magnetic field

hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote in message news:<dgq2iv45odhheg1rm9hnrvekrhgkt5m1sn@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:15:33 -0700, Keith
kilowattradio_spam@earthlink.net> wrote:

Dear Potential Ham Radio Enthusiast,
Recently the international body that regulates the radio spectrum removed the
requirement for knowing morse code to get a 1.8-30 MHz amateur radio license.
If you are interested in ham radio then I urge you to contact the FCC
commissioners and tell them to change the morse code requirement.
[snip]

Please take a few minutes to write a thoughtful note to the FCC Commissioners
to change and improve ham radio. Let us make ham radio useful for teenagers and
adults today.

That's what the CB band is for... the masses, or was that "asses" ?:)

...Jim Thompson

Thanks for posting that comment Jim. I'm pretty sure that a vast
majority of Hams will agree with you on this, even in the dumbed-down
era that we live in today!

If all the OP want to do is communicate by voice without all the
licensing challenges to satsify, why doesn't he simply use one of
those portable, license-free transcievers known as a Cell Phone?

I was initially licensed at age 12 (which in itself reveals that
neither the code or technical exam tests were that difficult), but
lost my interest during the 1970's when most Hams were using
'store-bought' rather than 'home-brew' rigs. Since most of the QSO
content up to that time involved discussions of what we weere ising
for rigs, and the aspects of their construction and performance, the
conversation content suddently became very limited in technical
content -- a bit like this newsgroup. No more "California Kilowatt"
discussions, with guys proudly boasting about their (largely illegal
rigs) with guy bragging about the pair of Eimac 3X2500F3s that they
were using in their final modulated by a pair of 4-1000s; on the other
end of the spectrum no one describing how they had WAS using only the
3-Watt output 3-W CW rig with a 6V6 as the final. Most Hams at that
time knew that 10-Meters opened up for a brief DX window at roughly
11-year cycles, and would gladly wait for 10-years to exploit its
magic when it did. At that time, antennas still ruled, and most of the
Hams that I knew personally developed a great deal of expertise in the
constructing and tuning of beam antennas, and the big debate was not
the licensing code requirement, but the height limitation placed on
ham radio towers, and whether of not a community had any authority to
regulate them!

I miss those days, and the often greast QSOs that accompanied them.
They don't exist any more, which is why I finally let my license lapse
and concentrated my efforts on off-shore sailing and pyrotechnics!
After all, when a guy tells you that he is using a Kenwood
transciever, how do you come back to that? For me, it's like in 1958
when a guy came back to you using a 'Gooney Box' (Jim, I'm pretty sure
you know what a Gooney Box is/was, but on the Ham bands today, or in
this newsgroup, I'd be willing to bet at least 90% of the people
don't!
:)

Harry C.
(former K2JEZ)
I know a public school teacher who had a local ham club provide instructors one
day a week. The kids were 5th grade (age 10/11) and nearly all of them got a
license (novice/technician). They were also invited to participate in the "Hams
in Space" program and were able to talk to one of the astronaut hams during a
shuttle flight (with equipment provided by several local clubs). They even got
local media coverage (TV/newspaper).

Maybe the OP is right - code is just too hard ;-(

I guess the OP's next proposals will be
1) the theory is too hard
2) international radio law is too restrictive.

WB4HLZ

More about me: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/
VB3 source code: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/vbsource.html
VB6 source code: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/vb6source.html
VB6 - MySQL how to: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/mysql.html
My newest language - NSBasic for the Palm PDA: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/nsbsource.html
Drivers for Pablo graphics tablet and JamCam cameras: http://home.earthlink.net/~mwbt/
johnecarter atat mindspring dotdot com. Fix the obvious to reply by email.
 
"A E" <aeisenhut@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3F22DE55.9E2C6C42@videotron.ca...
"Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'" wrote:

It says "atomic" right on the face of the clock.

So it's made of atoms?
Of course!

Back in the 1950s it was popular to name everything "Atomic".
 
Richard Crowley wrote:

"A E" <aeisenhut@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3F22DE55.9E2C6C42@videotron.ca...
"Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'" wrote:

It says "atomic" right on the face of the clock.

So it's made of atoms?

Of course!

