant shout
> that hams (two or three) had pioneered RTTY! :-)
Your bias is clearly showing. You not only infer things that I have not
written, but you ignore things that I have written that are the
opposite of your inference.
>
> >>>>Before WW2 (nearly six decades ago) they probably did
invent/develop
> >>>>things in regard to radio. Not much today except ADAPTATIONS.
> >>>
> >>>The phasing and high frequency filter methods of SSB were largely
amateur
> >>>developments. The concept of the heterodyne transceiver was
largely an
> >>>amateur development. More recently, APRS and PSK31 come to mind.
> >>
> >>Sorry, but that is wrong.
> >
> >No, it's true. You just don't understand what I wrote.
>
> Oh, okay, whatever you write is correct and whatever I write is wrong.
That's basically it.
> Playing field rules now understood. :-)
Words of the wounded writer.
>
> >> Commercial radio on HF used extensive filter methods
> >
> >They used LOW FREQUENCY filters. They generated SSB at frequencies
of tens of
> >kilohertz, filtered the unwanted sideband with LC filters, then
heterodyned
> >them to the desired frequency. To use such a system on the ham bands
would
> >require at least two mixers just to get to 80 or 160 meters.
>
> Is 100 KHz carrier frequency "too low" for hams to use?
Nope. It's too high for most LC filter methods, though. Those early LC
filter exciters used frequencies as low as 11 kHz, though. 20 to 30 kHz
was the most common area.
>
> Oh, I see further rules: The PRINCIPLE of sideband modulation and
> demodulation, that existed long before ham adaptation, DOESN'T COUNT!
There is a huge difference between expounding a theroretical principle
and putting that principle into practical use. It seems that you would
give all of the credit to those who developed the theory, and little or
none to those who made it practical.
> Thank you for that clarification and that using "two mixers just to
get to
> 80 or 160 meters" is somehow too complex for amateurs.
It was done by a few amateurs as early as 1931. But for the great
majority, it was too complex and expensive, at the time. There was a
Depression going on at the time, too.
How many SSB transmitters were in use by commercial and military users
before WW2, other than the 55 kHz transatlantic telephone system? How
many on the HF spectrum that were not amateur? Facts, please.
>
> >The much-ballyhoed transatlantic SSB telephone system that went on
the air in
> >the early '20s was at 55 kHz. Hams were on the air with SSB as early
as 1931,
> >but it did not become popular with hams until after WW2, for reasons
of cost
> >and complexity. The typical postwar ham SSB rigs used HIGH FREQUENCY
(455
> >kHz)
> >filters, often made from surplus crystals. Only one heterodyne was
needed to
> >reach 80 meters with such a system.
>
> Ah, so 455 KHz is "high frequency" is it? (so much higher than 100
KHz?)
It's a lot higher than 20 kHz. And the cost of components in real
dollars had dropped tremendously due to the war, and the
quality/quantity available had soared.
You are challenged to explain how you would have put an SSB transmitter
on the air in the early '30s, using only techniques and components
available at the time - and on a Depression budget.
>
> >>and landline "carrier" systems tried phasing systems for "long
> >>distance" service (hampered only by competition from filter systems
> >>which were suited to multiple channels in frequency separation).
See
> >>the history of the Costas Loop, particularly for demodulation. All
prior
> >>to the USA being in WW2.
> >
> >Landwire is not radio. The phasing networks were not practical until
the
> >developments of the late '40s. The work of Oswald "Mike" Villard,
W6QYT, at
> >Stamford University was an important step.
>
> Yes, you've already explained that the PRINCIPLES of single sideband
> modulation and demodulation do not count and that the only thing that
> counts is RADIO linkage. (as if RF behaves differently in a cable or
in
> free space other than velocity of propagation, duhhhh)
Yes, it does, particularly when ionospheric propagation is considered.
There's selective fading, phase distortion, and avoidance of
interference with other stations. Amateur stations of the time were not
channelized.
Most important, the resources of the telephone company were far in
excess of those of even wealthy amateurs.
>
> >>The concept of "heterodyne transceivers" in the military and
commercial
> >>HF radio service is found in the Collins Sideband book (Pappenfus,
> >>Bruene, and Shoenike). Sorry, it was done elsewhere first.
> >
> >There were articles on heterodyne transceivers, and operational
heterodyne
> >transceivers in regular use by others, before 1949? Details, please.
>
> There existed several commercial "heterodyne transceivers" in military
> and commercial use prior to 1949.
Did they use the same oscillator for setting both receiver and
transmitter frequency? Did both transmitter and receiver use only the
heterodyne principle, not frequency multiplication?
> If you want SSB transceivers, then
> try the US AN/ARC-58 and AN/ARC-65.
Were they operational before 1949?
>(why the "1949" date?) For
> that matter, the Motorola-designed "handy-talkie" of WW2 was a
> "heterodyne transceiver" if you want to get picky about it. :-)
If you mean the BC-611, it wasn't a heterodyne transceiver. It was a
transmitter and receiver in the same case. One crystal for each.
In the above discussion, "heterodyne transceiver" is defined as a
complete radio transmitting and receiving set in which the receiver and
transmitter use the heterodyne principle, and are set to the same
freqeuncy by means of a single oscillator.
I repeat the question: Were there articles on heterodyne HF radio
transceivers, and operational examples, in use by others before 1949?
Details, please.
>
> Well, the League is omnipotent and omniscient...I'm sure that they are
> REPRESENTING AND HAVE REPRESENTED *ALL* US RADIO
> AMATEURS.
You're not a radio amateur, Len. Never have been.
> >Not at all. It's a simple fact: No ham is required to operate at
all, or use
> >any particular mode or technology. There are only a few regulations
that can
> >be
> >considered "type acceptance", and they govern either spurious
emissions or
> >the
> >use of external RF power amplifiers.
>
> OK, so, because morse coding OOK CW is optional to use by US hams,
> it MUST BE TESTED FOR to secure a license grant. All else in the US
> ham regulations is unimportant?
That's not anything like what I wrote. If anything is wrong with the
current license requirements, it's that the written tests are
inadequate.
>
> >> OOK CW codings are not required above all other
> >>used modes in amateur radio, any band, any class.
> >
> >That's exactly what I am saying. Neither are FSK ASCII, or SSB
voice, or
> >anything else. It's ALL optional.
>
> ...but, but...the morse code test is MANDATORY for privileges below
> 30 MHz...and all other modes/modulations are not tested.
They are tested in the written exam. There is all sorts of stuff in the
written exams that is not mandatory - but hams still have to pass those
tests to get a license.
> but an eye doctor and psychiatrist are suggested
> for those who "see" that kind of logic...
There are none so bilnd as those who will not see.
>
> >> Further, there is
> >>no longer any need for OOK CW codings to communicate with other
> >>radio services for interference mitigation. No other radio service
uses
> >>OOK CW codings.
> >
> >The military and marine services still do. Not much, of course.
Interference
> >mitigation hasn't really been a concern for decades, anyway.
>
> Ah...the US military STILL USES OOK CW CODINGS FOR ROUTINE
> AND TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS?!?!?
Where did I write that? I simply said they are still used, not that
they are widely used.
You claimed that "No other radio service uses OOK CW codings." ANY
exception to that rule proves you are wrong. There ARE exceptions, so
you ARE wrong.
>(better get Arnie Macy in
> there to back you up, old-timer, heh heh heh) (maybe his "wife" will
> help you?)
He's right, and you're wrong.
> (oh, yes, and forget Phil Kane's message about the last
> US shore station to use CW)
You said "no other radio service".
> >> Not only that, it would
> >>complicate the licensing process at the FCC, requiring far more
records
> >>keeping than it has now...at a time when it is trying to reduce
that records
> >>keeping.
> >
> >Straw, all of it straw. The record keeping would be minimal. You
just don't
> >want to see operating skills of any kind given any value.
>
> Jimmie, you should try to put words in my messages or mind that aren't
> there. Tsk, tsk, bad form, old-timer. Tell us why ANY "operating
skill" is
> desired to prove to the government that a prospective licensee is
going
> to follow rules and regulations (other than treaty matters of S25.5).
Simple, Lennieboy. The license is for OPERATING, that is, putting a
transmitter on the air and using it to communicate. Almost all amateur
operation is two-way realtime conversations or message transfers, using
modes that are not automatic. Hence operating skills are needed. Since
the licensee is usually the owner and in sole control of non-type-
accepted radio gear, testing of operating skills is certainly needed.
