wrote:
From: Leo on Jul 23, 11:23 am

While the ubiquitous ball-point pen is used for making notes
in ham "logs," the precise frequencies noted down are kept
accurate by the PLL or DDS in modern amateur transceivers.

Nope.

The precise frequencies are "kept" by the station licensee who
ensures that his or her station is kept in good operating order.

It is additionally noted that Leonard H Anderson had nothing to do
with the creation for the aforementioned PLL or DDS that he's
attempting to brag on.

NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.

NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

For an example of cross-pollination of myths, the "space
amateur radio" carried on by space station and (previous)
shuttle astronauts is done almost entirely by no-code-test
Technician class licensed astronauts. It is part of their
overall task assignment (every astronaut must adhere to
NASA PR rules) and relatively minor in relation to all that
they must do. Contrary to the fantasy of some, astronauts
did not become hams first, THEN astronauts.

Some of them certainly do. Witness Owen Garriot, W5LFL. The
FIRST Amateur-Astronaut to operate from the Space Shuttle.

I know that facts aren't your forte, Lennie...Sorry to bust your
rant.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
From: Leo on Jul 23, 11:23 am

While the ubiquitous ball-point pen is used for making notes
in ham "logs," the precise frequencies noted down are kept
accurate by the PLL or DDS in modern amateur transceivers.

Nope.

The precise frequencies are "kept" by the station licensee who
ensures that his or her station is kept in good operating order.

the rigs do that the operator may or may not be checking thier work but
the rigs do it

It is additionally noted that Leonard H Anderson had nothing to do
with the creation for the aforementioned PLL or DDS that he's
attempting to brag on.

so?


NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.

NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

sure does most Govt agnecies do

of course for the sack of PC they call it PR

For an example of cross-pollination of myths, the "space
amateur radio" carried on by space station and (previous)
shuttle astronauts is done almost entirely by no-code-test
Technician class licensed astronauts. It is part of their
overall task assignment (every astronaut must adhere to
NASA PR rules) and relatively minor in relation to all that
they must do. Contrary to the fantasy of some, astronauts
did not become hams first, THEN astronauts.

Some of them certainly do. Witness Owen Garriot, W5LFL. The
FIRST Amateur-Astronaut to operate from the Space Shuttle.

I know that facts aren't your forte, Lennie...Sorry to bust your
rant.

Steve, K4YZ

From: "K4YZ" on Sun 24 Jul 2005 05:53

wrote:
From: Leo on Jul 23, 11:23 am

While the ubiquitous ball-point pen is used for making notes
in ham "logs," the precise frequencies noted down are kept
accurate by the PLL or DDS in modern amateur transceivers.

Nope.

What do you mean "nope," opie?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

What you use then, big PCTA extra of the Double Standard, a
couple crates of crystals?!?!?

The precise frequencies are "kept" by the station licensee who
ensures that his or her station is kept in good operating order.

Yeah, riiiight...the extra can do "laying on of hands" and
instantly tell (by magic of some kind of telepathy) what
frequency he is tuned to....

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

It is additionally noted that Leonard H Anderson had nothing to do
with the creation for the aforementioned PLL or DDS that he's
attempting to brag on.

Tsk, tsk. The fire in your hate-filled eyes is robbing you
of any comprehension of what was written.

NOBODY was "bragging" about PLLs or DDSs...just pointing out
that they exist. The PLL was first innovated in France in
1932. The ball-point pen was innovated in Hungary in the
1930s. You don't see any connection chronologically?
No, you can't...you are WAY too busy trying trying to trash
those who won't agree with you.

NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.

NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

Again, you FAIL in reading comprehension...but, what the hell,
you've probably never read "NASA Technology Review" issues,
either. :-)

NASA Public Relations TAILORS and CRAFTS their words very
carefully...as ALL good marketing types do. They can CREATE
the IMPRESSION of things in their favor...as what ALL good
marketting types do. All they have to do is some word
re-arranging and some convenient OMISSION of certain things
and those who read/listen/view what they are talking about
will do the "myth creation" for them. Examples:

"Ball point pen invented by NASA." Not so...it was invented
before NASA existed.