Back in the 1950s it was popular to name everything "Atomic".
Or 'o-matic'.
 
In article <vi67qdo4nqo64b@corp.supernews.com>, rcrowley7@xprt.net
mentioned...
"A E" <aeisenhut@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3F22DE55.9E2C6C42@videotron.ca...
"Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'" wrote:

It says "atomic" right on the face of the clock.

So it's made of atoms?

Of course!

Back in the 1950s it was popular to name everything "Atomic".
http://www.conelrad.com/media/atomicmusic/sh_boom.php?platter=6
Check out the paragraphs after the sample lyrics.

http://www.conelrad.com/yellowpages/
Interesting historical info.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:59:30 -0400, J. Yazel <jyazel@nls.net> wrote:

Just remember that as soon as CW is eliminated, all of the
Amateur bands will become completely unuseable because
of the massive "CB type" congestion.

Jack W8RAG
Is there anyone on the CB bands now, besides truckers?

They so thoroughly own the band that they don't even respond to
non-truckers.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!
 
J. Yazel wrote:

Just remember that as soon as CW is eliminated, all of the
Amateur bands will become completely unuseable because
of the massive "CB type" congestion.
How did you get that notion. Are the VHF/UHF bands available with a non-CW
license congested by CBers?

Michael


--
The only reason I would take up exercising is so that I could hear heavy
breathing again.

Promoting Penguin Power. Web home: http://www.qsl.net/dc1rn
 
Morse code ("CW") is digital communications at its purest.

Tim (KA0BTD)
 
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:48:04 +0100, A E wrote:



Richard Crowley wrote:

"A E" <aeisenhut@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3F22DE55.9E2C6C42@videotron.ca...
"Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'" wrote:

It says "atomic" right on the face of the clock.

So it's made of atoms?

Of course!

Back in the 1950s it was popular to name everything "Atomic".

Or 'o-matic'.
Or "o-rama"

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx
 
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:50:17 +0100, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Morse code ("CW") is digital communications at its purest.
If you mean Morse code, it depends on your definition of "pure"

Mixture of PWM and PCM with no fixed character length.

If you *really* mean CW,then that conveys no information at all.

I never could understand why amateurs call Morse code "CW" - it isn't


--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx
 
"Little Monster" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

I've been given a scanner which needs an interface card which I haven't
got, and unlikely to get (I believe the interface is akin to ISA on the
scanner side) (It is a Scantak 2c).

So 3 questions

If I break it for scrap, can anyone suggest a project I might do from the
parts?
Use the stepper motors for some gee-whiz device.

If I don't break it from scrap, can anyone suggest how to make an
interface card/dongle (would have to be fairly primitive)?
The scanner is mentioned online in a couple of places. The descriptions mention
that an interface card comes with it. The card could be either s SCSI card or a
proprietary interface.

Anyone got an interface card going spare?
Have you checked Ebay?

More about me: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/
VB3 source code: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/vbsource.html
VB6 source code: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/vb6source.html
VB6 - MySQL how to: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/mysql.html
My newest language - NSBasic for the Palm PDA: http://thelabwiz.home.mindspring.com/nsbsource.html
Drivers for Pablo graphics tablet and JamCam cameras: http://home.earthlink.net/~mwbt/
johnecarter atat mindspring dotdot com. Fix the obvious to reply by email.
 
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:55:42 -0700, Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'
<alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <vi67qdo4nqo64b@corp.supernews.com>, rcrowley7@xprt.net
mentioned...

"A E" <aeisenhut@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3F22DE55.9E2C6C42@videotron.ca...
"Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'" wrote:

It says "atomic" right on the face of the clock.

So it's made of atoms?

Of course!

Back in the 1950s it was popular to name everything "Atomic".

http://www.conelrad.com/media/atomicmusic/sh_boom.php?platter=6
Check out the paragraphs after the sample lyrics.

http://www.conelrad.com/yellowpages/
Interesting historical info.

Interesting URLs. Some of us(ahem!) can remember living through that
era, and it was spooky. It's all wrapped up in the movie, "The Atomic
Cafe"-rent it if you can, it's hilarious. CONELRAD, Civil Defense
Shelters, Ground Observer Corps, etc.- all because of a couple of
pounds of plutonium!

Charlie

Eschew Obfuscation!
 
