Hmmmm - I thought SSB was developed by the telephone
companies or the military back in the 1930s, rather than by
AM ham ops.
Maybe I was given wrong information.
On 18 Sep 2005 at 18:21, John Coleman ARS WA5BXO wrote:
> Yes, AMers are mavericks but I feel that the ones that did not
> go to SSB (100%) back in the 60s and 70s, are the ones that didn't have
> any trouble communicating with whom ever they wanted and for the most
> part this took place because they were very knowledgeable folks with a
> desire to experiment and modify, or build from scratch, a better rig.
> ("That was a run on sentence if there was", somebody help me with that.)
> Where as, the folks that just wanted to talk, collect cards and handle
> traffic found that buying a new SSB rig made that easier. I don't think
> there is anyone among us that will deny the communication capabilities
> of a good SSB station. What many folks do forget is that the engineers
> that researched and designed the SSB technologies were AM ops with
> mostly home brewed or highly modified stuff. Where do you think the
> ingenuity and knowledge to design the SSB stuff came from? I don't mean
> to put down the folks that like to handle traffic, etc. There expertise
> is certainly welcome in any part of the world. A lot of these arguments
> can be said for CW as well. But when a SSB station, running 100 watts,
> can't cut the mustard or the rig don't work, I would be willing to bet
> there or a lot of us AMers that could build a self oscillating single
> tube or Xsistor transmitter and be on the air with CW in short order
> with some junk parts.
>
> What I am saying is that it takes all sorts of people with
> expertise in different areas to make this hobby work and if we forget
> the old technologies then where are the building blocks for the future.
> And if there is only a few modes to operate then where is the incentive
> to learn.
>
> There will always be some nuts that go buy a rig just to get on
> the air and talk trash. They were there in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as
> well.
>
> I love to find a use for things for which it was not intended.
>
> John, WA5BXO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Bruhns
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:39 PM
> To: Discussion of AM Radio
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] The zeal to eliminate AM mode on the amateur
> bands.
>
> It's because a lot of people in authority are
> control freaks. Control was the reason they went
> after authority in the first place, and they
> consider it to be the proper reward for their
> work.
>
> AMers have long been mavericks, often behaving a
> bit wildly and holding unusual opinions, and above
> all being highly visible and audible on the bands.
> Guys with sideband gear didn't like the whistles
> and the sibilent splash, and control freaks went
> nuts wanting to rein in the independent and
> outspoken AMers.
>
> SWLs would tune the bands, but sidebanders sounded
> like Donald Duck, so the AMers were the ones the
> SWLs listened to. The control freaks sure didn't
> like that!
>
> So it went for many years. The sideband guys are
> still opposed to AM, and the control freaks still
> want control. There is not enough real activity
> on the bands to justify any conflict, but the
> control freaks still want control, and their
> failure to establish that control has made them
> really angry. Hence the zeal to eliminate AM.
>
> Bacon, WA3WDR
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Cobbeldick [KB4CVN]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <amradio@mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:10 PM
> Subject: [AMRadio] The zeal to eliminate AM mode
> on the
> amateur bands.
>
>
> > Having only been active on AM mode for just two
> short
> years, I consider
> > myself to still be a newbie, still not
> understanding
> the zeal and
> > fervor by some in the amateur community to
> eliminate
> or totally outlaw
> > the use of AM mode transmissions in the MF/HF
> amateur
> bands in the USA.
> >
> >
> > ...As quoted by one person "like using
> spark-gap".
> >
> > I look at AM communications as just one of the
> earlier modes, something
> > to be preserved, not cast aside.
> >
> > Could someone more familiar with the issue
> please
> give me a better
> > understanding of why these people are so intent
> to
> get rid of this
> > mode?
> >
> >
> > 73,
> > Mark Cobbeldick, KB4CVN
> > Monroe, VA
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> __________________________________________________
> _____
> _______
> > AMRadio mailing list
> > Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
> > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>