"TANG" (the breakfast drink) came out of NASA as a drink for
astronauts. Not so...it was invented for consumer use and to
make money.

"Velcro was invented by NASA" to hold things in place in
zero gravity. Not so. It's obvious that it does so but the
invention was for the clothing industry.

"Teflon was invented by NASA" to withstand the rigors of
spaceflight, etc. Not so. Fluoroethylene chemistry came
out of needs of the Manhattan Project to use in extracting
uranium and plutonium...which was later commercialized by
DuPont as a polymer.

ALL of those common myths are further reinforced by the
everyday journalists and news editors who simply take news
copy and "run with it" in their media. Everyone sees it in
print (real ink on real paper) or sees it on TV (TV never
lies in its news)...and they accept it as "fact."

For an example of cross-pollination of myths, the "space
amateur radio" carried on by space station and (previous)
shuttle astronauts is done almost entirely by no-code-test
Technician class licensed astronauts. It is part of their
overall task assignment (every astronaut must adhere to
NASA PR rules) and relatively minor in relation to all that
they must do. Contrary to the fantasy of some, astronauts
did not become hams first, THEN astronauts.

Some of them certainly do. Witness Owen Garriot, W5LFL. The
FIRST Amateur-Astronaut to operate from the Space Shuttle.

Believe at least one thing: There's NO such thing as an
AMATEUR astronaut. Each and every one of them is a
professional in what they do. If anyone wants to read DOCTOR
Garriott's bio, just go to:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/garriott-ok.html

This 74-year-old FORMER astronaut has got a resume there that
makes ordinary terrestrial mortals look puny. Doctor Garriott
has been a PROFESSIONAL in aeronautics, as both astronaut and
academic, all his life. It should be obvious to anyone
reading that bio. To you, all you can read is a tiny paragraph
about Skylab 3 (first flight of only two) and using an amateur
callsign.

About the only space flyers who come even close to the "amateur"
description are the two with money who rode on Russian rockets
and they had to go through a rigorous half-year training
program to be allowed to do so. The two pilots of private-
venture Space Ship One were long-time professionals prior to
being hired by Scaled Composites, Inc.

I know that facts aren't your forte, Lennie...Sorry to bust your
rant.

The ONLY thing YOU "busted" was - once again - that you don't
know dink of what you talk about. You are a poseur, a fraud,
trying to make yourself look like somebody "important" when
you don't know dink, haven't done dink in space OR aeronautics.

Quit trying to read the ARRL "news" bulletins as if they are
the primo word on "radio." That will help you overcome your
quite-obvious IGNORANCE. Maybe. I don't have optimism that
you can...



[Life Member of IEEE, as is Dr. Garriott]

NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.


NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

He probably was talking about the supposed "spin-offs"
from the space program to regular consumer products.
Many such were actually spin doctoring. But the space
program was/is still worth doing, and some products were
developed quicker because of it. ICs and such.

robert casey wrote:

NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.


NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

He probably was talking about the supposed "spin-offs"
from the space program to regular consumer products.
Many such were actually spin doctoring. But the space
program was/is still worth doing, and some products were
developed quicker because of it. ICs and such.

I Think Len agrees. I certainly but it just goes to show that NASA like
anything else in the Govt. Always spin yourself up as much as
possible.

which of course is a part of the basis on which various folks claim
that ARES and MARS press is also over blown, there is something there
but it spun up and out of reality

From: robert casey on Jul 24, 5:26 pm


NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.

NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

He probably was talking about the supposed "spin-offs"
from the space program to regular consumer products.

Not "probably," DEFINITELY. :-)

Many such were actually spin doctoring. But the space
program was/is still worth doing, and some products were
developed quicker because of it. ICs and such.

I think the whole of the space program is DEFINITELY
worth doing. Thought so before I was a part of it
and still think so.

