Looking at the Lenover21 vs N2EY debate on the first voice
transmission, maybe we could make some headway by the following:

Fessenden first transmitted voice modulated spark in 1900. The reply to
the transmission was via telegraphy. In the ensuing years, there were
both spark and alternator telephony experiments. The spark had the
disadvantage of a nasty hissing component in the audio, and the
contemporary alternators were running at up to 10 kHz, not very
satisfactory, because they weren't all that much above voice frequencies.

As time went by, alternators were built that could run at much higher
frequencies.

The first two-way transatlantic telephony was performed in 1906 at a
frequency of around 88 kHz.

This is all in the historical record.

Jim accepts it, and Len appears not to.

Len, what is your rationale for that?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

First radio voice transmission was in 1906...

Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio
communication was being carried out.

Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG.

No, it's quite right. You're the one who's wrong, Len.

"Always wrong" to Rev. Jim. :-)

"Two-way" in 1906?

Yes. Two way transatlantic in 1906. Voice radio transmission was first
demonstrated by Fessenden in 1900, not 1906.

Riiiiiight...real-time full duplex? Half duplex? Duplicity?

So, a big deal with everyone jumping on the bandwagon of voice
transmissions 1900 to 1906, right? :-)

You're reference is six years late. Simply wrong. In error. Mistaken.

Oooooooo! :-)

When, between December 26 and 31 that
year?!?!?

Nope. November. Look it up.

So, the famous "Christmas Eve broadcast" didn't happen on Christmas
Eve?

Real "high-tech" Tx there. A specially-designed carbon-pile mike
in the antenna feedline making a sort of AM. :-)

You probably won't do that, because doing so would prove you to be wrong.

What "won't I do?" :-)

Wrong yet again, Len! Are you going for a record?

No. You must be as judge, jury, executioner wanna-be, the Chief
Justice of the Ethnic Cleanser Corpse.

Fessenden held an amateur license. He was a ham as well as a "pro".

Not in 1900 or 1906, Alex Trebek. WRONG.

I didn't say *when* he held the amateur license.

Tsk. You tried to connect the dots. :-)

NOBODY in the USA held ANY official civil radio license until 1912.

I'm just stating a fact that is, most assuredly, very correct.

Just as you never said when
you were getting that Extra licesne out of its box.

Just as Reggie Fessenden never became a commercial success
in radio. He went broke more than Edison. Couldn't get enough
commercial backing.

But, you MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of
the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here. :-)

1900 or 1906 is a long time ago, 104 to 98 years to be exact.

You have an affinity for the old stuff. All that "high tech" of old
technologically-primitive radio of nearly a century ago. Tsk, tsk.

Fessenden was 1XS and later VP9F. See:

Not before 1912 in the USA. :-)

Subject: Famous Hams
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 7/18/2004 1:06 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Looking at the Lenover21 vs N2EY debate on the first voice
transmission, maybe we could make some headway by the following:

Fessenden first transmitted voice modulated spark in 1900. The reply to

the transmission was via telegraphy. In the ensuing years, there were
both spark and alternator telephony experiments. The spark had the
disadvantage of a nasty hissing component in the audio, and the
contemporary alternators were running at up to 10 kHz, not very
satisfactory, because they weren't all that much above voice frequencies.

As time went by, alternators were built that could run at much higher
frequencies.

The first two-way transatlantic telephony was performed in 1906 at a
frequency of around 88 kHz.

This is all in the historical record.

Jim accepts it, and Len appears not to.

Len, what is your rationale for that?

Because he "said so", Mike.

He's a "professional"...! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


First radio voice transmission was in 1906...

Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio
communication was being carried out.

Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG.

I would say his Time Machine is spot on. In 1900 Fessenden was working
for the U.S. Weather Bureau where he improved their Morse code system
for better weather forecasting and expermenting on his own transmitted
voice for a distance of over a mile. In 1903 he sent a voice message
over a distance of 50 miles and in 1906 he acheived *two-way* voice
transmissions between the Brant Rock Station in Massachusetts and
Machrihanish, Scotland.
Spured by the Titanic disaster, he developed a device to bounce radio
waves off iceburgs miles away. (the first RADAR maybe?)

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Fessenden first transmitted voice modulated spark in 1900. The reply to
the transmission was via telegraphy. In the ensuing years, there were
both spark and alternator telephony experiments. The spark had the
disadvantage of a nasty hissing component in the audio, and the
contemporary alternators were running at up to 10 kHz, not very
satisfactory, because they weren't all that much above voice frequencies.

As time went by, alternators were built that could run at much higher
frequencies.

The first two-way transatlantic telephony was performed in 1906 at a
frequency of around 88 kHz.

This is all in the historical record.

A few more points, Mike:

- The 1900 voice radio transmissions were the first, and were over a distance
of about a mile.

- By 1903, Fessenden had extended the distance to 50 miles

- By November 1906, Fessenden had set up stations on both sides of the Atlantic
and was conducting two-way voice transatlantic radio communication.

