Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

From: on Dec 18, 3:57 pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the
VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests,
the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the
ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station
suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so.

Wow! Someone should have TOLD the U.S. Army Signal Corps folks
at Evans Signal Laboratory in 1946 when they were the first to
bounce a radio signal off the moon!

How much power was used by the Army?

The transmitter used was a modified SCR-271 radar unit. It produced
3000 W on 111.5 Mc. (that's what the Signal Corps called them
back then). Pair of 6C21 triodes in the output - they look similar to
1000Ts.

3000 W output with those tubes at that frequency means about 5000 W
input.
The amateur power limit back then was 1000 W input.

Was RADAR a legal mode? What was the PRF?

RADAR is an acronym for RADIO Direction And Ranging.

Radar was perfectly legal for the DoD to use. The FCC has
no governance on the government radio energy use.

"PRF?" With an echo return delay of 2 1/2 seconds, isn't
much good for lively back-and-forth anything. 0.3 Hz
PRF could be used. :-)

The USN put it to use in communications first, simplex only
with, I think, RTTY. I'll have to find the excellent USN
paper "From The Sea To The Stars" history somewhere on an
archive CD here. Has the history of the USN involvement
in space and communications thereto, from an official USN
website.



There's a lot more info at:

http://www.campevans.com/diana.html

Jimmie is nostalgic over experiments done 59 years ago.

He wasn't there but he was there.


btw, it was a moon RADAR experiment, not a communications system.

Tsk, Jimmie thinks "communications systems" arrive full-blown,
fully-proven? :-)

Project Diana was an EXPERIMENT to test whether or not the
moon could be used as a radio wave reflector. It was and
what followed were more experiments by many to determine
what the frequency ranges were, the reflection characteristics.

There wasn't any need to "radar" the moon. The moon's orbit
has been accurately known for years, if not centuries. We
can all make certain of where it is. No radar needed for that.

The mode used was OOK CW. The echoes were heard as beeps.

Really? :-)

Civilian at Fort Monmouth Signal Labs told us it was
first observed on an oscilloscope, one of the long-
persistence phosphor types used in some radars then.
Of course that was told to us in 1952 AT Fort Monmouth
by one of the experimenters. Since he didn't give a
ham call sign Jimmie would suspect him of lying. :-)

1952 was only 6 years after Project Diana. The
experiment was fresh in his mind and, having been
there as part of it, could recall much.


Those Diana folks had a some hams involved, though - all code tested at
at least 13 wpm:

Conditionals or FCC tested?

Uh huh, like Coles, Evans, and Squier laboratories was
busy, busy on ham radio research in 1946? :-)

In reality, the 1945-1950 time was one of transition from
a world war effort to peacetime and lots of the movers
and shakers in technology-intense war efforts were out to
carve new niches for themselves and their groups. Good PR
was the word of the day. A "moon bounce" thing was hot PR
at the time, attracted attention from the budget-keepers
in Congress and the Pentagon.



Those are just the hams I know of that were involved. There were
probably more.

There always are.

...and Jimmie "knows" them. :-)


They used power levels 9 dB above those permitted to amateurs at the
time, and
an antenna that was quite beyond "backyard construction". They had lots
of resources.

A fantastic use of post-war resources.

That "111 Megacycle" radar was already surplus before WW2 ended.
Not a problem. :-)

Anyone riding a bus to Red Bank from Fort Monmouth could look
out and see lots and lots of "junk" at two of the labs along
the highway in 1952, just 6 years after the Diana success. All
sorts of "bedspring" antenna structures were sitting in the
vehicle parking areas.

Lt. Col. DeWitt, W4ERI, was the driving force behind the whole idea,
which he first began working on in 1940.

What idea? To bounce a signal off of the moon for no communications
purpose?

In 1940 that ancient Project Diana radar set (the
original, not the kludge version used IN Diana) was
still undergoing operational testing. Even then it was
a late-comer using rather conventional vacuum tubes in the
usual ring-oscillator circuit...the style of transmitter
used by the Brits for radar along the channel.

The Brits would come up with the magnetron to make microwave
radars the future practical success. We would incorporate
those in all the later radars at S, C, and X bands during
WW2. The "star" of Army radar was the semi-trailer size
SCR-584 gun-laying radar set which was definitely well above
VHF in frequency range. Those were far from "surplus" in
1946. Monmouth had a couple for radar school practice in
1952. :-)

Isn't that like bouncing a basketball off of a backboard with no
intention of making a basket?