>
> >>>>Testing ONE mode out of all that are optional makes even less
sense.
> >>>
> >>>Not in my book. Test more modes, not less. Let the prospective
amateur
> >>choose
> >>>the mode.
> >>
> >>That would limit the number of modes available.
> >
> >No it wouldn't. When new modes arrive, tests can be developed for
them.
> >
> >>..since no one can guess
> >>NEW MODES MADE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE.
> >
> >They will mostly take the form of either voice modes or keyboard
modes. Maybe
> >some image modes. No big deal. Somebody who passes a voice test
using SSB
> >isn't going to need another test to work digital voice.
>
> Heh. Whatever you say, old-timer. :-)
In other words, you have NO counterargument at all.
>
> >>>>Everything defined as standards in the ITU-R can be CHANGED.
> >>>
> >>>Of course. But until it is, the test must stay.
> >>
> >>Not really. International treaties are maintained on an honor
system.
> >>There is no real "international law" in that there are "officers"
of that
> >>"law." Trying to naysay changes in the law by "until it is changed
it
> >>is the law" is really saying nothing at all.
> >
> >So you would have the US violate a treaty.
>
> Nope. Didn't say that.
The treaty requires code testing. Eliminating code testing without a
treaty change would violate the treaty.
>
> >>>In other words, I hit the nail right on the head.
> >>
> >>Not at all. St. Maxim was an ordinary man of several good
abilities.
> >
> >He was an exceptional fellow, involved in many different things. You
seem to
> >be jealous of the recognition and honor he gets. Too bad.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You went off the deep end again, Jimmie.
Who me? I merely stated the facts as I see them. You are the one who
goes off the deep end.
>
> >>The
> >>League has constantly propagandized Maxim as far more than what he
> >>was...the leader of a New England origin amateur radio organization
for
> >>the first two decades of its existance.
> >
> >Did you know him? On what basis do you make such statements? Proof,
please.
>
> DID YOU?!?!?
I'm not the one claiming that things written about him are false.
> A 1978 ARRL Handbook and a 1999 one both say that
> Maxim was president of the League from 1914 to 1936, 22 years. The
> text copy is almost exactly the same in both handbooks.
The facts don't change.
> The amount
> of material in League publications concerning Maxim should be enough
> to show anyone.
To show anyone what? That Maxim was a great man? There are much better
books than League publications for that. A biography of him as recently
been repupblished - and it wasn't put out by the ARRL either time.
> Anyone except staunch Believers who accept the
> League's Word as Divine.
Facts are facts. You haven't presented any to disprove anyhting I have
written about Maxim - or Charlie Stewart, or Tuska, or any of the other
founders of the League.
>
> >Also an inventor, engineer, pioneer of flight, automobiles, and noise
> >reduction. It's not propaganda, it's the truth. He was much more
than you
> >credit him for.
> >
> >What proof do you have that he was not what I have stated?
>
> Yup. You are a True Believer in the Faith.
In other words, you have no proof at all. As suspected.
>
> >You have no facts, then. Just complaints and insults.
>
> ...only the League publications as the written record. :-)
Nope. Other sources too. Patents are not issued by the League.
>
> >Then the article stands as written. You accuse me of all sorts of
bias, but
> >cannot find a single factual error in that article. Interesting.
>
> ERRORS OF OMISSION regarding other, parallel radio service history in
> the US and rest of the world.
The article was about the past 50 years of amateur radio licensing, not
the past 50 years of radio.
>
> >>Most of what I learned of radio and electronics and most everything
else
> >>I learned as an adult AT MY EXPENSE, not the "taxpayers."
> >
> >The military didn't send you to radio school, or any other schools?
>
> Eight months at Fort Monmouth on RADAR. No morse code classes.
That's eight months more than I got at taxpayer's expense.
>
> >> Everyone
> >>who went to public school were educated at taxpayer's expense.
> >
> >I didn't go to public school.
>
> La de da. I went to public school and didn't get any G.I. Bill
benefits
> so I worked to pay for my college education.
La de da. Poor Len, had to work like the rest of us.
Heck, I had to work to pay for both undergrad and graduate engineering
degrees. Big deal.
>
> >>>>Freedom allows anyone to BE constructive rather than following
many
> >>>>restrictive rules, bandplans, etc.
> >>>
> >>>You mean anarchy that results in the sort of "freedom" found
around 27 MHz.
> >>
> >>Didn't mean that. There are several radio services "found around
27 MHz."
> >>Which ones did you mean?
> >
> >CB, and the "freebanders" who developed from CB. Are those services
what you
> >consider the ideal of personal radio services?
>
> Why do you hate CB so much? (same kind of "logic" heh heh)
I don't hate CB at all. I just don't care for the total anarchy that
the service has been for the past several decades, with rampant rule
violations. CB also spawned the "freebanders", who aren't even a
rservice at all.
It seems you would have amateur radio become just like CB, or
freebanding. Those "services" seem to be your idea of the pinnacle of
personal radio, and what hams should all strive to emulate. No tests,
no operating skills, no traditions, no rules, no national organization.
N2EY
--
FISTS #4360
BIT #0001
Dick Carroll
>
> Lenof21 wrote in part:
>
> >Ah...the US military STILL USES OOK CW CODINGS FOR ROUTINE
> >AND TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS?!?!? (better get Arnie Macy in
> >there to back you up, old-timer, heh heh heh) (maybe his "wife" will
> >help you?) (oh, yes, and forget Phil Kane's message about the last
> >US shore station to use CW)
>
>
> Jim is correct. Oh, did you happen to call the number I gave you yet? ...
> or go to the web site URL I gave you yet? As for my wife's statements give
> me a "good" e-mail address and I'll send my phone number (call collect) and
> you can talk with her (and me, if you like) That should pretty much solve
> this problem, huh?
>
**NOTHING** will solve his problem.
Lenof21
writes:
<snip to the "investigator's" comments>
>Jim is correct. Oh, did you happen to call the number I gave you yet? ...
No, why should I waste long-distance charges on some phony number?
>or go to the web site URL I gave you yet?
Did you go to the Army's own Training Command Digital Library?
Have you looked up modern Signal Corps Equipment in FM 24-24?
Have you EVER been to a battalion or larger signal center in
operation in modern times? I'll bet you haven't done that because,
if you did, you would be OH so disappointed in not finding any
morse code apparatus. :-)
> As for my wife's statements give
>me a "good" e-mail address and I'll send my phone number (call collect) and
>you can talk with her (and me, if you like) That should pretty much solve
>this problem, huh?
Cut it out. Your transgender problem is no concern of mine but it
reflects badly on the rest of the pro-coders.
Lenof21
>In article <19990723003053...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
>> "Just like in commercial gear" is wrong, going back to at least
>>1960...
>
>The equipment I was referring to was the VHF/UHF FM land mobile gear
>that often was used by hams in the early days of repeaters on the
>amateur bands. Transmitters and receivers were essentially separate
>units in a common housing with a common power supply. GE Prog Line and
>RCA Carfone are examples of the type. One crystal in the transmitter
>and another in the receiver for each channel.
Ah! So...if amateurs used surplus commercial gear then commercial
gear USED ONLY ONE CRYSTAL PER FREQUENCY. (refinement in
the rules of this engatement...:-)
>The claim you have made is that channel selection in ahm gear was done
>"early on" by heterodyning the outputs of crystal oscillators using
>sets of crystals.
No, Jimmie, I didn't make any claim that crystal bank switching and
mixing was in HAM gear...I make a statement that it was in
COMMERCIAL gear, specifically in civil aviation comm and nav
avionics.
> There were a few articles on such "synthesizers" in
>the amateur press, and at least one complete transmitter (B&W 6100,
>early 1960s). But they were used for transmitting only, and the idea
>was never popular in amateur radio until the advent of VHF/UHF FM and
>repeaters.
Probably because REAL HAMS worked only OOK CW on HF... :-)
Make up your mind. Either you are talking ONLY about ham
equipment or you are talking about ALL of radio. If you choose the
first then don't make statements about "commercial gear" "not using
switched crystal banks."
>> about the time that civil airways aircraft transceivers were switching
>> their Rx/Tx frequencies...two banks of crystals. Yes, a lot of mobile
>> commercial gear was fixed frequency, needing only a single crystal
>> for receive and another for transmit frequencies.
>
>That does not involve heterodynig the crystal oscillator outputs
>against each other.
