Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
...... it's about the qualifications.
The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nor is there any reason for the MEMORY Written TEST. No knowledge needed
anymore, lets just call it what it is," THE NEW CB HAM SERVICE" |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters. How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Len Over 21) wrote in
: In article , (N2EY) writes: In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. Not to the FCC. In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a "spark" transmitter), The alternator was driving a spark gap, so it was a spark transmitter. Not only that, but there was a circuit known before that to keep a spark gap continuously energised without using an alternator, and that had actually been used by Duddell to transmit voice, although originally invented by someone else for arc lights (much the same thing as spark tansmitters in many ways, anyway!). Fessenden's innovation was to run the alternator at 80 kHz, i.e. well above audio. Before that, only telegraphy transmitters could use alternators, which enabled you to run kilowatts instead of just a few watts, amplifiers having yet to be invented and detectors of the day being very 'deaf'. there was no great rush for establishment of sound/voice transmissions. TTY was just getting started in replacing landline manual telegraphy, no facsimile or other "data" sources. Vacuum tubes were barely out of the laboratory after 5 years from invention...makers were still trying to get good QC in the "tube factories." The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters. Baloney. IMPROPER OPERATION, not "adjustment," and not just "by amateurs." Were there bandplans in 1913? I don't think so. Were there any specific frequencies (wavelengths) assigned then for everyone in radio? I think not, but you will no doubt explain away "how it was" from personal experience in 1913. :-) The exile of U.S. radio amateurs to the "short waves" (shorter than 200 m) came AFTER World War 1, not before. How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies. In 1913 there was NO Internet to contact the FCC. There wasn't any FCC until 1934. There was very little landline long-distance telephony to contact the three different radio regulatory agencies that existed between 1912 and 1934. "Communications" with any radio regulatory agency in 1913 was by surface mail...or the "telegram" (a new term for the mostly-manual-telegraphic message sent via landlines). So, in the world of today (if you can tear yourself away from the beloved past), HOW is a continuing requirement of a morse code test going to "stop" all that improper radio operation? Answer: It won't. Improper operation isn't due to the mode. It isn't due to the presence or absence of a code test. LHA |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(N2EY) wrote in
: In article , (Len Over 21) fresh from spamming the living daylights out of the ECFS system, writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. Incorrect. Why? The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913. No, it hasn't. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. Not to the FCC. Then why didn't FCC just drop Element 1 back in July, when the international treaty requirement went away? In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW RF sources. No, that's not true at all. Spark transmitters were not CW sources - they generated damped (modulated) waves. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a "spark" transmitter), Fessenden demonstrated voice modulated spark operation as early as 1900. His methods have been verified by actual tests using replica transmitters and dummy loads. Fessenden transmitted voice over one mile during December 1900, possibly on the 12th, on Cobb Island, Maryland. Fessenden had a two-way transatlantic radiotelephone setup in operation by November of 1906 using alternator RF sources. The demo of Christmas Eve 1906 was repeated a week later (New Year's Eve). These events are well documented. As is DeForrest's later voice coverage of the New York yacht race, using a spark transmitter of the earlier type (no alternator) but using a regenerative detector with a triode tube. I can't remember when that took place, although it is in several books, but the triode (audion) patent discloses the regenerative detector and was issued in 1907, so the yacht race must have taken place around that period. there was no great rush for establishment of sound/voice transmissions. So? TTY was just getting started in replacing landline manual telegraphy, no facsimile or other "data" sources. So? Vacuum tubes were barely out of the laboratory after 5 years from invention...makers were still trying to get good QC in the "tube factories." So? The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters. Baloney. No, it's a fact. IMPROPER OPERATION, not "adjustment," and not just "by amateurs." Same thing. Were there bandplans in 1913? I don't think so. Yes, there were. See below. Were there any specific frequencies (wavelengths) assigned then for everyone in radio? Yes, there were, for most stations. I think not, but you will no doubt explain away "how it was" from personal experience in 1913. :-) I wasn't there. Neither were you. But I obviously know far more about how it was than you do, Leonard. Do grow up a tiny bit and accept correction like a man, rather than a spoiled child who cannot bear being told he is wrong. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) The exile of U.S. radio amateurs to the "short waves" (shorter than 200 m) came AFTER World War 1, not before. On August 17, 1912, a new radio law was signed into law by President Taft. It had been passed by the Senate on May 12 of that year and by the House on August 9. This bill, a revision of the earlier Alexander Bill, required that: - all transmitting stations be operated in accordance with licenses granted by the Department of Commerce (a Federal agency) - all operators of transmitting stations be licensed - every station designate a normal operating wavelength below 600 or above 1600 meters - ship stations were designated 450 to 600 meters - amateur stations use wavelengths not exceeding 200 meters, and transformer power not in excess of 1 kW - special exceptions to the rules could be authorized by the Secretary. The professionals of the day said that the long-distance effectiveness of waves decreased as the wavelength decreased, so the longest wavelengths were generally assigned to the longest distance services. Amateurs were assigned the thought-to-be-worthless-for-DX wavelengths shorter than 200 meters. Most amateurs clustered on or near 200 meters because they believed the erroneous theories of the professionals. The above is all well documented. How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies. In 1913 there was NO Internet to contact the FCC. So what? How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters today? There wasn't any FCC until 1934. So what? There were regulatory predecessors to the FCC all the way back to 1912. They had licenses, tests, radio inspectors, callsigns, the works. The Department of Commerce performed those functions back in 1913. There was very little landline long-distance telephony to contact the three different radio regulatory agencies that existed between 1912 and 1934. So what? "Communications" with any radio regulatory agency in 1913 was by surface mail...or the "telegram" (a new term for the mostly-manual-telegraphic message sent via landlines). Of what import is any of this? How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters today? So, in the world of today (if you can tear yourself away from the beloved past), HOW is a continuing requirement of a morse code test going to "stop" all that improper radio operation? You obviously misunderstand what I wrote, Leonard. The adjustment/operation discussion is about the need for written tests. Answer: It won't. Improper operation isn't due to the mode. It isn't due to the presence or absence of a code test. Then why do so many FCC enforcement actions against amateurs involve amateurs using voice modes, and so few against amateurs using Morse code? The discrepancy far exceeds the difference in mode popularity. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Alun
writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in : In article , (N2EY) writes: In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. Not to the FCC. In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a "spark" transmitter), The alternator was driving a spark gap, so it was a spark transmitter. Not only that, but there was a circuit known before that to keep a spark gap continuously energised without using an alternator, and that had actually been used by Duddell to transmit voice, although originally invented by someone else for arc lights (much the same thing as spark tansmitters in many ways, anyway!). The Thomas H. White "Early Radio History" pages on the Internet give the details on Fessenden's audio experiments and includes several photographs. [I've given the website address in here] The carbon-arc lamp was not a Fessenden innovation nor is it related to "radio." :-) Fessenden's innovation was to run the alternator at 80 kHz, i.e. well above audio. Before that, only telegraphy transmitters could use alternators, which enabled you to run kilowatts instead of just a few watts, amplifiers having yet to be invented and detectors of the day being very 'deaf'. From what I can see in the history, Reginald Fessenden's only "innovation" was to connect a specially-designed carbon microphone in series with the LF transmitter's antenna lead and then say it was a "voice and music transmitter." :-) Let's just say that the great voice broadcast of 1906 was PRIMITIVE insofar as technology was concerned. :-) Even if the early radio receivers were also of low sensitivity, they could receive AM. Most of the radio amateur's spark transmitters of those pre-WW1 times used arc repetition rates of less than a KiloHertz and were therefore distinguishable from atmospheric noise...they were, essentially, AM detectors. There isn't any recorded radio industry history of any rush to get into radio broadcasting by the Fessenden "AM" of 1900 through into the post-WW1 period, regardless of the high-tech of those times. Broadcasting would have to wait for improvement of the vacuum tube...and broadcasting was the driving industry of radio development up to 1920 or so. Voice and music broadcasting, not by morse code. :-) ...and not by having high-heat mikes sitting in antenna leads series modulating the amplitude of the transmitters... :-) :-) :-) :-) -------- The deliberate misdirection of a few regulars in here is to get well away from the subject of morse code and any test requirement. The nit-picking on the type/kind of Fessenden AM transmitter is one thing and those regulars distort recorded historical information on voice transmission. One even goes so far to introduce cellular telephones with the insistence that "turning on a cell phone handset automatically establishes contact with the nearest cell site" which it does NOT. Such is misdirection from the difference between the power-on control with the actual call/transmit control on the handset. Such things result in lots of "angry" words of denunciation occupying lots of time NOT about the code test. The claim that proficiency in morse code results in "more ethical, more polite radio operators" is another one of the misdirections, along with all the other pre-WW2 mythos and fairystories about morse code pervading the psyches of devout morsemen. :-) Happy holidays, Alun, LHA |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Len Over 21) wrote in
