On 2 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0800, wrote:


an Old friend wrote:
wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote

Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.

Not the same at all, Jim.

How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not
some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

Agreed!

But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is
a
50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not
a 100 W transmitter?

Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable
number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs
and simply not run them at full power.

indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary

As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment
from the bargin bin.

what you dreaming about little boy

I guess you don't count my new IC 910 H but that doesn't count

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0800, wrote:


an Old friend wrote:
wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote

Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B,but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.

Not the same at all, Jim.

How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not
some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

Agreed!

But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement.Is
a
50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not
a 100 W transmitter?

Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable
number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs
and simply not run them at full power.

indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary

As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment
from the bargin bin.

You know what I always am dreaming about little boys

We know, Markie, we know.

I guess you don't count my new IC 910 H but that doesn't count

More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less
get a new radio.

wrote



obviating any rational regulatory reason for
carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class
licensees.

Instead, what you propose is keeping the "lower class" at
a low power level, even though the power limit proposed
is not backed by any real safety issue.

The world tires of your transparent trolling, Jim, but I'll humor you.

My proposed low limit on power (we can niggle over how low is appropriate) is
intended to protect the newcomer and his/her neighbors from the potential safety
hazards of QRO RF.

Your proposed graduated levels of "private frequency reserves" has no rational
regulatory justification. It's pure 19th century-liberal social engineering.

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: on Jan 2, 12:36 pm

On 1 Jan 2006 19:59:18 -0800, wrote:
From: an Old friend on Jan 1, 5:35 pm
wrote:
From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm
wrote:


but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of
that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in
the USSR near the end

Ahem...that's a bit drastic in comparison, but unfortunately apt.

shrug

agreed the states involed in choosing your allies and enemies unwisely
were Much higher in that Now defunct body but the operationing
mechiansisms show striking comparisions

To me it is just the "power" thing. As in the old folk axiom:

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Power and control are emotional narcotics. It's difficult
to go "cold turkey" after having them and the rationales
for continuing on the power trip are many and varied. That's
what many see the league being guilty of in the past four
decades.


I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you
must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all
since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all

When it was the ONLY mode possible in radio, it made sense.

yep then it did but just when did that stop being the case?

WW I? I think

I think some time close to 1960, coincident with the start of
the solid-state era and the digital circuitry yet to appear
en masse in the electronic component marketplace.

While the late 40s and all of the 50s saw the rise of TV and
the mobile two-way radios (neither of which using "CW"), the
compact, power-economic transistor and IC circuitry led to a
number of radio improvements: Frequency synthesis to any
desired frequency with quartz crystal stability; true adoption
of existing SSB techniques in much smaller packages; FM and PM
as practical modulation modes in less-bulky radios; the
keyboard-graphical user interface for all kinds of data modes;
improved modems employing Information Theory for minimum
spectral content yet maximizing data throughput.

WW2 radios proved - absolutely - the value of FM for
portable and mobile voice two-way radios. Even though
those used tube architecture, newer and better design
efforts led to rather compact designs. A case in point
is the SCR-300 backpack VHF "walkie-talkie" having 18
tubes and weighing only 40 pounds with the big battery.
The AN/PRC-8 family follow-on cut the weight and bulk
in half just a decade later, even though they also used
tubes (subminiature variety). In yet another decade, the
AN/PRC-25 appeared with easy channel selection (crystal
controlled), all solid-state except for the final
amplifier (a tube). The AN/PRC-77 was a totally-solid-
state version of the PRC-25, taking less than a decade
after the first appearance of its older brother. In the
civilian/commercial world, the handheld FM voice
transceiver was becoming the radio of choice once the
solid-state devices were available to designers.