WRONG! "Heterodyning" ('mixing two forms of energy') in this case
is absolutely MIXING two oscillator outputs to provide a wide range of
fixed frequencies. In the case of civil aviation avionics it involved one
set at 50 KHz increments (back in 1962) mixing with another set at
1 MHz increments, the selector switches conveniently displaying the
MHz and 50 KHz increments in the civil aviation band of 108 to 117.95
MHz (Nav) and 118 to 135.95 MHz (Comm, then).
>> You want more
>> examples of commercial or military equipment using "crystal bank"
>> switching and mixing?
>
>Nope. AMATEUR equipment.
You said it wasn't done in COMMERCIAL equipmet. I called you on that.
>> >>PLLs that could accomplish the same thing with only one reference
>> >>crystal. Both of these ways were also being done in commercial
>radio.
>
>Hams started doing that in the early '70s.
Fairchild Semiconductor had a very nice little App Note on a Citizen's
Band frequency synthesizer (both Rx and Tx frequencies) published
in the mid 1960s. I may still have it somewhere. Used RTL, not very
practical today with nearly all of a PLL in a single IC.
>> >>RTTY was already an accomplished fact on HF prior to WW2 in the
>> >>commercial and military radio areas.
>> >
>> >In both my article and in the previous post, I wrote that hams only
>> >began to do
>> >these things when commercial gear became available as inexpensive
>> >surplus. That
>> >means they copied them from the commercial services.
Hams did NOT "pioneer" RTTY on HF or VHF or UHF or higher.
<angst over being caught at Error of OMISSION skipped>
>> Oh, okay, whatever you write is correct and whatever I write is wrong.
>
>That's basically it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
>> Is 100 KHz carrier frequency "too low" for hams to use?
>
>Nope. It's too high for most LC filter methods, though. Those early LC
>filter exciters used frequencies as low as 11 kHz, though. 20 to 30 kHz
>was the most common area.
Oh yes, YOU WERE THERE, weren't you? I've held a 12 KHz bandwidth
CRYSTAL filter for a commercial HF SSB rig with pilot carrier very close
to 100 KHz. Made by Western Electric. No doubt horribly expensive for
ham budgets but cost less than gigantic tower and beam assemblies
that many hams DID find budgetarially advantageous.
Let's define a few things here. Commercial Single Sideband HF radio
used a 12 KHz bandwidth that was subdivided (for FDM) into four 3 KHz
audio channels using external "carrier" equipment. "Carrier" equipment
referred to adapted landline long-distance Frequency Division Multiplex
(FDM) to link up to four voice channels on a "Class A" (term around
WW2) line that was "wideband" enough to carry up to 15 KHz. In
addition, each landline voice channel could use TTY FDM to handle
up to four TTY circuits. That too was used on at least two of the four
commercial SSB voice channels. "Carrier" (landline) equipment used
primarily L-C filtering to FDM using filter-method SSB techniques. The
RADIO part of commercial SSB used primarily crystal filters for
modulation and demodulation. (there's some other refinements also,
but this is basically how commercial HF SSB was done and also
adapted by the various militaries both before, during, and after WW2.
>> Oh, I see further rules: The PRINCIPLE of sideband modulation and
>> demodulation, that existed long before ham adaptation, DOESN'T COUNT!
>
>There is a huge difference between expounding a theroretical principle
>and putting that principle into practical use. It seems that you would
>give all of the credit to those who developed the theory, and little or
>none to those who made it practical.
Those who MADE IT PRACTICAL were the commercial and military
people. That INCLUDES "narrowband" (single voice channel) SSB
on HF. I give LOTS of credit to those folks since they never got much
credit in non-amateur radio publications. Such equipment was OUT
there and WORKING early on even if QST didn't write it up.
>It was done by a few amateurs as early as 1931. But for the great
>majority, it was too complex and expensive, at the time. There was a
>Depression going on at the time, too.
Oh, TELL ME ABOUT THE GREAT DEPRESSION, Jimmie. I was
born in it. :-)
With a maximum of 28% of the USA work force unemployed, there
was also 72% of the USA work force that REMAINED EMPLOYED.
Don't try that emotional "money was too short to do anything" during
the Great Depression, it won't wash except the younguns coming
later. Take Bill Halligan as an example...he started Hallicrafters in
the Chicago area DURING the Great Depression and continued to
sell Hallicrafters equipment to hams through and past the big G.D.
National Radio managed to keep selling their ham-oriented radio
equipment then, including the first of the famous HRO series.
>How many SSB transmitters were in use by commercial and military users
>before WW2, other than the 55 kHz transatlantic telephone system? How
>many on the HF spectrum that were not amateur? Facts, please.
Go look in "Single Sideband Principles and Circuits" by Pappenfus,
Bruene, and Shoenike, McGraw-Hill 1964. They have enough info in
the first chapter, even a cute map of ONE HF comm service provider.
I'm not going to go spend several dozen hours researching facts and
figures around the WW2 period. YOU are the Historian, Go look
them up yourself...in places other than a lifetime collection of QSTs.
<snip>
>You are challenged to explain how you would have put an SSB transmitter
>on the air in the early '30s, using only techniques and components
>available at the time - and on a Depression budget.
Oh, GEEZ, Jimmie. 1999 is NOT a time to REINVENT THE PAST.
I was born in 1932 and my family was ON a "Depression budget."
Why in the stupid blue hell am I going to "accept a challenge" to
REINVENT something using OLD technology?!?!?!? This is 1999,
not 1939. You might "challenge" Western Electric, Press Wireless,
National Radio, and a few other commercial firms who DID manage
to do business during the Great Depression.
>> >Landwire is not radio. The phasing networks were not practical until
>the
>> >developments of the late '40s. The work of Oswald "Mike" Villard,
>W6QYT, at
>> >Stamford University was an important step.
It's LANDLINE as a colloquial term. However, generating a SSB signal
at 12 KHz and then transmitting it down a VERY long cable to a
demodulator is still involving the principles of SSB. Heterodyne the
frequency up to HF and replace the cable with free space and ionosphere
and you have HF linkage. The SSB PRINCIPLES don't change, only
the medium of conveyance. You might also look up the long-distance
FDM microwave repeaters of early days that used MANY voice
channels up to over 100 KHz on a single microwave frequency.
While you are at it, you can also look up the contributions of James
R. Hall, KD6JG, on "A Phase Rotation Single-Sideband Generating
System," RCA Review, March 1955. I worked for Jim at RCA. He is
now relocated to central California, but may not have all his antennas
up yet.
>> Yes, you've already explained that the PRINCIPLES of single sideband
>> modulation and demodulation do not count and that the only thing that
>> counts is RADIO linkage. (as if RF behaves differently in a cable or
>> in free space other than velocity of propagation, duhhhh)
>
>Yes, it does, particularly when ionospheric propagation is considered.
>There's selective fading, phase distortion, and avoidance of
>interference with other stations. Amateur stations of the time were not
>channelized.
Selective Fading was KNOWN to commercial HF SSB users who had
to maintain round-clock service. They solved TTY mark or space drop-
outs with tone PAIRS...not an absolute solution but took care of most
of them. (mark and space TTY signals were tone pairs on carrier and
SSB) With 60 WPM TTY and wide "spread" (mark - space frequency
difference) of 850 Hz, phase effects weren't apparent although the
sharp Selective Fading is DUE to extreme phase distortion over a
narrow band. By the time TTY was 100 WPM and spread was less
than 500 Hz, circuits went to tropo or satellite which didn't have that
sort of phase problem (different problems also handled but done in a
different way).
So, commercial or military HF SSB "didn't have interference problems?"
(insert laughter there) Yes, they sometimes did. What did they do?
They QSYed to another frequency.
>Most important, the resources of the telephone company were far in
>excess of those of even wealthy amateurs.
Since when did "wealthy amateurs" "design and build" for service
lifetimes of greater than 20 years?!?!? The telcos did and all the
commercial HF communicators did and the militaries did. Other
than a handful of amateurs doing ACTUAL innovation, design, and
experimentation (not always written up in QST), what did all the
OTHER hams do about SSB on HF?
<nit-picky quibbling over "heterodyne" deleted>
>> If you want SSB transceivers, then
>> try the US AN/ARC-58 and AN/ARC-65.
>
>Were they operational before 1949?
YOU are the historian, not me. YOU tell everyone when all those
OTHER radio service equipments became operational.
