Jim:

Judging from the obese state of this nation--I'd almost be willing to
suffer the argument "they" have figured out a way to download 'em! grin

I may be the only height/weight proportionate person within blocks of my
home--and I am beginning to worry about my resolve to stay thin!

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:35:22 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


"Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote in message
...
Jim Hampton wrote:


Hello, John

It is all a matter of the proper tool at the proper time. Sure, you can
order a new computer via the Internet, but the Internet cannot deliver
it.

Darn, and I just ordered a pizza over the Internet but couldn't figure
out how to download it.

Downloading is easy. Once it is delivered, you open your mouth and download
the thing, one byte at a time


73,
Jim AA2QA

Jim Hampton wrote:


Hello, John

It is all a matter of the proper tool at the proper time. Sure, you can
order a new computer via the Internet, but the Internet cannot deliver it.

Darn, and I just ordered a pizza over the Internet but couldn't figure
out how to download it.

RST Engineering wrote:
nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in
tailwheel airplanes.

But you will have to get checked out on a tail dragger before you can
fly it.

From: John Smith on Aug 27, 4:52 pm

Len:

Unfortunately, the only things more dead than CW is the brain dead
amateurs too dumb to stop sounding ignorant, I mean, before they opened
their mouths (or fingers on the keyboard) we only wondered, now we know,
having been shown time and time again... frown

Well, so be it, I'm saddened to see. I'll just try to inform
these poor souls (or pour souls in some, they obviously pouring
something before writing) what military radio IS, not what they
imagine it to be.

Ackshully, FM 24-18 is a good tutorial for a beginner. In re-
checking the link given, there's a download-the-whole-thing link
at the bottom but the file is roughly 10 MB in size. Takes a few
minutes to get. [glad I already had it on a CD) It has an
objective comparison of wire antenna gains in various
terrain/environment, untainted by advertising claims and
myths of some amateur users.

FM 24-24 is available from the Army Training and Doctrine Command
Digital Library. It is a veritable catalog of land force radios
and communications devices as of 1994. Public distribution. I've
given the link to it before in here. The ATDLS website has
changed slightly so those precise links I gave before won't get
there, but anyone can do so from the 'web, through their home
page. Some of the equipment shown has gone obsolete in the past
9 years, or it is in storage in a depot "just in case" or whatever.

The ITT 'web page has more informative technical material on the
SINCGARS family of radios. Aerospace and Ground Division at
Fort Wayne, Indiana, at the old Magnavox plant. Harris Corporation
has some more plus future things they are trying to get contracts
on, forgotten division name for the moment (somebody will pipe up
with the correct name in triumph and imagined glory). Harris
has already sold some SINCGARS-compatible work-alikes to the UK
last year.

SINCGARS is interesting in that it doesn't have so many of the
conventional controls. From day one it has a Touchscreen for
entering frequency, for entering net properties (frequency
hopping pattern). A little OS built into the internal micro-
processor. When commanding it to frequency/net operation, one
enters a "hopset" (colloquial) which is a rather large data
group with its own authenticators from a separate piece of
equipment to be used at local Net central. Internal power
demand at idle (such as in transport or listening only) is so low
that it all the entered data is retained until the LiON battery
is replaced. Internal time/frequency accuracy is phenomenal over
the full military environmental range. Newer models (the
SINCGARS Improvement Plan or SIP versions) will allow the "Plugger"
(AN/PSN-11) GPS receiver to connect to it to synchronize the
internal time/frequency to the GPS. The "Plugger" (military
refined nickname in place of what GIs have called it - the PSN)
saw its first field operational duty in the First Gulf War. A
very few PRC-119s were tried then, but not many fielded in 1990
since the first ones went to Army forces in Korea. The frequency
hopping rate is 10 per second, damn hard to get a handle on in
the field for either DF or interception. With digitized voice
or data, SIP versions have built-in crypto (selectable) while
the older versions needed external COMSEC keyers. It is also
"QRP"-like in that there's a three-position front panel switch
to select RF power output; DX it ain't but that isn't needed in
small-unit ops. The vehicular model with larger PA can push out
some RF for (easily) up to 200 miles. It ain't yer daddie's
old backpack raddio and it beats the old (but still neat)
AN/PRC-10 I once wore on weekly sojer training sessions in the
1950s. The Harris AN/PRC-150 covering HF through UHF is
compatible with some more bells and whistles in it, all in
manpack size and weight.