- The much-heralded Christmas Eve 1906 event was not the first voice
transmission, but rather the first *broadcast*, as it was meant for general
reception by anyone with a suitable receiver. This broadcast was repeated a
week later, on New Year's Eve.

- Fessenden was able to generate intelligible voice-modulated spark by using a
supply frequency above the audible range. However, he found that modulating an
alternator was a superior method.

- A few years ago, some Canadians built a replica of Fessenden's 1900
transmitter, and using a dummy load were able to get it to work. Recoridngs of
the resulting signal are online. While the audio quality is low, the voice is
intelligible.

Fessenden was a true genius, with over 500 patents in a variety of fields. In
my opinion, he is second in significance only to Edwin Howard Armstrong in the
development of modern radio.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Looking at the Lenover21 vs N2EY debate on the first voice
transmission, maybe we could make some headway by the following:

Mike, this is all old ground that was ground under the anguished
trodding feet of the exacting headmasters months ago. :-)

A century in the past. An oddity insofar as technology is concerned.

Anyone (other than the one in my ancestral land) using alternators
or spark transmitters now?


This is all in the historical record.

Jim accepts it, and Len appears not to.

Len, what is your rationale for that?

Doesn't matter what I write in here. Headmaster and Deacon,
the "right" Rev. Jim, will say I am "flat-out wrong," "incorrect"
and so forth, no matter what the subject. :-)

The only thing I'm sure about is that I was helping to keep HF
communications alive and well across the Pacific a half century
ago...24/7 service...never once having to use morse code then
or in the next half century.

If you guys want only to natter about ancient history and argue
the whichness of the what on technologies long ago kissed bye-
bye by everyone, fine. If Jeopardy ever has questions on ancient
radio days' technologies, I really doubt if any of you PCTA are
going to pull off a Ken Jennings. :-)

By the way, consider what became of ol' Reggie after the 20s.
Not much left of his "technology" in the world of radio. Some
consider him a "genius." Those folks NEED hero worship
objects for some reason. Bottom line was that Reggie just
couldn't hack it in trying to be a part of Big Radio Business not
long after that famous Christmas Eve broadcast.

You might say ol' Reg just fired up, tuned out, and went QRT.

He did invent the first heterodyne receiver (of a most crude sort).
Ed Armstrong came along and invented a great improvement,
the superheterodyne. Tubes proved superior to lil bitty spark
RF generators. Reg just didn't work much with tubes.

You too can make a "heterodyne receiver" much like Fessenden's.
Just get a crystal set and add a little RF generator tuned to close
to the signal frequency. Sort of a "detector and BFO" without the
rest of the receiver. [a direct-conversion receiver is much easier
and more sensitive, but let's not quibble among the ancient radio
re-enactors... :-) ]

I think most hams will know what a "superhet" receiver is. How
many know what a "het" receiver is? :-)

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Just as you never said when
you were getting that Extra licesne out of its box.

Just as Reggie Fessenden never became a commercial success
in radio. He went broke more than Edison. Couldn't get enough
commercial backing.

You were wrong, Lennie.

But, you MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of
the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here.

You were wrong, Lennie.

1900 or 1906 is a long time ago, 104 to 98 years to be exact.

You were wrong, Lennie.

You have an affinity for the old stuff. All that "high tech" of old
technologically-primitive radio of nearly a century ago. Tsk, tsk.

You were wrong, Lennie.

Fessenden was 1XS and later VP9F. See:

Not before 1912 in the USA.

You were wrong, Lennie.

Now...on those few occassions when you have been right, you've
DEMANDED that the other party acknowldege your rightness and pay you
homage.

We won't hold our breath for the same from you, but we will wait
and see if you are man enough to acknowledge that you were, indeed,
wrong.

I don't think you are.

Steve, K4YZ

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

Forgive me, I digress. This thread is all about the IMPORTANCE
of being famous through amateur radio... :-)

You always digress, Lennie. It's your schtick.

And in any case we won't be discussing Lennie Anderson...In
Amateur Radio, PLMRS, aerospace, or any OTHER form of "radio"...Never
was important, never will be. Except in your own mind, of course.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

First radio voice transmission was in 1906...

Wrong, Len. It was in 1900. By 1906, two-way transatlantic voice radio
communication was being carried out.

Jimmie! Your Time Mashine got it all wrong. WRONG.

No, it's quite right. You're the one who's wrong, Len.

"Always wrong" to Rev. Jim. :-)

Who?

"Two-way" in 1906?

Yes. Two way transatlantic in 1906. Voice radio transmission was first
demonstrated by Fessenden in 1900, not 1906.

Riiiiiight...real-time full duplex? Half duplex? Duplicity?

Sounds like you've had a couple doobies, Len ;-) ;-)

So, a big deal with everyone jumping on the bandwagon of voice
transmissions 1900 to 1906, right? :-)

You tell us - you brought it up. And you got the date wrong by six years.