But, another of those "spins" is that "ICs got developed
through NASA help." Yes, NASA did - eventually - use ICs
but most designs of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo program
era were discretes, diodes and transistors that were
screened, life-tested, lot-tested, measured three ways
from Sunday, and recorded in many pages of logs along
the "TX" (Tested eXtra) route to being man-rated.

Those of us who had been in clean rooms and had to attend
"MRBs" (Material Review Board) of minimum three persons
to change a single part were well aware of all those
things being discrete solid-state devices. Instrumentation
electronics had unmerciful QC procedures...man-rated was
another plateau above that.

I got to hold in my hand a TI flat-pack (old style) in
1958. A J-K flip-flop. Marveled at how small, tiny,
etc., it was. [I'd just built a "fast" (1 MHz clock)
discrete flip-flop with much difficulty] NASA was
barely out of the Geophysical Year launch failures of 1956.

The IBM guidance computer for Apollo wasn't even designed
yet in '58 but it would eventually be made...using nearly
all discrete semis and core memory..."magnetic rope" (of
cores) for a "ROM." State of the art when design was
begun...not even comparable to what consumers got a decade
or two ago.

The COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL part of electronics spurred on
the development of better, newer ICs. Government, primarily
military, was second, just not near as desirous of small
solid-state ICs as the commercial-industrial side of
electronics. Semiconductor makers enjoyed a boom on top
of boom in the commercial and industrial electronics
area. Even now, the "space rated" ICs are terribly few
in number. Check the NASA preferred parts listings
against the giant listings of any semi distributor. No
comparison.

NASA's big mainframe computers and fancy consoles at
MSFC and the Cape? All supplied by the commercial-
industrial makers as essentially stock parts.

...and that's the way it is...(borrowing from Walter C.)

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Sun 24 Jul 2005 05:53

wrote:
From: Leo on Jul 23, 11:23 am

While the ubiquitous ball-point pen is used for making notes
in ham "logs," the precise frequencies noted down are kept
accurate by the PLL or DDS in modern amateur transceivers.

Nope.

What do you mean "nope," opie?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

What you use then, big PCTA extra of the Double Standard, a
couple crates of crystals?!?!?

Nope...Common sense, a signal generator and a spectrum analyzer.

The precise frequencies are "kept" by the station licensee who
ensures that his or her station is kept in good operating order.

Yeah, riiiight...the extra can do "laying on of hands" and
instantly tell (by magic of some kind of telepathy) what
frequency he is tuned to....

Nope.

But I don't depend on that digital display to be 100% accurate.

The FCC says "be sure", and I do.

It is additionally noted that Leonard H Anderson had nothing to do
with the creation for the aforementioned PLL or DDS that he's
attempting to brag on.

Tsk, tsk. The fire in your hate-filled eyes is robbing you
of any comprehension of what was written.

Nope. Just noting that you're trying to "diss" Amateurs again.

NOBODY was "bragging" about PLLs or DDSs...just pointing out
that they exist. The PLL was first innovated in France in
1932. The ball-point pen was innovated in Hungary in the
1930s. You don't see any connection chronologically?
No, you can't...you are WAY too busy trying trying to trash
those who won't agree with you.

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing.

It's about assuming responsiblity for the proper operation of your
radio station and not surrendering your obligations to technology.

NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.

NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

Again, you FAIL in reading comprehension...but, what the hell,
you've probably never read "NASA Technology Review" issues,
either.

No, I don't.

But I ALSO know I've never read any "myths" from any of the NASA
originated texts that I have read.

You'll please provide some readily verifyable reference to ONE
"myth" that you suggest that NASA has promulgated...?!?!

NASA Public Relations TAILORS and CRAFTS their words very
carefully...as ALL good marketing types do. They can CREATE
the IMPRESSION of things in their favor...as what ALL good
marketting types do. All they have to do is some word
re-arranging and some convenient OMISSION of certain things
and those who read/listen/view what they are talking about
will do the "myth creation" for them. Examples:

"Ball point pen invented by NASA." Not so...it was invented
before NASA existed.

