Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 00:10:29 EDT, AF6AY wrote: The AN/PRC-25 was solid-state except for the single vacuum tube in the PA. AN/PRC-77 was its fully solid-state version. Both were VHF with channelized tuning (considered abhorent by a few hams) but turned out to be mainstays for Vietnam field radio use. Both are now obsolete. And we will never see them on the commercial surplus market available to hams, like the WW-II stuff was decades earlier. -- A quick Google search show several surplus outfits selling these things. Having used them in the military, I can't imagine why a ham would want one these days. They are also overpriced in my opinion. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 8, 4:03�pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
Bill Horne wrote: Phil Kane wrote: It's a shame, but it's also easy to understand: the FCC was _very_ badly burned by the Citizen's Band fiasco, and I'd bet other government bureaucrats in and out of the military had that fresh in their minds as Vietnam was winding down and the PRC-25's were filling up warehouses. I'm interested in more detail about how different people see "the Citizen's Band fiasco. IMHO, what happened was that FCC created UHF CB in 1948, and it went OK except that its popularity was limited. This was because, in those days, the good UHF equipment cost too much and the inexpensive UHF equipment had pretty dismal performance. So in 1958, FCC created 27 MHz CB, with the idea that the equipment would be simpler and less expensive, while still giving adequate performance for the intended uses. And it worked - for a while. But what FCC never counted on was that large numbers of people would buy CB sets and simply ignore the regulations for CB. FCC could not begin to adequately enforce the rules once the CB culture had become one of simply ignoring them. How do others see it? It's really more simple than that actually. At the end of World War Two, every one thought, "Well, that's the end of that. There will NEVER be another war now." Well, the WW2 veterans I have known didn't think that way. But that's really a minor thing. The military planners were looking at another 8 years of combat in the Pacific and on the island of Japan to bring a conclusion to World War Two. When the second atomic bomb was dropped, Japan threw in the towel and quit. Do you have a source for the 8 years figure? From what I have read, and veterans' accounts, the invasion of Japan was expected to take a year or so, with enormous casualties on both sides. But as you said, the atomic bomb, plus continued conventional bombing and the near-blockade by USN submarines, made all that pretty academic. One WW2 veteran I knew well, who was in 7th Air Force B-24s, had 13 missions to Japan when the war ended. It took 40 missions to get rotated home, and he said that even in mid-1945 the chances were 1 in 3 a B-24 crew would not survive 40 missions. With the rather sudden end of the war with Japan, that left stocks for the planned additional 8 years of warfare with no place to use it. Agreed, whether it was for 1 year or 8 years. Plus a lot of stuff was being made for Lend-Lease. So there really was more "war surplus" stuff available at the end of World War Two. Most of the equipment used in Europe was left behind or just thrown off of ships etc rather than bring it back. Or we would still be seeing equipment for sale. I don't know if that's really true. From the veterans I have known some stuff was left behind, of course, because occupation troops still needed some things. But after May 1945, usable stuff from the European and other theatres was shipped back to the US for use in the invasion of Japan. When the war ended suddenly, there whole supply chain was full of stuff in all stages of completion. Remember that while the war ended in 1945, we were still seeing WW2 surplus for sale 25+ *years* later. By the time Vietnam was over, the military, having found themselves fighting an enemy that didn't have any problems using our own equipment, they decided "No, that's not gonna happen again" and the move towards "demilitarizing" equipment rather than just auctioning it off by the pallet, or disposing it like the last time around. Yep - but there's more to the story. WW2 required enormous quantities of equipment, and American industry was almost totally dedicated to war production. For just one example, almost 20,000 B-24 bombers of various suffixes were produced in less than 5 years, which means 20,000 complete radio sets plus spares for them. And that's just one kind of airplane! Korea, Vietnam and other conflicts were simply not on that scale. In addition, much of the hardware produced for WW2 was essentially obsolete when the war ended. Piston-engine propeller fighter aircraft were already being replaced by the first-generation jets by 1945, for example. The use of HF for short-range radio was being replaced by VHF. Radar had gone through several generations during the war; in 1941 a 112 MHz radar was state-of-the-art, while in 1945 there were 10 GHz sets in mass production. So there was a lot of old stuff in warehouses and in the supply chain to be disposed of. Perhaps the biggest factor is simply this: A lot of WW2 surplus gear was easily adapted to ham use. A BC-342 receiver, for example, could be easily adapted for use in the ham shack. While it might not have been state-of-the-art even in 1946, it was a dern good ham rx for $50-70. But later surplus, when we hams could get it, wasn't so easily used as ham gear. And it wasn't nearly so inexpensive. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Horne wrote:
When the Citizen's Band went from a well-intentioned "service" to an uncontrollable nightmare in less than two years, the commission had to take abuse from everyone else in and out of the government who were still smarting from _their_ earlier revelations that they could predict or control the actions neither of the ungrateful whelps who had picked up placards and told a nation of their elders to shove the American Dream, nor of the froggy little native boys who had picked up AK-47's and said "No, Daddy Warbucks, you *won't* do that here". I remember participating in the last 11m contest to save the band for hams - don't remember the year. Wonder what would happen if the FCC re-opened the 11m band to amateur radio operators as a shared band under conditions similar to 60m operation? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