Jimmie "Knows" what was intended, deep in his heart. He "felt"
it 59 years ago.

The concept of reflection of radio waves was well known in
basic radio physics in the 1940s. What was lacking was
some definite information on the characteristics of
radio wave reflection. Nobody had any CONFIRMED idea of
the reflectivity of the lunar surface in the 1940s.



... During WWII, the Signal Corps used the ARRL
Handbook, Leonard. I'll bet that chafes you to no end.

I really don't think so, having known a lot of USA, USN,
and Air Corps vets who trained during WW2. Some of them
said they used a USN basic book. Nobody mentioned
any "ARRL books." shrug

A 2-hour lab class one afternoon had us examine a bunch
of "basic hardware" of radio. One item was a two-tube
MOPA style HF transmitter. That MIGHT have been made
from a ham design although it didn't tune into ham bands
that existed then (instructor told us so, monitored on
an old Hammarlund receiver). We didn't take notes. In
fact, written notes were discouraged. Not for "secrecy,"
but for the need to have it in the head, much more useful
in the field which didn't allow for notebooks or stacks
of magazines for reference which could get rather wet.

In 1952 at the Signal School in Fort Monmouth we (at
least in radar basic classes) used training films on
basic principles and Army FMs, TMs for paper study,
some mock-up training aids that included a "block of
frozen RF" (acrylic plastic 3-D waveguide fields and
waves, roughly the size of 1 GHz guide). I'm not
acquainted with what was used at the Field Radio
and Telephone schools at Camp Gordon (now a Fort) used.
Monmouth in 1952 was basically for radar training with
advanced schools for the VHF, UHF, and microwave radio
relay sets...and photography, then a part of the Signal
organizational envelope (photography is now under the
media graphics specialty groups, not part of SigC).

As I remember the old ARRL handbook from the late 1940s,
I can't recall a heckuva lot of multivibrators or radar
or microwave information, nor of servo motors (but there
was a mention of Selsyns, surplus for beam indication).
Perhaps the ARRL had to exorcise all that "wartime
literature" because of "secrecy?" :-)


[unsigned message, under wraps due to Title 18 U.S.C.]

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message


[snip]


Is that why the FCC gives ALL power priveleges to their ENTRY LEVEL
LICENSEES?


Entry level licensees do NOT have all power privileges. Technicians
with
code are an entry level license. On HF frequencies, they are limited
to 200
watts output.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

And 200 watts on VHF/UHF???

Hello, Dee?


I plainly stated that on HF they are limited to 200 watts. I did not say
nor imply that VHF/UHF was the same. Since anyone can read my paragraph and
compare it to your remark about VHF/UHF for themselves and see the
difference, there was no need for me to comment further.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

wrote:
From: on Dec 18, 3:57 pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

How much power was used by the Army?

The transmitter used was a modified SCR-271 radar unit. It produced
3000 W on 111.5 Mc. (that's what the Signal Corps called them
back then). Pair of 6C21 triodes in the output - they look similar to
1000Ts.

3000 W output with those tubes at that frequency means about 5000 W
input.
The amateur power limit back then was 1000 W input.

The USN put it to use in communications first, simplex only
with, I think, RTTY. I'll have to find the excellent USN
paper "From The Sea To The Stars" history somewhere on an
archive CD here. Has the history of the USN involvement
in space and communications thereto, from an official USN
website.

All anyone has to do is google that title and the website's URL
will come right up.

Project Diana demonstrated EME radar echoes in 1946.

Amateurs demonstrated radar echoes in 1953.

The Navy first demonstrated EME *communications* in January
1960 (RTTY, Washington DC to Hawaii).

Amateurs demonstrated 2-way EME communications in July 1960.
(Morse Code, 1296 MHz, California to New England)

There's a lot more info at:

http://www.campevans.com/diana.html

is nostalgic over experiments done 59 years ago.

He wasn't there but he was there.

I'm not "nostalgic", Len. Just passing on some information.

Am I not supposed to post urls here?

btw, it was a moon RADAR experiment, not a communications system.

thinks "communications systems" arrive full-blown,
fully-proven? :-)

It took the US Govt. 14 years to go from the EME radar experiments
of 1946 to a working EME communication system of 1960.

Project Diana was an EXPERIMENT to test whether or not the
moon could be used as a radio wave reflector.

Was it?

Or was it an experiment to prove that VHF radio waves could penetrate
the
atmosphere from the earth? (It was already known that radio waves could
do so in the opposite direction, from radio astronomy experiments
before
WW2).

