Article: 97697 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Ian Bell Subject: Re: A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum... Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:23:45 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> paul@burridge8333.fsbusiness.co.uk wrote: > Hi all, > I once believed that UHF(and beyond) RF electronics was the most > technically challenging hobby there is. Period. > However, I've since read about some chap who claims his principal > 'hobby' is Quantum Mechanics! This fellow is in prison somewhere in the > UK and all his 'work' is *entirely* theoretical (obviously - given the > confined circumstances) and consists of the academic pursuit of the > subject alone including heaps of serious number-crunching and > formidably cryptic calculus. > The complex, metaphysical conundrum that arises from this is: can QM > (highly theoretical even if you actually work hands-on with particle > accelerators) ever be accurately described as a 'hobby?' > What does the Panel think? > p. If you define a hobby as some pursuit you do in your spare time then I guess the answer has to be yes. Ian Article: 97698 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Rich Webb Subject: Re: A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum... Message-ID: References: <1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150642068.135448.47400@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <44956c8b@news.wineasy.se> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:57:55 GMT On 18 Jun 2006 17:08:59 +0200, David wrote: [snip...snip...] >So what? Is that some sort of red-neck test of manhood? No, the red-neck test of manhood is to fish the oil drain plug out of the bucket of hot oil, bare-handed. It doesn't count unless the oil is elbow deep and from a hot engine. ;-) -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA Article: 97699 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "mc" References: <1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum... Message-ID: <0vglg.61362$qd2.60640@bignews6.bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:58:28 -0400 wrote in message news:1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi all, > I once believed that UHF(and beyond) RF electronics was the most > technically challenging hobby there is. Period. > However, I've since read about some chap who claims his principal > 'hobby' is Quantum Mechanics! This fellow is in prison somewhere in the > UK and all his 'work' is *entirely* theoretical (obviously - given the > confined circumstances) and consists of the academic pursuit of the > subject alone including heaps of serious number-crunching and > formidably cryptic calculus. > The complex, metaphysical conundrum that arises from this is: can QM > (highly theoretical even if you actually work hands-on with particle > accelerators) ever be accurately described as a 'hobby?' > What does the Panel think? > p. It is a hobby if you're a physics Ph.D. who can't get an academic job :) There are people who do astronomical computing (calculation of orbits, etc.) as a hobby. I suppose this is similar. Article: 97700 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:58:50 GMT On 18 Jun 2006 10:41:25 -0700, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: >All, > >I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer >is Homeland Secrity. > >What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. > >They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and >they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be >able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such >as Radio Shack. > >That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX >using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me >the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using >5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges. > >Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF >gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the >NGOs. > >While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a >pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to >communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, >anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told >him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing >out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. > >Suggestions? > >The Eternal Squire Why not try testing using a dummy load in close proximitry? Seriously use a dummy load on both radios on the bench first for testing to see it's it's plausable. If it looks good then consider antennas. Saves the issue of STA and the like till your sure it's worth the effort. My .02 is most CB radios commonly available are AM and PSK is not well suited to AM. SSB CB sets exist but are less common and more varied (usually larger). PSK is usually used on ham with SSB or FM radios with some care as over driving them (TX) creates distortion that is both objectionable and degrades range. You might also consider GMRS (FRS) (UHF FM short range) radios too. While FRS radios are prettly weak some of the GMRS cousins pack more power and range. They are available from RS and other places, even homedespot. Allison Article: 97701 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Tim Williams" References: <1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum... Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:14:36 -0500 wrote in message news:1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > The complex, metaphysical conundrum that arises from this is: can QM > (highly theoretical even if you actually work hands-on with particle > accelerators) ever be accurately described as a 'hobby?' Well, I know that some people persue mathematics as a "hobby". Nothing could be less hands-on, but it's a hobby nonetheless. Tim -- Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms Article: 97702 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Rob" References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:34:02 GMT wrote in message news:1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > All, > > I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer > is Homeland Secrity. > > What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital > packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area > between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. > I can't believe they would be asking a company with such a lack of knowledge that you have to post a message to a newsgroup! I think you're telling a bit of a fairy tale. They wouldn't be using CB as there is a vast array of communications equipment already in use - or did your brother forget to tell you that. What's the name of his company so we can all avoid what appears to be bunch of amateurs. Article: 97703 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:10:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> In article <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital > packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area > between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. > > They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and > they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be > able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such > as Radio Shack. E.S.- With all due respect to your brother, this is an extremely unlikely scenario. While a common AM CB radio might be modified to perform the task, you aren't going to commandeer one from Radio Shack that a Guardsman can adapt for such data transmission. Just how heavy do you think a data radio would be? A unit as small as the smallest CB could be designed to perform the function (and may be off-the-shelf). In other words, such a data system MUST be carried in to ensure it is going to work, and it won't be so "heavy" that each unit can't have spares handy. Fred Article: 97704 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: jeffreyh@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) Subject: Re: Think you might be interested? Then here's your FAQ! Date: 18 Jun 2006 20:17:14 GMT Message-ID: References: <1150485745.993044.253690@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <44934FDC.8060204@fuse.net> jawod wrote: >It's a very big tent and there's room for all. Actually, it's a very small tent and there is NOT room for all: Let's crunch some numbers: Our total MF/HF spectrum consists of just 3.75 MHz, with only about half of it, 1875 kHz, useful for communications at any one particular time of the day. With that in mind, let's look at some worst-case scenarios: If suddenly, as if by magic, all licensees were granted MF/HF privileges, we could possibly have 670,000 hams attempting to fill that 1.875 MHz. Okay, I'll grant you that folks have to work and sleep, so let's say at any one time, we have one-fourth of all 670 kilohams on the air, with two per QSO. That would mean each QSO would be separated by just 22 Hz. I'll be more generous. Let's pretend that all 3.75 MHz is available all the time, with say, one-tenth of all operators on at any one time; now each two-person QSO is separated by 112 Hz. Getting better. Worried that I didn't take into account frequency re-use? Alright, suppose we could manage three simultaneous QSOs spread across the country on a single frequency; each such grouping would now be separated by 336 Hz. That could be done if we ban phone. I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant everyone MF/HF privileges; it's no longer a privilege if it's something that everyone can get practically for free. We recevied our current spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the present number of hams. That shows that this movement of wanting to "fill up the bands or we'll lose them" is pure nonsense. As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." No 73 for you, Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security and Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System Article: 97705 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Jim Higgins Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:24:04 GMT On 18 Jun 2006 10:41:25 -0700, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: >All, > >I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer >is Homeland Secrity. > >What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. > >They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and >they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be >able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such >as Radio Shack. > >That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX >using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me >the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using >5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges. > >Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF >gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the >NGOs. > >While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a >pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to >communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, >anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told >him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing >out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. > >Suggestions? > >The Eternal Squire About all you're going to commander from Radio Shack is cell phones. I smell a hoax... though it wouldn't surprise me to find an absolutely clueless consulting firm sucking up Homeland Security money and Homeland Security tossing money around to every clueless Tom, Dick and Harry like it was water. Article: 97706 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: <4495B6BA.4CF1F579@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum... References: <1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:26:06 GMT Andy wrote: > > David wrote:> > > Given that you apparently know nothing about quantum mechanics, what > > subjects were you thinking of? > > > > ***** I was thinking of ways of improving the flakiness of biscuits. > Also > a more efficient way of skinning rabbits.... > > > > I bet the SOB has never changed the oil in his own truck.....I bet > > > if he tried, he would mess it up..... > > > > > > > So what? Is that some sort of red-neck test of manhood? > > > ****** Yes. If you can't do the basic essentials of life, you > shouldn't be > screwing around with theory of the universe......... And just how often do you need to change the universe's oil, anyway? ;-) -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Article: 97707 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:46:58 -0000 Message-ID: <129bieidij87a17@corp.supernews.com> References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> In article <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, wrote: >While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a >pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to >communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, >anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told >him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing >out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. I think you're correct. Part 95, section 631 (c) and (e) and (f) make it quite clear that data transmission over CB is a no-no. In addition, the simple act of hooking up a data transmission circuit to a CB radio's modulator might be considered to be enough of a modification to void the transmitter's certification. Applying for an STA certainly seems to be the safe thing to do. And, if you get one yourself, the end-user agency should probably also get one, so they can run periodic tests and drills without breaking the rules. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 97708 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:42:41 GMT On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:10:44 -0400, fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote: >In article <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > >> What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >> packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >> between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. >> >> They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and >> they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be >> able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such >> as Radio Shack. > >E.S.- > >With all due respect to your brother, this is an extremely unlikely >scenario. While a common AM CB radio might be modified to perform the >task, you aren't going to commandeer one from Radio Shack that a Guardsman >can adapt for such data transmission. > >Just how heavy do you think a data radio would be? A unit as small as the >smallest CB could be designed to perform the function (and may be >off-the-shelf). In other words, such a data system MUST be carried in to >ensure it is going to work, and it won't be so "heavy" that each unit >can't have spares handy. > >Fred Actually even if the CB radio was enough... you still need a battery and one sufficient to run most CBs (2.5A max on TX) will be of the car battery size for at least a decent amount of time (24hrs?). Allison Article: 97709 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:58:05 GMT On 18 Jun 2006 10:41:25 -0700, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: >All, > >I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer >is Homeland Secrity. > >What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. > >They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and >they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be >able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such >as Radio Shack. > >That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX >using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me >the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using >5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges. > >Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF >gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the >NGOs. > >While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a >pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to >communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, >anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told >him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing >out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. > >Suggestions? > >The Eternal Squire I for one think this is a bit hairbrained. But here goes... Actually you can break the task down two several larger problems. Is AM modulation suitable? What connectors? The average CB uses one of ten different mic connectors and of those the same type none are wired the same! Forget internal mods, they are very different from unit and some are surface mount construction. Also type acceptance and operating rules) prohibit most data, image and modifications. How will they power the CB radio? A 5W radio under full TX modulation want about 15-20W of power (1.5-2A) SSB versions are far more power hungry (2-4A on TX for legal radios and the import illegals can run far higher.). Radios vary widely from real junk to near decent so you need to find examples of the worst to be sure your not encouraging an interference generator. At this time RS is closing stores and I think at most they carry only a few (if any instock) different CB sets. You'd have better luck at a truck stop! What do thy expect to use for an antenna? The average CB set will fry the finals if the antenna isn't tuned reasonably well. You can test the basics using dummy loads before you get into the STA. FYI: GMRS radios present a better choice and are more widely sold. GMRS being higher power thn FRS and often better radios for short range (UHF FM) ops. Allison Article: 97710 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: flipper Subject: Re: Tube failure mode: gassy? Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:20:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1150512910.810581.47510@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <449372F9.FCD4EC92@hotmail.com> <1150548130.837876.81650@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4494201B.397E26EF@hotmail.com> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:30:35 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: > > >flipper wrote: > >> On 17 Jun 2006 05:42:10 -0700, shoppa@trailing-edge.com wrote: >> >> >One thing I want to eliminate as a possibility is that something in my >> >homebrew amp did this tube in after just a few dozen hours of service: >> >390V on the plate, 255V regulated on the screen, about -23V on the grid >> >to give 38mA idle current, all following the classical AB1 parameters >> >in the 40's vintage tube manuals. This is MUCH relaxed compared to >> >typical ham transmitter usage I've done with 807/6L6GC/6146's in the >> >past (which is 700 to 750V B+, 80 or 90mA plate, class C so substantial >> >grid current, etc.) but that was ICAS. >> >> I've got a 6EM7 that does the same thing and it's visual appearance is >> perfect as well so I doubt it's your circuit. >> >> Ironically, it turned out to be fortuitous in my case because I was >> testing a circuit design intended to force PP current balance and that >> tube was a great test subject. Dern thing works even though it would >> run away on it's own. > >A servo presumably ? Sort of. The version I was testing uses a current mirror. One tube operates into an Rk, then the mirror, as normal with the second tube operating into the second side of the mirror. In effect, the second side of the mirror acts as a variable Rk seeking the value that will cause the specified (by the first tube) current to flow. Both bypassed, of course. Fixed bias would use a conventional servo. > >Graham Article: 97711 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Date: 19 Jun 2006 07:01:59 GMT Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> (eternalsquire@comcast.net) writes: > While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a > pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to > communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, > anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I think this is a misreading of the rules. Yes, if someone's ship is sinking, or someone is lost in the mountains, it is far better to use what's available than die. But, I seem to recall some cases in the US where someone just blasted away, and it was deemed later that the emergency was not serious enough. But, the scenario you are talking about is not the same thing. You aren't talking about someone trying anything to save themselves, you are talking about organized emergency work. And once that starts happening, you can't have anything goes, for the same reasons that there are rules to regulate radio under non-emergency conditions. If you blast away at any frequency or any power, then you could so easily interfere with some other legitimate emergency communication. Your communication may not be more important than someone else's, and hence frequency coordination is just as important. It has been long argued that one reason to keep amateur radio around is that in the case of a big emergency, it's relatively easy to put amateur radio to rest, and then you get some big chunks of spectrum that won't be used for necessary or emergency communication. IN other words, using amateur radio frequencies is one scenario that is already planned if the emergency is important enough (aside from it being used as auxiliary communication with hams using their existing equipment. But, life goes on, and you can't superimpose a lot of communication onto frequencies that are needed for existing communication needs which won't go away when an emergency comes along. And on a completely other note, as others have pointed out, even if an existing communication band is the only choice, there are far better choices than the 27MHz band. A big problem of that band is that when the skip is in, it's made fairly useless because distant stations come in nice and strong. And likewise, you want a band that's good for local communication, and the fact that you can get great range under good conditions on 10meters is not the same as getting good reliable local communication. Michael VE2BVW Article: 97712 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: davis@space.mit.edu (John E. Davis) Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: 19 Jun 2006 15:02:43 GMT On 18 Jun 2006 10:41:25 -0700, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: >What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. [...] >Suggestions? I suggest that you consider using the unlicensed MURS band for this. Unfortunately you cannot just walk in to a walmart or radioshack and grab a MURS radio. Rather visit rkleef.com and look at the MURS22 units, or google for the "dakota alert" MURS radios. Good luck, --John Article: 97713 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Brian 2W0BDW" References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:15:43 GMT wrote in message news:1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > All, > > I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer > is Homeland Secrity. > > What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital > packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area > between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. > > They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and > they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be > able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such > as Radio Shack. > > That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX > using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me > the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using > 5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges. > > Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF > gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the > NGOs. > > While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a > pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to > communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, > anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told > him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing > out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. > > Suggestions? > > The Eternal Squire > IMHO The feds have plenty of radio equipment with comms operators that could be shipped to disaster hit area faster than your average guards unit could adapt/setup a purloined unit. Article: 97714 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: Looking for DC over coax injector design Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:21:33 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1150450858.458876.257340@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <154592da0jfq3uc10br2p1l61ct4dfb8dt@4ax.com> <1296a7vdtshs4cb@corp.supernews.com> <1150505485.135181.209020@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Great Stories! Ahhh. There's always those unintended consequences... 73, Steve, K9DCI "AndyS" wrote in message news:1150505485.135181.209020@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Roy Lewallen wrote: > > Long ago my Elmer told me a story of a local ham who got the bright (pun > > intended) idea of putting a large neon bulb at the top of his vertical > > antenna. Not long afterward, his neighbor knocked on the door > > complaining of TVI. "How do you know it's me that's causing the > > interference?" the ham asked. "Because," said the neighbor, "every time > > that light on the top of the antenna blinks, my TV goes crazy." > > > > The next night the ham was seen in the back yard with a BB gun shooting > > out the neon bulb. > > > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL > > Andy writes: > Reminds me of the time in college when I worked at WRAL in Raleigh,. > They had four big towers spread out over a quarter mile, and I had > to record the base currents at the towers every nite. Pain in the ass. > The chief engr put up a fluorescent bulb at each tower base and I had > to touch each one when I went there. The field would sustain the light, > > and the CE could see the four lights each morning when he came in > before power changed , and he KNEW I had been there... > Well, I put about 3 feet of #32 on each lamp, and when power changed > at nite the lamps would glow by themselves... I didn't have to make the > > walk and could "estimate" the currents by the line currents in the > station....... It worked fine until one night it snowed. The CE saw > the > lights glowing the next morning, but didn't see any footprints across > the field...... You'd think a bright young college student would > have better sense.... :>)))))) > > Andy W40AH in Eureka, Texas > Article: 97715 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:45:02 GMT eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > My brother says ideally in the scenario, each squad leader should only > need to carry a mini-CDROM in his or her pocket. The squad lead could > then commandeer a laptop, an SSB CB radio, and then use an abandoned > automobile as an electric generator for the laptop and radio. Antenna > would be flung over a 3 story office building. Let's see, all you have to do is find a bunch of laptops with 12V adapters, a bunch of CB radios with documentation on the mic input, a soldering iron to make up a mic/laptop interface cable (assuming you can use the existing mic cable connector). The only problem left is how to get the abandoned automobile to the top of the 3 story office building (if any are left standing in this disaster). You know, sometimes as a consultant you just have to find a way to tell the customer he is crazy but you have an altenate idea that they might like in acceptable language. > One of the reasons for this scenario is to lighten the overall squad > load and thereby increase the speed of response. That way each squad > could break into an abandoned store and then set up a first responder > posts. Seems to me it would be easier to come up with a plan to stockpile and distribute standard squad radios the troops already know how to use. But I'm just a retired Army signal guy, so what would I know? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Article: 97716 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Me Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <129bieidij87a17@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:09:10 GMT In article <129bieidij87a17@corp.supernews.com>, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote: > In article <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > wrote: > > >While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a > >pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to > >communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, > >anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told > >him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing > >out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. > > I think you're correct. Part 95, section 631 (c) and (e) and (f) > make it quite clear that data transmission over CB is a no-no. > > In addition, the simple act of hooking up a data transmission circuit > to a CB radio's modulator might be considered to be enough of a > modification to void the transmitter's certification. > > Applying for an STA certainly seems to be the safe thing to do. And, > if you get one yourself, the end-user agency should probably also get > one, so they can run periodic tests and drills without breaking the > rules. First of all: The Federal Government (ie Homeland Security, USCG, US Army, ectg) doesn't need, or require anything from the FCC, as the FCC has no jurasdiction over US Federal Government Radio Operatrions. It only regulates, non-Federal Government Communications. The Office of Telecommunications Policy, or whatever they changed the name to recently, is the Clearing House for ALL Federal Communications Operations. Second of all: Even if you did apply for an STA, the FCC wouldn't grant it for 27Mhz, as that would specifically go against a Standing FCC Regulation, and set a very bad policy statement for the future. Last of all: AM Modulation is the worst type for trying to get error free communications, and not likely to succeed without spending a pile of money in the R & D Phase of the modem part of the project. Me an ex-FCC Field Resident Agent who knows better than to go down this kind of path......... Article: 97717 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: <44973004.2010806@nettally.com> From: **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:10:14 GMT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080201070801040004080306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit SSB CB radios are pretty rare items in most circles, in fact the troops trying to commandeer CB's might not be aware of the difference and will try to use standard CB's and they won't work in the "net". Secondly, SSB CB's have a clarifier control that has to be adjusted. This is easy enough with voice, but with data, it is not as easy to do by "ear". You will have to incorporate some sort of tuning scheme in your software. You are better off with AM because of these limitations. Are you going to have a field expedient handbook so that the troops can figure out which mike wires are which? It is not that easy to figure out if you are unfamiliar with radio. Your idea of a software solution reminds me of the BAYCOM TNC modems of the 80's. You might want to research those. You should be able to get 3 to 5 times that rate in the consulting world by the way. eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: >Brian 2W0BDW wrote: > > >> wrote in message >>news:1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>>All, >>> >>>I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer >>>is Homeland Secrity. >>> >>>What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >>>packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >>>between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. >>> >>>They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and >>>they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be >>>able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such >>>as Radio Shack. >>> >>>That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX >>>using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me >>>the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using >>>5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges. >>> >>>Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF >>>gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the >>>NGOs. >>> >>>While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a >>>pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to >>>communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, >>>anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told >>>him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing >>>out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. >>> >>>Suggestions? >>> >>>The Eternal Squire >>> >>> >>> >>IMHO The feds have plenty of radio equipment with comms operators that could >>be shipped to disaster hit area faster than your average guards unit could >>adapt/setup a purloined unit. >> >> > > >Thank you all for your suggestions. > >This is not a hoax. But I too find the need sufficiently implausible >that I feel a little bit queasy taking R&D fees for a cause like this >at $50 per hour. The only reason that I'm not mentioning the >consulting firm is that I could stand to get paid... and any money is >better than no money. And if I'm the king's coin then I ought to make >it work. > >I agree, Truck stops are a very good idea for commandeering CB's, but >you only find those in the exurbs.. Yes, other commercial radio >services could and maybe even should be drafted into this. The squad >lead could then determine the tradeoffs based on the availability of >foraged equipment. > >Allison, your idea of using the dummy loads to simulate fading over >distance is OUTSTANDING. I'll do it! > >Using dummy loads as a demo, I could then get the consulting firm to >ask the FCC for an STA for field tests. > >For my test rigs, I'm intending to plug in a laptop sound card I/O into >the SSB mic and headphone jacks. Therefore no type acceptance needed >because no mods. > >My brother says ideally in the scenario, each squad leader should only >need to carry a mini-CDROM in his or her pocket. The squad lead could >then commandeer a laptop, an SSB CB radio, and then use an abandoned >automobile as an electric generator for the laptop and radio. Antenna >would be flung over a 3 story office building. > >One of the reasons for this scenario is to lighten the overall squad >load and thereby increase the speed of response. That way each squad >could break into an abandoned store and then set up a first responder >posts. > > > -- Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY"© "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." "Follow The Money" ;-P --------------080201070801040004080306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SSB CB radios are pretty rare items in most circles, in fact the troops trying to commandeer CB's might not be aware of the difference and will try to use standard CB's and they won't work in the "net". Secondly, SSB CB's have a clarifier control that has to be adjusted. This is easy enough with voice, but with data, it is not as easy to do by "ear". You will have to incorporate some sort of tuning scheme in your software. You are better off with AM because of these limitations. Are you going to have a field expedient handbook so that the troops can figure out which mike wires are which? It is not that easy to figure out if you are unfamiliar with radio. Your idea of a software solution reminds me of the BAYCOM TNC modems of the 80's. You might want to research those. You should be able to get 3 to 5 times that rate in the consulting world by the way.

eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote:
Brian 2W0BDW wrote:
  
<eternalsquire@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    
All,

I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer
is Homeland Secrity.

What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital
packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area
between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city.

They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and
they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city.  They want to be
able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such
as Radio Shack.

That pretty much means CB radios.   I have heard of hams working DX
using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me
the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using
5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges.

Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF
gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the
NGOs.

While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a
pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to
communicate data on CB channel 40.   He tells me that in an emergency,
anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode.   I told
him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing
out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation.

Suggestions?

The Eternal Squire

      
IMHO The feds have plenty of radio equipment with comms operators that could
be shipped to disaster hit area faster than your average guards unit could
adapt/setup a purloined unit.
    


Thank you all for your suggestions.

This is not a hoax.  But I too find the need sufficiently implausible
that I feel a little bit queasy taking R&D fees for a cause like this
at $50 per hour.  The only reason that I'm not mentioning the
consulting firm is that I could stand to get paid... and any money is
better than no money.  And if I'm the king's coin then I ought to make
it work.

I agree, Truck stops are a very good idea for commandeering CB's, but
you only find those in the exurbs.. Yes, other commercial radio
services could and maybe even should be drafted into this.   The squad
lead could then determine the tradeoffs based on the availability of
foraged equipment.

Allison, your idea of using the dummy loads to simulate fading over
distance  is OUTSTANDING.    I'll do it!

Using dummy loads as a demo, I could  then get the consulting firm to
ask the FCC for an STA for field tests.

For my test rigs, I'm intending to plug in a laptop sound card I/O into
the SSB mic and headphone jacks.   Therefore no type acceptance needed
because no mods.

My brother says ideally in the scenario, each squad leader should only
need to carry a mini-CDROM in his or her pocket.   The squad lead could
then commandeer a laptop, an SSB CB radio, and then use an abandoned
automobile as an electric generator for the laptop and radio.   Antenna
would be flung over a 3 story office building.

One of the reasons for this scenario is to lighten the overall squad
load and thereby increase the speed of response.  That way each squad
could break into an abandoned store and then set up a first responder
posts.

  