Where was this written? What NASA source released it?

"TANG" (the breakfast drink) came out of NASA as a drink for
astronauts. Not so...it was invented for consumer use and to
make money.

Where was this written? What NASA source released it?

"Velcro was invented by NASA" to hold things in place in
zero gravity. Not so. It's obvious that it does so but the
invention was for the clothing industry.

Where was this written? What NASA source released it?

"Teflon was invented by NASA" to withstand the rigors of
spaceflight, etc. Not so. Fluoroethylene chemistry came
out of needs of the Manhattan Project to use in extracting
uranium and plutonium...which was later commercialized by
DuPont as a polymer.

Where was this written? What NASA source released it?

At one time or another I've read about these various products and
some affiliation with NASA, but never as a product OF NASA research or
manufacture.

ALL of those common myths are further reinforced by the
everyday journalists and news editors who simply take news
copy and "run with it" in their media.

That is the fault of the media that "runs" with it.

Not NASA.

Everyone sees it in
print (real ink on real paper) or sees it on TV (TV never
lies in its news)...and they accept it as "fact."

Geeze...I've never ONCE seen any of those stories as you relate
them.

Maybe they are so fresh to you since you're the one generating
them?

For an example of cross-pollination of myths, the "space
amateur radio" carried on by space station and (previous)
shuttle astronauts is done almost entirely by no-code-test
Technician class licensed astronauts. It is part of their
overall task assignment (every astronaut must adhere to
NASA PR rules) and relatively minor in relation to all that
they must do. Contrary to the fantasy of some, astronauts
did not become hams first, THEN astronauts.

Some of them certainly do. Witness Owen Garriot, W5LFL. The
FIRST Amateur-Astronaut to operate from the Space Shuttle.

Believe at least one thing: There's NO such thing as an
AMATEUR astronaut...(SNIP)

Huge Snip of 21 lines of tap-dancing to avoid the fact that you
were once again proven wrong.

But there ARE Astronauts who are licensed Amateur Radio operators
who WERE licensed Amateur Radio operators BEFORE they were designated
"Astronauts".

I know that facts aren't your forte, Lennie...Sorry to bust your
rant.

The ONLY thing YOU "busted" was - once again - that you don't
know dink of what you talk about. You are a poseur, a fraud,
trying to make yourself look like somebody "important" when
you don't know dink, haven't done dink in space OR aeronautics.

Neither have you judging by the above failed story lines, Lennie.

Quit trying to read the ARRL "news" bulletins as if they are
the primo word on "radio." That will help you overcome your
quite-obvious IGNORANCE. Maybe. I don't have optimism that
you can...

The only one ignorant of AMATEUR Radio here, Lennie, is you.

You made yet another attempt to make an end-run around facts and
got tripped up by the truth.



[Life Member of IEEE, as is Dr. Garriott]

Amazing what the right amount of cash can buy these days.

Steve, K4YZ

robert casey wrote:

NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large
"technology licensing" department, all of which is intended
to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a
higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate
a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas.


NASA pays people to write "MYTHS"...???

He probably was talking about the supposed "spin-offs"
from the space program to regular consumer products.
Many such were actually spin doctoring. But the space
program was/is still worth doing, and some products were
developed quicker because of it. ICs and such.

Actually it was yet another LennieRant effort to try and minimize
anything that he didn't do first, do better or "get paid for"...Of
course if he was able to take a swipe at Amateur Radio in the process,
well..that was a bonus...

73

Steve, K4YZ

From: "K4YZ" on Sun 24 Jul 2005 23:45

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Sun 24 Jul 2005 05:53
wrote:
From: Leo on Jul 23, 11:23 am

While the ubiquitous ball-point pen is used for making notes
in ham "logs," the precise frequencies noted down are kept
accurate by the PLL or DDS in modern amateur transceivers.

Nope.

What do you mean "nope," opie?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

What you use then, big PCTA extra of the Double Standard, a
couple crates of crystals?!?!?

Nope...Common sense, a signal generator and a spectrum analyzer.

