RE: [AMRadio] Re: AMRadio digest, Vol 4 #298 - 8 msgs
Patrick, I got in very late last few days, I'll try to look at the 304TL filaments tonight. I'll take digital pictures of them lit up for you. George KC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of patrick jankowiak Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:32 PM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: [AMRadio] Re: AMRadio digest, Vol 4 #298 - 8 msgs I have only the tube. I had been building an amplifier, and had a socket and 4 tubes, but traded the stuff off, except I could not find the 4th tube. I let the guy hold a couple of my 100uF 4KV non-pcb oil caps for it, but it didn't turn up, I could not find it, for a year. By that time he had sold the caps to someone, so I kept the tube. so that's the story, it's in the correct type box etc, just I have no use for it. I'll trade. The 4cx5000A has a bit of external tarnish from sitting, but I don't think it is harmed. Patrick Message: 1 From: George Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [AMRadio] trade 4CX5000A for .. Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:37:44 -0500 Reply-To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Patrick, I may have the pair of 304THs. I'll check tonight, and verify the filaments with a valid light-up since I have a fixture set up with the correct socket and the correct filament transformer. The 4CX5K may be fun to play with. Do you have the socket or chimney for it?? George AB2KC ___ AMRadio mailing list AMRadio@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
On Thursday 22 January 2004 12:37, RoadKing wrote: A Much more important issue to me is the fact that CW is dead for all practical purposes, it IS still a means of communicating when nothing else will work. but the FACT is the TIMES have changed, YOU can go into the CW portion of the band and dial up and down for 100's of KC's and NEVER hear a signal. And, you can call CQ at times for over and HOUR and finally just give up because NOBODY will come back to you. Question to ASK YOURSELF. When was the last time YOU made a CW Contact? HUH? if its been at least 5 years or more then this will be a hoss you may want to ride! My thought is that we petition the FCC, to OPEN most all The CW portion of the band for Phone operation, leave 5 to 10 kc's for all the CW op's to be able to go there and find, a MUCH more used portion of the Band. But reallocate the rest of the CW portion of the bands for phone operation, still maintaining some LICENSE classification separation! Not sure what CW bands you have been listening to, but 90% of my operation is CW. QRP CW at that. Last year I was doing a lot of building, so only made about 700 QSOs, most years it is over 1000. When I do operate phone, I like AM, because most AMers are not the boxtop license crowd. BUT, CW is NOT dead. It is the 2nd most popular mode on Ham Radio. I would compromise, and call for 100 KhZ EXCLUSIVE CW on 80, 50 Khz on 40, 100 on 20 and 15, and 200 on 10M. NO Pactor, AMTOR, or any other of the TORs. They can have their own sub-bands, or share with SSB. -- John W2AGN http://w2agn.net
[AMRadio] CW Listening
Thanks John, I'm guilty as charged.. I have mainly been a
{quot}3'Bander... 80,40 and 15. I've never failed to make a contact on
any of the {quot}higher{quot} bands...ie: 30,20,15,10. The main two bands
I was referencing were 80 and 40 because they seem to have the most PHONE
band activity at least in my Hearing capability and you can roll down in
that portion of the band and not only call CQ, but listen up and down the
bands and hear very very little activity, I have even tried calling a
Station when they finished a qso with another station and NOT gotten a
taker.. {quot}perhaps{quot} my straight key fist is needing
repair...lt;smilinggt; Tnx.. for the heads up John..