-- 
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money"  ;-P
--------------080201070801040004080306-- Article: 97718 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1150761212.462138.299280@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:15:02 GMT eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > > Let's see, all you have to do is find a bunch of laptops with 12V > > adapters, > 12V power is standard power jack for laptops Funny, the last laptop I bought doesn't include a 12V cable. As a matter of fact, neither did the one before it. You had to ask for it as an add-on. > a bunch of CB radios with documentation on the mic input, > The docs could be on the CD-ROM. Squad leader or designate > could read that using the laptop. And just where do you get this CD-ROM in a deserted, destroyed building after the catastrophe? Oh yeah, you've got the schematics of every CB radio ever made on CD-ROM already and you are taking it with you. Right, > > a soldering iron to make up a mic/laptop interface cable (assuming > > you can use the existing mic cable connector). > Shouldn't be too hard. Of course every squad made up of random troops from the motor pool and the rifle squad has a portable soldering iron, knows how to solder and has solder. Or or all these troops going to come from the Signal School? Oh, wait, they are going to commandeer the soldering irons and solder >from the destroyed businesses and plug the irons into the none-functioning AC grid, and learn how to solder from a CD-ROM. How could I have been so stupid with only 30 years in the Army? Maybe from teaching soldering classes? > > > > The only problem left is how to get the abandoned automobile to the > > top of the 3 story office building (if any are left standing in this > > disaster). > The feed could start at street level and connect to a dipole on the > rooftop. So where do you get the custom power cable or antenna cable to go up three stories? Three stories worth of cable is going to weigh a lot more than most radios these days. Might as well bring the radios with built in antennas and battry packs. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Article: 97719 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <44973004.2010806@nettally.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:39:58 GMT On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:10:14 GMT, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote: >SSB CB radios are pretty rare items in most circles, in fact the troops >trying to commandeer CB's might not be aware of the difference and will >try to use standard CB's and they won't work in the "net". Secondly, SSB >CB's have a clarifier control that has to be adjusted. This is easy >enough with voice, but with data, it is not as easy to do by "ear". You >will have to incorporate some sort of tuning scheme in your software. >You are better off with AM because of these limitations. Are you going >to have a field expedient handbook so that the troops can figure out >which mike wires are which? It is not that easy to figure out if you are Thats funny! Actually CB radios are very diverse with their mic wiring and switching schemes as in if not done correctly they will not transmit _or_ recieve. It's a bad idea and deserves to die an expedient death. It would be far easier to mass produce a UHF FM radio based on GMRS chipsets with a digital interface. Then give everyone a box of them and a box of batteries. Allison >unfamiliar with radio. Your idea of a software solution reminds me of >the BAYCOM TNC modems of the 80's. You might want to research those. You >should be able to get 3 to 5 times that rate in the consulting world by >the way. > >eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > >>Brian 2W0BDW wrote: >> >> >>> wrote in message >>>news:1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>>>All, >>>> >>>>I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer >>>>is Homeland Secrity. >>>> >>>>What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >>>>packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >>>>between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. >>>> >>>>They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and >>>>they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be >>>>able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such >>>>as Radio Shack. >>>> >>>>That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX >>>>using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me >>>>the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using >>>>5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges. >>>> >>>>Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF >>>>gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the >>>>NGOs. >>>> >>>>While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a >>>>pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to >>>>communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, >>>>anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told >>>>him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing >>>>out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. >>>> >>>>Suggestions? >>>> >>>>The Eternal Squire >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>IMHO The feds have plenty of radio equipment with comms operators that could >>>be shipped to disaster hit area faster than your average guards unit could >>>adapt/setup a purloined unit. >>> >>> >> >> >>Thank you all for your suggestions. >> >>This is not a hoax. But I too find the need sufficiently implausible >>that I feel a little bit queasy taking R&D fees for a cause like this >>at $50 per hour. The only reason that I'm not mentioning the >>consulting firm is that I could stand to get paid... and any money is >>better than no money. And if I'm the king's coin then I ought to make >>it work. >> >>I agree, Truck stops are a very good idea for commandeering CB's, but >>you only find those in the exurbs.. Yes, other commercial radio >>services could and maybe even should be drafted into this. The squad >>lead could then determine the tradeoffs based on the availability of >>foraged equipment. >> >>Allison, your idea of using the dummy loads to simulate fading over >>distance is OUTSTANDING. I'll do it! >> >>Using dummy loads as a demo, I could then get the consulting firm to >>ask the FCC for an STA for field tests. >> >>For my test rigs, I'm intending to plug in a laptop sound card I/O into >>the SSB mic and headphone jacks. Therefore no type acceptance needed >>because no mods. >> >>My brother says ideally in the scenario, each squad leader should only >>need to carry a mini-CDROM in his or her pocket. The squad lead could >>then commandeer a laptop, an SSB CB radio, and then use an abandoned >>automobile as an electric generator for the laptop and radio. Antenna >>would be flung over a 3 story office building. >> >>One of the reasons for this scenario is to lighten the overall squad >>load and thereby increase the speed of response. That way each squad >>could break into an abandoned store and then set up a first responder >>posts. >> >> >> Article: 97720 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "kh" Message-ID: <0QMXZWh9EdSr-pn2-e3dSCHOZcsRd@localhost> Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: 20 Jun 2006 03:29:39 +0100 On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:24:04 UTC, Jim Higgins wrote: > > About all you're going to commander from Radio Shack is cell phones. > I smell a hoax... That's close... > though it wouldn't surprise me to find an absolutely > clueless consulting firm sucking up Homeland Security money and > Homeland Security tossing money around to every clueless Tom, Dick and > Harry like it was water. > I bet that's it. I'm in WAAA-shington and it is incredible how absolutely clueless the folks who staff the consulting firms are. They'll seize upon a buzzword or a weird concept and, bing, the word processors and powerpoint presentations are running full time, filling the air with blather. Handwaving, spewing the jive. Let's be clear. The concept makes no sense at all. Others have detailed the technical and practical issues. What does work is standard military comm gear, ruggedized, charged up and ready to use. This is America. The guard or whoever already has comm gear, likely as good as stuff used by 14 year old mall-kids. If they don't, then it's a simple matter to deliver it to them from a depot. In the absense of a problem, a consulting firm will imagineer one and, let the spew-games begin. This is WAAA-shington. Blather and cluelessness abound. They might be filing for a proof-of-concept, stage one, small-business-innovative-research contract, twenty-five or fifty grand of your money pays for a lot of USENET trollin' and wacky verbage. Even scarier, if they make the first cut, the next level is a quarter million to a half million dollars of YOUR money. -c -- Article: 97721 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1150761212.462138.299280@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150767158.428059.60640@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:45:02 GMT eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > And just where do you get this CD-ROM in a deserted, destroyed building > > after the catastrophe? > Clearly you are only skimming my posts rather than reading them.A Actually, I was reading them and comparing them against my real world experiences with combat boots in the dirt. > Starting at the beginning: > 1) Squad leader carries a mini-CDROM in his/her pocket. That's the > nucleus > for everything else. With luck, nothing else need be carried into > the field.A A military force that goes into the field depending on luck is doomed to failure. It doesn't matter if it is a combat situation in foreign land or a simple training exercise within sight of a major US city. If you don't have everything you need going in, or at least a supply chain that can get it to you quickly, someone is going to be hurt. This comes from bitter experience. > 2) The CDROM would contain schematics and part numbers of everything > necessary > to forage to create a datalink. You are going to supply an up to date CDROM containing all the info for all the CB radios in the US? Yeah, that's going to happen > 3) SSB CB Radios (funny, my RS always carries the SSB CB radio as the > high end > model) would be one of several pieces of RF equipment > that could be foraged off the street (i.e. Radio Shack stores, > truck stops, etc). Assuming there were such stores in the first place and they aren't flattened/flooded by whatever the catastrophe was. > 4) Most new laptops carry 12V power input. Older ones don't. There > are plenty > of sources to forage a laptop from: Target, Walmart, and K-mart > come to mind > as well as Radio Shack. Getting a laptop is a minor problem. Getting a 12V DC connector and someone that knows how to wire to a field expediate power source correctly is a major problem. > 5) The laptop, radio, and car are all at street level. People can > take plain old copper > wire and make a dipole or inverted Vee with it, hanging it from the > roof top. The only actual ground to antenna connnection comes > between the radio and the center of the dipole or inverted Vee. Where does the antenna feed cable come from? The collapsed/flooded store? Where do you get the person that knows how to wire up an antenna and feed cable? Where do you get the person that knows how to cut a dipole or inverted-vee, or even what those terms mean? Most troops are really good at what they are trained for. Few troops have been trained in anything to do with electronics or even electricty. Special Forces troops are probably the most veratile of troops (and the smallest in number), but without the training they would be useless. You want them to parachute in during the dark of night, take and hold a tactical position, no problem. You want them to cut and connect a diplole, big problem Upon what do I base these statements? Years spent teaching such subjects to troops. > Caught up now? I never was behind. You, however, have no concept of what it is like to have boots in the dirt. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Article: 97722 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "john graesser" Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:19:21 -0500 Message-ID: <129eth1jvfei420@corp.supernews.com> References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1150761212.462138.299280@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> wrote in message news:unujm3-ho3.