The AN/PRC-104 IHFR (Improved High Frequency Radio) family debuted
in 1986 out of Hughes Aircraft Co. Ground Division. For those
missions where HF is thought to be better, it can do so nicely,
even the manpack version having an automatic antenna tuner (using
latching relays to hold the L and C selections for the internal L
network). Little microprocessor in that, too, also controlling
the frequency synthesizer permitting good SSB performance. COMSEC
is external with that model but they handle all the voice/data
crypto formats. Early PRC-104s had a KY-114 knee key (why, I don't
know) which was left out of later models.

Back in World War 2 times, someone at the Pentagon thought it a
fine idea to improve the horse cavalry radio...a lighter and
better version than the 1930s model they did have but needed to
be set up and operated while the troop was stopped. The answer
was in the BC-511, the infamous "guidon radio" (set was IN the
combination guidon-bottom with top mount whip antenna, carried
like the old horse cavalry guidon pennant). That was thunk up
around 1942. However, at the same time HORSE cavalry was
disbanded in the U.S. Army! Motorola in Chicago made a bunch
of them. Neat little sets, AM and on low HF, crystal controlled.
So, a whole bunch of horse cavalry radios being made with no
horse cavalry to use it! Stagnated old-soldier thinking in DC.
Infantry got some of them, GIs calling it the "pogo stick,"
terribly clumsy to use on foot. Some new-soldier thinking got
vehicle adapters for them but those pogo-sticks went surplus
storage when the BC-1000 Walkie-Talkies were built (also by
Motorola in Chicago, also beginning in 1943). The SCR-300 (using
BC-1000 R/T) was FM voice-only on low VHF. It weighed the same
as the cavalry pogo-stick but was in backpack form and much more
mobile on foot, worked far better in the field as a radio.

Some of the "old radio ops" just can't give up morsemanship. It
must be part of their religion or whatever. Like the never-quit
horse cavalryman of long ago, their beliefs insist that "CW" or
on-off keying of a carrier is somehow "necessary" for today.
They can't be budged from that in "the service." :-)

It's like 60+ years ago, the cavalrymen insisting that all "good
soldiers" had to know how to ride a horse...even when the horses
were put out to pasture, glue, or pet food. So it is when all
other radio services have abandoned morse code for communications
purposes, U.S. amateur radio morsemen INSIST that morsemanship
MUST be in the amateur license test. Horsesnit.

Len:

ahhhhh....

I like to build antennas... I like to experiment with them...

But, I am a software engineer, not a hardware engineer (some of the
math interests me) and frankly, anyone who will pay attention to my
rants about the either consider me a loon frown... something has to seem
like "magic" to me--or I will lose faith altogether! grin

I tend to look at the whole antenna as a "tunable balun" which interfaces
the signal from the transmitter to the ether--the ether being a
near-superconductor, or at the very least--a "superior conductor."

I am still stuck on just studying, devising new feeds for, and generally
playing with the 1/2 vertical on 10 meters, nice size to work with,
some local amateurs on the freqs there, etc... and the lack of need of a
counterpoise (virtually) makes the 1/2 wave interesting and fun... I have
built dozens of them and given quite a few away... my "coaxial match" is
my most exciting development to date, simple, stable, almost bullet proof
and an excellent performer! I am waiting for the next revelation as I
type here, and type here, and type here, and type here, and type here...

deep-in-thought-and-highly-intellectual-look-on-the-face-to-fool-'em!

John

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:59:15 -0700, wrote:

From: John Smith on Aug 27, 4:52 pm

Len:

Unfortunately, the only things more dead than CW is the brain dead
amateurs too dumb to stop sounding ignorant, I mean, before they opened
their mouths (or fingers on the keyboard) we only wondered, now we know,
having been shown time and time again... frown

Well, so be it, I'm saddened to see. I'll just try to inform
these poor souls (or pour souls in some, they obviously pouring
something before writing) what military radio IS, not what they
imagine it to be.

