"Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote in message news:gk0Ua.11280$ff.3485@fed1read01...
Thanks Keith I'll add those to the copout list.

BTW SSB is probably 30 or 40 years old.

SSB first showed up in the ham bands in 1934. AT&T had SSB running
around ten years before hams did. Next year will mark the 70th
anniversary of ham SSB. Gawd I love these "new, modern modes" like SSB
which make Morse such an artifact mode . . .

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

BTW SSB is probably 30 or 40 years old.

SSB first showed up in the ham bands in 1934.

How many sidebanders were active then? A thousand? A hundred?
A dozen? Two?

AT&T had SSB running
around ten years before hams did.

1928 on radio. See the "Collins Sideband book" for references.

The Dutch beat us Yanks on establishing regular commercial SSB
for messaging.

"Sideband" was used earlier in wired communications, called "carrier"
equiment for long-distance service using open-wire lines with four
voice circuits per wire pair.

Next year will mark the 70th
anniversary of ham SSB. Gawd I love these "new, modern modes" like SSB
which make Morse such an artifact mode . . .

Morse code *IS* an artifact, old Artifact.

Morse code was first used for commercial communications in 1844.

1844 is 159 years ago. Morse is over twice your age.

All the other communications services in the world have dropped morse
code modes.

Morse code survives only in a part of amateurism, a virtual life
enjoyed by those who wanted very much to be "pioneers" but never
could due to being born so much later after morse code's birth.

LHA

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Yeah, we heard all the same nonsense 11-12 years ago when the nocode
ticket became available. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? Where's the BEEF?! And
while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this
respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too?

Ah, another old Artifact heard from...

Okay, old Morseman, please give us some exact cites of procoders
who have "pushed the envelope of the amateur state of the art."

There's been over 300K licensed procoders around since 1912.

All I've heard about is a lot of posturing and bragging and self-
promotion of self-described "greatness" of the procoders.

LHA

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Listen to the morse code bands in the USA the signals are few and far.
3.600-3.725 MHz is a vast wasteland of morse code bandwidth that is hardly
used.

Something's wrong with your radio then. I find the CW bands to be rich in
signals most of the time.

If all you want to hear is morse signals, then "the bands are alive with
the sound of music."

Personally, I find it very dull to sit around listening to a Continuous
Wave carrier signal. Your mileage may vary.

LHA

Fab Five Freddy told me everybody's fly, "Brian Kelly"
wrote in part:

Yeah, we heard all the same nonsense 11-12 years ago when the nocode
ticket became available. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then?

No. I can cite that the most noteworthy advances in amateur HF
operations in the past 11-12 years have had little or nothing to do with
the ability to send and receive Morse Code. There's no reason to believe
that Morse Code will become more relevant in the future.

But if you wanna play dirty, I can also cite the wonderful operations
conducted by the code-fortified geniuses on 14.313 and several other HF
frequencies. And the cavalcade of Extra Class code-fetishists sanctioned
by the FCC for one violation or the other.

Would the author of the "Red Panties Song" have been able to compose and
sing that ditty on HF amateur frequencies without the exquisite sense of
rhythm only a thorough grounding in Morse Code can provide?

Where's the BEEF?!

Don't quit your day job.

And
while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this
respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too?

Of course not. But I bet you can. I'm sure it has something to do with
liberals, people wanting "something for nothing" all the time, declining
standards, Clinton, atonal music, Human Sacrifice, Dogs and Cats
Sleeping Together, MASS HYSTERIA! ($1)

Real Wrath of God stuff.

Corry

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote in message news:gk0Ua.11280$ff.3485@fed1read01...
Thanks Keith I'll add those to the copout list.

BTW SSB is probably 30 or 40 years old.

SSB first showed up in the ham bands in 1934. AT&T had SSB running
around ten years before hams did.

However, the AT&T operations were fixed-frequency LF systems (5000
meters). HF SSB was not used by the telephone folks until the '30s,
when about a half-dozen systems were put in service.