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > > > > Let's see, all you have to do is find a bunch of laptops with 12V > > > adapters, > > > 12V power is standard power jack for laptops > > Funny, the last laptop I bought doesn't include a 12V cable. As a > matter of fact, neither did the one before it. You had to ask for > it as an add-on. I guess it is the new laptops that use 12v, the only laptops I have here have an 18v adaptor for the Zenith or 120v input for the Toshibas. I guess noone will be borrowing mine to use in an emergency. What sort of emergency responders are going to be sent in with no equipment? With the right soundcard software a laptop could emulate a bell 202 or 103 modem over AM radio, even with packet error checking to reduce transmission errors. What no one has mentioned yet is channel usage, one simplex data channel for an entire disaster area with no provision for collision detection between users other than just listening for someone else transmitting? With the central data collection point high enough to cover the entire area, you will be in the position that each transmitter may not hear another but the reciever can hear both while transmitting at the same time. The data collector would spend quite a bit of time acting as net control determining which remote site was allowed to transmit at any particular time. Just my $.02 on this poorly thought out idea. thanks, John. KC5DWD Article: 97723 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: mc.puttd@hammer.down.bro Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MENTAL HEALTH INSPECTORS Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:03:39 +0100 Message-ID: On 19 Jun 2006 23:55:25 -0700, "The Conscience" wrote: > >I draw your attention to a myself, an evasive man and a liar, >everywhere I go, I lie, I practice deceit and I flaunt my >incredible stupidity. > >I am underemployed and largely unemployable. If it were >not for the generosity of the benefits system, I might be >forced onto the streets. > >I regularly disrupt Internet news groups, with my unwanted >presence and my ridiculous postings regarding just about every >subject under the sun, none of which I know anything about, >using aliases such as "Radio Ham", "Airy R Bean", and "Brian >Reays Conscience" amongst many others, all equally stupid, >as am I > >Ham Radio is a technical pursuit for decent, law-abiding citizens, >and as somebody with a criminal record I cannot understand >how I'm allowed to bring it into disrepute. Congratulations. That's the most honest posting you have made. Article: 97724 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: <10pf925c8f5oo90kaie7bqgfa376d5d8ff@4ax.com> References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1150761212.462138.299280@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150767158.428059.60640@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:23:35 GMT On 19 Jun 2006 18:32:38 -0700, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> And just where do you get this CD-ROM in a deserted, destroyed building >> after the catastrophe? > >Clearly you are only skimming my posts rather than reading them. > >Starting at the beginning: > >1) Squad leader carries a mini-CDROM in his/her pocket. That's the >nucleus > for everything else. With luck, nothing else need be carried into >the field. > >2) The CDROM would contain schematics and part numbers of everything >necessary > to forage to create a datalink. > >3) SSB CB Radios (funny, my RS always carries the SSB CB radio as the >high end > model) would be one of several pieces of RF equipment > that could be foraged off the street (i.e. Radio Shack stores, >truck stops, etc). > >4) Most new laptops carry 12V power input. Older ones don't. There >are plenty > of sources to forage a laptop from: Target, Walmart, and K-mart >come to mind > as well as Radio Shack. > >5) The laptop, radio, and car are all at street level. People can >take plain old copper > wire and make a dipole or inverted Vee with it, hanging it from the >roof top. The only actual ground to antenna connnection comes >between the radio and the center of the dipole or inverted Vee. > >Caught up now? > >The Eternal Squire You know, then again the idea doesn't want to know. If they ( the first responders) find a working (unwet and undamaged) CB radio, battery and antenna they could just pick up the mic and TALK. That would would be both cost effective and requires far less effort/training to implement. It would also conform to the CB norm and other operators might be part of the assistance. There may still be people working the REACT system. For those that remember before CB became littered with carriers and other flotsum and jetsum CB was considered a very good tactical radio due to it's channelized character. Since then portable amatuer HTs, FRS and GMRS radios became available and reliable and share in that tactical capability without the need for a 9ft whip. Allison Article: 97725 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Only Subject: New England Wireless and Steam Museum Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:55:01 -0000 Message-ID: <129fs158j6fhb81@corp.supernews.com> The New England Wireless and Steam Museum, Inc. http://users.ids.net/%7enewsm/mission.html A Marconi distress transmitter, the same as Titanic's. A Marconi 1900 coherer and jigger. The oldest equipped radio station in the world. An Edison 1882 diode - the first of all radio tubes. An 1881 Professor Dolbear radio receiver. It still works. The first commercial transistor. Article: 97726 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "R. Scott" Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1150761212.462138.299280@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150767158.428059.60640@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:03:19 GMT > I never was behind. > > You, however, have no concept of what it is like to have boots in > the dirt. Your prolly talking to one of those Pencil Pushing pentagon admin types we had to deal with :D. They have no concept what its like to be in the field. Article: 97727 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:19:15 GMT Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> In article <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, wrote: >All, > >I've got a brother who works for a consulting firm whose main customer >is Homeland Secrity. > >What the feds want to do is to be able to communicate mil-spec digital >packets over low power links in the middle of a disaster-hit area >between squads of Guards deployed across a destroyed city. > >They cannot assume that hams and ham equipment will be available, and >they do not want to carry heavy equipment into a city. They want to be >able to use equipment that they can readily commandeer from stores such >as Radio Shack. > >That pretty much means CB radios. I have heard of hams working DX >using 5 watts of PSK on 10 meters using poor antennas, so that gives me >the idea that Guard units could form medium range mobile networks using >5 watts of PSK on 11 meters using wires dropped off bridges. > >Eventually the hams that do get on the scene could set up a CB to HF >gateway so that the packets could make it out from the Guards to the >NGOs. > >While I am more than willing to test this setup out for my brother on a >pair of CB radios, I told him I might need an STA from the FCC to >communicate data on CB channel 40. He tells me that in an emergency, >anyone can use any frequencies they want, any power, any mode. I told >him true, but that does not help me as an OEM getting fined for testing >out an emergency scenario in a nonemergency situation. > >Suggestions? The CB band is also listed under the license free regulations, Part 15 so if you run low enough power, you don't need a license, and there are no particular restrictions on mode. > 15.227 Operation within the band 26.96-27.28 MHz. >(a) The field strength of any emission within this band shall not >exceed 10,000 microvolts/meter at 3 meters. The emission limit in this >paragraph is based on measurement instrumenta-tion employing an average >detector. The provisions in § 15.35 for limiting peak emissions apply. >(b) The field strength of any emissions which appear outside of this >band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits in § 15.209. Channel 40 is above 27.28 MHz, about channel 27 as near as I can tell (channels are not sequential frequencies). Contrary to popular opinion, I think that a packet radio relay made with a portable computer with a sound card, a CB transceiver, and a patch cable all made from stuff that you could "liberate" from the local Radio Shack is possible. Some sort of PTT control (VOX?) would be the hardest part. Given my opinion of the average CBer's conception of "The Public Good", I don't expect that a system could run without getting the hell jammed out of it, even if the military is exempt from FCC regs. Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) Article: 97728 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:05:02 GMT Mark Zenier wrote: > Contrary to popular opinion, I think that a packet radio relay made with > a portable computer with a sound card, a CB transceiver, and a patch cable > all made from stuff that you could "liberate" from the local Radio Shack > is possible. Some sort of PTT control (VOX?) would be the hardest part. It is not a matter of being possible to do by someone who knows what they are doing. It is a matter of being practical to do by random, untrained people, and doing it many times. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Article: 97729 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "johan aeq" References: <1150811624.001208.65850@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Info on PT4370C RF Power Transistor ? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:52:36 +0200 Message-ID: they still have them.. http://www.1sourcecomponents.com/partinfo/pt4370.htm schreef in bericht news:1150811624.001208.65850@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > Does anyone have a datasheet, or any technical information at all > (frequency, power and nominal supply voltage would be adequate for my > needs I think), on this obsolete TRW transistor ? > > Steve > Article: 97730 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:59:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150742942.564318.271840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1150761212.462138.299280@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150767158.428059.60640@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> In article <1150767158.428059.60640@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > Clearly you are only skimming my posts rather than reading them. E.S.- You are not easily discouraged! Consider that many who have posted negative comments here, have years of experience in the military. Others have experience in providing communications systems for field deployment. Their comments may not have addressed all the points you posted in order to maintain brevity. I detect a consensus that your brother's proposal is not practical, even though it is theoretically possible. Reading your postings, I can't help but recall two experiences from my youth: 1. A snipe hunt. 2. Trying to catch a bird by putting salt on its tail. Fred Article: 97731 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" Subject: Re: how?Re: A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum... Message-ID: References: <1150641495.634423.169620@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150642068.135448.47400@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <44956c8b@news.wineasy.se> <1150670269.289554.21500@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150759689.883447.139000@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:10:35 GMT On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:28:09 -0700, an old freind wrote: > how was wether or not quantum mechcanics is hobby a "A Complex > Metaphysical Conundrum..." When all else fails, read the instructions: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Ametaphysical http://www.google.com/search?&q=define%3Aconundrum Good Luck! Rich Article: 97732 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: <4498BF82.9020103@nettally.com> From: **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:34:43 GMT Its just not good business. Peace works against Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, the prime movers of the business world. Why would you suggest such an irrational thing? Reg Edwards wrote: > >Why not plan for Peace! It's safer! > > > > -- Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY"© "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." "Follow The Money" ;-P Article: 97733 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:35:42 GMT Its just not good business. Peace works against Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, the prime movers of the business world. Why would you suggest such an irrational thing? Reg Edwards wrote: > >Why not plan for Peace! It's safer! > > > > -- Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY"© "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." "Follow The Money" ;-P Article: 97734 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Message-ID: <4498BF71.7020501@nettally.com> From: **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** Subject: Re: is an STA needed to transmit data on CB channel 40? References: <1150652485.685726.246160@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:34:26 GMT Its just not good business. Peace works against Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, the prime movers of the business world. Why would you suggest such an irrational thing? Reg Edwards wrote: > >Why not plan for Peace! It's safer! > > > > -- Joe Leikhim K4SAT "The RFI-EMI-GUY"© "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." "Follow The Money" ;-P Article: 97735 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Paul Hinman Subject: Why hide the most beautiful parts Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 05:51:20 GMT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040706080601060404060509 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Over the years I have read many articles on how to build a linear amplifier. Many of the plans called for glass fire bottles (811, 572, 3-500, etc.). The tubes are always hidden in the back of the amp. Wouldn't it be nice to move them up front behind a piece of high temperature glass and a fine brass screen for shielding purposes. Then we could enjoy the true glow of the tubes. I am sure that there are a myriad of reasons for not doing this and I am too inexperienced to understand why. Is such a thing possible and if so I might just upgrade my ticket so that I can build such a beauty. I will upgrade anyway just for my own satisfaction. Think how impressive an amplifier with a tube or two or more glowing behind a picture window would be. I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject. Paul - VE6LDS Grid Square DO33gk --------------040706080601060404060509 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Over the years I have read many articles on how to build a linear amplifier.  Many of the plans called for glass fire bottles (811, 572, 3-500, etc.).  The tubes are always hidden in the back of the amp.  Wouldn't it be nice to move them up front behind a piece of high temperature glass and a fine brass screen for shielding purposes.  Then we could enjoy the true glow of the tubes.