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.28.18.55.27.789292.964@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:50:17 +0100, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Morse code ("CW") is digital communications at its purest.

If you mean Morse code, it depends on your definition of "pure"
And your definition of "digital". Neither Morse or International
(which is what most people actually mean by "Morse") are truly
"digital" at all.

Hint: NOT everything is "analog" or "digital".


Bob M.
 
Bob posted, in part:
<< I don't think it's "too hard" (been licensed for about 30 years,
and have at one time been quite comfortable at well over
20 WPM), but more and more, I DO have to agree that it's
become irrelevant. >>

Since when is having fun irrelevant?

Don
 
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f26d787$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.28.18.55.27.789292.964@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:50:17 +0100, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Morse code ("CW") is digital communications at its purest.

If you mean Morse code, it depends on your definition of "pure"

And your definition of "digital". Neither Morse or International
(which is what most people actually mean by "Morse") are truly
"digital" at all.

Hint: NOT everything is "analog" or "digital".


Bob M.
Maybe it could be called tri-state? Dit, dah, nothing.

-Bill
 
You know, digital is not restricted to binary. Morse code is most certainly
digital, as it is based on a two valued logic level system, but it also includes
a time parameter. Note that this time parameter for the pulse widths has units
of one and three clock periods. You therefore has three exact conditions
specified.
Morse code is a trinary system, in the most rigorous sense.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
 
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f26d787$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.28.18.55.27.789292.964@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:50:17 +0100, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Morse code ("CW") is digital communications at its purest.

If you mean Morse code, it depends on your definition of "pure"

And your definition of "digital". Neither Morse or International
(which is what most people actually mean by "Morse") are truly
"digital" at all.

Hint: NOT everything is "analog" or "digital".
I will violently agree that all digital systems are made out of analog
components. But Morse code is undoubtedly digital communications.

It's an asynchronous serial encoding with variable character lengths.
Just like many more recent codes, the most commonly used characters have
the shortest code lengths. And all this (including a worldwide digital
transmission/repeater system and the associated technology) was developed
and massively deployed decades before Nyquist and friends.

Tim.
 
HoldenCaulfield@att.net (Bill Bowden) wrote in message news:<401eed4d.0307292149.6f515fab@posting.google.com>...
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f26d787$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.28.18.55.27.789292.964@cerebrumconfus.it...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:50:17 +0100, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Morse code ("CW") is digital communications at its purest.

If you mean Morse code, it depends on your definition of "pure"

And your definition of "digital". Neither Morse or International
(which is what most people actually mean by "Morse") are truly
"digital" at all.

Hint: NOT everything is "analog" or "digital".


Bob M.

Maybe it could be called tri-state? Dit, dah, nothing.
If you insist on doing that, you must allow for at least two (more
realistically, in common usage, three) varieties of "nothing". That makes
it a five- or six- state system by your convoluted interpretation.

But that's making things too complicated: it *is* digital
asynchronous serial variable-code-length communications. There are
some bit sequences that aren't valid but that's true for just about any
practical encoding.

Tim.
 
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f26d896$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"the Wiz" <look@message.body> wrote in message
news:1lo5ivos4prs5hvk3hoefnbk6unjlmskov@4ax.com...
Maybe the OP is right - code is just too hard ;-(

I don't think it's "too hard" (been licensed for about 30 years,
and have at one time been quite comfortable at well over
20 WPM), but more and more, I DO have to agree that it's
become irrelevant. There is absolutely no sensible reason that
I can see for maintaining a CW proficiency requirement.
Bob, one argument in support for the continuing requirement for code
proficiency in amateur radio licensing stems from the presumed public
value of amateur radio in times of emergency. In fact, this is so far
as I know the sole justification for "ham band" existence thoughout
its history. Commercial interests have long argued that the "ham
bands" provide only recreational service for an exceptionally small
segment of the community, and that the spectrums they currently occupy
could be put to far more valuable use in other services.

A continuing justification hams having the potential to provide
effective communication in times of emergency require two distinct
skill sets exist within the ham community. First, hams must possess
sufficient technical skills enabling them to kludge together basic
operable communications systems even when faced with minimal component
available and no operational off-the-shelf radio systems. At the
bottom line, this suggests that any ham have the ability to create an
operable 10 or 20W HF transmitter using only salvaged components, plus
repair and modify even a small, broadcast band receiver to accomodate
such communications.

