Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#72
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#73
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N3CVJ wrote:
The reverse can be applied to Nader. He appeals to the hard core left, You continue to reaffirm you haven't the foggiest. |
#74
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#75
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) wrote: So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a channel and pick out who the most blatant illegal operators are simply by the sound of their rigs, and by the splatter they produce? When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to tell you. The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample of any particular transmission could not be made. I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you That's not surprising considering you once tried to tell me (and the group) that a 4 watt skip station 1000 miles away could potentially walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile away, totally disregarding the effects of R.F. path loss. of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits There are specific rules which specifically prohibit devices used for "entertainment" and "amusement" purposes. There is also a specific rule which outlines permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not listed under permissible tone signals. Following simple logic, since there is no valid rule which permits a particular device, then the device defaults to one of "amusement or entertainment" status and is prohibited. So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or "amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited. You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact remains that they are prohibited by the rules. Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least about their chosen endeavor. Bigger Irony: Someone with obvious comprehensive issues chastising others for the same flaw. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#76
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:29:04 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Lancer wrote in news:41de891b.990875 : On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:46:41 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in : what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and an AB2 Class ab2 an amplifier with higher bias than the class ab1 amplifier. Or better yet, what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and an AB2? (transistor amp) No such animal those numbers are for tube use only 1 indicating that the tube does not draw any grid current, and 2 indicates that the grid voltage is above 0 volts and a positive grid voltage, causes the grid to draw current. Why did you snip the original post apart where you told Dave to bias his transistor amp bias to .6 volts to run class AB1? Why did you lie? i never said that, this is my reply to dave "Exactly dave you just added ab-1 bias to the am which certainly would clean it up, but what would the spoiled kid in Tampa know he doesnt even solder his mike plugs on. " Forget it, its not worth arguing over.. |
#77
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 07 Jan 2005 13:30:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote: Lancer wrote: On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo wrote: Lancer wrote: Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd, it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning. Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns. How did your SW radio Christmas present go over? I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better than the videos games he got.. Cool..now you've created a monster! ![]() Hopefully the right kind.. get him away from the computers and video games and into radio.. |
#78
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:08:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: So you are denying that the majority of the "big radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of high power? Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself. No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6, based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a daily basis is in fact illegal. I claimed nothing of the sort. I claimed only that your claim is bull****, which it is. So which is it? If you are denying my claim that there are illegal stations on channel 6, then by simple inverse logic, you are claiming that there are NO illegal stations on channel 6. If, you acknowledge that there are, in fact, illegal stations on channels 6, then my claim cannot be false. You REALLY need a course in logic. Or will you try to weasel out of it by claiming that the term "high power" is ambiguous? Your personal feelings are not facts, despite how many times you invoke them as such. Let's look at it again since you still can not grasp it. You said `channel 6, which is notorious for harboring the dregs of society, who regularly run high power, is all the "evidence" I need, to determine that the station in question is in fact, llegal." Once again, your personal feelings are not facts. That illegal operation occurs on such a channel was never contested by myself Then you have to agree with my statement that the majority of big radio stations are running illegally. , despite your deperate attempt at trying to say it was. I merely claimed your ersonal feelings cited above are in no manner "evidence". The fact that these stations exist and are illegal are a matter of record for anyone who's ever spent any time there. My "personal feelings" notwithstanding. How do you think I gathered the evidence that prompted me to make that claim? It was based on empirical observation. The FCC knows the reputation of channel 6 also, only they have protocol to determine if someone is breaking the law, not personal feelings they refer to as "empirical evidence" as you do. You are up a tree now. How do you think the FCC makes the determination that a specific high powered station is worthy of further investigation? Do you think a little empirical observation just MIGHT be a clue? The FCC is able to make a quantitative analysis by inspecting the physical station to determine just HOW illegal they are. But I don't need to be that precise. Just knowing that they ARE illegal is all that matters. Because I can't follow through beyond the initial observation stage, you think that means that my observations are invalid? Boy are you naive and devoid of comprehensive abilities. Your personal feelings are not "facts". No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong evidence to the positive. No,,,it can not. It is personal testimony to be taken into consideration. Look up "expert witness" for a clue. It is intangible and can not be entered as evidence, only supporting testimony. This is not a court of law. I need to convince no one. And you aren't denying it either. You just want to argue the point because *I* made it. The deeper you go in the "debate", the wackier and off the wall your retorts become. Such as your next statement: Huge difference where the law is concerned, but with your demonstrated hate and disdain for the law and your fellow hammie and cb operators This is absolutely side splitting, coming from an admitted federal law breaker, to accuse ME of harboring hate and disdain for the law. , it's crystal clear you have no clue of the law that pertains and governs your chosen hobby. What IS clear is that you twist and obfuscate the law to fit into what you think it is, and not what it truly says. You will defend the dubious legality of an obvious "entertainment" device, but see nothing wrong with operating on clearly unauthorized frequencies, or running power beyond the legal limit. Such is the nature of a sociopathic mind. You demonstrated this when you held roger beeps and echo illegal on cb because you "couldn't find a rule that permitted them". Because there aren't any. Otherwise you would have posted it. But there ARE rules which specifically prohibit devices used for "amusement or entertainment". Yes, that part is my personal opinion. See what you can learn when you are force fed? At the beginning of this thread, you claimed it was fact, now, after proper instruction, you admit it is "personal opinion". Good show. Only the first part is. The second part was empirical observation Dave "Sandbagger" |
#79
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:19:19 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:13 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this: _ N3CVJ wrote: I do not shoot skip. I don't LIKE skip. When I used to use an amplifier, it was to GET OVER or chase it off the channel But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier... in 1975, a Texas Star didn't exist. Next...... After talking skip internationally on the freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose interest in skip _ Different time periods. Right, the claim about when you USED to use an amp it wasn't to talk skip, was made the other day. The claim about you talking skip with your amplifier was made long ago. It illustrates your statement the other day was bull****.....but a mere lie in another of your long list of self-perjuries. Once again for the perpetually comprehensively inhibited: I talked skip in the middle 70's. I used my amps to get over it from then on. That's pretty funny considering only you are having difficulty with your communication skills at this level and are madly trying to misattribute things that were never said to others. No that's what you're doing. I'm not the one who cut and pasted a quote from ICECOLDNYC and erroneously claimed it was mine. Besides, it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to understand the kind of operator you are,,,you already admitted to being the worse kind of operator that exists. Someone who didn't take crap from idiots? Yea, I'm guilty. But unless you're one of those idiots, you can hardly make a valid claim that my "style" is the "worst kind of operator that exists". I've done more to help other CB'ers than you could possibly imagine. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#80
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
How to improve reception | Equipment |