I am sure that there are a myriad of reasons for not doing this and I am too inexperienced to understand why.  Is such a thing possible and if so I might just upgrade my ticket so that I can build such a beauty.  I will upgrade anyway just for my own satisfaction.

Think how impressive an amplifier with a tube or two or more glowing behind a picture window would be.

I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject.

Paul - VE6LDS
Grid Square DO33gk
 --------------040706080601060404060509-- Article: 97736 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Paul Keinanen Subject: Re: Tradeoffs of filtering exciter vs after PA Message-ID: References: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:35:47 +0300 On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:58:31 -0500, Ben Jackson wrote: >I'm still working on my HF APRS beacon idea (25MHz-14.85MHz = 10.151) >and I've done some experiments using a 74HC86 quad XOR with one gate for >each oscillator and one as a mixer. In spice simulations, the '86 as a >mixer produces lots of products resulting from the odd harmonics of the >inputs, some of which are close to or below the 10.151MHz I want. If I >run that output through a 2nd order Butterworth 30m bandpass filter I >get a clean result. Since the filter loss depends on the ratio between the loaded-Q and the unloaded-Q and in order to get a steep bandpass filter, the losses are going to be large with ordinary LC components. If you put the steep bandpass filter after the power amplifier, a large amount of expensive RF fundamental power is lost in the filter. However, if you put the steep filter before the power amplifier, the loss of signal level is easily compensated for by an extra low level amplification stage, with minimal extra cost. Depending of the linearity of the power amplifier, some low pass filtering may be needed after it, but now you have to worry only on the harmonics of the 10 MHz signal, not the various mixing products. If you use a push-pull power amplifier, the first significant harmonic would be the 3rd, which is above 30 MHz and since this is a single band design, it might even make sense to use an elliptic low pass filter, with a resonant notch at the 3rd harmonic. Paul OH3LWR Article: 97737 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Rex Subject: Re: Info on PT4370C RF Power Transistor ? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:39:20 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1150811624.001208.65850@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> On 20 Jun 2006 06:53:44 -0700, skavanagh72nospam@yahoo.ca wrote: >Does anyone have a datasheet, or any technical information at all >(frequency, power and nominal supply voltage would be adequate for my >needs I think), on this obsolete TRW transistor ? > >Steve No idea if this is any help at all, but... I have a TRW data book from 1979. Doesn't list PT4370. Closest number is PT4570. PT4570 was a wierd TO-117 case; stud mount with 4 radial leads out of the transistor capsule. Two E leads opposite each other; C is the one with the pointy end. This was NPN, 40 V, fT 2GHz, dissipation 5 W. I have no idea if this is anything similar to the one you want, but though I'd pass the closest I found, just in case it might help. Article: 97738 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Tradeoffs of filtering exciter vs after PA Message-ID: References: Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:56:18 GMT On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:58:31 -0500, Ben Jackson wrote: >I'm still working on my HF APRS beacon idea (25MHz-14.85MHz = 10.151) >and I've done some experiments using a 74HC86 quad XOR with one gate for >each oscillator and one as a mixer. In spice simulations, the '86 as a >mixer produces lots of products resulting from the odd harmonics of the >inputs, some of which are close to or below the 10.151MHz I want. If I >run that output through a 2nd order Butterworth 30m bandpass filter I >get a clean result. You ant to do that. > >My question is about the tradeoffs between filtering the exciter output >to the PA vs filtering after the PA. Obviously a post-amp filter has >to handle more power, but has the opportunity to eliminate amplifier >distortion. But eliminating unwanted inputs to the amp also reduces >unwanted outputs. if you do it agter the PA you get those products plus IMD to create more products and it will be very hard to secure a clean signal without high losses. >Are there rules of thumb for suppression of unwanted signals at each >stage of an amplification chain? Start clean, then clean up anything that results from the stage(s). Usually if you have a clean source and run that through multiple linear stages you should get the same only bigger with only a small number of artifacts that are easy to clean up. Allison Article: 97739 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Bruce in Alaska Subject: Re: Why hide the most beautiful parts References: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:52:55 GMT In article , Tim Wescott wrote: > Wes Stewart wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 05:51:20 GMT, Paul Hinman > > wrote: > > > > |Over the years I have read many articles on how to build a linear > > |amplifier. Many of the plans called for glass fire bottles (811, 572, > > |3-500, etc.). The tubes are always hidden in the back of the amp. > > |Wouldn't it be nice to move them up front behind a piece of high > > |temperature glass and a fine brass screen for shielding purposes. Then > > |we could enjoy the true glow of the tubes. > > | > > |I am sure that there are a myriad of reasons for not doing this and I am > > |too inexperienced to understand why. Is such a thing possible and if so > > |I might just upgrade my ticket so that I can build such a beauty. I > > |will upgrade anyway just for my own satisfaction. > > | > > |Think how impressive an amplifier with a tube or two or more glowing > > |behind a picture window would be. > > | > > |I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject. > > > > It's been done. > > > > The ARRL Handbook "One Band Amplifiers" (in my 1962 edition) didn't > > use glass, but perf aluminum, but the tubes were still somewhat > > visible. > > > > Of course, the Collins KW-1 is a commercial example. > > > And it looks good. If you want to have an excuse, use tubes that are > expected to show some color on the plate when loaded up properly. When I first started traveling Alaska as Traveling Radioman for Northern Radio Company, I serviced all the old N-529E 2-12 Meg AM Sets that all the Salmon Canneries used to communicate with the ACS Stations. They all had 807's, 6146's, and 866A's, that glowed behind perferated screens in the front panels. Most of the Cannery Radiomen had Ne-2's taped to the HV Antenna feeds that would glow when the transmitter was online. Those Radio Shacks were an errie place in the evenings when the last Radio Scheudal of the day was happening. Orange Neon, Blue Mercury Vapor, and Dull Red on the Tx Tubes. some of those puppies would crank out 200 Watts Full Carrier Power. Bruce in alaska the last of the Cannery RadioMen, in alaska........ -- add a <2> before @ Article: 97740 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Straydog Subject: FS: Various stuff.... Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:27:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: Pure sale, no bidding wars. Summer cleaning out the shack: several items (terms at end) 1. (dead on transmit) RF Concepts, RFC 2-317 (2 meter brick amplifier), 30 watts drive, 170 watts output. The transmit side of the amp is dead (looked like power transistors gave out over a few minutes of transmit way back and I never tried to locate someone to fix it; the receive GasFET preamp still works). The manual goes with the brick amp. The schematic says the power transistors (assuming that is the problem) are SRF3897 and there are two of them. Schematic looks like two in parallel (many other transistors, too). RF Concepts went out of business some years ago but maybe one of you guys who knows this stuff would like to have a crack at this repair job. $10 for this unit. 2. Two Hamtronics receiving converters, CA-28 and CA-144. One takes input at 144 - 148 and converts down to 28-32 mHz (and I put a 9 volt battery case inside, and small toggle switch), the other one takes 28-30 mHz and upconverts to 144-148 mHz (I was meaning to listen to 10 meters FM repeaters with my 2 m HT but never tried it). These units do not have as low of a noise figure as the best scanners and newer ham transceivers. Both units to the same address, $35 for both. Otherwise $20 each. With manuals and documentation. 3. Yaesu YS-500 in line wattmeter and SWR bridge for 140-525 mHz. Looks fine, works fine. Max power: 200 w. With one sheet "manual" $30. 4. 440 FM Yagi, 10 elements. I think it might be a Hygain but can't remember for sure. No manual or documentation. It was never outside of an attic. At old OTH it was aimed at one 440 repeater (at present QTH, I have way too many trees and barely can get into one 440 repeater that almost no one uses, so it goes 'on the block'). $25. ---non ham electronics------ 5. OPTIMUS (Radio shack) AM/FM STA-795 solid state receiver, with manual and documentation. Works fine. $20.00 6. Night vision device: NV-100/NV-100-1 by Moonlight Products, bought through Edmund Scientifi when it was in business. I need to test it at night before releasing it. I think its a first generation device. Has a large telephoto lens with low f/stop, includes manual and documentation. Runs on two AA batteries, and has its own IR diode light souce if one wants to try that. Has not been used for maybe 7-8 years, but worked fine at the time, and was always stored in a stable non-moist room at RT. Was not used much when it was used (maybe 1-2 hours, total). I seem to recall reading that these units undergo some deterioration in performance with time, but I don't know if that is independent of whether the units are used or not used. $40 7. Panasonic AG-1830, Video Cassette Recorder, Pro-Line, commercial grade. With manual. Used a lot back 10 years ago, not much since then. It has an on-board frame-grabber, but I have lost the remote control which is how the frame-grabber was activated. Complex controls and relatively thick manual. 17 lbs. Some dust here and there. I have not extensively tested all functionalities, but besides the missing remote control, it was recording and playing back last time I used it. But if you want to receive TV signals and record them, you may need a preamp because the input is normally not very sensitive. I was in a fringe area and got noisy images unless I used a TV receiver preamp. New price over $1000. My price $55 8. Hitachi VHS video camera (portable), VM-2500A, with dead lead-acid gel-cell battery (will not hold charge, won't accept charge). Camera (color) still works fine and records audio, too. It runs fine with an external DC power supply of about 9.6 volts 2.3 amps. This is an old style, over the shoulder unit. With manual and documentation, and some cables (can take output from camera, in playback mode, and feed into a video imput device). I think its never had more than about 20-25 hours of running time. My price $30. ------ Terms: If you are interested, send email. I prefer to sell in the continental USA. I prefer to ship USPS, but UPS may be less risky in terms of damage. I prefer USPS money order for sum. Sum needs to include shipping charges which I will estimate, and I'll refund any excess if there is excess. If you want insurance, I'll include that in price. No charge for packaging, handling, which will depend on what item we're talking about and I'll do my best to locate packing materials, especially on biger & heavier items. If we go with USPS, I will spring for delivery confirmation and email you the DC number. You'll need to send the money order first. I am located in southern Delaware. Please wait a few days before expecting a response. In the event more than one person wants the same item, I will work with the first one and tell the others that they are "backup" buyers in case the first one backs out or something. You need to specify how fast you want the shipping to be; UPS and USPS have several grades of service speed (faster is more expensive). If you have a counter-proposal, I'll consider it. Please give you "ship to" address in your first email to me. On the non-ham gear, I will probably "check" the unit to make sure it is at least minimally functional before shipping. Art, W4PON Article: 97741 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: John Wilkinson Subject: Re: Noise in first IF References: <1gcsk57ynooj.1g7beguan3iw1$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:04:42 +0100 Message-ID: <1j5z2mw9sgsie.13v74cxsk6jid$.dlg@40tude.net> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:32:36 GMT, W3JDR wrote: > John, > > My comments are below your text snippets: > >> I have for the time being disonnected the first mixer, and am able to feed >> in a 45MHz signal straight into the firts IF amp if I wish.> >> Now if I look at the output of the second IF with a spectrum analyser, >> with >> the power off to the first IF, but with the 2nd LO running, I can wind up >> the second IF's gain, and the noise floor goes up, which I guess is >> expected, but there are no peaks at 455KHz. > > This would be expected, as there is nothing to bandlimit the output of the > high-gain 455 KHz IF, so you're seeing its broadband input noise amplified > by its gain. >> >> If I connect the power to the first IF, and then wind the gain of the >> second IF up, I get a noisy peak at 455KHz, that varies in aplitude with >> the gain. The input to the first IF has a dummy load. > > This is also to be expected, as the input noise of the first IF is amplified > by its gain, then bandlimited before amplifying in the second IF. > >> >> The second LO is a crystal oscillator, see my previous questions regarding >> this. >> >> The question is, should I expect to see a peak, I dont think so. >> What could be causing this? The first IF is in a double sided PCB >> enclosure. >> >> I hope someone can help as this is driving me nuts.... > > Don't go nuts - it sounds normal. It would be a lot easier to say if > everything truly is normal if you could supply some numeric data - > fortunately you have a signal generator and a spectrum analyzer. I suggest > that you put a signal into the first mixer and observe the output of the > last IF on your spectrum analyzer. What input signal level does it take to > get 10 dB output signal-to-noise ratio. What level does it take to get the > same result feeding a signal into the first IF chain, then the second IF > chain, etc ??. Don't worry so much about gain during these tests, just the > signal-to-noise ratios. BTW, make sure the analyzer's resolution bandwidth > is approximately the same as the receiver's IF bandwidth for these tests, > otherwise you'll have to apply a noise bandwidth correction). > > Good luck > > Joe > W3JDR Thanks Joe, I have just managed to get some more time on my project, after some delay, I did some measurements as you suggested. For the 2nd IF with gain at min:- 10dB increase in output with -80dBm input 20dB increase in output with -67dBm input 30dB increase in output with -59dBm input gain at max:- 10dB increase in output with -119dBm input (very noisy output) 20dB increase in output with -109dBm input 30dB increase in output with -97dBm input I then connected the 2nd to the first IF:_ gain at max 10dB increase in output with -100dBm input When I disconnect the power to the 1st IF the noise floor is at -20dBm at max gain. With power to the first IF the noise floor is +10dBm with max gain. As I drive in a higher amplitude signal the noise floor drops around the signal, but the peak is still at +10dBm. Is all this OK? Regards, John. Article: 97742 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:01 -0500 Message-ID: <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> "Confused" wrote in message news:1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... (major snippage) That's absolute bullshit. I build and modify my own CB equipment. I know of hams that don't even know ohms law much less how to build equipment. I see lots of off the shelf ham gear for sale proving that your post is nothing more that propaganda. You perpetuate the myth that CBers are too stupid to obtain a license, you are wrong. You post this to continue the rift between hams and CBers, fine by me, many CBers become hams, others like myself avoid it due to closed minded thinking like yours. Maybe if hams openly welcomed CBers into the fold instead of constantly insulting us, the ham radio hobby will survive. Instead the CBers will sit back and laugh as the FCC sells off your bandwidth to the highest bidder. We DO have a common ground, you just refuse to see it. From "know code" Fri Jun 23 20:33:57 EDT 2006 Article: 97743 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:27:26 +0200 From: know code Reply-To: "know code" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 Message-ID: <449c40be$0$92017$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> Organization: Wanadoo NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Jun 2006 19:27:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: s5591cd23.adsl.wanadoo.nl X-Trace: 1151090878 dr5.euro.net 92017 85.145.205.35:9755 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.nl Path: news.unc.