73,
Tony/W5OD
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html (html body -- converted)
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
HI Tom: i am 100% against what the arrl wants to do. i use AM and ssb i restore old rigs but i also love CW .. and here in KY i never have a problem finding a cw qso. 15 mhz down. 10 yes but never on the rest of the bands if they are open.. had a 35 min rag chew two nights ago with a WA3. on 40 about 2100 local. now during the daytime the bands do not have as much activity but that has been the norm for years.. 73 cu on AM Tony wa4jqs
[AMRadio] New antenna at the home QTH
Hello all, Well I finally gave up on the rain gutter on 75 meters! I snuck up an 75 meter dipole (double bazooka type) that's mostly hidden by the trees so, hopefully, the neighborhood antenna police won't come knocking... The Ranger II likes it a lot better than the rain gutter so maybe some of you will be able to hear me next time I try. 73, Mont - K0YCN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
After reading through your thoughts Tony I was reminded of the testing procedure for past Technicians. I believe, until the last restructuring the Technician exam was the same one Generals took. Prior to 2000 the only difference was that the General applicant took a 13 wpm code test and the Tech Class only took the 5 wpm until they created the no-code Tech but both took the General technical exam. Now if I am not mistaken, the no-code Technician still took the same written as the old General. In short, these guys took a test that was designed around a Voice license. So it appears to me their technical competency might be as good as a licensee who by passing only an additional CW test might be competent to operate HF voice. Well since the code is going the way of the spark, why not let the guys with these licenses operate HF voice? By their written test, they should have the technical competence. Understand I haven't formed a definite opinion on this yet, but these are thoughts that have crossed my mind. I also wonder if they were discussed at the ARRL board meeting. Another thing is the quotation dumbing down amateur radio. The main reason for going to multiple choice tests for all applicants was the fact that grading time was requiring so much time and personnel. I don't remember for sure, but it seems to me that in the 1950-60 time frame there was only about 250,000 amateurs. Today there are over 800,000 as I recall (all are not active, but took tests). I know from experience of operating a test center for commercial licenses and grading papers on electronic technical material in a Community College that I would not want to hand grade tests with hand drawn circuit diagrams and questions concerning the operation of that circuit. Grading a single 50 question test of that nature could easily take over an hour. With the multiple choice answer sheet, all one needs is an answer key with all the right holes punched out for someone which will take about 2 minutes to grade. One can also administer the tests by computer which grades the test automatically. Either method cannot review hand drawn diagrams. Multiply that by the number of tests given and time consumption goes off the scale. Understand all, I am not advocating the position of the ARRL but can see why they might adopt it. Testing is now in the hands of VOLUNTEERS, so we might contact some of them to see if they would take on the chore. If they have an opinion and they will share it, it would be good to hear their feelings as they are not paid for their work. Considering all sides, I can see from tests previously taken by current licensees, they could be considered capable of anything we are except the code. I can also see that the code was a filter that prevented some undesirables from applying. I hate the fact that I had to work harder than some new person that does not have to know the code to gain the privileges. Maybe the way to go would be the sub-band method you have mentioned. Expand the Extra sub-band much more than it is proposed in the ARRL document. Maybe include the current Novice sub-band in phone privileges for Extra and increase the General by only 25 Kcs. Having a lot of extra (pardon the pun) space would be incentive to learn the code. If the code idea does not work, then have a 25 or so question test additional, to cover other technical material that is not currently covered (this would require some thought). In other words, if they eliminate the code altogether a person would have to take the current 50 question technical test for the Extra then take an additional 25 or so question test on a higher plane rather than administering a 5 wpm code test, maybe over different communications modes and how they operate. By passing both tests, a person would have a real incentive to gain the 50 Kcs the Extra would allow, if passed. Another factor is the other narrow band modes such as RTTY, PSK, Amtor and such including CW. Since they are narrow band, they might be squeezed (I hate to use that word) into smaller amount of space, then allow the Extra more than just the old Novice portion. Ideas to play with. I do know that FCC has bigger fish to fry than the Amateur Service and only review rule proposals for us as absolutely necessary, so we had better get with it. If we can change the ARRL proposal to increase the Extra sub-bands through individuals, and maybe the QCWA group, we will have a better chance. What do you guys think? 73 Jim de W5JO - Original Message - From: RoadKing [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:37 AM Subject: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC Man, Jim, You posted this on Several BBSs and It has certainly stirred the Fires! Even I posted some thoughts on the FORUM. I would humbly suggest that Although Jim has merely posted what the ARRL has PROPOSED to the FCC, this is NOT LAW. These CHANGES are NOT a part
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
Tommye Jim Wilhite wrote: I can also see that the code was a filter that prevented some undesirables from applying. I hate the fact that I had to work harder than some new person that does not have to know the code to gain the privileges. Realizing that we are both on the same side on this, I want to comment ONLY on this portion of what was said. This is the old, If I was hazed, then by God, I will haze the new comers to the group Yes, if they eliminate code then others will get it cheaper than I did, but to make that a reason to oppose it is just to support the act of Hazing unless it can be shown that learning code will increase the technical ability of an applicant. But I doubt that that can be done. In fact I would be willing to bet that a chimpanzee could be taught code at 5 WPM!!! And I would be just as willing to bet that you could NOT teach a chimp to read a single schematic and build a circuit.