Or was it a gee-whiz sort of stunt to be the first to do something and
try to impress people?

Or maybe some of all of the above?

It was and
what followed were more experiments by many to determine
what the frequency ranges were, the reflection characteristics.

Was there any doubt?

There wasn't any need to "radar" the moon. The moon's orbit
has been accurately known for years, if not centuries. We
can all make certain of where it is. No radar needed for that.

Yet it was indeed a radar experiment.

Those Diana folks had a some hams involved, though - all code tested at
at least 13 wpm:

Conditionals or FCC tested?

Doesn't say. Probably FCC tested.

Uh huh, like Coles, Evans, and Squier laboratories was
busy, busy on ham radio research in 1946? :-)

The amateurs named were all long-time-licensed hams.

In reality, the 1945-1950 time was one of transition from
a world war effort to peacetime and lots of the movers
and shakers in technology-intense war efforts were out to
carve new niches for themselves and their groups.

Ah - so it was partly a form of radiosport for bragging rights, eh?

Good PR
was the word of the day. A "moon bounce" thing was hot PR
at the time, attracted attention from the budget-keepers
in Congress and the Pentagon.

IOW, a gee-whiz sort of stunt to be the first to do something and try
to impress people.

They used power levels 9 dB above those permitted to amateurs at the
time, and
an antenna that was quite beyond "backyard construction". They had lots
of resources.

A fantastic use of post-war resources.

That "111 Megacycle" radar was already surplus before WW2 ended.
Not a problem. :-)

Typical ham radio swords-into-plowshares ingenuity. Why build a new
system
if an old one can be converted?

Anyone riding a bus to Red Bank from Fort Monmouth could look
out and see lots and lots of "junk" at two of the labs along
the highway in 1952, just 6 years after the Diana success. All
sorts of "bedspring" antenna structures were sitting in the
vehicle parking areas.

Looking isn't doing, Len.

When it comes to amateur radio, you're a looker, not a doer.

Lt. Col. DeWitt, W4ERI, was the driving force behind the whole idea,
which he first began working on in 1940.

What idea? To bounce a signal off of the moon for no communications
purpose?

Yes.

In 1940 that ancient Project Diana radar set (the
original, not the kludge version used IN Diana) was
still undergoing operational testing. Even then it was
a late-comer using rather conventional vacuum tubes in the
usual ring-oscillator circuit...the style of transmitter
used by the Brits for radar along the channel.

The British used it effectively. They had relatively crude equipment
but skilled operators and an effective communications network.

Without their radar capabilities the Battle of Britain may have turned
out
differently.

The Brits would come up with the magnetron to make microwave
radars the future practical success.

The reentrant cavity magnetron, actually.

We would incorporate
those in all the later radars at S, C, and X bands during
WW2. The "star" of Army radar was the semi-trailer size
SCR-584 gun-laying radar set which was definitely well above
VHF in frequency range.

The "star"?

How about the airborne radars? Air-defense radars (some so well
developed they were
built into submarine periscopes)? Radio altimeters?

Those were far from "surplus" in
1946. Monmouth had a couple for radar school practice in
1952. :-)

None of which had the power or antennas to do EME anyway.

The concept of reflection of radio waves was well known in
basic radio physics in the 1940s. What was lacking was
some definite information on the characteristics of
radio wave reflection. Nobody had any CONFIRMED idea of
the reflectivity of the lunar surface in the 1940s.

So they built a radar set to do the job.

... During WWII, the Signal Corps used the ARRL
Handbook, Leonard. I'll bet that chafes you to no end.

I really don't think so, having known a lot of USA, USN,
and Air Corps vets who trained during WW2. Some of them
said they used a USN basic book. Nobody mentioned
any "ARRL books." shrug

Yet the books were used. A special "Defense Edition" ARRL handbook
was printed and used by various military branches.

A 2-hour lab class one afternoon had us examine a bunch
of "basic hardware" of radio. One item was a two-tube
MOPA style HF transmitter. That MIGHT have been made
from a ham design although it didn't tune into ham bands
that existed then (instructor told us so, monitored on
an old Hammarlund receiver). We didn't take notes. In
fact, written notes were discouraged. Not for "secrecy,"
but for the need to have it in the head, much more useful
in the field which didn't allow for notebooks or stacks
of magazines for reference which could get rather wet.

In my opinion and experience, that's a poor method of training.