One of the reasons AT&T went with SSB for the LF transatlantic
telephone was antenna bandwidth. A 6 kHz wide AM channel at 60 kHz
involves an antenna bandwidth of 10%.

Hmmm...self-funded basement-workshop hams were less than 10 years
behind AT&T and its nearly-unlimited resources...

Next year will mark the 70th
anniversary of ham SSB. Gawd I love these "new, modern modes" like SSB
which make Morse such an artifact mode . . .

Yup - and the theoretical background for SSB goes back even further.
Truly an antique mode.

Here's a timeline:

1910 - G.A. Cambell (of AT&T) develops LC filters suitable for SSB in
the LF
range.

1914 - G.R Eglund (of Western Electric) sketches geometric
relationship of
carrier and sidebands.

1915 - J.R Carson (of Western Electric) describes mathematical
foundation of
modulation and shows the theoretical advantages of SSB suppressed
carrier
transmission.

1915 - Carson files for patent on SSB.

1917 - Experimental 3 channel SSB telephone carrier system installed
between
Maumee Ohio and South Bend, Indiana.

1918 - "Type A" SSB telephone carrier system installed between
Pittsburgh PA
and Baltimore MD. Four channels using LSB between 5 and 25 kHz. Type A
was the
first nonexperimental commercial use of SSB, and eventually seven Type
A
systems were installed, remaining in service until the 1940s

1923 - Experimental one-way LSB 60 kHz radio system demonstrated
between Rocky Point, L.I.,(New York), and London. Many of the
components, including tubes, for this system were developed by Western
Electric.

1927 - Regular transatlantic telephone service using 60 kHz LSB put in
service.
Transmitting stations at Rocky Point and Rugby, England. Receiving
stations at
Houlton, Maine and Cupar, Scotland. A three-minute call cost $75.

1932 - Carsons's SSB patent granted (17 years after filing).

1933 - Robert Moore, W6DEI, puts an amateur station on 75 meter LSB.
This
station was later described in detail in R/9 magazine. It used LC
filtering at
10 kHz to generate the SSB signal, followed by conversion to 200 kHz
and 3950
kHz.

1934 - Several amateur SSB stations are in the air using rigs similar
to
W6DEI's

1939 - 68 kHz channel added to Rocky Point system

1946 - R.B. Dome describes "Wide Band Phase Shift Networks" in
Electronics
magazine.

1947 - O. G. "Mike" Villard, W6QYT, puts Stanford University amateur
station
W6YX on 75 meter LSB with a phasing type transmitter using an audio
phase
shift network developed from the Dome article.

The term "SSSC" (Single Sideband Suppressed Carrier) was frequently
used in the early days.

This brings us to the point where SSB began to become common in
amateur
communications. Numerous homebrew transmitters and receive adapters
were described in the amateur literature, followed by manufactured
equipment. Early SSB efforts all used separate receivers and
transmitters - the first SSB transceivers and matched-pair
receiver/transmitter sets for the amateur market did not appear until
the late 1950s (Cosmophone 35, Collins KWM-1 & KWM-2, Collins S-Line,
etc.).

SSB operation concentrated on 75 and 20 meters in the post-WW2 years
because:

- they were the most crowded 'phone allocations
- 40 had no 'phone band, and 15 wasn't a ham band, until the early
1950s.

The main reasons SSB was not more widely adopted by hams in the '30s
were cost and complexity.

In those years (late '40s-early '50s), QST had a regular column called
"On The Air With Single Sideband". There were "SSB Handbooks" for hams
put out by several publishers. And there were gripes that QST was
becoming "too technical" and that ARRL was "forcing SSB down hams'
throats".

The more things change...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
"Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote in message
news:gk0Ua.11280$ff.3485@fed1read01...
Thanks Keith I'll add those to the copout list.

BTW SSB is probably 30 or 40 years old.

SSB first showed up in the ham bands in 1934. AT&T had SSB running
around ten years before hams did.

However, the AT&T operations were fixed-frequency LF systems (5000
meters). HF SSB was not used by the telephone folks until the '30s,
when about a half-dozen systems were put in service.