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
In fact I would be willing to bet that a chimpanzee could be taught code at 5 WPM!!! And I would be just as willing to bet that you could NOT teach a chimp to read a single schematic and build a circuit. at least not the SAME chimp... which, to me, speaks volumes for the NEED for a Morse Code requirement. To put it more bluntly, didn't the FeeCee learn from it's mistake in 1957, when they gave away the best DX band that Amatuer Operators had at the time? 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
Here is some food for thought: Back in the mid 60's the Air Force Tech school flunked some of the guys out that could not comprehend electronics. Those that flunked out were transferred to what was called ditty bop school. Ditty bop was where they made 20 wpm CW operators out of them. 73 Gary K4FMX : In fact I would be willing to bet that a chimpanzee could be taught code at 5 WPM!!! And I would be just as willing to bet that you could NOT teach a chimp to read a single schematic and build a circuit. at least not the SAME chimp... which, to me, speaks volumes for the NEED for a Morse Code requirement. To put it more bluntly, didn't the FeeCee learn from it's mistake in 1957, when they gave away the best DX band that Amatuer Operators had at the time? 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR ___ AMRadio mailing list AMRadio@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
Jim: I am not completely persuaded that elimination of code is the proper way to go, but am also not persuaded keeping it is the best thing. As I stated (please don't read this as combative), maybe replace the code with a 10 question test over modes and how they operate (bandwidth, composition, etc.. To me, that would keep the integrity of the Extra above the General and somewhat meet the standards that are in place today. It seems this would placate all those of us who want that higher plane. I realize it won't be long that code requirement will be gone for good, but let's be sure the Extra test meets high standards. 73 Jim de W5JO - Original Message - From: Jim Isbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC Geoff Edmonson wrote: In fact I would be willing to bet that a chimpanzee could be taught code at 5 WPM!!! And I would be just as willing to bet that you could NOT teach a chimp to read a single schematic and build a circuit. at least not the SAME chimp... which, to me, speaks volumes for the NEED for a Morse Code requirement. So what you are saying is that we need to keep intelligent operators out but allow chimps in??? ___ AMRadio mailing list AMRadio@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
I am an Extra and what I think might be a good way to differentiate them is something more useful than code. We as a community have become a bunch of appliance operators When I joined the group in 1958 much of our stuff was home brew. In those days I could not afford the Collins S-Line that I now operate. I had a BC348 driven by a home brew converter and the transmitter was a hodge poge of military surplus that was rewired and one home brew transmitter. In my car I had a commercial 6 meter transmitter (Harristahl Labs NE-6) and a home brew converter running the 1955 Fords AM radio on 6 meters The transmitter power was from a salvaged dynamotor. Wish I could find an NE-6 today. Since the number of applicants for Extra would be small in compairison to the number for the lower levels, we could have a test that might be a bit harder to grade. Something that demonstrated the ability of the applicant to build his own gear. Maybe an apprentice program. The only way to Extra would be through an existing Extra and building something to show that skill. This is just brainstorming, and maybe some easier way of accomplishing it could be thought of, but it seems that showing the ability to home brew is more useful AND HARDER than learning code. You would never teach ANY chimp to build a linear. Tommye Jim Wilhite wrote: Jim: I am not completely persuaded that elimination of code is the proper way to go, but am also not persuaded keeping it is the best thing. As I stated (please don't read this as combative), maybe replace the code with a 10 question test over modes and how they operate (bandwidth, composition, etc.. To me, that would keep the integrity of the Extra above the General and somewhat meet the standards that are in place today. It seems this would placate all those of us who want that higher plane. I realize it won't be long that code requirement will be gone for good, but let's be sure the Extra test meets high standards. 73 Jim de W5JO - Original Message - From: Jim Isbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC Geoff Edmonson wrote: In fact I would be willing to bet that a chimpanzee could be taught code at 5 WPM!!! And I would be just as willing to bet that you could NOT teach a chimp to read a single schematic and build a circuit. at least not the SAME chimp... which, to me, speaks volumes for the NEED for a Morse Code requirement. So what you are saying is that we need to keep intelligent operators out but allow chimps in??? ___ AMRadio mailing list AMRadio@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio ___ AMRadio mailing list AMRadio@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