>>(why the "1949" date?) For
>> that matter, the Motorola-designed "handy-talkie" of WW2 was a
>> "heterodyne transceiver" if you want to get picky about it. :-)
>
>If you mean the BC-611, it wasn't a heterodyne transceiver. It was a
>transmitter and receiver in the same case. One crystal for each.
SCR-536 is how I know it...3.4 to 6 MHz, 20 mW AM voice. The
receiver DID have a mixer in it, thus it "heterodyned." :-)
>In the above discussion, "heterodyne transceiver" is defined as a
>complete radio transmitting and receiving set in which the receiver and
>transmitter use the heterodyne principle, and are set to the same
>freqeuncy by means of a single oscillator.
If you are going to REDEFINE some definition, have the courtesy to do
it in the beginning, not much later. Your definition is wrong, but I'll let
that go because you haven't ranged far enough elsewhere to see it.
>I repeat the question: Were there articles on heterodyne HF radio
>transceivers, and operational examples, in use by others before 1949?
>Details, please.
Why? And why "1949?" How come for why you need TRANSCEIVERS
rather than integrated but separate box/cabinet combinations? Tube
technology did not permit easy packaging into a single box. Transistors
and Integrated Circuits DID allow smaller packages.
>You're not a radio amateur, Len. Never have been.
True enough. I've been a radio PROFESSIONAL. Tell me why I should
emulate the PAST and become a Real Ham? You will...after a snip...
<snip>
>Simple, Lennieboy. The license is for OPERATING, that is, putting a
>transmitter on the air and using it to communicate. Almost all amateur
>operation is two-way realtime conversations or message transfers, using
>modes that are not automatic. Hence operating skills are needed. Since
>the licensee is usually the owner and in sole control of non-type-
>accepted radio gear, testing of operating skills is certainly needed.
I will neglect the US Law on "control point" (the station) being the sole
responsibility of the LICENSEE as to technical requirements that do NOT
involve just operating.
Strange though, the above definition does NOT FIT what is in Part 97.
Has there been some new regulations added? Everything hamwise is
NOT automatic? Never? Packet is illegal? Heavens, for a minute
there I thought I was back in the 1930s or 1940s!
>That's eight months more than I got at taxpayer's expense.
A LOT more. I went to public school, grades 6 through high school at
"taxpayer's expense." Eight months at Ft. Monmouth did NOT make
me an engineer, Jimmie, 13 years of night college classes plus one
year of day college classes, all at MY expense, plus a LOT of
continuing self-education over a 43 year career did that. I'm STILL
learning things as they develop, not wallowing in the PAST, quibbling
over "histories."
<snip>
>It seems you would have amateur radio become just like CB, or
>freebanding. Those "services" seem to be your idea of the pinnacle of
>personal radio, and what hams should all strive to emulate. No tests,
>no operating skills, no traditions, no rules, no national organization.
Mind-fornication on your part, Jimmie. That's NOT what I'm "wanting."
I'd like to find that amateur radio is something remotely progressive to
modern technology...as a hobby that it IS...rather than some fenderally
certified merit badge happy lodge hall full of old men trying desperately
to continue the past into the future and making up tales of how "they"
advanced technology when they didn't. What I REALLY WANT is a
sign that the old morse code skills are NOT a license test requirement,
a step upward, not backward as we all enter the next millenium.
There IS some progress and innovation going on in amateur radio but
damn little of it and no REAL outlet for spreading that information
other than Internet. The "national organization" (ARRL) that is supposed
to be representing "all hams" is mired in lead in progressivity, makes
only token gestures toward the future, while vaguely hanging onto the
old standards. To their credit, they DID publish a most clever,
elegant simple HF beacon system timed by the GPSS (one can even
get a copy of it from their website) but the organization and
implementation of it was really done by individuals. To such people
I salute anytime. To those who just want to be old-time operators
and preservers of the past, to those who only exist for control or for
rank/status/privilege, I give a different salute.
N2EY
(Lenof21) writes:
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>Date: 24 Jul 1999 05:37:34 GMT
>
>In article <7na95i$r6i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, n2...@aol.com writes:
>
>>In article <19990723003053...@ngol02.aol.com>,
>> len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
>
>>> "Just like in commercial gear" is wrong, going back to at least
>>>1960...
>>
>>The equipment I was referring to was the VHF/UHF FM land mobile gear
>>that often was used by hams in the early days of repeaters on the
>>amateur bands. Transmitters and receivers were essentially separate
>>units in a common housing with a common power supply. GE Prog Line and
>>RCA Carfone are examples of the type. One crystal in the transmitter
>>and another in the receiver for each channel.
>
>Ah! So...if amateurs used surplus commercial gear then commercial
>gear USED ONLY ONE CRYSTAL PER FREQUENCY. (refinement in
>the rules of this engatement...:-)
>
>>The claim you have made is that channel selection in ahm gear was done
>>"early on" by heterodyning the outputs of crystal oscillators using
>>sets of crystals.
>
>No, Jimmie, I didn't make any claim that crystal bank switching and
>mixing was in HAM gear...
Oh yes you DID, Lennie. Here's the beginning of your post, fresh from Deja. The
attributions are exactly as they appear in the original post.
BEGIN EXACT DEJA QUOTE:
Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
Date: 1999/07/19
Author: Lenof21 <len...@aol.com>
In article <19990714182647...@ng-bk1.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
writes:
>>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>>Date: Wed, 14 July 1999 04:36 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <19990714163637...@ngol03.aol.com>
> >wrote:
<snip>
>In other words, you read it with such bias, bigotry and prejudice that you
>inferred things that were not there at all. So much for YOUR ability to be an
>impartial critic - or any sort of editor.
Words of the wounded writer. Heard before on other subjects.
>To give just one example: The fact that hams began to widely use channelized
>VHF/UHF FM and repeaters only when surplus equipment from other services
>began
>to appear in the surplus market was mentioned in the article. Same for RTTY.
> >> Error acknowledged. :-)
>With a "smiley", allowing future deniability. I've never seen a
>"professional" writer of any ability use "smileys".
This is an INTERNET NEWSGROUP. There are pro writers all over other newsgroups
that use emoticons IN A NEWSGROUP.
Technically, "channelized" (multiple fixed frequency) selection was being done
early on by one of two ways in amateur radio: Two or more banks of switched
crystals mixing to provide a number of fixed frequencies; PLLs that could
accomplish the same thing with only one reference crystal. Both of these ways
were also being done in commercial radio. RTTY was already an accomplished fact
on HF prior to WW2 in the commercial and military radio areas.
END EXACT DEJA QUOTE
(rest snipped)
Note the first two sentences of the last paragraph in particular:
"Technically, "channelized" (multiple fixed frequency) selection was being done
early on by one of two ways in amateur radio: Two or more banks of switched
crystals mixing to provide a number of fixed frequencies; PLLs that could
accomplish the same thing with only one reference crystal. Both of these ways
were also being done in commercial radio"
A simple mistake, but a very telling one: Your history is inaccurate.
>I make a statement that it was in
>COMMERCIAL gear, specifically in civil aviation comm and nav
>avionics.
No, you made a statement that it was in amateur radio gear - and specifically
avoided the fact that separate crystals were used for transmit and receive in
most VHF/UHF FM gear until the advent of affordable PLL sythesizers in the mid
1970s.
>
>> There were a few articles on such "synthesizers" in
>>the amateur press, and at least one complete transmitter (B&W 6100,
>>early 1960s). But they were used for transmitting only, and the idea
>>was never popular in amateur radio until the advent of VHF/UHF FM and
>>repeaters.
>
>Probably because REAL HAMS worked only OOK CW on HF... :-)
Nope, not at all. Part of the reason was that the cost of such methods was
higher than that of a good variable frequency oscillator. The main reason was
that hamswere not, and are not, required to be any particular frequencies -
there is no channelization, as in other services. The de facto channelization
of FM repeaters is by hams' own choice, not by regulation.
>
>Make up your mind. Either you are talking ONLY about ham
>equipment or you are talking about ALL of radio. If you choose the
>first then don't make statements about "commercial gear" "not using
>switched crystal banks."
I didn't make any such statement. You're the one who made the mistake.
>
>>> about the time that civil airways aircraft transceivers were switching
>>> their Rx/Tx frequencies...two banks of crystals. Yes, a lot of mobile
>>> commercial gear was fixed frequency, needing only a single crystal
>>> for receive and another for transmit frequencies.