Ackshully, FM 24-18 is a good tutorial for a beginner. In re-
checking the link given, there's a download-the-whole-thing link
at the bottom but the file is roughly 10 MB in size. Takes a few
minutes to get. [glad I already had it on a CD) It has an
objective comparison of wire antenna gains in various
terrain/environment, untainted by advertising claims and
myths of some amateur users.

FM 24-24 is available from the Army Training and Doctrine Command
Digital Library. It is a veritable catalog of land force radios
and communications devices as of 1994. Public distribution. I've
given the link to it before in here. The ATDLS website has
changed slightly so those precise links I gave before won't get
there, but anyone can do so from the 'web, through their home
page. Some of the equipment shown has gone obsolete in the past
9 years, or it is in storage in a depot "just in case" or whatever.

The ITT 'web page has more informative technical material on the
SINCGARS family of radios. Aerospace and Ground Division at
Fort Wayne, Indiana, at the old Magnavox plant. Harris Corporation
has some more plus future things they are trying to get contracts
on, forgotten division name for the moment (somebody will pipe up
with the correct name in triumph and imagined glory). Harris
has already sold some SINCGARS-compatible work-alikes to the UK
last year.

SINCGARS is interesting in that it doesn't have so many of the
conventional controls. From day one it has a Touchscreen for
entering frequency, for entering net properties (frequency
hopping pattern). A little OS built into the internal micro-
processor. When commanding it to frequency/net operation, one
enters a "hopset" (colloquial) which is a rather large data
group with its own authenticators from a separate piece of
equipment to be used at local Net central. Internal power
demand at idle (such as in transport or listening only) is so low
that it all the entered data is retained until the LiON battery
is replaced. Internal time/frequency accuracy is phenomenal over
the full military environmental range. Newer models (the
SINCGARS Improvement Plan or SIP versions) will allow the "Plugger"
(AN/PSN-11) GPS receiver to connect to it to synchronize the
internal time/frequency to the GPS. The "Plugger" (military
refined nickname in place of what GIs have called it - the PSN)
saw its first field operational duty in the First Gulf War. A
very few PRC-119s were tried then, but not many fielded in 1990
since the first ones went to Army forces in Korea. The frequency
hopping rate is 10 per second, damn hard to get a handle on in
the field for either DF or interception. With digitized voice
or data, SIP versions have built-in crypto (selectable) while
the older versions needed external COMSEC keyers. It is also
"QRP"-like in that there's a three-position front panel switch
to select RF power output; DX it ain't but that isn't needed in
small-unit ops. The vehicular model with larger PA can push out
some RF for (easily) up to 200 miles. It ain't yer daddie's
old backpack raddio and it beats the old (but still neat)
AN/PRC-10 I once wore on weekly sojer training sessions in the
1950s. The Harris AN/PRC-150 covering HF through UHF is
compatible with some more bells and whistles in it, all in
manpack size and weight.

The AN/PRC-104 IHFR (Improved High Frequency Radio) family debuted
in 1986 out of Hughes Aircraft Co. Ground Division. For those
missions where HF is thought to be better, it can do so nicely,
even the manpack version having an automatic antenna tuner (using
latching relays to hold the L and C selections for the internal L
network). Little microprocessor in that, too, also controlling
the frequency synthesizer permitting good SSB performance. COMSEC
is external with that model but they handle all the voice/data
crypto formats. Early PRC-104s had a KY-114 knee key (why, I don't
know) which was left out of later models.

Back in World War 2 times, someone at the Pentagon thought it a
fine idea to improve the horse cavalry radio...a lighter and
better version than the 1930s model they did have but needed to
be set up and operated while the troop was stopped. The answer
was in the BC-511, the infamous "guidon radio" (set was IN the
combination guidon-bottom with top mount whip antenna, carried
like the old horse cavalry guidon pennant). That was thunk up
around 1942. However, at the same time HORSE cavalry was
disbanded in the U.S. Army! Motorola in Chicago made a bunch
of them. Neat little sets, AM and on low HF, crystal controlled.
So, a whole bunch of horse cavalry radios being made with no
horse cavalry to use it! Stagnated old-soldier thinking in DC.
Infantry got some of them, GIs calling it the "pogo stick,"
terribly clumsy to use on foot. Some new-soldier thinking got
vehicle adapters for them but those pogo-sticks went surplus
storage when the BC-1000 Walkie-Talkies were built (also by
Motorola in Chicago, also beginning in 1943). The SCR-300 (using
BC-1000 R/T) was FM voice-only on low VHF. It weighed the same
as the cavalry pogo-stick but was in backpack form and much more
mobile on foot, worked far better in the field as a radio.

