| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
December 30th 04, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] Barry would appear to be from Australia, Len. I'm not up on the Australian amateur rules, but I guess they are different than the US with regard to HF access. My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Sure isn't! Some are just born that way - then they get a ham license! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#12
December 30th 04, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
Hello, Phil and Barry As a kind hearted soul who is willing to assist some folks having communications difficulties, I have asked a friend of mine in the U.K. for some assistance. Here is his reply: ********* start of copied message********** Hi James and All, I will willingly help you with your project Jim, just send me what you want to say in your words and I will convert it to an English style of your choosing. I can do you, the Queens English, London Cockney, London North, London South, not that I have ever been south of the river, Middle England, West Country or Welsh (real Welsh mind, not Canadian Welsh), LOL. ********* end copy********* So, if Barry would be so kind to inform us as to what kind of colour should be applied to our conversation, I shall ask my friend, Bernie, in the U.K. to translate for us. Too bad he doesn't do Scottish. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#13
December 31st 04, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. The second class ticket was a joke. 45 ohms resistance with 45 ohms inductive reactance. What is the phase angle? a) voltage leads current by 90 degrees b) current leads voltage by 90 degrees c) voltage leads current by 45 degrees d) current leads voltage by 45 degrees Not exactly IEEE stuff. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#14
December 31st 04, 06:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) |
|
#15
December 31st 04, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Barry OGrady writes: On 29 Dec 2004 05:00:06 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:04:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: The FCC is now allowing unlicensed operation in several bands: 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands, are you concerned about the impact it will have on Hams? How many people here even use the GHz bands? Are there enough Hams to even justify further use? They used to say the same thing about the bands above 2 meters. We lost 220-222 MHz. That isn't important unless all the 2m and 3/4m frequency pairs are used up. The two-twenty loss (part of the old band there) was "lost" to hams some time ago. The Condor Net has been living and doing fine in what is left above it. BIG network, multiple states involved, all tone signalling to link along the net, designed that way before micro- processors became commonplace. Don't worry, anyone. Morsemanship is still necessary to get on HF as an amateur. No its not. My amateur license lets me use all amateur bands with no knowledge of morse. So...is there some secret U.S. amateur regulation restructuring that has already removed the morse code test?!? [other than a specific, individual medical waiver of it, possible years ago] My commercial license let me transmit RF on a far wider range of the EM spectrum than just the amateur bands, certainly those few spectrum slices allocated on a primary basis to just amateurs. Didn't even need any "license" to transmit on HF, on VHF, on UHF and on microwaves 51+ years ago when in military service. An amateur radio operator license is NOT a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings...except in the personal imaginings of a few who are lost in a fantasyland. Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) Hello, Len Well, I never did have any Q&A manuals. I also never studied for any of the exams I took, including Novice, General, Amateur Extra, 2nd phone, and 2nd telegraph. I was simply up on the material (other than the band plans, which I learned through exposure as a Novice. Didn't help a bit when I retested in 93; I was quite wrong on at least where 40 meters was). The only study I did do was when I did fail the 1st phone and realized that I needed to know *exactly* what the numbers were to be. I must admit that the CW was a bit shaky in 1993 when I simply retested for everything through extra, however; I hadn't copied CW since 1969 (excluding the fact that I couldn't help myself when the Moose Cud was sent during the movie "Fantastic Voyage" back when  I didn't mean to imply a slam against the commercial license; I did serve in 4 AM radio stations, 2 FM stations, and 2 television stations. Two stints as a disk jockey, all as an "engineer" (LOL), and one as chief engineer (5,000 watt am/fm station). Never forget the first job when I tore off the teletype from the A-P. Went to do the news (running late; didn't read everything. Crossed out some I wouldn't use) and the stupid thing took a hit and went into figures for about two sentences. Fortunately, serving for 4 years as a radioman in the Navy (much of it with teletype) allowed me to simply read it. Impressed the heck out of the guy breaking me in. Of course, I had to go clean my drawers out in the W.C. right after that  )73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#16