>>
>>That does not involve heterodynig the crystal oscillator outputs
>>against each other.
>
>WRONG! "Heterodyning" ('mixing two forms of energy') in this case
>is absolutely MIXING two oscillator outputs to provide a wide range of
>fixed frequencies. In the case of civil aviation avionics it involved one
>set at 50 KHz increments (back in 1962) mixing with another set at
>1 MHz increments, the selector switches conveniently displaying the
>MHz and 50 KHz increments in the civil aviation band of 108 to 117.95
>MHz (Nav) and 118 to 135.95 MHz (Comm, then).
There was also lots of land mobile gear that simply used separate crystals for
transmit and receive - two for each channel (one transmit, one receive).
>
>>> You want more
>>> examples of commercial or military equipment using "crystal bank"
>>> switching and mixing?
>>
>>Nope. AMATEUR equipment.
>
>You said it wasn't done in COMMERCIAL equipmet. I called you on that.
No, you simply did not understand what I wrote - and what you wrote.
>
>>> >>PLLs that could accomplish the same thing with only one reference
>>> >>crystal. Both of these ways were also being done in commercial
>>radio.
>>
>>Hams started doing that in the early '70s.
>
>Fairchild Semiconductor had a very nice little App Note on a Citizen's
>Band frequency synthesizer (both Rx and Tx frequencies) published
>in the mid 1960s. I may still have it somewhere. Used RTL, not very
>practical today with nearly all of a PLL in a single IC.
A stunt. It was not really practical then. And of course there was only a need
to generate a maximum of 46 frequencies for a CB synthesizer.
>>> >>RTTY was already an accomplished fact on HF prior to WW2 in the
>>> >>commercial and military radio areas.
>>> >
>>> >In both my article and in the previous post, I wrote that hams only
>>> >began to do
>>> >these things when commercial gear became available as inexpensive
>>> >surplus. That
>>> >means they copied them from the commercial services.
>
>Hams did NOT "pioneer" RTTY on HF or VHF or UHF or higher.
I never claimed they did! You're on a roll, Len.
>
>>> Oh, okay, whatever you write is correct and whatever I write is wrong.
>>
>>That's basically it.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Your errors sure help my case.
>
>>> Is 100 KHz carrier frequency "too low" for hams to use?
>>
>>Nope. It's too high for most LC filter methods, though. Those early LC
>>filter exciters used frequencies as low as 11 kHz, though. 20 to 30 kHz
>>was the most common area.
>
>Oh yes, YOU WERE THERE, weren't you? I've held a 12 KHz bandwidth
>CRYSTAL filter for a commercial HF SSB rig with pilot carrier very close
>to 100 KHz. Made by Western Electric.
So? Did you design and build it in your basement with your own money? That's
what hams do - and have done for decades.
The discussion was about why hams did not use SSB in a big way until the late
1940s. When did you "hold" the above filter?
>No doubt horribly expensive for
>ham budgets but cost less than gigantic tower and beam assemblies
>that many hams DID find budgetarially advantageous.
In the 1930s?
You keep missing the point. Although SSB was known and in use as early as the
mid '20s, its equipment complexity kept hams from using it until the late
1940s.
>
>Let's define a few things here. Commercial Single Sideband HF radio
>used a 12 KHz bandwidth that was subdivided (for FDM) into four 3 KHz
>audio channels using external "carrier" equipment. "Carrier" equipment
>referred to adapted landline long-distance Frequency Division Multiplex
>(FDM) to link up to four voice channels on a "Class A" (term around
>WW2) line that was "wideband" enough to carry up to 15 KHz. In
>addition, each landline voice channel could use TTY FDM to handle
>up to four TTY circuits. That too was used on at least two of the four
>commercial SSB voice channels. "Carrier" (landline) equipment used
>primarily L-C filtering to FDM using filter-method SSB techniques. The
>RADIO part of commercial SSB used primarily crystal filters for
>modulation and demodulation. (there's some other refinements also,
>but this is basically how commercial HF SSB was done and also
>adapted by the various militaries both before, during, and after WW2.
Fine - but how widely was it used? How much did it cost? Was it universal in
the military, or did lots of military communications use (gasp) OOK Morse? For
example - did any of the submarine forces use such systems?
The system you describe is meant for multichannel point to point
communications, not single voice channel. Not mobile, or portable, or simple
and inexpensive.
>
>>> Oh, I see further rules: The PRINCIPLE of sideband modulation and
>>> demodulation, that existed long before ham adaptation, DOESN'T COUNT!
>>
>>There is a huge difference between expounding a theroretical principle
>>and putting that principle into practical use. It seems that you would
>>give all of the credit to those who developed the theory, and little or
>>none to those who made it practical.
>
>Those who MADE IT PRACTICAL were the commercial and military
>people. That INCLUDES "narrowband" (single voice channel) SSB
>on HF. I give LOTS of credit to those folks since they never got much
>credit in non-amateur radio publications. Such equipment was OUT
>there and WORKING early on even if QST didn't write it up.
Like when? 1948? How much did it cost?
>
>>It was done by a few amateurs as early as 1931. But for the great
>>majority, it was too complex and expensive, at the time. There was a
>>Depression going on at the time, too.
>
>Oh, TELL ME ABOUT THE GREAT DEPRESSION, Jimmie. I was
>born in it. :-)
And it was over before you were out of short pants. Big deal. The point is
simply that the vast majority of Depression era hams did not have much in the
way of resources to fool around with advanced modes and techniques.
>
>With a maximum of 28% of the USA work force unemployed, there
>was also 72% of the USA work force that REMAINED EMPLOYED.
Often at very low wages, and supporting lots of relatives.
>Don't try that emotional "money was too short to do anything" during
>the Great Depression, it won't wash except the younguns coming
>later.
It's a simple fact. Were you a ham then? No.
> Take Bill Halligan as an example...he started Hallicrafters in
>the Chicago area DURING the Great Depression and continued to
>sell Hallicrafters equipment to hams through and past the big G.D.
So? He also sold lots of NONHAM stuff as well.
>National Radio managed to keep selling their ham-oriented radio
>equipment then, including the first of the famous HRO series.
And again - they sold lots of NONAMATEUR stuff to the airlines and other
services. Plus they manufactured parts that were widely used.
All these examples prove is that there were companies making radio gear in the
'30s. What percentage of hams had an HRO, or a top of the line Hallicrafters,
compared to those who had a simple homebrew set?
The cost and complexity of even a simple SSB transmitter in the 1930s far
exceeds the cost of an HRO.
>
>>How many SSB transmitters were in use by commercial and military users
>>before WW2, other than the 55 kHz transatlantic telephone system? How
>>many on the HF spectrum that were not amateur? Facts, please.
>
>Go look in "Single Sideband Principles and Circuits" by Pappenfus,
>Bruene, and Shoenike, McGraw-Hill 1964. They have enough info in
>the first chapter, even a cute map of ONE HF comm service provider.
Pappenfus and Breune are hams, of course.
>I'm not going to go spend several dozen hours researching facts and
>figures around the WW2 period.
In other words, you don't really know.
>YOU are the Historian, Go look
>them up yourself...in places other than a lifetime collection of QSTs.
Nope. You are making the claim - you present your facts. If it's in the book,
why does it take you dozens of hours?
My sources go far beyond QST. But you have still not found any errors in my
article.
>
> <snip>
>
>>You are challenged to explain how you would have put an SSB transmitter
>>on the air in the early '30s, using only techniques and components
>>available at the time - and on a Depression budget.
>
>Oh, GEEZ, Jimmie. 1999 is NOT a time to REINVENT THE PAST.
In other words, you know it would be a daunting task.
>I was born in 1932 and my family was ON a "Depression budget."
And how many SSB transmitters did they build?
You fault hams for not doing SSB in a big way before WW2, but avoid looking at
the reality of the situation. And a few hams DID get SSB rigs on the air at the
time.
>Why in the stupid blue hell am I going to "accept a challenge" to
>REINVENT something using OLD technology?!?!?!?
To explain how the average ham would have done it back then. You don't have to
actually do it, of course, just a simple conceptual explanation and cost
estimate. Don't forget the test equipment necessary to align everything, and
the receiver.
>This is 1999,
>not 1939. You might "challenge" Western Electric, Press Wireless,
>National Radio, and a few other commercial firms who DID manage
>to do business during the Great Depression.
In other words, you know that I'm right - it would be a real challenge to build
an SSB rig on a typical 1930s ham budget.