Some of the "old radio ops" just can't give up morsemanship. It
must be part of their religion or whatever. Like the never-quit
horse cavalryman of long ago, their beliefs insist that "CW" or
on-off keying of a carrier is somehow "necessary" for today.
They can't be budged from that in "the service." :-)

It's like 60+ years ago, the cavalrymen insisting that all "good
soldiers" had to know how to ride a horse...even when the horses
were put out to pasture, glue, or pet food. So it is when all
other radio services have abandoned morse code for communications
purposes, U.S. amateur radio morsemen INSIST that morsemanship
MUST be in the amateur license test. Horsesnit.

wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.

Yes, they have. Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include
3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes.
There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every
day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates
driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code
is much, much higher.

So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every
make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact
using any mode at all. The issue is and always has been
the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge
tested for any other modes.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably going away
soon.

Just a matter of time.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

No separate test exists for only the electronics. The written is
scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis.
Add some CW questions (similar in forat to existing
questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then.

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts,
nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars
only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles
are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and
144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

Correct.

Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a
possibility every day that passes now.
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.

Yes, they have.

The anonymouse "John Smith" has claimed that repeatedly.
He's wrong, of course.

Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include
3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes.
There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every
day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates
driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one.

Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual
transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics.

Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code
is much, much higher.

So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every
make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact
using any mode at all.

Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is
required to do.

Why?

The issue is and always has been
the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge
tested for any other modes.

Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a
license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably going away
soon.

Just a matter of time.

Probably.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

No separate test exists for only the electronics.

Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge.

The written is
scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis.
Add some CW questions (similar in forat to existing
questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then.

What Canada has done solves that problem.

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model
Ts,
nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars
only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles
are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and
144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

Correct.

Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a
possibility every day that passes now.

Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes six months to
produce the R&O, coming out in early spring 2006...effective early
summer 2006.

You may be the winnah!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.

Yes, they have.

The anonymouse "John Smith" has claimed that repeatedly.
He's wrong, of course.

Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include
3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes.
There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every
day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates
driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one.

Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual
transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics.

Agreed, but in terms of total vehicles sold new each year
in the US, that is several hundred thousand vehicles
with stick shifts every year.

Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.

The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code
is much, much higher.

So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every
make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact
using any mode at all.

Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is
required to do.

Why?

Read again the following:
The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

The issue is and always has been
the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge
tested for any other modes.

Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a
license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code.

Wrong....you can ignore or not learn about several specific
subject areas...one or more modes of operation, etc. and
still get a passing test grade.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably
going away soon.

Just a matter of time.

Probably.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

No separate test exists for only the electronics.

Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge.

It still isn't a separate exclusive test. If you get all
the other stuff (rules, regs, etc) 100%, you can miss
a greater percentage of electronic questions then
if it was a separate subject area test.

The written is
scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis.
Add some CW questions (similar in format to existing
questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then.

What Canada has done solves that problem.

Works for me.

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model
Ts,
nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars
only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles
are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and
144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

Correct.

Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a
possibility every day that passes now.

Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes six months to
produce the R&O, coming out in early spring 2006...effective early
summer 2006.

You may be the winnah!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote


Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.


That's obvious-to-the-most-casual-observer-with-a-receiver correct. It's the
favorite mode of a lot of hams (including you and me), and that fact isn't
likely to change.

It's also an inherently self-testing mode. In other words, if I'm on the air
using Morse code, then obvious-to-the-most-casual-observer, I've taken the
time/effort to learn it. The need for a government test is obviated by this
simple observation.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
E=IR. It's not just a good idea; it's the LAW!

No, according to G. S. Ohm, R=E/I. The other two forms are merely algebraic
manipulations.

{;-)


Jim


"KØHB" wrote in message
news
--
E=IR. It's not just a good idea; it's the LAW!