Re: [AMRadio] April 1st already or a misprint
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Or to put it more succintly. There's a sucker born very mnute.] That is what W2AGN had to say about the people buying the AC-1's. Well...I just took a look at W2AGN's shack picutres at his web site. Based on the ton of junk there it looks like he speaks from experience! hi hi Actually, much of the ton of junk was acquired quite reasonably. Much was new back in the 60's and 70's, and was inherited or was stuff I had back then. The GPT-750 I purchased in 1973, for $350.00. Not a bad value per pound. But $300-400 for an AC-1? I don't think so. Heck, I got a Heath AT-1 just a couple years ago for $75.00. Oh yes, and a Davco DR30 receiver for the same price. It just takes careful shopping, and not depending on eBay. -- _ _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ http://www.blurty.com/users/w2agn/ CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!
Re: [AMRadio] April 1st already or a misprint
Tom wrote: Isn't it funny that you can rationalize your purchase prices but someone else's rationalization makes him a sucker. You are absolutely right. Sucker was a bad choice of words. I apologize to all those who bought AC-1's at $300-400. After all, look at what you have, a dandy little 15 watt crystal controlled transmitter, complete with unique chirp so you will be recognized. I think idiot would have been better. -- _ _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ http://www.blurty.com/users/w2agn/ CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!
Re: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Brian Carling wrote: On 23 Feb 2006 at 9:47, UVCM INC wrote: Ron, I have experience in politics and running companies, would like to chat with you about legal action, sometimes its the only way. or maybe their are other ways if the ARRL would listen to us and modify there position. Brad KB7FQR Brad don't hold your breath to see THAT happen... The ARRL Directors and top brass have demonstrated an incredible level of intransigence, and treachery against the clearly communicated will of the majority of radio amateurs. They have dug in to this amazingly stupid position for some time now. I don't expect them to change one bit. The fact of the matter is that ARRL is broken! We need something else with some integrity to replace ARRL, or at least to become a viable alternative until such time as we amateurs who still love and value the hobby can see this obsolete, self-perpetuating old boys' club deposed. I know many are still holding out hope that the League can be reformed. All I see is that it gets worse and worse all the time. __ AMR Absolutely correct. I strongly object to them dubbing themselves The National Organization for Amateur Radio. The membership is a small percentage of Amateur Radio, and the3y represent only a small percentage of that.( Mainly Winlink users). -- _ _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!
Re: [AMRadio] RM-11306 COMMENTS TALLY!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So this means that 99.9% supported the ARRL proposal? I'm sure Pete and the ARRL would like to have us beleive that. -- _ _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!
Re: [AMRadio] ARRL Bashing
Larry Knapp wrote: It seems to me with all the skewering of the ARRL, one item that appears to be very relevant is the communication to the members of a division and the reverse and thus to the board of the ARRL. snip The problem is not communications with the Directors. The Directors have NO SAY. The ARRL is run by the Executive Committee (read Dave Sumner). The BoD exist as a pap for the masses who actually beieve they have some say. The problem is, they don't. At one time the ARRL might have been a representative organization. It is no longer. The ARRL is Of, By and FOR, the ARRL. -- _ _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!
Re: [AMRadio] Sumner on Newington's scheme
VJB wrote: He then followed with the rationale that if someone doesn't do something to foster a more friendly environment for digital modes then the Amateur Service will not present the image he/ARRL feels the hobby needs. Yep, anyone who can't see that Sumner/ARRL wants to turn HF into the Interenet with digital robots, etc, just isn't paying attention. Sadly, those SOB's are probably going to get away with it. 2AGN
Re: [AMRadio] RE: Recent comments on AM
peter markavage wrote: On line Dictionary: A survey of the public or of a sample of public opinion to acquire information. Webster's (One of several meanings): A questioning or canvassing of persons, usually selected at random or by quota from various groups, for obtaining information or opinions, especially to be analyzed. I will agree, so as not to confuse the masses, that requested comments from members and nonmembers on the proposal probably would have been a better choice of words than to use something like they polled their members for comments. Pete, wa2cwa Now this is just a typical ARRL attitude. Note the condescension of the phrase so as not to confuse the masses. It would seem to me that neither of the definitions so patronizingly quoted from the dictionary are met by requesting comments. W2AGN (one of the masses who is NOT confused, or misled by ARRL-Speak)
Re: [AMRadio] Your recent comments on AM (Tannehill)
Brian Carling wrote: Reply to the FCC? By then it is mostly too late. I read one place that ARRL were claiming that they had consulted with radio amateurs. If they REALLY claimed that then they are bolder liars than I thought. No, by the time this lunacy reaches FCC it is probably too late. Discussion BEFORE the train leaves the station would make more sense, but it seems ARRL has moved well away from being any kind of accountable or representative style organization. Sad to say, but I have just about had it with them. I believe that HPM would roll over in his grave if he could see what they have been doing the last few years. Now we will hear the howls from the ARRL apologists. I am sure Pete will be one of the first. I think the ARRL pays folks to make excuses for them W2AGN
Re: [AMRadio] recent comments on AM