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed.freenet.de!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!news2.euro.net!postnews2.euro.net!news.wanadoo.nl!not-for-mail Xref: news0.isis.unc.edu uk.radio.amateur:275833 rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:97743 rec.radio.amateur.policy:259577 rec.radio.amateur.misc:274664 DrDeath wrote: > I know of > hams that don't even know ohms law much less how to build equipment. In the UK they have an M3 callsign.... > You perpetuate the myth that CBers are too stupid to > obtain a license, In the UK, he's not far wrong most of the time.... > You post this to continue the rift between hams and CBers, fine by me, Fine by me too! > Maybe if hams openly welcomed CBers into the fold instead of > constantly insulting us, Don't hold your breath on that happening any time soon! > Instead the CBers > will sit back and laugh as the FCC sells off your bandwidth to the highest > bidder. Well, considering the original poster posted with a .co.uk e-mail address (where he lives as he constantly pollutes the uk.r.a group), I would like to see the FCC trying to sell off the spectrum in the UK!!!!! Article: 97744 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Jim S." References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> <449c40be$0$92017$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> <1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:07:56 -0500 Message-ID: <449c3cc5$0$9934$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "Mike G4KFK" wrote in message news:1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > know code wrote: >> Well, considering Well considering that the U.K.is the U.S.A.'s lap dog, when the spectrum is sold here it will also be sold there. Besides, it will be a great day when the code is dropped......the rush of the dumb CB'er onto the bands will be funny as hell to watch.Couldn't happen to a finer bunch of assholes. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Article: 97745 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "The Magnum" References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:57:40 +0100 Message-ID: <449c5601$0$8850$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com> "Walt Davidson" wrote in message news:gqko92l1e363nv72almtusdg4gde9gelor@4ax.com... > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:01 -0500, "DrDeath" > wrote: > > >That's absolute bullshit. I build and modify my own CB equipment. > > Then you are unashamedly breaking the law. > > 73 de G3NYY Shirley only if he hooks it up and attempts to use it? He never said anything about using it. Graham -- -.-. -... / .-. .- -.. .. --- Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73/51 - Graham, 26-Golf Charlie-19 (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 97746 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Straydog Subject: Re: FS: Various stuff.... Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:56:13 -0400 Message-ID: References: (see original post farther down) Update (as of 7:40 pm): I have a pending deal for the night vision scope and the RFC brick amplifier. If the deal with those interested parties falls through, I will make an re-announcement. I forgot one more item: a single pan, digital balance (transistorized), Its an "Ohaus" model C305, and reads in grams or ounces. It has a calibration weight (300 g), a wall plug transformer supply, and can run off an internal 9 volt standard transistor battery. And, yes, the manual comes with it. It also has a button for "tare" weight (eg. put an empty container on, press "tare" and it re-zeros the digital readout. The pan comes off the unit for shipping, and just drops on. I was using it to weigh letters and small packages. Now I have some new scales for that. My price: $20. Art, W4PON ===== no change to below, included for reference and context ===== On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Straydog wrote: > > Pure sale, no bidding wars. > > Summer cleaning out the shack: several items > (terms at end) > > > 1. (dead on transmit) RF Concepts, RFC 2-317 (2 meter brick amplifier), 30 > watts drive, 170 watts output. The transmit side of the amp is dead (looked > like power transistors gave out over a few minutes of transmit way back and I > never tried to locate someone to fix it; the receive GasFET preamp still > works). The manual goes with the brick amp. The schematic says the power > transistors (assuming that is the problem) are SRF3897 and there are two of > them. Schematic looks like two in parallel (many other transistors, too). RF > Concepts went out of business some years ago but maybe one of you guys who > knows this stuff would like to have a crack at this repair job. $10 for this > unit. > > > 2. Two Hamtronics receiving converters, CA-28 and CA-144. One takes input at > 144 - 148 and converts down to 28-32 mHz (and I put a 9 volt battery case > inside, and small toggle switch), the other one takes 28-30 mHz and > upconverts to 144-148 mHz (I was meaning to listen to 10 meters FM repeaters > with my 2 m HT but never tried it). These units do not have as low of a noise > figure as the best scanners and newer ham transceivers. Both units to the > same address, $35 for both. Otherwise $20 each. With manuals and > documentation. > > 3. Yaesu YS-500 in line wattmeter and SWR bridge for 140-525 mHz. Looks fine, > works fine. Max power: 200 w. With one sheet "manual" $30. > > 4. 440 FM Yagi, 10 elements. I think it might be a Hygain but can't remember > for sure. No manual or documentation. It was never outside of an attic. At > old OTH it was aimed at one 440 repeater (at present QTH, I have way too many > trees and barely can get into one 440 repeater that almost no one uses, so it > goes 'on the block'). $25. > > ---non ham electronics------ > > 5. OPTIMUS (Radio shack) AM/FM STA-795 solid state receiver, with manual and > documentation. Works fine. $20.00 > > 6. Night vision device: NV-100/NV-100-1 by Moonlight Products, bought through > Edmund Scientifi when it was in business. I need to test it at night before > releasing it. I think its a first generation device. Has a large telephoto > lens with low f/stop, includes manual and documentation. Runs on two AA > batteries, and has its own IR diode light souce if one wants to try that. Has > not been used for maybe 7-8 years, but worked fine at the time, and was > always stored in a stable non-moist room at RT. Was not used much when it was > used (maybe 1-2 hours, total). I seem to recall reading that these units > undergo some deterioration in performance with time, but I don't know if that > is independent of whether the units are used or not used. $40 > > 7. Panasonic AG-1830, Video Cassette Recorder, Pro-Line, commercial grade. > With manual. Used a lot back 10 years ago, not much since then. It has an > on-board frame-grabber, but I have lost the remote control which is how the > frame-grabber was activated. Complex controls and relatively thick manual. 17 > lbs. Some dust here and there. I have not extensively tested all > functionalities, but besides the missing remote control, it was recording and > playing back last time I used it. But if you want to receive TV signals and > record them, you may need a preamp because the input is normally not very > sensitive. I was in a fringe area and got noisy images unless I used a TV > receiver preamp. New price over $1000. My price $55 > > 8. Hitachi VHS video camera (portable), VM-2500A, with dead lead-acid > gel-cell battery (will not hold charge, won't accept charge). Camera (color) > still works fine and records audio, too. It runs fine with an external DC > power supply of about 9.6 volts 2.3 amps. This is an old style, over the > shoulder unit. With manual and documentation, and some > cables (can take output from camera, in playback mode, and feed into > a video imput device). I think its never had more than about 20-25 hours of > running time. My price $30. > > ------ > Terms: > > If you are interested, send email. I prefer to sell in the continental USA. I > prefer to ship USPS, but UPS may be less risky in terms of damage. I prefer > USPS money order for sum. Sum needs to include shipping charges which I will > estimate, and I'll refund any excess if there is > excess. If you want insurance, I'll include that in price. No charge for > packaging, handling, which will depend on what item we're talking about and > I'll do my best to locate packing materials, especially on biger & heavier > items. If we go with USPS, I will spring for delivery confirmation > and email you the DC number. You'll need to send the money order first. > > > I am located in southern Delaware. Please wait a few days before expecting > a response. In the event more than one person wants the same item, I will > work with the first one and tell the others that they are "backup" buyers > in case the first one backs out or something. You need to specify how fast > you want the shipping to be; UPS and USPS have several grades of service > speed (faster is more expensive). If you have a counter-proposal, I'll > consider it. Please give you "ship to" address in your first email to me. > On the non-ham gear, I will probably "check" the unit to make sure it is > at least minimally functional before shipping. > > Art, W4PON > Article: 97747 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: flipper Subject: Re: Tube failure mode: gassy? Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1150512910.810581.47510@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <4499F259.4DA432F2@hotmail.com> <9rydnSPnBckB8wHZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@suscom.com> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:43:40 -0500, hexter@blazenet.net (Gudmundur) wrote: >In article <4499F259.4DA432F2@hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says... >> >> >> >>Gudmundur wrote: >> >>> Hey my man, what you may have is a classic case of the grid coupling >>> capacitor breaking down and killing your bias on the grid. It is >>> not uncommon for the grid to go positive and cause the tube to melt!! >> >>You haven't read the thread fully have you ? >> >>Graham >> > > Well let's see, the original poster said the voltage across the grid >resistor seemed wrong, (leaky cap is possible there) and he said the >current kept going up and up (leaky cap getting worse with ambient >heat from the tube) and a blue glow which I find to be typical with >many tubes of the 807 style when there is excess plate current such >as may be caused by A LEAKY CAP between the control grid of the 807 >and the previous stage plate voltage. Gassey tube causing runaway, >yes in circuits with high ohmic value grid resistors which is why the >d.c. impedance of power output stage grid circuits is usually low >and and includes an rf choke to keep the rf impedance high. Then, even >with a gassey final power output tube the output stage will be less >likely to run away even with a crappy tube. The original poster >added that after his experience with the runaway tube it seemed to >glow even bluer, no doubt!!!! Guess he liberated even more gass from >the internal overheated elements such as may be caused by 'a leaky >grid coupling cap' in a high resistance grid circuit connected >to a power output tube that is a bit gassey and may be experiencing >such positive grid voltage excursions during peaks causing the >grid to heat and become an even better emitter of electrons causing >a chicken and egg roundabout until the death of a slightly gassey >tube which will find it's final resting place in a landfill beside >some misfit unwanted LEAKY CAPS that I have personally cut out of >some older Seeburg jukeboxes with a problem exactly like the one >the original poster was describing. I suspect that when he says "read the thread fully" he may be referring to where the OP said "The coupling capacitors are indeed good and moving the tube around it follows the tube." Article: 97748 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:46:04 -0500 Message-ID: <129p6au5j4jnk51@corp.supernews.com> References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> <449c40be$0$92017$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> <1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <449c3cc5$0$9934$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "Jim S." wrote in message news:449c3cc5$0$9934$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > > "Mike G4KFK" wrote in message > news:1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> >> know code wrote: >>> Well, considering > Well considering that the U.K.is the U.S.A.'s lap dog, when the spectrum > is sold here it will also be sold there. Agreed. > > Besides, it will be a great day when the code is dropped......the rush of > the dumb CB'er onto the bands will be funny as hell to watch.Couldn't > happen to a finer bunch of assholes. I don't think your going to see that big of a rush. What attracts a lot of people to CB is price. I don't want to spend a ton of money on ham gear and I don't have the time to build it. I think all that will happen is that the lower portion of 10 meters will get the traffic with all of the "export" radios in circulation. Article: 97749 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:52:16 -0500 Message-ID: <129p6mi2pc7hs01@corp.supernews.com> References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> "Walt Davidson" wrote in message news:gqko92l1e363nv72almtusdg4gde9gelor@4ax.com... > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:01 -0500, "DrDeath" > wrote: > >>That's absolute bullshit. I build and modify my own CB equipment. > > Then you are unashamedly breaking the law. > Yep. Article: 97750 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Straydog Subject: Update on this-->Re: FS: Various stuff.... Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:06:25 -0400 Message-ID: References: (~10 pm, local time) The 440 beam is sold. On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Straydog wrote: > (see original post farther down) > > Update (as of 7:40 pm): I have a pending deal for the night vision scope and > the RFC brick amplifier. If the deal with those interested parties falls > through, I will make an re-announcement. > > I forgot one more item: a single pan, digital balance (transistorized), Its > an "Ohaus" model C305, and reads in grams or ounces. It has a calibration > weight (300 g), a wall plug transformer supply, and can run off an internal 9 > volt standard transistor battery. And, yes, the manual > comes with it. It also has a button for "tare" weight (eg. put an empty > container on, press "tare" and it re-zeros the digital readout. The pan comes > off the unit for shipping, and just drops on. I was using it to weigh letters > and small packages. Now I have some new scales for that. My price: $20. > > Art, W4PON > > ===== no change to below, included for reference and context ===== > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Straydog wrote: > >> >> Pure sale, no bidding wars. >> >> Summer cleaning out the shack: several items >> (terms at end) >> >> >> 1. (dead on transmit) RF Concepts, RFC 2-317 (2 meter brick amplifier), 30 >> watts drive, 170 watts output. The transmit side of the amp is dead (looked >> like power transistors gave out over a few minutes of transmit way back and >> I never tried to locate someone to fix it; the receive GasFET preamp still >> works). The manual goes with the brick amp. The schematic says the power >> transistors (assuming that is the problem) are SRF3897 and there are two of >> them. Schematic looks like two in parallel (many other transistors, too). >> RF Concepts went out of business some years ago but maybe one of you guys >> who knows this stuff would like to have a crack at this repair job. $10 for >> this unit. >> >> >> 2. Two Hamtronics receiving converters, CA-28 and CA-144. One takes input >> at 144 - 148 and converts down to 28-32 mHz (and I put a 9 volt battery >> case inside, and small toggle switch), the other one takes 28-30 mHz and >> upconverts to 144-148 mHz (I was meaning to listen to 10 meters FM >> repeaters with my 2 m HT but never tried it). These units do not have as >> low of a noise figure as the best scanners and newer ham transceivers. Both >> units to the same address, $35 for both. Otherwise $20 each. With manuals >> and documentation. >> >> 3. Yaesu YS-500 in line wattmeter and SWR bridge for 140-525 mHz. Looks >> fine, works fine. Max power: 200 w. With one sheet "manual" $30. >> >> 4. 