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

Idjit. Frequency is measured with a FREQUENCY COUNTER.

The precise frequencies are "kept" by the station licensee who
ensures that his or her station is kept in good operating order.

Yeah, riiiight...the extra can do "laying on of hands" and
instantly tell (by magic of some kind of telepathy) what
frequency he is tuned to....

Nope.

But I don't depend on that digital display to be 100% accurate.

The FCC says "be sure", and I do.

What, you said "I do" and MARRIED the digital display?!?!?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

TweeedleDUMB, the "display" doesn't do the measuring. Inside
your rig is a microcontroller doing a FREQUENCY COUNT. All
the display does is present its count state to something
humans can read. That internal FREQUENCY COUNTER is accurate
to its internal TIME BASE and that is calibrated against an
external standard (WWV for some rigs or another calibrated
frequency standard for other rigs). It's in the instructions
for your plug-and-play HF machine...just about ALL of those
HF machines work the same way.

There are OTHER ways to insure frequency calibration...but
you still don't know dink about how to do it other than the
trying-to-avoid-looking-stoopid "be sure" remark.

The ONLY spectrum analyzers that could possibly do the
calibration cost as much as the list price of a new auto.
Your "disability check" from ripping off the U.S. govt.
ain't gonna cover that. The same with a synthesizer-
controlled signal generator having a very low PPM rating
(Agilent makes some)...costing much much more than you
can afford.

FREQUENCY COUNTER, boy, FREQUENCY COUNTER. One with greater
accuracy in its time base than what is in your HF machine.

It is additionally noted that Leonard H Anderson had nothing to do
with the creation for the aforementioned PLL or DDS that he's
attempting to brag on.

Tsk, tsk. The fire in your hate-filled eyes is robbing you
of any comprehension of what was written.

Nope. Just noting that you're trying to "diss" Amateurs again.

Awwwww...letting your EGO run riot in being the sovereign
representative of ALL U.S. amateur radio again?!?!?

I am "dissing" ONE person...dumbfork Stebie of the emotion
machine. You don't know dink about metrology, can't even
describe how you check calibration of your rig's internal
frequency counter!

It's about assuming responsiblity for the proper operation of your
radio station and not surrendering your obligations to technology.

What in the HELL are you mumbling about? [have you gone nuts?]

Radio IS technology, tweedleDUMB.

By LAW you MUST stay INSIDE the allocated band edges.

Hello? Did you think that "will and idea" or some idiot
non-specific emotional pep talk is going to keep your
frequencies INSIDE the ham bands?

"...not surrendering your obligations to technology."
Geeee-susss! Think about what a dumbfork thing you wrote!
You sound like you've mounted a lecturn but forgot to
light your mental lantern. The light ain't come on yet.

Staying WITHIN the band edges IS "proper operation."
The ONLY way you CAN stay within (and be LEGAL) is to
USE TECHNOLOGY!

giving up trying to explain radio to dumbfork stebie

dit dah

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Sun 24 Jul 2005 23:45

"...not surrendering your obligations to technology."
Geeee-susss! Think about what a dumbfork thing you wrote!
You sound like you've mounted a lecturn but forgot to
light your mental lantern. The light ain't come on yet.

The light IS on, Lennie.

I guess it was MY fault for assuming you'd take the whole context
of the message and reply in kind, but then that would ruin your rant.

One does NOT ensure that one's station is operating properly
simply by virture of the digital display of the device in question.

The FCC requires routine diagnostics of the station to ensure it's
compliance.

Staying WITHIN the band edges IS "proper operation."
The ONLY way you CAN stay within (and be LEGAL) is to
USE TECHNOLOGY!

Yep.

With diagnostic devices EXTERNAL to the device in
question...Signal generators, Spectrum Analyzers, etc etc etc.

giving up trying to explain radio to dumbfork stebie

NOT giving up pointing out how Lennie Anderson tries to misdirect
and deceive on issues pertaining to Amateur Radio...



Putz.

Steve, K4YZ