You're reference is six years late. Simply wrong. In error. Mistaken.

Oooooooo! :-)

Good stuff in those doobies, huh? ;-) ;-)

When, between December 26 and 31 that
year?!?!?

Nope. November. Look it up.

So, the famous "Christmas Eve broadcast" didn't happen on Christmas
Eve?

Sure it did. It just wasn't the first radio voice transmission.

Real "high-tech" Tx there. A specially-designed carbon-pile mike
in the antenna feedline making a sort of AM. :-)

It worked.

You probably won't do that, because doing so would prove you to be wrong.

What "won't I do?" :-)

You won't look up the facts and admit your mistake.

Wrong yet again, Len! Are you going for a record?

No. You must be as judge, jury, executioner wanna-be, the Chief
Justice of the Ethnic Cleanser Corpse.

Not me. You.

Fessenden held an amateur license. He was a ham as well as a "pro".

Not in 1900 or 1906, Alex Trebek. WRONG.

I didn't say *when* he held the amateur license.

Tsk. You tried to connect the dots. :-)

You did.

NOBODY in the USA held ANY official civil radio license until 1912.

So what? Your high bias is showing, Len. Makes you run hot ;-) ;-)

I'm just stating a fact that is, most assuredly, very correct.

Maybe. Doesn't fix your mistake, though.

Just as you never said when
you were getting that Extra licesne out of its box.

Just as Reggie Fessenden never became a commercial success
in radio. He went broke more than Edison. Couldn't get enough
commercial backing.

You're no Fessenden, Len. ;-) ;-)


But, you MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of
the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here. :-)

Gee. Len, I'm not the one calling people names and telling them to shut up. You
are.

1900 or 1906 is a long time ago, 104 to 98 years to be exact.

Then why did you bring it up?

You have an affinity for the old stuff.

Some old stuff. Not all old stuff.

All that "high tech" of old
technologically-primitive radio of nearly a century ago. Tsk, tsk.

You MUST misdirect the subject thread into personalities of
the repliers...that's the only way you can save face in here. :-)

Fessenden was 1XS and later VP9F. See:

Not before 1912 in the USA. :-)

He got his out of its box. You haven't.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Looking at the Lenover21 vs N2EY debate on the first voice
transmission, maybe we could make some headway by the following:

Mike, this is all old ground that was ground under the anguished
trodding feet of the exacting headmasters months ago. :-)

You brought it up, Len ;-)

A century in the past. An oddity insofar as technology is concerned.

A pioneering effort/

Anyone (other than the one in my ancestral land) using alternators
or spark transmitters now?

There's an alternator in almost every car on the road ;-) ;-)

This is all in the historical record.

Jim accepts it, and Len appears not to.

Len, what is your rationale for that?

Doesn't matter what I write in here. Headmaster and Deacon,
the "right" Rev. Jim, will say I am "flat-out wrong," "incorrect"
and so forth, no matter what the subject. :-)

Who is this "Rev. Jim" you keep talking about, Len?

The only thing I'm sure about is that I was helping to keep HF
communications alive and well across the Pacific a half century
ago...24/7 service...never once having to use morse code then
or in the next half century.

That's the *only* thing you're sure of? ;-) ;-) ;-)

If you guys want only to natter about ancient history and argue
the whichness of the what on technologies long ago kissed bye-
bye by everyone, fine.

*You* brought it up, Len. Not anybody else. You were simply wrong about the
date.

Had anyone else made such an error, you;d be all over them like a cheap suit.

If Jeopardy ever has questions on ancient
radio days' technologies, I really doubt if any of you PCTA are
going to pull off a Ken Jennings. :-)

Just can't say you're wrong, can you? ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

By the way, consider what became of ol' Reggie after the 20s.

Why?

Not much left of his "technology" in the world of radio.

So?

Some
consider him a "genius."

He was. You're not.

Those folks NEED hero worship
objects for some reason. Bottom line was that Reggie just
couldn't hack it in trying to be a part of Big Radio Business not
long after that famous Christmas Eve broadcast.

I see. Commercial success is your only measure.

You might say ol' Reg just fired up, tuned out, and went QRT.

He did invent the first heterodyne receiver (of a most crude sort).
Ed Armstrong came along and invented a great improvement,
the superheterodyne. Tubes proved superior to lil bitty spark
RF generators. Reg just didn't work much with tubes.

And you're point is?

You too can make a "heterodyne receiver" much like Fessenden's.
Just get a crystal set and add a little RF generator tuned to close
to the signal frequency. Sort of a "detector and BFO" without the
rest of the receiver. [a direct-conversion receiver is much easier
and more sensitive, but let's not quibble among the ancient radio
re-enactors... :-) ]

What you describe *is* a direct conversion receiver.

I think most hams will know what a "superhet" receiver is. How
many know what a "het" receiver is? :-)

I do.

Nice try avoiding the main point. But you're still wrong about the date of the
first voice radio transmission. It was 1900, not 1906. You brought it up.