The act of creating a notebook means the student must mentally
process the information and write it in his/her own words. In other
words the student must take an active, rather than passive, role in
the process. Of course the notebooks cannot be depended on
during testing, but that is not their purpose.

Note that in other training systems, such as qualifying in WW2
submarines, the creation of a notebook with all required information
is an essential part.

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

KØHB wrote:
wrote


There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam".


The "Ghost of Guam" was US Navy Radioman 1st Class George Tweed. He wasn't a
ham. Was reputed to be laid up drunk in a house of horizontal refreshment when
the Navy evacuated the island just ahead of the WW-II JA invasion so he missed
his ride. Had to hide out in the jungle for a few years until the USN came
back. In the book/movie "No Man is an Island" he comes off as a hero, but was
in fact not popular with the locals, several of whom (including a native RC
Priest) lost their lives for not revealing his whereabouts. After the war he
skedaddled without so much as a thank-you.

73, de Hans, K0HB

But Jim knows him and knows him as a ham. Jim is, after all, the final
authority on military and ham history.

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message


[snip]


Is that why the FCC gives ALL power priveleges to their ENTRY LEVEL
LICENSEES?


Entry level licensees do NOT have all power privileges. Technicians
with
code are an entry level license. On HF frequencies, they are limited
to 200
watts output.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

And 200 watts on VHF/UHF???

Hello, Dee?


I plainly stated that on HF they are limited to 200 watts. I did not say
nor imply that VHF/UHF was the same. Since anyone can read my paragraph and
compare it to your remark about VHF/UHF for themselves and see the
difference, there was no need for me to comment further.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Sure there is, Dee. HF is a modification to the Entry Level License.

The entry level license is 1,500 watts.

Looks like Jim ran out on this one, too. Thanks for playing.

Easier licensing
 

From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message



How is a non-ARRL history of amateur radio regulations any
different from an ARRL history of amateur radio regulations, Len?

Non-ARRL histories of ALL RADIO regulations don't have the
obvious political spin that ARRL uses to attempt increasing
its membership.

That's just the way it is...

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can. But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more. Write up a contract on that book and send
me an offer. I'll ask a minimum of $75,000 advance on the
compensation for my time and effort just to start.



Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Nor does it make regulations.

It certainly tries to! Tries to for a MINORITY of licensed
radio amateurs in the USA.


There were "other groups" back in the 1940s, Len.

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.



Yes. Amateur radio licenses are earned by passing the
required tests.

Strange, the FCC says it GRANTS them.

Only after they are EARNED.

What do you "earn," Ern? :-)


Amateur radio provided shelter, food, clothing for hurricane
victims?

It helped to provide those things.

How? Be specific. Be detailed. Show your work.

Since you've already "earned" your license, you don't need
any more compensation.

Show us all the "health and welfare" message content.


Geez, here I thought all they were doing was
relaying health and welfare messages...some of the time.

Well, you're wrong.

How was I "wrong," Jimmie?

How? Be specific. Be detailed. Show your work.

Since you've already "earned" your license, you don't need
any more compensation.

Show us all the "health and welfare" message content.



Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

But that's not all it is, Len. Grow up and accept that shouting the
same old tired lines doesn't convince anyone.

Hello? See the word "basically" in my quoted sentence?

Yes. So what?

Amateur radio is BASICALLY a hobby, Jimmie.

I will admit that some folks see it as a "way of life",
especially when they don't have much other life. shrug

It's just a HOBBY, Jimmie.



Entirely true. FCC is NOT an academic organization, "grading"
amateurs on their radio skills.

Actually, it *does* grade them. That's why there are different levels
of amateur radio license.

There are different CLASSES of amateur radio licenses.

Can't you get anything right?

The FCC is NOT an academic organization or agency.

Those CLASSES of license were arrived at through regulatory
politics.


Tsk. Jimmie, you just don't understand how the military works.

I understand well enough, Len.

You aren't ANYWHERE close, Jimmie.

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

NOWHERE in amateur radio is any licensee required to do THAT.

When you put YOUR life on the line, then you might understand,
Jimmie, but not before.



Did you expect that everyone had to build everything themselves?!?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes do. You wouldn't know about
that since you've never done it.

Plain and simple WRONG, Jimmie.


Do you expect sailors to all get sheet steel and torches and
build the ship they are going to serve on?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes build their equipment from
the most basic parts - including sheet metal work. You wouldn't know
about that since you've never done it.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, Jimmie. :-)

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

Do you expect airmen to all get aluminum and engines and build
the aircraft they are going to serve on?

Of course not.