440 FM Yagi, 10 elements. I think it might be a Hygain but can't >> remember for sure. No manual or documentation. It was never outside of an >> attic. At old OTH it was aimed at one 440 repeater (at present QTH, I have >> way too many trees and barely can get into one 440 repeater that almost no >> one uses, so it goes 'on the block'). $25. >> >> ---non ham electronics------ >> >> 5. OPTIMUS (Radio shack) AM/FM STA-795 solid state receiver, with manual >> and documentation. Works fine. $20.00 >> >> 6. Night vision device: NV-100/NV-100-1 by Moonlight Products, bought >> through Edmund Scientifi when it was in business. I need to test it at >> night before releasing it. I think its a first generation device. Has a >> large telephoto lens with low f/stop, includes manual and documentation. >> Runs on two AA batteries, and has its own IR diode light souce if one wants >> to try that. Has not been used for maybe 7-8 years, but worked fine at the >> time, and was always stored in a stable non-moist room at RT. Was not used >> much when it was used (maybe 1-2 hours, total). I seem to recall reading >> that these units undergo some deterioration in performance with time, but I >> don't know if that is independent of whether the units are used or not >> used. $40 >> >> 7. Panasonic AG-1830, Video Cassette Recorder, Pro-Line, commercial grade. >> With manual. Used a lot back 10 years ago, not much since then. It has an >> on-board frame-grabber, but I have lost the remote control which is how the >> frame-grabber was activated. Complex controls and relatively thick manual. >> 17 lbs. Some dust here and there. I have not extensively tested all >> functionalities, but besides the missing remote control, it was recording >> and playing back last time I used it. But if you want to receive TV signals >> and record them, you may need a preamp because the input is normally not >> very sensitive. I was in a fringe area and got noisy images unless I used a >> TV receiver preamp. New price over $1000. My price $55 >> >> 8. Hitachi VHS video camera (portable), VM-2500A, with dead lead-acid >> gel-cell battery (will not hold charge, won't accept charge). Camera >> (color) still works fine and records audio, too. It runs fine with an >> external DC power supply of about 9.6 volts 2.3 amps. This is an old style, >> over the shoulder unit. With manual and documentation, and some >> cables (can take output from camera, in playback mode, and feed into >> a video imput device). I think its never had more than about 20-25 hours of >> running time. My price $30. >> >> ------ >> Terms: >> >> If you are interested, send email. I prefer to sell in the continental USA. >> I prefer to ship USPS, but UPS may be less risky in terms of damage. I >> prefer USPS money order for sum. Sum needs to include shipping charges >> which I will estimate, and I'll refund any excess if there is >> excess. If you want insurance, I'll include that in price. No charge for >> packaging, handling, which will depend on what item we're talking about and >> I'll do my best to locate packing materials, especially on biger & heavier >> items. If we go with USPS, I will spring for delivery confirmation >> and email you the DC number. You'll need to send the money order first. >> >> >> I am located in southern Delaware. Please wait a few days before expecting >> a response. In the event more than one person wants the same item, I will >> work with the first one and tell the others that they are "backup" buyers >> in case the first one backs out or something. You need to specify how fast >> you want the shipping to be; UPS and USPS have several grades of service >> speed (faster is more expensive). If you have a counter-proposal, I'll >> consider it. Please give you "ship to" address in your first email to me. >> On the non-ham gear, I will probably "check" the unit to make sure it is >> at least minimally functional before shipping. >> >> Art, W4PON >> > Article: 97751 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "Lynn Coffelt" Subject: Re: Why hide the most beautiful parts Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:39:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: "Bruce in Alaska" wrote in message news:bruceg-E47CD5.10542022062006@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article , > Tim Wescott wrote: > > > Wes Stewart wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 05:51:20 GMT, Paul Hinman > > > wrote: > > > > > > |Over the years I have read many articles on how to build a linear > > > |amplifier. Many of the plans called for glass fire bottles (811, 572, > > > |3-500, etc.). The tubes are always hidden in the back of the amp. > > > |Wouldn't it be nice to move them up front behind a piece of high > > > |temperature glass and a fine brass screen for shielding purposes. Then > > > |we could enjoy the true glow of the tubes. > > > | > > > |I am sure that there are a myriad of reasons for not doing this and I am > > > |too inexperienced to understand why. Is such a thing possible and if so > > > |I might just upgrade my ticket so that I can build such a beauty. I > > > |will upgrade anyway just for my own satisfaction. > > > | > > > |Think how impressive an amplifier with a tube or two or more glowing > > > |behind a picture window would be. > > > | > > > |I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject. > > > > > > It's been done. > > > > > > The ARRL Handbook "One Band Amplifiers" (in my 1962 edition) didn't > > > use glass, but perf aluminum, but the tubes were still somewhat > > > visible. > > > > > > Of course, the Collins KW-1 is a commercial example. > > > > > And it looks good. If you want to have an excuse, use tubes that are > > expected to show some color on the plate when loaded up properly. > > When I first started traveling Alaska as Traveling Radioman for Northern > Radio Company, I serviced all the old N-529E 2-12 Meg AM Sets that all > the Salmon Canneries used to communicate with the ACS Stations. They > all had 807's, 6146's, and 866A's, that glowed behind perferated screens > in the front panels. Most of the Cannery Radiomen had Ne-2's taped to > the HV Antenna feeds that would glow when the transmitter was online. > Those Radio Shacks were an errie place in the evenings when the last > Radio Scheudal of the day was happening. Orange Neon, Blue Mercury Vapor, > and Dull Red on the Tx Tubes. some of those puppies would crank out 200 > Watts Full Carrier Power. > > Bruce in alaska the last of the Cannery RadioMen, in alaska........ Bruce, Wish I could remember the name of the cannery tender for Whitney-Fidalgo that used to pass through Anacortes for provisioning and last minute work each spring. You probably met her at times. She was some sort of WWII conversion with a whole processing crew aboard. In the radio room was some sort of Northern Linear that stood about 6 feet tall as I recall. Had a pair of 4-125's in the final that would run pretty red on a long "foooooooooouuuuuuurrrrrrr, fooooooouuuuuurrrrr". Was driven by an upgrade transceiver, one of my favorites, N550. (they glowed a little too, if you tuned it for maximum smoke!) Filament was out on one 4-125 one spring, and so in replacing with a matched pair, I ended up with a slightly used 4-125 which I though would someday be on 40 cw. Still in box, sob. I used to try to keep FCC happy with responses to off frequency operation with N-550's from three local canneries and the Texaco marine station on March Point. Wasn't it "Northwest Crystal" that used to try to make oven xtals that would last for almost a year on the higher bands? The glow I remember was from a home-brew linear using push-pull parallel 304TL's driven by the infamous BC-610. Don Knutzen here in Anacortes would melt the snow and ice off his antenna and 600 ohm open line feed with such a rig. Garage door openers were really new in those days, and he was known for running them up and down all over the neighborhood Sunday mornings. But I digress. Old Chief Lynn From "know code" Sun Jun 25 00:26:26 EDT 2006 Article: 97752 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:49:29 +0200 From: know code Reply-To: "know code" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> <449c40be$0$92017$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> <1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <449c3cc5$0$9934$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <129p6au5j4jnk51@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <129p6au5j4jnk51@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 14 Message-ID: <449ceeaa$0$12884$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> Organization: Wanadoo NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jun 2006 07:50:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: s5591cd23.adsl.wanadoo.nl X-Trace: 1151135402 dr3.euro.net 12884 85.145.205.35:26699 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.nl Path: news.unc.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!transit.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news2.euro.net!postnews2.euro.net!news.wanadoo.nl!not-for-mail Xref: news0.isis.unc.edu uk.radio.amateur:275878 rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:97752 rec.radio.amateur.policy:259612 rec.radio.amateur.misc:274683 DrDeath wrote: > "Jim S." wrote in message > news:449c3cc5$0$9934$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... >> "Mike G4KFK" wrote in message >> news:1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>> know code wrote: >>>> Well, considering >> Well considering that the U.K.is the U.S.A.'s lap dog, when the spectrum >> is sold here it will also be sold there. > > Agreed. Do you not think the ITU might have something to say about that? Oh sorry, I forgot, the US ignores international organisations! From "know code" Sun Jun 25 00:26:27 EDT 2006 Article: 97753 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:52:39 +0200 From: know code Reply-To: "know code" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> <129p6mi2pc7hs01@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <129p6mi2pc7hs01@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 14 Message-ID: <449cef68$0$12884$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> Organization: Wanadoo NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jun 2006 07:53:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: s5591cd23.adsl.wanadoo.nl X-Trace: 1151135592 dr3.euro.net 12884 85.145.205.35:26699 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.nl Path: news.unc.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!213.132.189.2.MISMATCH!multikabel.net!feed20.multikabel.net!news2.euro.net!postnews2.euro.net!news.wanadoo.nl!not-for-mail Xref: news0.isis.unc.edu uk.radio.amateur:275879 rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:97753 rec.radio.amateur.policy:259613 rec.radio.amateur.misc:274684 DrDeath wrote: > "Walt Davidson" wrote in message > news:gqko92l1e363nv72almtusdg4gde9gelor@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:01 -0500, "DrDeath" >> wrote: >> >>> That's absolute bullshit. I build and modify my own CB equipment. >> Then you are unashamedly breaking the law. >> > > Yep. Don't you just love a democracy.... the citizens even have the right to break whatever laws they want.... Article: 97754 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:01:24 -0500 Message-ID: <129q3blpjqncd40@corp.supernews.com> References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> <449c40be$0$92017$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> <1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <449c3cc5$0$9934$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <129p6au5j4jnk51@corp.supernews.com> <449ceeaa$0$12884$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> "know code" wrote in message news:449ceeaa$0$12884$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl... > DrDeath wrote: >> "Jim S." wrote in message >> news:449c3cc5$0$9934$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... >>> "Mike G4KFK" wrote in message >>> news:1151091698.988853.6240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>>> know code wrote: >>>>> Well, considering >>> Well considering that the U.K.is the U.S.A.'s lap dog, when the spectrum >>> is sold here it will also be sold there. >> >> Agreed. > > Do you not think the ITU might have something to say about that? Oh > sorry, I forgot, the US ignores international organisations! You'll get no argument from me. The US tends to do as they please regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. I remember a time when most countries liked the US and it's citizens, but those days are long gone. Article: 97755 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:01:27 -0500 Message-ID: <129q3bp8tkc642@corp.supernews.com> References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> <129p6mi2pc7hs01@corp.supernews.com> <449cef68$0$12884$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> "know code" wrote in message news:449cef68$0$12884$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl... > DrDeath wrote: >> "Walt Davidson" wrote in message >> news:gqko92l1e363nv72almtusdg4gde9gelor@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:01 -0500, "DrDeath" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That's absolute bullshit. I build and modify my own CB equipment. >>> Then you are unashamedly breaking the law. >>> >> >> Yep. > > Don't you just love a democracy.... the citizens even have the right to > break whatever laws they want.... I wouldn't go that far, but the FCC all but quit policing 11 meters back in the late 70s. A couple of years ago the FCC gave local law enforcement the power to enforce the laws governing 11 meters, but most of the police in my area have no interest or knowledge to do anything about it. I have a better chance of getting in trouble spitting on the sidewalk, and I don't have a sidewalk as I live in the sticks. Article: 97756 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: "The Magnum" References: <1151082732.090134.164780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <129ofbqfdc9en1a@corp.supernews.com> <129p6mi2pc7hs01@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Are you interested in Ham Radio? Don't be fooled by the Lizards! Here's the FAQ! Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:15:47 +0100 Message-ID: <449d4946$0$8843$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com> "DrDeath" wrote in message news:129p6mi2pc7hs01@corp.supernews.com... > "Walt Davidson" wrote in message > news:gqko92l1e363nv72almtusdg4gde9gelor@4ax.com... > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:14:01 -0500, "DrDeath" > > wrote: > > > >>That's absolute bullshit. I build and modify my own CB equipment. > > > > Then you are unashamedly breaking the law. > > > > Yep. A bit like those Amateurs who open out their Transceivers to transmit where they aren't supposed to? (waits for Jim and MM3 banter ;o) Graham -- -.-. -... / .-. .- -.. .. --- Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73/51 - Graham, 26-Golf Charlie-19 (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 97757 of rec.radio.amateur.homebrew From: Dave Hildebrand Subject: NEW (MOTOROLA) MX300 WEB SITE / SUPPORT FORUM Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:40:38 -0700 Message-ID: Some of us have just started a support new group and web site (including a forum/BBS) for the Motorola MX300 radio: http://www.mx300.org And: http://forum.mx300.org Check it out! ...Dave, N6BHU