>
>>> >Landwire is not radio. The phasing networks were not practical until
>>the
>>> >developments of the late '40s. The work of Oswald "Mike" Villard,
>>W6QYT, at
>>> >Stamford University was an important step.
>
>It's LANDLINE as a colloquial term. However, generating a SSB signal
>at 12 KHz and then transmitting it down a VERY long cable to a
>demodulator is still involving the principles of SSB.
But it's not radio.
> Heterodyne the
>frequency up to HF and replace the cable with free space and ionosphere
>and you have HF linkage.
Little things like a receiver, antenna, linear amplifiers, stability, can't be
that tough.
> The SSB PRINCIPLES don't change, only
>the medium of conveyance.
That's the point. The medium offers some real challenges - like stability.
> You might also look up the long-distance
>FDM microwave repeaters of early days that used MANY voice
>channels up to over 100 KHz on a single microwave frequency.
Built by the telephone company and the military. With a few more resources than
Joe Ham.
>
>While you are at it, you can also look up the contributions of James
>R. Hall, KD6JG, on "A Phase Rotation Single-Sideband Generating
>System," RCA Review, March 1955. I worked for Jim at RCA. He is
>now relocated to central California, but may not have all his antennas
>up yet.
A ham, and he made contributions - in the 1950s.
>
>>> Yes, you've already explained that the PRINCIPLES of single sideband
>>> modulation and demodulation do not count and that the only thing that
>>> counts is RADIO linkage. (as if RF behaves differently in a cable or
>>> in free space other than velocity of propagation, duhhhh)
>>
>>Yes, it does, particularly when ionospheric propagation is considered.
>>There's selective fading, phase distortion, and avoidance of
>>interference with other stations. Amateur stations of the time were not
>>channelized.
>
>Selective Fading was KNOWN to commercial HF SSB users who had
>to maintain round-clock service. They solved TTY mark or space drop-
>outs with tone PAIRS...not an absolute solution but took care of most
>of them. (mark and space TTY signals were tone pairs on carrier and
>SSB) With 60 WPM TTY and wide "spread" (mark - space frequency
>difference) of 850 Hz, phase effects weren't apparent although the
>sharp Selective Fading is DUE to extreme phase distortion over a
>narrow band. By the time TTY was 100 WPM and spread was less
>than 500 Hz, circuits went to tropo or satellite which didn't have that
>sort of phase problem (different problems also handled but done in a
>different way).
They also used rather large antennas and high power.
>
>So, commercial or military HF SSB "didn't have interference problems?"
>(insert laughter there) Yes, they sometimes did. What did they do?
>They QSYed to another frequency.
They had plenty to go to.
>
>>Most important, the resources of the telephone company were far in
>>excess of those of even wealthy amateurs.
>
>Since when did "wealthy amateurs" "design and build" for service
>lifetimes of greater than 20 years?!?!? The telcos did and all the
>commercial HF communicators did and the militaries did. Other
>than a handful of amateurs doing ACTUAL innovation, design, and
>experimentation (not always written up in QST), what did all the
>OTHER hams do about SSB on HF?
They waited until commercial gear was available, and bought it - mid to late
'50s. But the point is that many hams built SSB gear, and the growing number of
them convinced the manufacturers that SSB was the coming thing, so they started
making SSB gear for hams.
>
>>> If you want SSB transceivers, then
>>> try the US AN/ARC-58 and AN/ARC-65.
>>
>>Were they operational before 1949?
>
>YOU are the historian, not me. YOU tell everyone when all those
>OTHER radio service equipments became operational.
Nope. You tell 'em. I say they were not operational until the mid '50s.
>
>>>(why the "1949" date?) For
>>> that matter, the Motorola-designed "handy-talkie" of WW2 was a
>>> "heterodyne transceiver" if you want to get picky about it. :-)
>>
>>If you mean the BC-611, it wasn't a heterodyne transceiver. It was a
>>transmitter and receiver in the same case. One crystal for each.
>
>SCR-536 is how I know it...3.4 to 6 MHz, 20 mW AM voice. The
>receiver DID have a mixer in it, thus it "heterodyned." :-)
Just a separate transmitter and receiver in a common box. Hams were doing that
in the early '30s.
>
>>In the above discussion, "heterodyne transceiver" is defined as a
>>complete radio transmitting and receiving set in which the receiver and
>>transmitter use the heterodyne principle, and are set to the same
>>freqeuncy by means of a single oscillator.
>
>If you are going to REDEFINE some definition, have the courtesy to do
>it in the beginning, not much later.
I did not define it at all in my earlier post. I thought it was obvious that
when a ham talks about a heterodyne transceiver, the above definition is meant.
It was a mistake to assume such.
>Your definition is wrong, but I'll let
>that go because you haven't ranged far enough elsewhere to see it.
My definition is right. But call it what you will, the idea of using a
heterodyne scheme in a transceiver that permits the transmit and receive
frequencies to be identical and controlled by a single variable oscillator is
what I'm talking about. Hams had them in 1948.
>
>>I repeat the question: Were there articles on heterodyne HF radio
>>transceivers, and operational examples, in use by others before 1949?
>>Details, please.
>
>Why? And why "1949?" How come for why you need TRANSCEIVERS
>rather than integrated but separate box/cabinet combinations?
The concept is to put the station in one box for portability and ease of use.
> Tube
>technology did not permit easy packaging into a single box.
Hams were doing it in 1948.
>Transistors
>and Integrated Circuits DID allow smaller packages.
The heterodyne transceiver was an old idea by the time ICs appeared.
I repeat the question: Were there articles on heterodyne HF radio
transceivers, (as defined above) and operational examples, in use by others
before 1949?
Details, please.
>>You're not a radio amateur, Len. Never have been.
>
>True enough. I've been a radio PROFESSIONAL. Tell me why I should
>emulate the PAST and become a Real Ham? You will...after a snip...
I don't care whether you do or not. You have no interest other than to complain
and criticize, anyway.
>
>>Simple, Lennieboy. The license is for OPERATING, that is, putting a
>>transmitter on the air and using it to communicate. Almost all amateur
>>operation is two-way realtime conversations or message transfers, using
>>modes that are not automatic. Hence operating skills are needed. Since
>>the licensee is usually the owner and in sole control of non-type-
>>accepted radio gear, testing of operating skills is certainly needed.
>
>I will neglect the US Law on "control point" (the station) being the sole
>responsibility of the LICENSEE as to technical requirements that do NOT
>involve just operating.
You don't have to neglect anything. The equipment only has to meet technical
requirements when it is operated on the air.
>
>Strange though, the above definition does NOT FIT what is in Part 97.
Sure it does.
>Has there been some new regulations added? Everything hamwise is
>NOT automatic?
I wrote:
"ALMOST ALL amateur operation is two-way realtime conversations or message
transfers, using
modes that are not automatic."
There are SOME automatic modes of course.
>Never? Packet is illegal? Heavens, for a minute
>there I thought I was back in the 1930s or 1940s!
Did I say never? Nope. More inferring what has not been said.
>
>>That's eight months more than I got at taxpayer's expense.
>
>A LOT more. I went to public school, grades 6 through high school at
>"taxpayer's expense." Eight months at Ft. Monmouth did NOT make
>me an engineer, Jimmie, 13 years of night college classes plus one
>year of day college classes, all at MY expense, plus a LOT of
>continuing self-education over a 43 year career did that.
Just like a lot of us.
> I'm STILL
>learning things as they develop, not wallowing in the PAST, quibbling
>over "histories."
You "quibble over histories" all the time, right here.
>
>>It seems you would have amateur radio become just like CB, or
>>freebanding. Those "services" seem to be your idea of the pinnacle of
>>personal radio, and what hams should all strive to emulate. No tests,
>>no operating skills, no traditions, no rules, no national organization.
>
>Mind-fornication on your part, Jimmie. That's NOT what I'm "wanting."
Sure it is. You want as little regulation as CB. The results are predictable.
>
>I'd like to find that amateur radio is something remotely progressive to
>modern technology...as a hobby that it IS...rather than some fenderally
>certified merit badge happy lodge hall full of old men trying desperately
>to continue the past into the future and making up tales of how "they"
>advanced technology when they didn't.
Hams are all old men? Nonsense.
> What I REALLY WANT is a
>sign that the old morse code skills are NOT a license test requirement,
>a step upward, not backward as we all enter the next millenium.
But you don't want any change in the written tests, or other tests to determine
operator competence.