Why not? I've helped do that...and I'm NOT an "airman." :-)

Do you expect choo-choo drivers to build their locomotives
themselves? :-)

"Choo-choo drivers"?

What you call "locomotive engineers." Did they go to "engineering
school" for their degrees? :-)



Jimmie, YOU don't understand that every other radio service
does NOT define either "station" or "operating" by amateur
radio "rules." :-)

Which means your example isn't valid, Len.

Plainly and simply WRONG, Jimmie. YOU aren't valid in this
alleged "discussion." :-)



Do you think policemen carrying neat little two-way radios
subscribe to QST? :-)

Some of them do.

Prove it. Supply their names.



I just disregarded any
NEED to learn morse code since I was never, ever
required to use it in the military or in the much longer
civilian life career I still have.

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?


Since no higher deity commanded that morse code testing be
done for amateur radio licenses, ordinary humans must have
done it. Whatever humans have done, humans can UNDO.

Not necessarily. Humans seem to have trouble undoing certain
types of messes, such as pollution.

Yes, the morse code test is still in USA amateur regulations,
POLLUTING the environment for newcomer hobbyists.


Yes, Jimmie, I'm well aware of Title 47 C.F.R.'s Part 97.

You sure don't seem to be, Len.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie. Who do you think wrote the following
on December 10th?

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."



Of course - because you are not qualified to do it on-the-air.

Not AUTHORIZED, Jimmie. Do try to keep up...



I've only listened to the predecessor of the Condor Net in
Newbury Park, CA, demonstrated by one of the ham-licensed
employees there. At Teledyne Electronics, my employer
during the late 70s. It was the first state-long network
to use all tone switching for routing without using any
microprocessor control.

Gosh, you *listened*! I've done a lot more than that!

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.



Tsk, tsk, tsk. That doesn't agree with www.hamdata.com figures.

I didn't use those figures.

Not good enough for you? Hamdata gets theirs right from the
FCC database. Where does Speroni get his? Crystal ball? :-)



Is that a threat, Len? You're not even a novice at amateur radio.

Why are you afraid of perceived "threats?" Guilty conscience?


Residences are for LIVING in, Jimmie. It is HOME.

SO why shouldn't it change?

This newsgroup/morseblog isn't about zoning ordinances or real
estate, Jimmie. Nor is it about trailer living...wherein
trailers can be towed someplace else for "change." :-)

Which trailer park are you living in now, Jimmie? Isn't it
time for a "change?"

I've lived at this same residental address for 42 years,
Jimmie. Some of my neighbors have lived in their for
longer. Why should we "change?" Especially for some
easterner who doesn't know the territory, doesn't know
the neighborhood, doesn't know any neighbors, doesn't do
anything but try to make trouble for those who have
opinions on amateur radio testing other than his? :-)


Now it's clear. You weren't top of the form in Morse Code, so the
code must be a bad thing....

Plainly and simply inaccurate and plainly and simply just your
personal insult mode trying vainly to masquerade as "civil"
discussion. The mask is quite transparent. We can all see
through it. Take it off, it will be more comfortable for you.

Jimmie, TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits. Yes, radiotelegraphy was used by many, but it was
NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide. Teleprinting was necessary then
and it was used for the majority of military, government,
and commercial messaging around the globe. That's just the
way it was...

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license. Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

I've just never had to USE any radiotelegraphy skills nor
wired telegraphy skills for ANY REASON...and I was DOING
long-distance HF communications before your existance.

If you wish to build up your atrocious EGO and say everyone
is (or even should be) "jealous" of your telegraphy skill,
then you are a deluded person who is troubled and needs some
mental therapy to better get along with others...and that's
the way THAT is...

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

From: Dave Heil on Dec 18, 5:46 pm

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Dec 18, 8:51 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 14, 6:22 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Dec 13 2005 4:32 pm



Tsk, tsk, tsk, if you want to do rec.movies.critique.negative
go to the appropriate newsgroup.

How about this instead: If you bring something up, make sure it is
something you know about rather than foisting off your factual errors as
fact.

Oh, oh, the Dominatrix is extending her whip, demanding Order
and Obediance! :-)

Here's some "facts" written by others in he

"FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

"MARS IS ham radio."


The book's author, Davis Grubb had a hard time with reality.

PCTAs have a hard time with reality also... :-)

I'm certain that it appears that way to you.

It appears that way to many, many readers of this morseblog.

This newsgroup is NOT a movieblog or a literaryblog.