: In article , Alun writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in : In article , (N2EY) writes: In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. Not to the FCC. In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a "spark" transmitter), The alternator was driving a spark gap, so it was a spark transmitter. Not only that, but there was a circuit known before that to keep a spark gap continuously energised without using an alternator, and that had actually been used by Duddell to transmit voice, although originally invented by someone else for arc lights (much the same thing as spark tansmitters in many ways, anyway!). The Thomas H. White "Early Radio History" pages on the Internet give the details on Fessenden's audio experiments and includes several photographs. [I've given the website address in here] The carbon-arc lamp was not a Fessenden innovation nor is it related to "radio." :-) Try reading what I actually said a bit more carefully, Len. What I said was that a previous circuit was known that was borrowed from arc lamp technology, which enabled a spark to be continuous, in turn allowing 'phone to be transmitted by spark. This was done by Prof Duddell, FRS, and pre-dated Fessenden's 1900 experiment. I did not say that Fessenden used this system in this experiment, but it is known that he was familiar with it. The cutting edge state of the art for telegraphy at the time was to excite a spark gap with an alternator, which allowed a large power output (kW) in those days before amplifiers. Spark phone was known, as per Duddell's system, but if you tried to use an alternator the problem was that the output frequency of any normal alternator was in the audible range, and constiuted a whine drowning out your voice, whereas in telegraphy it just gave each station's dits and dahs a distinctive tone. Fessenden overcame this problem by having special high frequency alternators built to order by Poulsen, who was also considered to be a major figure in the early days of radio. Fessenden's innovation was to run the alternator at 80 kHz, i.e. well above audio. Before that, only telegraphy transmitters could use alternators, which enabled you to run kilowatts instead of just a few watts, amplifiers having yet to be invented and detectors of the day being very 'deaf'. From what I can see in the history, Reginald Fessenden's only "innovation" was to connect a specially-designed carbon microphone in series with the LF transmitter's antenna lead and then say it was a "voice and music transmitter." :-) I'm afraid you are completely mistaken. This is a subject that I have researched quite a bit. There is a very old book by someone called Laughter that goes into a great deal of detail, and another informative work by Fleming, who just happens to also be the inventor of the vacuum tube. I have photocopied the relevant parts of both books. Neither are these my sole sources. Fessenden patented exactly this same system, and as I am a patent agent, it should not surprise you that I have read the patent. I have also read through the archives kept in the house where the experiments took place, and have discussed it all at length on the air with Bob Jeter, AG3B, a resident of the island. I do, in fact, live in the same county myself, so it is local history. Let's just say that the great voice broadcast of 1906 was PRIMITIVE insofar as technology was concerned. :-) Even if the early radio receivers were also of low sensitivity, they could receive AM. Most of the radio amateur's spark transmitters of those pre-WW1 times used arc repetition rates of less than a KiloHertz and were therefore distinguishable from atmospheric noise...they were, essentially, AM detectors. There isn't any recorded radio industry history of any rush to get into radio broadcasting by the Fessenden "AM" of 1900 through into the post-WW1 period, regardless of the high-tech of those times. Broadcasting would have to wait for improvement of the vacuum tube...and broadcasting was the driving industry of radio development up to 1920 or so. Voice and music broadcasting, not by morse code. :-) ...and not by having high-heat mikes sitting in antenna leads series modulating the amplitude of the transmitters... :-) :-) :-) :-) -------- The deliberate misdirection of a few regulars in here is to get well away from the subject of morse code and any test requirement. I am against code testing, as you ought to know by now. I am just pointing out that you have an erroneous understanding of Fessenden's work. The nit-picking on the type/kind of Fessenden AM transmitter is one thing and those regulars distort recorded historical information on voice transmission. If you post something inaccurate on Usenet, nitpicking will follow like night follows day. That's the way it is. One even goes so far to introduce cellular telephones with the insistence that "turning on a cell phone handset automatically establishes contact with the nearest cell site" which it does NOT. Such is misdirection from the difference between the power-on control with the actual call/transmit control on the handset. Such things result in lots of "angry" words of denunciation occupying lots of time NOT about the code test. The claim that proficiency in morse code results in "more ethical, more polite radio operators" is another one of the misdirections, along with all the other pre-WW2 mythos and fairystories about morse code pervading the psyches of devout morsemen. :-) Happy holidays, Alun, LHA |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "KØHB" writes: ..... it's about the qualifications. The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF. Well, that's the wrong question. The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access to HF. If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no need for Morse testing. The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test. Hans, If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments. That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more. Assuming you are referencing the myriad of reasons put forth during 98-143...all of which fell short of FCC buy-in, just what else is there The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters. How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies. Agreed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: Antique Test Equipment - collectible | Boatanchors | |||
FS: Antique Test Equipment - collectible | Boatanchors | |||
Tantalums and test eqpt. | Homebrew | |||
My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC | Policy | |||
replace cw test with typing test! | Policy |