We have had ham licenses without a code test for eight and a half years now.
But there has been no technological revolution in ham radio in that time that
is fundamentally different from what was going on before. Why should anyone
think that dropping the remaining code tests will cause a technological
revolution? Makes no sense.
>
>There IS some progress and innovation going on in amateur radio but
>damn little of it and no REAL outlet for spreading that information
>other than Internet. The "national organization" (ARRL) that is supposed
>to be representing "all hams" is mired in lead in progressivity, makes
>only token gestures toward the future, while vaguely hanging onto the
>old standards. To their credit, they DID publish a most clever,
>elegant simple HF beacon system timed by the GPSS (one can even
>get a copy of it from their website) but the organization and
>implementation of it was really done by individuals. To such people
>I salute anytime.
There are ARRL publications on lots of subjects, from spread spectrum to
satellites. You just HATE to give the League any credit, though.
>To those who just want to be old-time operators
>and preservers of the past, to those who only exist for control or for
>rank/status/privilege, I give a different salute.
What is wrong with operating skills? What's wrong with preserving the past? Do
you insult the keepers of museums, Civil War reenactors, and antique
collectors?
What's wrong with rank, status or privilege that is open to all who earn it?
If it was just about the test, you would not be so
anti-everything-that's-not-new.
N2EY
Lenof21
writes:
<massive snip of the obsessive need to justify n2ey's ego...>
>There are ARRL publications on lots of subjects, from spread spectrum to
>satellites. You just HATE to give the League any credit, though.
I give them credit for taking over nearly all the textual information for
US hams for over a half century.
The League's own input to the FCC influenced the FCC to force
US hams to keep FULL, DETAILED records of ALL spread spectrum
operation IN PERPETUITY. Real inducer and incentivizer?
Oh, yes, ONE BOOK on spread spectrum, largely a reprint of
articles from elsewhere in radio. Wonderful stuff.
Satellites: Judging from the League's own publications and
website material that the League "developed" ALL communications
satellites. :-)
>>To those who just want to be old-time operators
>>and preservers of the past, to those who only exist for control or for
>>rank/status/privilege, I give a different salute.
>
>What is wrong with operating skills? What's wrong with preserving the past?
>Do you insult the keepers of museums, Civil War reenactors, and antique
>collectors?
If you WANT US amateur radio to be some living museum of the past,
then I'd suggest you form an organization to lobby for changing the
present rules to Amateur Radiotelegraphy Service. Five of the six US
ham license classes can be solely Amateur Radiotelegraphy Operator
and you can strike the need to know any state of the art in radio.
Freeze the technology level at some age, say 1960 or so, when the
transistors and ICs were relatively scarce and boatanchor vacuum
tube equipment was King. Everything is about RadioTELEGRAPHY
anyway and OPERATING.
>What's wrong with rank, status or privilege that is open to all who earn it?
If the time was 1930s, not a thing. This is 1999 and the next
millenium starts a half year from now. Rank/status/privileges
BASED on code skills isn't needed.
>If it was just about the test, you would not be so
>anti-everything-that's-not-new.
Aw, your feelings are hurt! Bad me.
Strange, the whole newsgroup was created to be about the code test.
The smokescreening about "written test elements being bad" came
out rather late in the newsgroup life. Much later than the open
question pool creation.
I'm not against "everything-that's-not-new," I'm against the CODE
TEST. I KNOW vacuum tube circuits, their advantages and
disadvantages, have built with them, designed them, tested them,
and worked with them in environments much harsher than any
amateur practice. I've also done the same with semiconductors
and find them to be more versatile, more functional, better in most
every regard than tubes. Way way way back in 1953 I found out
that the Big World of HF Communications was NOT using OOK
CW modes...got a chance to see what the Big World of Radio
was like and found that to be more exciting and promising with
much more "magic" to experience. However, in the intervening
46 years lots of hams, including those who didn't get their start
way back then have been touting the glory and the wonder of
radio using tubes and OOK CW as if that was all there was in
radio. After all, they were "old-timers" and "knew what was good
for amateurs" which is really a rewording of "that's the way They
learned and used the ham bands and that's the way everything
should be forever and ever."
I suggest to you, n2ey, that you go out and form an Amateur
Radiotelegraphy Service lobby group and have the FCC
recognize your enormous pool of radio skills so as to contribute
that special "service" to the country. Keep everything AS IT IS.
DON'T CHANGE A THING. Life is perfect for you. To hell with
any newcomers...make them go through the same thing as you
did so that they can be on the Right Path As You See It.
That way you can be assured of remaining a Radio Expert and
Old Timer who is respected. Good luck. Everything else in
radio will advance but your living museum is intact and
satisfactory just for you and your buddies.
K4YZ
>Subject: Re: The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio Licensing
>From: len...@aol.com (Lenof21)
>Date: Wed, 28 July 1999 12:33 AM EDT
> <massive snip of the obsessive need to justify n2ey's ego...> <
THIS is exactly why you are regarded with such villany, you worthless
ex-tech twerp. You got caught, using the very same archives that you so
emphatically vaunt, lying and misrepresenting the truth, and you try to spin it
off as "obsessive need to justify (Jim's) ego".
You got your dirty laundry aired out and you aren't one tenth the man
necessary to say "Ooops...I was wrong..."
Heaven forbid you admit a "Ham" caught you with your britches down.
Pretty much another Andersonianism brought to the light of day.
n2...@aol.com
len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
> In article <19990727224818...@ngol08.aol.com>,
n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
> writes:
>
Correction: Massive snip of stuff demonstrating your bias, bigotry,
errors and poor logic. When proven wrong, you simply edit and deny.
>
> >There are ARRL publications on lots of subjects, from spread
spectrum to
> >satellites. You just HATE to give the League any credit, though.
>
> I give them credit for taking over nearly all the textual information
for
> US hams for over a half century.
Nonsense. There are other sources of ARS info - other mags, other
publishers. Been that way for decades.
> The League's own input to the FCC influenced the FCC to force
> US hams to keep FULL, DETAILED records of ALL spread spectrum
> operation IN PERPETUITY. Real inducer and incentivizer?
The FCC just rolled over and did the League's bidding, huh? Nonsense.
And I suppose that keeping a log is just too much to ask for those who
would use new modes.
> Oh, yes, ONE BOOK on spread spectrum, largely a reprint of
> articles from elsewhere in radio. Wonderful stuff.
So go write another one.
>
> >>To those who just want to be old-time operators
> >>and preservers of the past, to those who only exist for control or
for
> >>rank/status/privilege, I give a different salute.
> >
> >What is wrong with operating skills? What's wrong with preserving
the past?
> >Do you insult the keepers of museums, Civil War reenactors, and
antique
> >collectors?
>
> If you WANT US amateur radio to be some living museum of the past,
> then I'd suggest you form an organization to lobby for changing the
> present rules to Amateur Radiotelegraphy Service.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Is there no room for anything
but what you see as worthy?
> Five of the six US
> ham license classes can be solely Amateur Radiotelegraphy Operator
> and you can strike the need to know any state of the art in radio.
I see. It's either your way or no way.
> Freeze the technology level at some age, say 1960 or so, when the
> transistors and ICs were relatively scarce and boatanchor vacuum
> tube equipment was King.
It's electropolitcally incorrect to use equipment that doesn't meet the
approval of Len Anderson.
> Everything is about RadioTELEGRAPHY
> anyway and OPERATING.
Without any operating, what's the point?
>
> >What's wrong with rank, status or privilege that is open to all who
earn it?
>
> If the time was 1930s, not a thing. This is 1999 and the next
> millenium starts a half year from now. Rank/status/privileges
> BASED on code skills isn't needed.
If you actually read my posts, you would know that I have long
supported license structures that minimize and even eliminate code
tests by replacing them with other tests, such as more comprehensive
written tests.
>
> >If it was just about the test, you would not be so
> >anti-everything-that's-not-new.
>
> Aw, your feelings are hurt!
Not at all.
> Strange, the whole newsgroup was created to be about the code test.
So it MUST be ONLY about the code test - it cannot evolve into anything
else. No talking about any other policy subject, no discussions about
the need for other changes, just the code test and nothing else. Right.
> The smokescreening about "written test elements being bad" came
> out rather late in the newsgroup life. Much later than the open
> question pool creation.
So? Is it forbidden to write about the written tests? Is bringing up
new subjects not allowed? By order of whom?