January 1st 05, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
January 2nd 05, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) Hello, Len I don't know how many amateurs are going to even get much above 1 GHz. As you point out, high power is not necessary due to high gain antennas being easy to make (or, perhaps, purchase). The problem might be in the aiming. I got a bit lucky when I put in my Direct Tv system some years ago. Running the coax and feeding into the house was easy; the antenna pointing became a bit more problematic, both due to a bad compass and a poor choice of help. I invited a couple of friends over. Since they weren't hams and I didn't have (as I now do) a cordless phone with both a base and remote (that is *great* for work on the antenna), nor did we have cell phones, I needed one guy to watch the set and report signal strength and holler to the second guy in the kitchen who would holler to me on the roof. I checked the mount to set up and verify the supporting rod was indeed vertical, set the elevation, and, using a compass, set the direction of the antenna. They reported nothing. I went to check the compass again as the elevation was easy to set. I noticed that the needle was *not* pointing where it should be. I know that from my porch, the North star sits exactly in line with the back of my neighbor's house and I was in the proper position, albeit higher, and North should be exactly in line with the end of my neighbor's house. The needle should have pointed a bit East of that, but was pointing considerably towards the East. Sigh. I came back down and got the manual as it shows the deviation from true North. I went back on the roof, pointed the N on the compass exactly towards the neighbor's house, and carefully looked across the compass to see where the antenna should point (with the proper true headings from the installation manual). I made the adjustment to the antenna and yelled down. I tried for a couple of minutes and got no response from below. Irritated, I packed up the tools and went back down - and found everyone drinking my beer!!!! Sigh ... ok, I went in to the television to turn it off - and there was a signal indication of 85! I pulled out the credit card and called Direct Tv. Bam! On came the whole 9 yards. Further testing the following day revealed that I could not get a better signal. Lucky indeed. BTW, by the next day, I had run coax both upstairs to the bedroom and also into the kitchen, so I only needed one helper. He could watch the signal strength in the kitchen and yell directly out the window to me. I chose my helper a bit more judiciously What does that have to do with 10 GHz transmission? Even purchasing equipment, someone is going to have to be able to aim the darn thing (gain comes at the expense of beamwidth, naturally) - and have some idea of local topography if they wish to take advantage of either natural or man-made objects. Of course, if the object is moonbounce, taking a dish which will develop the proper gain (and I'm guessing here - likely approaching 30 dBi), that thing is going to have to be fairly accurately pointed. My Morse key has two settings: up and down. I can handle that, but some folks might not be able to handle something a bit more complex than that (although many can). Interplanetary QSOs might prove *very* interesting. You certainly can't call CQ. You'd have to set up pre-arranged transmit times. Both could transmit information at a given time and the both wait .... and wait ... and wait whilst the electromagnetic radiation made its' way at the speed of light for a number of minutes (or hours, depending upon how close the planet - likely mars - was at the time). Obviously, mars is quite close to us only at certain times and even then is what - 35 million miles away? Don't forget to adjust for Doppler shift as the planets are moving closer or farther away. Narrow bandwidths can give you better signal to noise ratio, but narrow bandwidths can also make that Doppler shift a lot more difficult to deal with. I doubt wideband FM would cut the mustard due to a *huge* increase in noise with the much larger bandwidth over narrow bandwidth modes. I don't think I'm likely to be around by the time ordinary folks can take a trip to mars .... Dang, where'd I put my Morse key? )73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#18