In one
interview, he said that he could remember that whenever an execution
took place at the prison in Moundsville, the lights all over town would
dim.

No doubt the electricity was wired in by an "A-1 Operator."

Operators wire for electricity? That doesn't make sense. The point was
that they weren't using electricity.

UNBEND, Davie. :-) You are too wound up and literal. :-)


Tsk, I just asked a question.

No, actually you didn't.

A question mark punctuation sign doesn't denote a question? :-)



No, I was actually here on leave while in the Air Force. I saw portions
of the film shot and took some great photos of the cast, in and out of
character.

I have the film and also have "Night of the Hunter" along with those
books and several more by Grubb.

"Night of the Hunter" was released in 1955. That means that
actual filming was done in 1954. You were IN the USAF in
1954? That doesn't fit with what you've said before in here.


It was shot on location in Moundsville and Marshall County in 1970.

Is that the movie you are referring to? You aren't being clear
in your remarks on film production.

Of course, this morseblog isn't ABOUT motion picture production,
is it? :-)


...so it is useless to get you to unbend your dictatorial
Prussian persistence in puling orders.

What's a puling order?

Pule: vi "To whimper or whine, as a sick or fretful child does."
also "puled, puling"

Don't you get anything right? :-)


Your current views as regards amateur radio exhibit no shades of gray
whatever.

That may be because so many amateur radio "practitioners" are
into unreal draconian regulations that allow few options.

Go figure!

I have. That's why I oppose the regulation of requiring
a singular mode test for radio amateurs when the regulating
agency makes that mode as optional to use as any other
allocated mode. :-)


Corporations have paid me real money to "get things right" and
I have, consistently.

At least that's your story and you're sticking to it.

It's not a "story" and it is factual. You are welcome to
research my background, all references in work done, even
challenge the IRS, Franchise Tax Board of California, FBI,
CIA, DIA, DCAS, DoE, IEEE, RCA, EOS, MRI, all my employers.
:-)

You're the only
guy who has ever been 1) paid real money by a corporation 2) to get
things right.

INCORRECT. I'm not the "ONLY" one. :-)




I don't go to much by what movie reviewers write.

This newsgroup is a morseblog, not a movieblog.

Don't you get anything right? :-)

Easier licensing
 

wrote yet another diatribe belittling others:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can. But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more. Write up a contract on that book and send
me an offer. I'll ask a minimum of $75,000 advance on the
compensation for my time and effort just to start.

Oh? 100K words is hard for you?

According to what you've dumped in RRAP, I'd say you've wasted
millions of dollars in contract options, Lennie.

There were "other groups" back in the 1940s, Len.

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

You barely did, Lennie...Go ahead...Re-tell the tale of your
assessment of Civil Defense communications in WW2...You were...EIGHT?
(Gee...what a coincidence! That's the age Markie was when he was
"drafted"... ! ! ! )

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

But that's not all it is, Len. Grow up and accept that shouting the
same old tired lines doesn't convince anyone.

Hello? See the word "basically" in my quoted sentence?

Yes. So what?

Amateur radio is BASICALLY a hobby, Jimmie.

No, it's not "bascially" a hobby, Lennie!

It's just a HOBBY, Jimmie.

Again the opinion of one who has no practical experience from
which to MAKE an INFORMED opinion.

Tsk. Jimmie, you just don't understand how the military works.

I understand well enough, Len.

You aren't ANYWHERE close, Jimmie.

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

No, they don't.

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes build their equipment from
the most basic parts - including sheet metal work. You wouldn't know
about that since you've never done it.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work."

Oh?

Where? When? So far, your only "station" assets that you've owned
up to are an old Icom and a scanner to listen to LAX ATIS on.

Seems that despite all the alleged background in electronics and
computer technology, you can't seem to make one picture of your
"station" appear on any one of the FREE AOL home pages that your
AOL account allows.

Jimmie, YOU don't understand that every other radio service
does NOT define either "station" or "operating" by amateur
radio "rules."

Which means your example isn't valid, Len.

Plainly and simply WRONG, Jimmie. YOU aren't valid in this
alleged "discussion."

Just the other way around, Lennie.

YOU aren't valid in this forum. Thoise OTHER radio services are
NOT the focus of this forum.

AMATEUR RADIO is.

Do you think policemen carrying neat little two-way radios
subscribe to QST?

Some of them do.

Prove it. Supply their names.

Hal, K2HAL, for one. Carries a Motorola HT on the "job".

I just disregarded any
NEED to learn morse code since I was never, ever
required to use it in the military or in the much longer
civilian life career I still have.