I love CW; I use it almost exclusively, though I occasionally enjoy AM, along with RTTY, SSTV, MFSK16, hellschreiber, PSK31 and even -- dare I say it? -- SSB, but *I* don't think CW should be the end-all and be-all for becoming an Extra. Maybe the Eastern Block nations during the Cold War had something of merit in this regard. When I got my Extra (1970mumble, I think 1975), one had to have been licensed at least at or above above the General level (I don't think Conditional counted but I've forgotten) for at least 2 years, and had to have an Advanced license. Or something along those lines. As I understand it, in the Eastern Block countries, one had to be an SWL that collected a set number of QSL cards over a given period, on various modes, to be licensed. This displayed an appropriate interest, etc. Some may have needed licensed sponsors. The Freedom of Information Act makes the question pools open, so we can't rely on secret questions. Even if we did, there would be a Bash-like industry to reveal the questions. Perhaps a minimum tenure as a licensee is a good idea? Perhaps a huge question pool, with *thousands* of possible questions is the answer? Perhaps also a tougher multiple-guess test? I dunno. But logistics decrees that bringing in a working piece of home-brew gear, or drawing schematics, or essay questions simply won't fly. Kim Elmore, N5OP (not a vanity call in the current sense) At 05:13 PM 1/22/2004 -0600, you wrote: Since the number of applicants for Extra would be small in compairison to the number for the lower levels, we could have a test that might be a bit harder to grade. Something that demonstrated the ability of the applicant to build his own gear. Maybe an apprentice program. The only way to Extra would be through an existing Extra and building something to show that skill. This is just brainstorming, and maybe some easier way of accomplishing it could be thought of, but it seems that showing the ability to home brew is more useful AND HARDER than learning code. You would never teach ANY chimp to build a linear. Tommye Jim Wilhite wrote: Jim: I am not completely persuaded that elimination of code is the proper way to go, but am also not persuaded keeping it is the best thing. As I stated (please don't read this as combative), maybe replace the code with a 10 question test over modes and how they operate (bandwidth, composition, etc.. To me, that would keep the integrity of the Extra above the General and somewhat meet the standards that are in place today. It seems this would placate all those of us who want that higher plane. I realize it won't be long that code requirement will be gone for good, but let's be sure the Extra test meets high standards. 73 Jim de W5JO Kim Elmore, Ph.D. University of Oklahoma Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies All of weather is divided into three parts: Yes, No, and Maybe. The greatest of these is Maybe The original Latin appears to be garbled.
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
NO the equipment companies need to be held up or go under just like they say is going to happen today.. hummm 57 to 04 long time to go under.. 73 Tony WA4JQS Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS Since 1962 WA4JQS / VP8BZL / VP8SSI / 3Y0PI CQ DX Hall Of Fame # 35
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
how about this ? since the new extra test is the same as the general test. theory wise (less new modes) i took back in 62 . and yes i am a VE and still have my old study guide from back in Noah's days. take the extra keep it at 20 wpm starting in say 90 days. set the extra cw band up for 20wpm extra only . the extra-lites as they are being called. let them have the ssb extra band. if they want to come up with us and do cw in the bottom 25 MHz get the code. also lets set aside a nice 25 MHz on say 80 40 20 and 10 mts for AM phone of the BA class. no sand state AM. tube finals and mods only. hummm that should get me lots of flames.. Guess i just feel that after 45+ years of being a ham taking my test before the FCC and having our great ARRL take my bands away because i was not smart enough back in 68 and i needed to learn more and pass more . this new deal just frosts my [EMAIL PROTECTED] 73 Tony Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS South Sandwich Island Antarctic Dxpedition Group VP8BZL VP8SSI 3Y0PI V31SS ZD8JQS WA4JQS/4K1 WA4JQS/K4C WA4JQS/ZS1 CQ DX HALL OF FAME # 35
Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
The Freedom of Information Act makes the question pools open, so we can't rely on secret questions. i really do not think that applies here. all goverment testing is not open and the question pools are not given out. unless i have missed something in the past couple of years.. ok lawyers what say 73 Tony
Re: [AMRadio] FS: Drake Xtals
Don - realizing I'm probably 3 days late I'll ask anyway - of the 17.5 mhx xtal is still around I'll take it, if your're still looking for a quantity buyer might consider more at a suitable incentive. Thanks, Scott --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---
Re: [AMRadio] FS: Drake Xtals
and my apologies to everybody for hitting the wrong button --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---
[AMRadio] 4D32 rig testing
Hello all AMers. I did more testing on the 4D32 rig, I made a different pi net coil, out of 1/4 inch copper tubing, sure looks nice! I played around with the amount of turns, fine tuning things. I had used #10 wire on a form, which got slightly warm after extended testing, the new copper tubing coil stays cold. The tubes seem to like higher voltages and lighter currents, although I don't know if I picked 2 good tubes, but the pair I have seem to run out of steam above 400 ma (two tubes), the current wont go much above 420ma at 700 volts. At 900 volts and 350 ma, I get more power out, and have modulation headroom. I don't think the 4D32 has loads of extra emission. I have to test things under modulation, but suspect the deck will run nicely at about 900 to 1000 volts and 300 ma or so, 200 watts out. I received my 14kv 1 amp diodes yesterday and installed them in the rd deck for the negative cycle loading. So the RF deck is done, on to the RF control deck. Brett N2DTS