Second, since communications systems so configured will be of low
power, have a limited efficiency antenna system, and quite likely be
without an effective or sophicated method to encode information except
by CW, the viability of systems so constructed will be entirely
dependent on the ability of ham operators to competently communicate
using only code.

If the ham community loses either of these skill, its justification
for continuing existence will be very likely lost, and the frequency
spectrum now allocated to the amateur radio service will most likely
me lost in its entirety to commercial and government interest
(particularly in these days where the FCC seems to pander so heavily
to commercial interests).

This is not only my view on the subject, but IIRC one that has been
historically shared by the ARRL.

Harry C.
 
Harry Conover (hhc314@yahoo.com) writes:
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f26d896$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"the Wiz" <look@message.body> wrote in message
news:1lo5ivos4prs5hvk3hoefnbk6unjlmskov@4ax.com...
Maybe the OP is right - code is just too hard ;-(

I don't think it's "too hard" (been licensed for about 30 years,
and have at one time been quite comfortable at well over
20 WPM), but more and more, I DO have to agree that it's
become irrelevant. There is absolutely no sensible reason that
I can see for maintaining a CW proficiency requirement.

Bob, one argument in support for the continuing requirement for code
proficiency in amateur radio licensing stems from the presumed public
value of amateur radio in times of emergency. In fact, this is so far
as I know the sole justification for "ham band" existence thoughout
its history. Commercial interests have long argued that the "ham
bands" provide only recreational service for an exceptionally small
segment of the community, and that the spectrums they currently occupy
could be put to far more valuable use in other services.

I would argue that a technical training ground is also a reason for
it's existence. Don't forget that people staked out radio for hobby
use at the dawn of radio, preceeding most applications for the neat
gadget. In the early days, it was hard to separate amateur from professional
in terms of radio.

Admittedly, that is much less so nowadays, but the potential is still
there that as a technological playground, it allows people to get started
which will lead them to other things, which at this point may be in
the professional realm.

But either way, you're right. There is a big wave of people who believe
that amateur radio needs big numbers to justify the allocation of the ham
bands. "If enough people are using them, then they can't be taken away".
But in order to do this, the entry requirements keep getting watered down.
A lot more people can enter with ease, but they are further and further
away from the tradition of amateur radio. I find it an odd contradiction
that some lament that ham radio can't entice people in this world of comptuers
and cellphones (and everything else), while at the same time reinforcing
the similarity to those things.

When I was a kid and learned of amateur radio, neither the code test
nor the written exam were an obstacle. They were something I had to
pass in order to be licensed, but they were also a sign of accomplishment.
Mind you, I was interested in the technical aspects of the hobby, but
I wonder how much appeal there would be today if I just had to fill out
the form? Certainly, it's now popular presentation as some sort of
utility or space to yak it up would not be appealing. It was learning
about radio, and getting something that I built to work that was oh so
appealing.

And hence I think, if young people aren't entering the hobby, it's
a problem of presentation. If it's not being sold as a technical hobby,
then you're not going to attract people with those interests. If you
lessen the entry requirements (actually they've been lessening for
decades), it may make it easier for people to enter, but it does nothing
about attracting the right kind of people. Indeed, if amateur radio
isn't out in public view much, my perception is that it was much
more visible almost thirty five years ago when I first heard about it,
then the entry requirements mean nothing because people will never
even get that far.

Michael
 
Michael posted in part:
"When I was a kid and learned of amateur radio, neither the code test
nor the written exam were an obstacle. They were something I had to
pass in order to be licensed, but they were also a sign of accomplishment."

I totally agree. It was a worthy challenge.

Too many people today want THINGS, such as to be able to have and operate a ham
station, but they do not want to put in the effort. They prefer to whine about
how difficult it is. There is no challenge for them, because in their minds
they have already been defeated.

I enjoy QRP cw. Running about a half watt input power on 80M at 2am and having
a ZL come back is a lifetime thrill.

A previous poster commented on the ability of some hams to "make-do" and get
operational with junk. I think that skill is valuable, and ham radio is the
best place to develop it.

Don
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top