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?

Uh huh...No NEED for you to do something that didn't net you an
income...

We get it "straight" just fine.

I've only listened to the predecessor of the Condor Net in
Newbury Park, CA, demonstrated by one of the ham-licensed
employees there. At Teledyne Electronics, my employer
during the late 70s. It was the first state-long network
to use all tone switching for routing without using any
microprocessor control.

Gosh, you *listened*! I've done a lot more than that!

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Hmmmmm....On which tour to SoCal...?!?! On which band?

Also operated the ZIA net for several years when in-and-out of the
Southwest.

And Lennie...."operating" on the Condor net only required TWO
things (neither of which you have...) A valid Amateur Radio license
and an appropriate transceiver.

Heck, Lennie...We MIGHT even be able to teach YOU how to "operate"
there!

Residences are for LIVING in, Jimmie. It is HOME.

SO why shouldn't it change?

This newsgroup/morseblog isn't about zoning ordinances or real
estate, Jimmie. Nor is it about trailer living...wherein
trailers can be towed someplace else for "change."

Ahhhhhh...but YOU have gone on-and-on about zoning ordinances and
real estate for DAYS now, Lennie...Why the change of heart?

I've lived at this same residental address for 42 years,
Jimmie. Some of my neighbors have lived in their for
longer. Why should we "change?" Especially for some
easterner who doesn't know the territory, doesn't know
the neighborhood, doesn't know any neighbors, doesn't do
anything but try to make trouble for those who have
opinions on amateur radio testing other than his?

And despite those 42 years, it really sucks that anyone who might
buy a property and pay the required taxes TODAY would have EXACTLY the
same voice in making CHANGES to those zoning laws...Huh Lennie...?!?!

And Lennie...Do I see YOU arguing against CHANGE just because
you've been doing the same thing for 42 years...?!?!?

Are you the SAME Leonard H. Anderson in RRAP that ALWAYS tries to
dismiss as luddites any Amatuer that even remotely suggests an affinity
for previously established rules and regulations...?!?!

Naaaaaaaaaaahhhhh....YOU wouldn't be THAT two-faced, now WOULD
you...?!?!

Now it's clear. You weren't top of the form in Morse Code, so the
code must be a bad thing....

Plainly and simply inaccurate and plainly and simply just your
personal insult mode trying vainly to masquerade as "civil"
discussion. The mask is quite transparent. We can all see
through it. Take it off, it will be more comfortable for you.

Coming from the putz who has been calling Jim by a whole plethora
of diminutives for years....

Jimmie, TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

That grammar is slipping, Lennie.

Remember...Typos = Angry.

You made the rule.

You're not getting ANGRY, are you...?!?!

I've just never had to USE any radiotelegraphy skills nor
wired telegraphy skills for ANY REASON...and I was DOING
long-distance HF communications before your existance.

No...You were a rear-area radio mechanic before Jim's exstance.
You may have caused some RF to be radiated in the process of repairing
or "tuning up" the transmitters, but you were never an HF radio
operator (save for your CB license...)

If you wish to build up your atrocious EGO and say everyone
is (or even should be) "jealous" of your telegraphy skill,
then you are a deluded person who is troubled and needs some
mental therapy to better get along with others...and that's
the way THAT is...

Ahhhh YES, it IS the same Leonard H. Anderson! Same suggestions
of mental defect coming from a guy who has DEMONSTRATED mental
defect...

Steve, K4YZ

Easier licensing
 

K4YZ wrote:
wrote yet another diatribe belittling others:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can. But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more. Write up a contract on that book and send
me an offer. I'll ask a minimum of $75,000 advance on the
compensation for my time and effort just to start.

Oh? 100K words is hard for you?
yea but i guess it isn't for you asshole

Easier licensing
 

wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

How is a non-ARRL history of amateur radio regulations any
different from an ARRL history of amateur radio regulations, Len?

Non-ARRL histories of ALL RADIO regulations don't have the
obvious political spin that ARRL uses to attempt increasing
its membership.

What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

That's just the way it is...

That's just *your* spin, Len.

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can.

So go ahead.

But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more.

A day or so for you ;-)

Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all. And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Nor does it make regulations.

It certainly tries to! Tries to for a MINORITY of licensed
radio amateurs in the USA.

FCC makes the regulations.

ARRL tries to get FCC to change or keep certain regulations. So
do others like NCI. Yet NCI has a membership of perhaps one percent
of licensed US amateurs.

