Slow Code wrote:
gwatts wrote in
:


Slow Code wrote:

What do you like best about appliance operating?

All the crotchety old farts are either off somewhere beep-beep-beeping
away on CW or bitching to each other on the lower half of the 80m phone
band, so it's easy to avoid them and talk to someone who enjoys ham
radio as it is instead of whining about how it was.



Big Ten-Four on that Good Buddy.

It sounds like you run a lot of 11m, not surprising considering how much
you whine, and it's not alternator whine.

gwatts wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
gwatts wrote in
:


Slow Code wrote:

What do you like best about appliance operating?

All the crotchety old farts are either off somewhere beep-beep-beeping
away on CW or bitching to each other on the lower half of the 80m phone
band, so it's easy to avoid them and talk to someone who enjoys ham
radio as it is instead of whining about how it was.



Big Ten-Four on that Good Buddy.

It sounds like you run a lot of 11m, not surprising considering how much
you whine, and it's not alternator whine.


I only typed like because I knew you would understand that style of
communicating. So, after your license came in the mail what I appliance
did you decide to buy? MFJ? Alinco? Cobra?

SC

Slow Code wrote:

Big Ten-Four on that Good Buddy.
It sounds like you run a lot of 11m, not surprising considering how much
you whine, and it's not alternator whine.


I only typed like because I knew you would understand that style of
communicating. So, after your license came in the mail what I appliance
did you decide to buy? MFJ? Alinco? Cobra?


While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and build for your
main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I had to
sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error free at 13WPM.
I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the sending test, as I had never
spent much time doing that. I had never made a code contact before my test,
and I have only made a couple since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many are
employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many different radios
from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on the air
back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC. I haven't noticed
that things are any worse now. About the only real difference is in the quality
of the gear folks are running. It is much better than the crappy stuff that
was on the air back in the early 70's.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:

Big Ten-Four on that Good Buddy.
It sounds like you run a lot of 11m, not surprising considering how
much you whine, and it's not alternator whine.


I only typed like because I knew you would understand that style of
communicating. So, after your license came in the mail what I
appliance did you decide to buy? MFJ? Alinco? Cobra?


While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and build
for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to be
disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I had
to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error free at
13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the sending test,
as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never made a code
contact before my test, and I have only made a couple since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say anything
beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on the
air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC. I
haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is much
better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five years
ago?

Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave dipole
should be.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and build
for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to be
disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I had
to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error free at
13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the sending test,
as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never made a code
contact before my test, and I have only made a couple since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say anything
beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on the
air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC. I
haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is much
better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five years
ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by such earth
shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the repeater site helping
other hams tune their transmitters to be on frequency. Other wonderkind were
hitting the repeater with a full quieting signal, and turning their power up
to try and get a better signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl to tell
her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave dipole
should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their licenses at
the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the pool
used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those questions, you
were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave dipole
should be. [-SC]

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their licenses at
the offices of the FCC.


This here no-code would say that a half-wave dipole ought to be...
....as long as it needs to be, and no longer. Which brings up a
question: Does it make a difference what type of conductor is used to
build an antenna?, i.e. is copper 'better' than aluminum? are there
alloys whichare better still? how about conductive plastics?

And shape: all I've read about (so far) has been wire- or
rod-construction: dipole, inverted-V, quad, et cetera. How about
non-round elements like ribbon? They'd be collapsible rather than
bulky, since they could be wound up on a spool or bobbin.

Sort-of like the 'fishing-pole' antennas I've heard about, but with
more tensile strength, the idea being that the antenna could be
customized for whatever band you want to listen or transmit on (not a
new idea, granted); half-, third-, fifth-, quarter-, eighth-, you
pickit.
(hey, no sixth-wave antennas out there?)

Just curious. I've yet to learn enough about stuff to know what most
of you guys have probably forgotten long ago.

Thanks & 73, Terry KC9KEL

Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.
I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl
to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering
pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

SC

Slow Code wrote:

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

Oh, I agree, but if you do too, then I have trouble understanding why
you are ragging on folks that are using store bought radios.

-Chuck

"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.
I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl
to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering
pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

SC

SC, tell us all, and don't lie. Do you not agree that a LOT of hams today
were CB'ers in the '70's and chose to advance their radio skills by
advancing to ham radio? If you disagree, then 1) you're a liar, and 2) did
this not help the service? And thusly, if you disagree I suspect you fit
into this mold, and choose to deny your past.

Slow Code wrote:
What do you like best about appliance operating?

SC

Dear Slow, I'm a new ham. I passed my Novice Exams in November of
1986, so in Ham Years, I'm a new ham.

What do I like best about appliance operating? I like the features and
the ease of cleanup. The new GE range we have allows me to scroll up
to the desired operating temperature, and push the "ON" button. Then
"Pre" is shown on the temp readout until the oven comes up to
temperature. And the smooth glass stove top is a snap to cleanup. If
something should boil over, you don't have to lift up the burners and
take the spill pans out, etc. Just a quick wipe with a damp dish
cloth. It doesn't get much better than that.

Thanks for asking.