January 2nd 05, 04:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: Hello, Len That commercial license wasn't a particularly big deal, except that you were expected to memorize the "band plan", as it were, for VHF television. I had to laugh, no problem with the video or audio carrier nor the allotted 6 MHz per channel space. First question, I think, was "what is the frequency of the video carrier of channel 6 television in the United States?". Well, I guessed they couldn't all be that bad, so I flipped a couple of pages, put my finger down, and examined the question by my finger. "What is the color burst frequency?". Ah, simple. 3.58 MHz .... oops, all of the 4 answers started with 3.579 ..... NTSC color subcarrier is exactly 3.579545454545454545454545.... MHz. :-) Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn about that FCC field office test I took in Chicago in March, 1956. It DID allow me to work at some broadcast stations and earn a bit of money. I don't remember that four-part test for a 1st 'Phone as being exclusively about broadcasting. Maybe it changed later. Irrelevant. A whole lot of changes have taken place in radio and electronics in the last almost 49 years. So, I had to take it a second time and this time I simply memorized the splits and took a good hard look at how tightly various frequencies were specified. Then it was easy. I took mine just once. Everything. My "Q&A" book was a borrowed Regulations set then printed up in loose-leaf form. All I did was memorize what seemed to be important regulations. The theory I'd already learned from the military experience, high-power HF trans- mitters plus VHF, UHF, microwave radio relay. No real problem. Not exactly IEEE stuff. It was never intended to be such...any more than the amateur written test is some kind of academic accomplishment. The commercial telegraph license and radar endorsement were also not very difficult. Such brain-strainers as "why do you avoid long horizontal sections of waveguide". Why would you? :-) A commercial license is not a noble title indicating a licensee is "superior" to all other human beings (amateurs included) LOL I've never stated that nor implied it was. However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Since 1958 I've been working in the microwaves, topping out at the top of Ka Band (25 GHz) with only a brief time with some 2mm wavelength stuff where the waveguide had to be coin silver electro-deposited on a polished copper mandrel (due to RF surface conduction being too high a resistance with ordinary silver plated guide...too much loss). I think of that lil-bitty guide stuff as my "first SMT" exposure... :-) A couple good reasons why amateur operations aren't widespread at microwaves, particularly above X Band (greater than 12 GHz) are Co$t of guide, flanges, measuring equipment, and RF sources; there's no "magical" round-the-world bounce off the ionosphere as with HF; so few amateurs know what they're doing at those very short wavelengths (nearly all the present-day record setters have commercial/military microwave experience). One big plus at microwaves is that antenna gain can be terrific due to beam-forming. Very little power is needed. Sure, there's no "skip" at those frequencies, it's all line-of-sight, but eventually there's going to be humans out there, far away. HF techniques won't be good for interplanetary QSOs. :-) Hello, Len I don't know how many amateurs are going to even get much above 1 GHz. As you point out, high power is not necessary due to high gain antennas being easy to make (or, perhaps, purchase). The problem might be in the aiming. That is a big part of it. Even if a lot of hams were there, it would be pretty much a sked only comms. This leads to prospective users having a need to work in pairs or teams. It will not be about making QSO's with multiple people, you will be wanting to put your equipment together, and try it out. So right away, the users will need to be interested in mainly putting a station together and using it a few times, then moving along to the next goal. And of course, the major attraction of these GHz and up frequencies is that they DON'T go very far. You have to be the type of user that doesn't care to make long distance QSO's! Despite the ARRL's promotion and record keeping, for AIAP's these frequencies are *very* local. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#19
January 11th 05, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Tony VE6MVP
writes: On 31 Dec 2004 06:31:51 GMT, (Lenof21) wrote: However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Ah, but to them it is an academic, PhD level stuff. smile ...and so is an Ohm's Law of Resistance formula with one unknown. Some need Java calculator programs on their PCs in order to solve such difficult "rocket science." Sheesh. |
|
#20
January 11th 05, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Tony VE6MVP
writes: On 31 Dec 2004 06:31:51 GMT, (Lenof21) wrote: However, a lot of hams go on and on, terribly full of themselves, on implying that Their accomplishment is academic PhD level stuff. :-) [ ptui...] Ah, but to them it is an academic, PhD level stuff. smile ...and so is an Ohm's Law of Resistance formula with one unknown. Some need Java calculator programs on their PCs in order to solve such difficult "rocket science." Sheesh. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| CW computer interface woes ... | General | |||
| Cell phone woes | Policy | |||
| Magloop woes | Antenna | |||
Linear Mode
