In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote

Pity that the northeastern USA membership organization still
thinks it is the tyrannosaurus rex of radio when all it is is a little
lizard in an ancient back yard of morsemanship.

The snarly Una-basher speaks again. He must have been scared
(scarred?) by an ARRL diamond when he was a baby.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, you have to quit renting tapes of "Exorcist,"
ancient mariner. :-)

"Independence Day" is more your style. :-)

ARRL is in fact very California-centric.

There are more W6 ARRL members than any other call area.
Two of the fifteen ARRL Divisions are in California.
Ten of the seventy ARRL Sections are in California.

Ancient mariner, the ARRL Internet pages originate in the
northeast corner of the USA, diagonally oppoite California.
They couldn't be any more anti-west if they tried.

There are more licensed radio amateurs in California than
any other state because there are more US citizens in
California than any other state (one out of eight
Americans live here). The Pacific states are the center for
U. S. aerospace and electronics. "Silicon Valley" didn't
arise out any need for improved morse proficiency in radio.
Tektronix didn't start up to show RF envelopes to amateurs
and Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started their place to
make good electronic instruments...for laboratories...only
much later did H-P evolve to more things.

Good luck on your study of voice-modulated spark
transmitters.

LHA

N2EY wrote:
Leo writes:
To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

Part 15 allows this as well, though I guess one could debate whether
this qualifies as a "radio service":

Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices.

(a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not
marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of
five or less for personal use.
(b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built
equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for
determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder
is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified
technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions
of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment.

Dennis Ferguson

(Dennis Ferguson) wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
Leo writes:
To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

I stand corrected! Thanks, Dennis, I'd forgotten about Part 15 systems.

Part 15 allows this as well, though I guess one could debate whether
this qualifies as a "radio service":

Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices.

(a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not
marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of
five or less for personal use.
(b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built
equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for
determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder
is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified
technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions
of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment.

I'd say the provisions of Sec 15.5 are quite restricting, though....

73 es tnx de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
(Dennis Ferguson) wrote
determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder
is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified
technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions
of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment.

I'd say the provisions of Sec 15.5 are quite restricting, though....

It depends on the particulars of the application, and one's good luck,
I guess, since 15.5's primary effect is to make it uncertain whether
or not a Part 15 device will be (and will continue to be) usable. Given
the bizzilions of Part 15 transceivers sold to people who seem happy with
their purchase, however, it is clear that many have suffered no constraints
from 15.5 which bother them. For some applications the probability of
being constrained by 15.5 seems to be pretty small in practice.

Note too that the ARS is also (though differently) constrained with
respect to applications, particularly by 97.113 and 97.115. Whether
the ARS restrictions or the Part 15 restrictions are more onerous
depend a lot on what use you want to make of the devices you build.

Dennis Ferguson

(N2EY) wrote in message om...

I'd say the provisions of Sec 15.5 are quite restricting, though....

Millions of dollars are spent each year saying they aren't....

Don't you wish you had a percentage?