I remember participating in the last 11m contest to save the band for hams - don't remember the year. Wonder what would happen if the FCC re-opened the 11m band to amateur radio operators as a shared band under conditions similar to 60m operation? I'd welcome the chance to find out: I think it would influence a lot of CB operators to copy the practices used not only by hams, but also by "outband" CB'ers, who run SSB above 27.455 MHz, use "Q" signals, and sound more like the ideal ham than many hams. Outband is a place where a newcomer who is used to a "Children's Band" mode of operation is quickly told to "Lose the echo", "Back off the power", and "Wait your turn". Some of the outbanders are more courteous operators than hams, and allowing amateurs operators to interact with them would be a good way to influence CBers' choices and encourage them to join the amateur ranks. -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.) |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill Horne" wrote
No matter: whatever the reason for the decision, it worked surprisingly well for about ten years, and then went downhill quickly when invaded by yahoos of all types. Sounds just like most internet newsgroups! N7SO |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: How do others see it? That's a decent Readers' Digest version of what happened. Part of the problem was a turf war between two Bureaus - the one that issued the licenses and levied the penalties, and the one (that I was in) that did the grunt work of finding and citing the offenders. Throw into that mix the one-and-only attorney in the latter bureau, someone who didn't believe in doing anything that took work (I had many run-ins with her), and a Congress that was short-changing the agency in the number of field personnel authorized because "we weren't supposed to be in the surveillance business" according to a specific congressional committee chair echoing the "man behind the curtain", one JEdgar Hoover, who was dead set against anyone doing law enforcement investigative work except his hand-picked crew at the FBI that he could control with an iron hand. The ham community fared a little better, because many if not most of the managers who had any responsibility for the ARS and even some of the Bureau Chiefs at the agency were well-known and well-respected (feared ?) hams and they tried really hard to get the ARS to keep its skirts clean. Eventually, though, these fine folks retired or died and the nickel-nursers and "bright young folks" who succeeded them fell into the pattern exemplified by one of my favorite phrases from the biblical Book of Exodus "There arose in Egypt a new Pharaoh who knew not Joseph...." I can count the number of active and experienced hams who are decision-makers about the ARS on the fingers of one hand now. My personal opinion. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Being one of those, who got RIFF'ed, in the Clinton/Gore Gutting/Bloodletting of the Field Operations Bureau back in the Day.... I agree with Phil, 100%. the public got the FCC that they deserved, by allowing the Politicos to politicize the Commission. It used to be run by Engineers, now it is run by Political Wonks. Life is tough, and then you DIE.... -- Bruce in alaska add path after fast to reply |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't know for sure but it could be associated with the FM capture
effect. In other words the greater local FM repeater signal swamps the PAVE PAWS radar return signal. Not knowing the sensitivity of the radar or its ability to select out individual frequencies prevents me from knowing if this is true or not. Dave WD9BDZ Bill Powell wrote: Anyone with some level of technical knowledge might wonder why a billion dollar (boondoggle) "radar system" can't discriminate between a fixed, known "target" (like a repeater)and one that is moving, comes from over the horizon which might be something nasty? Sounds like some real shoddy engineering took place at taxpayer expense. I can think of 3 or 4 ways to remove false targets w/o loosing any system level accuracy or sensitivity. In fact, didn't they perfect that during the cold war? Gee... Thinking about it some. All Abdulah (or Ivan or whoever) needs to do is buy a 440 rig, an amp and a yagi and go out as a "rover"; 3 or 4 kW ERP down the bear's craw for a while then move. Sigh.... On Sat, 3 May 2008 23:16:09 EDT, Bill Horne wrote: Doug Smith W9WI wrote: If I recall properly we're secondary to the military in that [70cm] band as well. Indeed, 70cm repeater operators are learning that the hard way... as many repeaters are having to reduce power or even go QRT at the request of our military, to protect a radar system. But the motorsports folks have no regular authority in that band at all. I'm not sure I understand why they thought they needed amateur spectrum for that project. The Pave/Paws system that is pushing some repeaters off 70cm predates the complaints by several decades, and I take the military's new attitude to be another nail in the coffin of ham radio's former "favorite son" status at the Pentagon. It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis. Now, with Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military electronics too secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't been vetted for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring. We'll have to find another reason to justify the allocations we enjoy. It's going to be hard work, and not nearly as easy as learning Morse (not that that would help now). We're going to have to get better - in fact, much better - at public relations: the Red Cross and other disaster relief agencies have known the importance of image all along, but now hams have got to get in the game and advertise ourselves as an anlternative to traditional communications during hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc. Of course we've had this debate before. Older hams such as I feel that we followed the program and did what was expected of us, and now I resend being pushed aside in favor of a Federal Emergency Management Agency which is, to my jaundiced eye, proficient only at promising what others will have to deliver and claiming credit for what others have done. It's a cold, cruel world, and we must get better at telling the public and the their elected officials how much we do. Bill |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Differences Between Two of the Same Radio | Shortwave | |||
Differences Between Two of the Same Radio | Shortwave | |||
Differences between Hammarlund 170 and 180 | Boatanchors | |||
Heath SB-101 and 102 differences? | Equipment | |||
Drake T-4C vs T-4XC differences | Boatanchors |