Teletype Corporation's teleprinters had proved
indispensible in written messaging communications just
prior to and during WW2. A written copy at each comm
circuit end, identical, no specialized operator training
needed to run one of those. While cost was a factor in
slowness to adopt those for civilian/commercial uses,
the first of the "dumb" terminals (with attached
printers) would supplant those wonderful old electro-
mechanical beasties. Solid-state circuitry made the
"dumb" terminal possible...and the control of the
peripheral paper printer.

SSB for voice radios became a practical reality in the 60s
and took over "the bands" (HF) for relatively narrow AM
SSB, aided first by mechanical or crystal bandpass filters,
then the Gingell Polyphase network (after the 70s).

MAYBE the code test could have been dropped from amateur radio
licensing in 1934 when the FCC was created. Personally, I don't
think so from the political situation brewing in radio and all
of "electronic" communications through USA membership in the
CCITT. [the CCITT morphed into the ITU once the UN was born]

about is where I eean then it could alothough it was very conveint
still in those days

You have to realize that there is a terrible INERTIA in some
"regulatory" circles (standardization rather than legislative
coding of regulations). Newer concepts are difficult for
many to accept, those wishing to retain modes and methods
that they finally learned to understand.

In 1934, "radio" was only 38 years old. It had gone through
the beginning arc-spark era, through the KW VLF alternator
era, and suddenly thrust into "modern" radio using vacuum
tubes. Receivers were now sensitive, first through the
regenerative variety, then the superheterodyne (invented just
16 years prior). Many, many, Many NEW things had appeared in
radio in just a generation and a half of human existance.
That was difficult for many amateur radio hobbyists to keep
up with back then. On-off keying morse code was already a
mature mode in 1896, well-known (through telegraphy), and
therefore something the standardizers and regulators could
understand.

All the way up to 1941, the most conventional way to transmit
voice on radio was through AM and "plate modulation" of the
final amplifier. That meant an extra audio amplifier having
a power output (at AF) at least half that of the RF final
amplifier. Bulky, costly, and a power-hog, it was restricted
to broadcasters for the most part. Use of FM tossed out that
big AF power amplifier for modulation and assured a constant
signal level in the useful dynamic range of the receiver.
Even though Ed Armstrong had PROVED the efficacy of FM prior
to WW2, the INERTIA of the powers-that-be kept it from being
commonplace. The needs of WW2 tossed aside a lot of the
old inertia about modes and methods in radio.

Some relative "youngsters" question "why couldn't we have had
SSB sooner than 1960?" That's more complicated. The Telcos
were ALREADY using SSB techniques in frequency-multiplexing
many telephone voice channels into one pair of long-distance
wires in the 1920s. That was wire-line telephone use and "not
radio" (as it was known then). But, the Telco subsidiaries
were adapting this new multi-channel "carrier" equipment to go
on RF and did so in the 1930s. The Dutch were the first to
put HF SSB multi-channel into service, Hilversum to the
Netherlands Antilles. Worked just dandy and many other radio
communications providers used the same sort of system. That
became standardized (through use) as having four voice
bandwidth channels, usually with two of the voice bandwidth
channels further frequency-multiplexed to carry about 8 TTY
circuits. Heckuva good spectral economy in only 12 KHz of
bandspace. But, that was TELEPHONE techniques and "not radio
as 'everyone' knew it." It didn't really occur to radio folks
that SINGLE-CHANNEL SSB might be useful until after WW2 and
then to the Army Air Corps (prior to becoming the USAF in
1948) for their long-distance bomber fleet. While "the SSB
story" is awash in myths and legends of its 'development,'
single-channel SSB AM became the de facto voice mode on HF
for MANY different HF radio users, not just amateurs. The
WHY of not having single-channel SSB radios for 20 years
after the first HF SSB appeared is what I put down to
INERTIA in thinking, inability to grasp the obvious.