One of the reasons AT&T went with SSB for the LF transatlantic
telephone was antenna bandwidth. A 6 kHz wide AM channel at 60 kHz
involves an antenna bandwidth of 10%.

Hmmm...self-funded basement-workshop hams were less than 10 years
behind AT&T and its nearly-unlimited resources...

Next year will mark the 70th
anniversary of ham SSB. Gawd I love these "new, modern modes" like SSB
which make Morse such an artifact mode . . .

Yup - and the theoretical background for SSB goes back even further.
Truly an antique mode.

Truly an idiotic statement coming from a champion of a mode that
is much older, 159 years since 1844! :-)


Here's a timeline:

1910 - G.A. Cambell (of AT&T) develops LC filters suitable for SSB in
the LF range.

Except that single sideband was not yet an accepted concept either
in radio or wired communications. Those were "electric wave filters"
for general electronic use.

1914 - G.R Eglund (of Western Electric) sketches geometric
relationship of carrier and sidebands.

1915 - J.R Carson (of Western Electric) describes mathematical foundation of
modulation and shows the theoretical advantages of SSB suppressed
carrier transmission.

And it should be noted that John Carson also categorized FM as
generally unsuitable for communications in noisy environments. :-)
He would later publicly retract that statement and do more mathematical
studies...one of which was "Carson's Rule" on modulation index, a
standard used in FM transmitter and system design.

1915 - Carson files for patent on SSB.

It would be granted in 8 years, not 17.

1917 - Experimental 3 channel SSB telephone carrier system installed
between Maumee Ohio and South Bend, Indiana.

1918 - "Type A" SSB telephone carrier system installed between Pittsburgh PA
and Baltimore MD. Four channels using LSB between 5 and 25 kHz. Type A
was the first nonexperimental commercial use of SSB, and eventually seven Type
A systems were installed, remaining in service until the 1940s

1923 - Experimental one-way LSB 60 kHz radio system demonstrated
between Rocky Point, L.I.,(New York), and London. Many of the
components, including tubes, for this system were developed by Western
Electric.

55 KHz.

1927 - Regular transatlantic telephone service using 60 kHz LSB put in
service.
Transmitting stations at Rocky Point and Rugby, England. Receiving stations at
Houlton, Maine and Cupar, Scotland. A three-minute call cost $75.

55 KHz.

1932 - Carsons's SSB patent granted (17 years after filing).

John Carson's patent (1,449,382) was granted in 1923, not 1932.

Tsk, tsk...off by 9 whole years.

1933 - Robert Moore, W6DEI, puts an amateur station on 75 meter LSB. This
station was later described in detail in R/9 magazine. It used LC filtering at
10 kHz to generate the SSB signal, followed by conversion to 200 kHz and 3950
kHz.

KHz, not "kHz." Are you an engineer or not? Engineers should use
correct terminology for physical terms.

1934 - Several amateur SSB stations are in the air using rigs similar to
W6DEI's

Between 1933 and 1934 the Dutch established a regular "shortwave"
(HF) radio link between the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles
using what would come to be the standard in service - four voice
channels in a 12 KHz sideband via landline carrier equipment
frequency multiplexing, the "outer" two generally handling 8 to 12
TTY circuits, also frequency-multiplexed by landline carrier equipment.

The American - British link across the Atlantic went to HF by 1935.

1939 - 68 kHz channel added to Rocky Point system

By 1939 both the US government and US military were outfitting for
HF "commercial" SSB (12 KHz bandwidth, 4 voice channel) as fast
as they could get equipment. They already has some 1934 design
SSB transmitters from Western Electric in use. ADA started out
with three of them, were replaced with post-war models as soon as
available in the early 1950s.

1946 - R.B. Dome describes "Wide Band Phase Shift Networks" in
Electronics magazine.

December, 1946.

1947 - O. G. "Mike" Villard, W6QYT, puts Stanford University amateur station
W6YX on 75 meter LSB with a phasing type transmitter using an audio phase
shift network developed from the Dome article.