peter markavage wrote: Actually, whether RM-11305 or 11306 is accepted fully, or in part, it's still a win-win for what the ARRL would like to see happen to the future structure of the amateur radio service. Yeah, the ARRL would like PACTOR Robots on ALL the bands, with Winlink pounding away sending email. That's their vision of the future, or at least, Sumner's, who is the ONLY voice of the ARRL. W2AGN
Re: [AMRadio] recent comments on AM
Jim Wilhite wrote: I just wonder if we should start a campaign to have the BOD terminate Sumner? He certainly needs to have an attitude changed in my estimation. Maybe we should circulate petitions for recall of some of the Directors? To still the voice of dissent is just plane wrong. 73 Jim W5JO Fat chance. The BoD has NO say. They are just there so the Executive Committee can claim they reptresent the members. In the Atlantic Division, the Executive Committee disqualified a candidte for director who didn't suit them. W2AGN
Re: [AMRadio] recent comments on AM
peter markavage wrote: Wrong. Get your story straight. The potential candidate did not meet the current Article 11, Articles of Association, eligibility requirements as they are currently written. However, at its annual meeting next week, the Board of Directors also plans to review and discuss Article 11 of its Articles of Association, which defines eligibility to hold League office. Pete, wa2cwa Sumner CLAIMED he did not meet the Article. If, like yourself, you believe all the lies from ARRL, then you'll buy that, too. W2AGN
Re: [AMRadio] recent comments on AM
Brian Carling wrote: No, you let us know how they did such a great job of polling radio amateurs instead of side stepping and claiming that they did... Where's the beef? I think it fascinating to find Pete on every list and forum that disagrees with the ARRL. He is always there, pushing the party line. Must be a full time job these days. And yes, that IS an ad hominem attack. W2AGN
Re: [AMRadio] recent comments on AM
Brian Carling wrote: i.e. he should read it again until his conculsion coincides with your ideas Pete? I am sure he has read it. On 13 Jan 2006 at 15:13, peter markavage wrote: Well, I you really believe that, then neither proposal should be to your liking. You should go back and read the intent of the proposal. Pete, wa2cwa No, I just see between the lines as to the Intent of the proposal. Unfortunately there are those who actually think everything out of the ARRL is black and white, truth. I am not so naive, or stupid. W2AGN
[AMRadio] Re: ARRL Ruins the AM, CW and DIGITAL bands.
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 06:13, Brian Carling wrote: It sounds like this ARRL action means they are going to further infringe on AM by limiting bandwidth and dividing up the bands on the basis of width rather than the present rules! It is SICKENING to think that they might further restrict AM operation! Also the Pactor-WInlink garbage has got to go... Here is forwarded message that says it all better than I could: It seems that the ARRL's plan for allowing unattended robot Pactor stations to basically operate without regard to ongoing communications has been proposed so the their rich yacht yuppie friends that are cruising the oceans can have free access to internet email via the Winlink system that is operated on tha amateur HF bands ! They have even encouraged some of these yacht yuppies to get their ham license just so the could use this service. Yes, you read that right ! The ARRL is wanting non hams that cruise the oceans in expensive yachts with six digit price tags to get their license just so they can get free email while on the ocean despite the fact that these people can afford more efficient satelite email service and do the same thing ! I think it's high time that ALL hams let our so called only game in town that is supposed to be working for our common good called the ARRL to keep email on the internet and off amateur radio ! The operation that they are proposing, will allow unattended Pactor robot stations to transmit and interfere with ongoing communications without you being able to do anything about it ! That means that if you are working that rare DX station and a Pactor robot station fires up on the same frequency you are working the DX station on, you will have no recourse in resolving the problem because the Pactor station will be within their full legal right to do so ! Please, lets flood the ARRL directors with email telling them that we do not want this to be put into effect. You can get the email addresses for each director from the ARRL website, so let them know how you feel, and please pass this on to every ham you know ! -- John W2AGN http://w2agn.net
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
Re: [AMRadio] Old radios never die...
On Thursday 30 October 2003 16:16, Mark Cobbeldick wrote: Old 2 MHz AM Marine radios never die! They simply end-up on the 160 Meter Amateur Band... Brand New Bludworth Marine 2 MHz AM Radios for sale: http://www.surplussales.com/Equipment/marine.html http://www.surplussales.com/Equipment/bludworth.html 73, Mark KB4CVN Not at those ridiculous prices! -- John W2AGN http://w2agn.net
Re: [AMRadio] Six meter AM Antenna
On 14 Jun 2003 at 17:50, Jim candela wrote: Hey Group, I was wondering what polarization is usually used for local, and DX six meter AM contacts on 50.4 Mhz? I know this is a dumb question, but I really don't know the answer. I was looking on Ebay, and Ku4ab sells several horizontal square loops for various bands including 6 meters. Are these any good? Regards, Jim candela WD5JKO Hi Jim, AM activity is mostly horizontally polarized. Those square loops are similar to the old Halo antennas. OK, but why not go with a 3 to 5 ele beam? Catch you on 50.4 Gonset G-50 Lafayette HA-460 Heath Shawnee --- +-++-++-++-++-+ John L. Sielke |W||2||A||G||N|http://www.w2agn.net [UPDATED] +-++-++-++-++-+Ex-K3HLU,TF2WKT,W7JEF,W4MPC,N4JS
[AMRadio] 6M AM Activity?
Anyone on 6M AM in the Philadelphia/SNJ area. (or thereabouts)? Just got a G-50 going on 6AM and looking for activity. --- +-++-++-++-++-+ John L. Sielke |W||2||A||G||N|http://www.w2agn.net [UPDATED] +-++-++-++-++-+Ex-K3HLU,TF2WKT,W7JEF,W4MPC,N4JS