The written tests are viewed by some as inadequate. As one who passed
all of the exams back in the bad old days of "secret" tests, I tend to
agree. They were not too difficult for me to pass the highest level of
written test for an amateur license during the summer break between
sophomore and junior year of high school, even back then.
>
> I'm not against "everything-that's-not-new," I'm against the CODE
> TEST.
And lots of other things - like letting young people who can pass the
tests get licenses.
> I KNOW vacuum tube circuits, their advantages and
> disadvantages, have built with them, designed them, tested them,
> and worked with them in environments much harsher than any
> amateur practice.
In your basement, using your only your own resources?
Besides, talking about tubes is not allowed. This whole newsgroup was
formed to be about the code test, remember?
> I've also done the same with semiconductors
> and find them to be more versatile, more functional, better in most
> every regard than tubes.
So? There are practically no tube questions on the test. Nobody
requires anyone to use tubes in ham radio at all. Why are you so
fixated on the past, and old technologies?
> Way way way back in 1953 I found out
> that the Big World of HF Communications was NOT using OOK
> CW modes...
Sure they were. The military, marine, aviation, amateur and other
services were using them widely back then. Not exclusively, of course,
but OOK Morse was widely used back then. Still is - in amateur radio.
> got a chance to see what the Big World of Radio
> was like and found that to be more exciting and promising with
> much more "magic" to experience.
Fine. So everyone must do as you say.
> However, in the intervening
> 46 years lots of hams, including those who didn't get their start
> way back then have been touting the glory and the wonder of
> radio using tubes and OOK CW as if that was all there was in
> radio.
Nope. Not at all. Just saying what they like. Why is that bad?
> After all, they were "old-timers" and "knew what was good
> for amateurs" which is really a rewording of "that's the way They
> learned and used the ham bands and that's the way everything
> should be forever and ever."
You are seeing things that aren't there. Typical.
Some hams prefer to use certain modes and equipment. That's not a bad
thing. They promote their interests - they don't force them on others.
Lots of audiophiles prefer "the tube sound" and are resurrecting
technologies first used decades ago, simply because they like the sound
that results. Is that a bad thing?
There are some hams who still use AM voice on the HF bands. In fact, AM
activity seems to be growing - using both old and new equipment. Why do
you not criticize the AM folks? Because they use voice?
>
> I suggest to you, n2ey, that you go out and form an Amateur
> Radiotelegraphy Service lobby group and have the FCC
> recognize your enormous pool of radio skills so as to contribute
> that special "service" to the country.
Nonsense.
> Keep everything AS IT IS.
> DON'T CHANGE A THING.
Nope.
> Life is perfect for you. To hell with
> any newcomers...make them go through the same thing as you
> did so that they can be on the Right Path As You See It.
I repeat - if you had actually read many of my posts, you would know
that I have long supported license changes that would permit hams to
achieve the highest classes of license with little or no code testing.
Look up "chinese menu" in deja.com for one such idea that was worked
out a year and a half ago with WA4STJ.
The fact is that YOU do not want any change to the written tests. Just
drop the code tests and bar young people - all of the rest of the
license test rules are OK.
>
> That way you can be assured of remaining a Radio Expert and
> Old Timer who is respected.
It beats being one who earns no respect.
It seems to me, Mr. Anderson, that your only real interest in amateur
radio is in engaging in arguments and insults with those who do not see
things your way. Sorry to spoil your fun, but most of us have other
things to do.
N2EY
Dick Carroll
>
> In article <19990728003307...@ngol01.aol.com>,
> len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
> > In article <19990727224818...@ngol08.aol.com>,
> n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
> > writes:
> >
> > <massive snip of the obsessive need to justify n2ey's ego...>
>
> Correction: Massive snip of stuff demonstrating your bias, bigotry,
> errors and poor logic. When proven wrong, you simply edit and deny.
I don't know about you guys, but long ago I tired of
wasting my time with Lennie the Louse. His only interest in
ham radio is clearly based on jealousy and his objective is
plainly causing the maximum damage he can do it by his
denigrations and criticisms posted here.
It is much better to just toggle past his rantings leaving
them unread. The only place I ever read any of his
lamebrained stuff is when someone else quotes him. That's
far too often, and like all crap stirrers, he will soon tire
of his passtime when he fails to get anyone here to rise to
the bait.
Hopefully more readers here will just ignore him, and
subsequently he is sure to go away, again.
Brian Kelly
>n2...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <19990728003307...@ngol01.aol.com>,
>> len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
>> > In article <19990727224818...@ngol08.aol.com>,
>> n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
>> > writes:
>> >
>> > <massive snip of the obsessive need to justify n2ey's ego...>
>>
>> Correction: Massive snip of stuff demonstrating your bias, bigotry,
>> errors and poor logic. When proven wrong, you simply edit and deny.
>
>
> I don't know about you guys, but long ago I tired of
>wasting my time with Lennie the Louse. His only interest in
>ham radio is clearly based on jealousy and his objective is
>plainly causing the maximum damage he can do it by his
>denigrations and criticisms posted here.
Damage? Not. As if he has ever had any "influence" whatsoever.
> It is much better to just toggle past his rantings leaving
>them unread. The only place I ever read any of his
>lamebrained stuff is when someone else quotes him. That's
>far too often, and like all crap stirrers, he will soon tire
>of his passtime when he fails to get anyone here to rise to
>the bait.
>
> Hopefully more readers here will just ignore him, and
>subsequently he is sure to go away, again.
Yeah, quit giving flaming assholes excuses to become "interested"
again once they get bored with RRAP and go away. Next thing ya know
Cootie Boy will be back at it. I'm goin' beepin', screw this nonsense
and No Ham No Clue.
Brian Kelly w3rv
Will White
screwed up (I think I am responding to Len, not to Jim). Consider this: The
rule requiring detailed log-keeping for SS is intended not to hamper its use
and development, but precisely the opposite. It is by having accurate,
thorough logs that experimenters can better draw conclusions from their work,
judging what works well and what does not. Without a record of operations, all
the schematics and lab notes are not all that useful.
n2...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <19990728003307...@ngol01.aol.com>,
> len...@aol.com (Lenof21) wrote:
> > In article <19990727224818...@ngol08.aol.com>,
> n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
> > writes:
> > The League's own input to the FCC influenced the FCC to force
> > US hams to keep FULL, DETAILED records of ALL spread spectrum
> > operation IN PERPETUITY. Real inducer and incentivizer?
--
Will White, KD7BFX
to reply, please click this link mailto:w...@uswest.net
Lenof21
>God, this thread is getting involuted, so sorry if the attribution gets
>screwed up (I think I am responding to Len, not to Jim).
If you are writing to God, this is the wrong newsgroup...unless all the
Extras think they are God...some of them do, apparently... :-)
>Consider this: The
>rule requiring detailed log-keeping for SS is intended not to hamper its use
>and development, but precisely the opposite. It is by having accurate,
>thorough logs that experimenters can better draw conclusions from their work,
>judging what works well and what does not. Without a record of operations,
>all the schematics and lab notes are not all that useful.
Sonny, don't try to teach the more experienced how to suck eggs...
Having spent a career in electronics and radio, I can well understand
the need for adequate records keeping. On the other hand, no business
is required to KEEP RECORDS IN PERPETUITY which is what is
required in Part 97 ONLY for spread spectrum modes. Do a CAREFUL
reading of 97.311 (its under Technical Standards of Emissions).
Is there a "need" in the rules for keeping records in PERPETUITY
for new digital modes? Is there a similar PERPETUAL need for new
analogue modes? NO and NO. Spread spectrum is the ONLY mode
where there is NO reasonable end to ALL records keeping..
The rest of the radio world is busily carrying on spread spectrum
techniques in civilian uses...cellular telephony, cordless telephones,
intercoms, wireless local area networks, remote manual data
acquisition to name just a few. Do they have a NEED by LAW to
keep their spread spectrum operations IN PERPETUITY? No.
Let's keep those "incentives" rolling right along...and be sure to keep
that code test in licensing FOREVER because a bunch of folks who've
passed the test and will never ever have to pass it again insist that
all MUST do (because they emotionally think so).
K4YZ
>>If you are writing to God, this is the wrong newsgroup...unless all the
Extras think they are God...some of them do, apparently... :-)<<
You mean as opposed to the EE's (Engineering Elitists) who think THEY are
God, Licenseless One?
Pot/Kettle/Black...Andersonianism at it's best.
Putz.