If you wish to see "inertia" in thinking in the amateur
radio area, just read about a decade's worth of ham
magazines of the 50s and 60s, especially the "letters to the
editor" sections. Hams of that time were FIXED in certain
concepts (finals HAD to be Class C, could not be "linear"
due to "efficiency"), that one MUST have a humongous AF
plate modulator to create AM, and "CW gets through when
nothing else will" mythos. Many hams just refused to try
understanding "phasing" modulation in creating AM...it HAD
to be done by moving the Class C final's plate supply "up
and down" just like the classic RF envelope depiction of
AM in all the textbooks. :-) [the basic math behind
AM, FM, and PM modulation had been worked out by 1915 and
still holds true today]

If - and only if - the rest of the radio world had NOT
been advancing in technology, radio amateurs MIGHT still
claim justification for retaining the manual code test.
Turning an RF carrier on-off is a very simple concept,
easy for anyone to understand. All the other modes take
some head-scratching to grasp how it is done. Inertia
in learning is safe, easy, a survival tactic...and it
improves self-esteem of the "operators." :-)

On 2 Jan 2006 16:16:24 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0800, wrote:


an Old friend wrote:
wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote

Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but
100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of
judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all
license classes.

Not the same at all, Jim.

How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not
some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit.

There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users,
especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues.

Agreed!

But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is
a
50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not
a 100 W transmitter?

Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable
number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs
and simply not run them at full power.

indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary

As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment
from the bargin bin.

You know what I always am dreaming about little boys

We know, Markie, we know.

you know you are lying and a forgery just like your bussy steve

"what you dreaming about little boy"

was the original

I guess you don't count my new IC 910 H but that doesn't count

More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less
get a new radio.

why do think I can pay my utilly bills? of course as I install more
solar cells and wind units I increasingly don't have a utility bil

what a matter stalker you can't them?

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:13:59 -0500, wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 16:16:24 -0800, wrote:

More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less
get a new radio.

why do think I can pay my utilly bills? of course as I install more
solar cells and wind units I increasingly don't have a utility bil

But you have bills for the cells and the wind units and the maintain of
them and the install of them all of which can be lots more money than
paying for electric tricity. It is like them hibrid cars which cost so
much that it is cheaper to buy gas for a regular car. consumer report
say it so.

sometimes hugging trees isnt realy very smart. only dum peoples do it.

Tood, NOGL
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 3 Jan 2006 09:58:37 +0800, (NOGL) wrote:


On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:13:59 -0500, wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 16:16:24 -0800, wrote:

More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less
get a new radio.

why do think I can pay my utilly bills? of course as I install more
solar cells and wind units I increasingly don't have a utility bil

But you have bills for the cells and the wind units and the maintain of
them and the install of them all of which can be lots more money than
paying for electric tricity.

I don't haveto pay to have them instaled and and once I have paid for
a unit it is mine mainatnce on solar is cleaning them idoit, wind unit
require just a little more maintance but it isn't hard to DIY

more when now yes but we all know that power prices are only going up
It is like them hibrid cars which cost so
much that it is cheaper to buy gas for a regular car. consumer report
say it so.

yea they hybrids don't tlook that good, ecomonical, often the case
with first gen tech, but solar and wind systems in there 20 plus
generation of tech

sometimes hugging trees isnt realy very smart.

sometimes tree hugging isn't very samrt but the number do makes sense

solar wind unit pay a return on investment of from 10 to 20 %
only dum peoples do it.

Tood, NOGL
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

KØHB wrote:
wrote



obviating any rational regulatory reason for
carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class
licensees.

Instead, what you propose is keeping the "lower class" at
a low power level, even though the power limit proposed
is not backed by any real safety issue.

The world tires of your transparent trolling, Jim, but I'll humor you.

the wolrd does not hear Jim thank the gods

My proposed low limit on power (we can niggle over how low is appropriate) is
intended to protect the newcomer and his/her neighbors from the potentialsafety
hazards of QRO RF.

Your proposed graduated levels of "private frequency reserves" has no rational
regulatory justification. It's pure 19th century-liberal social engineering.

73, de Hans, K0HB