1952 - Western Electric's LD-T2 SSB transmitter was available to all
buyers...4 KW PEP, automatic servo motor tuning (of 12 different
stages) at 10 preset frequencies. All amplifier stages (individually
shielded) were Class A except the final amplifier running Class AB.
Half-minute QSY, easy, fast. ADA had four of them.

The term "SSSC" (Single Sideband Suppressed Carrier) was frequently
used in the early days.

Not in commercial or military radio services of 1952...it was just
"sideband" or "single sideband" in both written and spoken language
in the USA and US forces abroad.

This brings us to the point where SSB began to become common in amateur
communications. Numerous homebrew transmitters and receive adapters
were described in the amateur literature, followed by manufactured
equipment. Early SSB efforts all used separate receivers and
transmitters - the first SSB transceivers and matched-pair
receiver/transmitter sets for the amateur market did not appear until
the late 1950s (Cosmophone 35, Collins KWM-1 & KWM-2, Collins S-Line,
etc.).

Ever operate an AN/FRC-93?

I don't think you've ever operated an AN/ARC-58 or AN/ARC-65. Those
are airborne transceivers, single channel units primarily for USAF.

All of the amateur radio SSB equipment, from day one, was SINGLE
channel.


SSB operation concentrated on 75 and 20 meters in the post-WW2 years
because:

- they were the most crowded 'phone allocations
- 40 had no 'phone band, and 15 wasn't a ham band, until the early
1950s.

The main reasons SSB was not more widely adopted by hams in the '30s
were cost and complexity.

...and "most hams" didn't know squat about real radio theory so they
went back to the usual beeping, yakking, and whining. :-)

Except in the amateur 11 meter band...which they would lose in 1958
and never stop whining about it for the next 45 years! :-).

In those years (late '40s-early '50s), QST had a regular column called
"On The Air With Single Sideband". There were "SSB Handbooks" for hams
put out by several publishers. And there were gripes that QST was
becoming "too technical" and that ARRL was "forcing SSB down hams'
throats".

Well, you were there, right? Poor baby...must have been difficult.

The more things change...

The more things change the more YOU want to keep the old things.

You've made a number of ERRORS in your little history missive.
You've been corrected. Try to accept that in good grace...not your
usual spiteful attitude as a procoder knowitall.

LHA

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"Jerry Oxendine" wrote:

(snip) But *if* radio should fail (terrorists,
infrastructure, etc) then CW can get thru when
others fail. (snip)


That is very easy to claim but the fact that neither the military or
government requires all their operators to learn CW clearly suggests there
is something seriously wrong with that claim.

Those services don't expect such massive infrastructure failure, that's all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Yeah, we heard all the same nonsense 11-12 years ago when the nocode
ticket became available. Can you cite a single example of a nocode who
"pushed the hobby/service forward" since then? Where's the BEEF?! And
while you're at it perhaps you can explain what would change in this
respect by handing nocodes access to the HF bands too?



73 Corry K4DOH

w3rv


None of the QRM/bad behaviour from no-coders ever materialised either, did
it?

I've heard some on VHF/UHF. Local repeaters had a heck of a time with a few of
'em a couple years back. I'll dig up the story if you want.

All the people cited for QRM by the FCC are Extras, like I am.

I'm sure that comment is tongue-in-cheek, Alun. Just take a look at the FCC
Enforcement logs.

Note what mode was being used in most of those violations.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:01:04 -0700, Keith
wrote:

For gods sake are you that arrogant and ignorant of the world around you? I
bet you have a fancy computer. Let me put the morse code requirement in
perspective for you. What if the FCC and a national computer user group
required you to have a license to use a computer and to get a license you had
to pass a keyboard test of 35 WPM? I bet you would be screaming bloody murder
along with computer manufacturers and congress. The morse code test is the same
way.

Radio uses a natural resource (namely, the radio frequency spectrum).
Computers do not. You are comparing apples to oranges.

DE John, KC2HMZ