There were "other groups" back in the 1940s, Len.

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

Do you know the name of those groups and what they tried to change?

It's just a HOBBY, Jimmie.

Not *just*, Len. Whatever it is, you're not part of it.

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Did you expect that everyone had to build everything themselves?!?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes do. You wouldn't know about
that since you've never done it.

Plain and simple WRONG, Jimmie.

You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Do you expect sailors to all get sheet steel and torches and
build the ship they are going to serve on?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes build their equipment from
the most basic parts - including sheet metal work. You wouldn't know
about that since you've never done it.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, Jimmie. :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

Do you expect airmen to all get aluminum and engines and build
the aircraft they are going to serve on?

Of course not.

Why not? I've helped do that...and I'm NOT an "airman." :-)

Do you expect choo-choo drivers to build their locomotives
themselves? :-)

"Choo-choo drivers"?

What you call "locomotive engineers."

That's what everyone who knows what they're talking about calls them,
Len.

Did they go to "engineering
school" for their degrees? :-)

Actually, they do go to school and are licensed for the job.

I just disregarded any
NEED to learn morse code since I was never, ever
required to use it in the military or in the much longer
civilian life career I still have.

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

Since no higher deity commanded that morse code testing be
done for amateur radio licenses, ordinary humans must have
done it. Whatever humans have done, humans can UNDO.

Not necessarily. Humans seem to have trouble undoing certain
types of messes, such as pollution.

Yes, the morse code test is still in USA amateur regulations,
POLLUTING the environment for newcomer hobbyists.

There's your antimorse spin!

Of course - because you are not qualified to do it on-the-air.

Not AUTHORIZED, Jimmie. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I've only listened to the predecessor of the Condor Net in
Newbury Park, CA, demonstrated by one of the ham-licensed
employees there. At Teledyne Electronics, my employer
during the late 70s. It was the first state-long network
to use all tone switching for routing without using any
microprocessor control.

Gosh, you *listened*! I've done a lot more than that!

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That doesn't agree with www.hamdata.com figures.

I didn't use those figures.

Not good enough for you? Hamdata gets theirs right from the
FCC database. Where does Speroni get his? Crystal ball? :-)

AH0A gets his numbers direct from the FCC database. But I don't
use AH0A's numbers.

hamdata.com's numbers include expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses. The numbers I use do not.

Is that a threat, Len? You're not even a novice at amateur radio.

Why are you afraid of perceived "threats?"

So you admit it was a threat...

Residences are for LIVING in, Jimmie. It is HOME.

SO why shouldn't it change?

This newsgroup/morseblog isn't about zoning ordinances or real
estate, Jimmie.

Not is it about the military, or aerospace, or your jobs, Len. But you
go on
and on about those subjects.

Nor is it about trailer living...wherein
trailers can be towed someplace else for "change." :-)

I've lived at this same residental address for 42 years,

Does that mean you think you have the right to dictate what others can
do with their land?

Some of my neighbors have lived in their for
longer. Why should we "change?"

I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

Especially for some
easterner who doesn't know the territory, doesn't know
the neighborhood, doesn't know any neighbors, doesn't do
anything but try to make trouble for those who have
opinions on amateur radio testing other than his? :-)

I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself. Just like the outsider
developer who came into your neighborhood and tried to change the
zoning, you try to change the amateur radio rules.

At least the developer was willing to become part of the neighborhood
by purchasing the land. You folks drove him bankrupt. But you aren't
even a part of amateur radio, yet you want the rules changed.

You resisted change to zoning, but you ridicule and call names
of anyone who tries to resist change to amateur radio regulation.

See your double standard? Others have to adapt, not you.

btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

Now it's clear. You weren't top of the form in Morse Code, so the
code must be a bad thing....

Plainly and simply inaccurate and plainly and simply just your
personal insult mode trying vainly to masquerade as "civil"
discussion.

What's inaccurate about it?

And where's the insult?

The mask is quite transparent. We can all see
through it. Take it off, it will be more comfortable for you.

Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean. You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

Yes, radiotelegraphy was used by many,

Indeed!

but it was
NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

Teleprinting was necessary then
and it was used for the majority of military, government,
and commercial messaging around the globe. That's just the
way it was...

So what? Does that mean *amateurs* shouldn't use Morse Code?

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change. Just like that developer....

I've just never had to USE any radiotelegraphy skills nor
wired telegraphy skills for ANY REASON...and I was DOING
long-distance HF communications before your existance.

"Existence".

You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.