From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sun May 1 15:47:52 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 14:47:52 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre Message-ID: At the Sandwich IL hamfest today there was a guy selling a 5R4G for 100 bucks. It was labelled as being "very rare." Rob K5UJ From ne1s at securespeed.us Sun May 1 15:57:15 2016 From: ne1s at securespeed.us (Larry Szendrei) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 15:57:15 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A friend picked up a couple of used ones at NEARfest Friday for $1 each. Guess he got a real deal! ;-) 73, -Larry/NE1S On 5/1/16 3:47 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > At the Sandwich IL hamfest today there was a guy selling a 5R4G for > 100 bucks. It was labelled as being "very rare." > > Rob > K5UJ > ______________________________________________________________ > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net > AMRadio mailing list > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with > the word unsubscribe in the message body. > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to ne1s at securespeed.us > From w5jo at brightok.net Sun May 1 16:33:14 2016 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 15:33:14 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D594FEF5CAF4A8C80EEFB4F16819C46@JimPC> Did you ask the guy if he knew where he was? Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- At the Sandwich IL hamfest today there was a guy selling a 5R4G for 100 bucks. It was labelled as being "very rare." Rob K5UJ From w4wsz at embarqmail.com Sun May 1 16:37:36 2016 From: w4wsz at embarqmail.com (Bob. W4WSZ) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 16:37:36 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre In-Reply-To: <4D594FEF5CAF4A8C80EEFB4F16819C46@JimPC> References: <4D594FEF5CAF4A8C80EEFB4F16819C46@JimPC> Message-ID: <000d01d1a3e9$4c6267c0$e5273740$@embarqmail.com> You know, if we stop and think about it.................It is rare to see a 5R4 priced at $100.00....................after 81 years, I have never seen one. 73, Bob, W4WSZ -----Original Message----- From: AMRadio [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of w5jo at brightok.net Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 4:33 PM To: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Subject: Re: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre Did you ask the guy if he knew where he was? Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- At the Sandwich IL hamfest today there was a guy selling a 5R4G for 100 bucks. It was labelled as being "very rare." Rob K5UJ ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to w4wsz at embarqmail.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sun May 1 17:04:26 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 16:04:26 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre In-Reply-To: <000d01d1a3e9$4c6267c0$e5273740$@embarqmail.com> References: <4D594FEF5CAF4A8C80EEFB4F16819C46@JimPC> <000d01d1a3e9$4c6267c0$e5273740$@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: Bob and Jim and Larry, good comments. Rob K5UJ On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Bob. W4WSZ wrote: > You know, if we stop and think about it.................It is rare to see a > 5R4 priced at $100.00....................after 81 years, I have never seen > one. > > 73, > Bob, W4WSZ > > -----Original Message----- > From: AMRadio [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of > w5jo at brightok.net > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 4:33 PM > To: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre > > Did you ask the guy if he knew where he was? > From nbcblue at hotmail.com Sun May 1 19:45:28 2016 From: nbcblue at hotmail.com (W. Harris) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 23:45:28 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Then I have a small fortune in 5R4's, must have 15 or 20 of them. Bill - K5MIL ________________________________________ From: AMRadio on behalf of Rob Atkinson Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 7:47 PM To: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre At the Sandwich IL hamfest today there was a guy selling a 5R4G for 100 bucks. It was labelled as being "very rare." Rob K5UJ ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to nbcblue at hotmail.com From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Mon May 2 13:11:28 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:11:28 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] This one was bizarre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What happened was I was walking around and came to a table with a lot of tubes, each one in its own little silo inside a box. the box had been divided up into these little cardboard slots, each 4 inches on a side and maybe 7 or 8 inches deep. I peered down into them and saw what looked like a 5R4 in the old kind of flared bulb and pulled it out. When I saw the price I had to look twice and started laughing at the guy doing the selling. His defense was that he saw on eBay that they were "very rare." I carefully put it back knowing that with my luck, I'd drop it and he'd demand $100. Then I moved on. If someone wants that much he's a lost cause and no point in my talking to him about it. 73 Rob K5UJ On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 6:45 PM, W. Harris wrote: > Then I have a small fortune in 5R4's, must have 15 or 20 of them. > > Bill - K5MIL > From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Tue May 3 12:43:56 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:43:56 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Call for suggestions for IARU Region 2 Bandplan Message-ID: http://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-is-june-1-for-us-radio-amateurs-to-submit-iaru-region-2-hf-band-plan-suggestions North American AM operators should keep an eye on this. While spokesmen in the press release go out of their way to claim the FCC calls the shots with US band plans, there is always the possibility of the IARU functioning as a smoke-screen for an ARRL anti-AM move. 73 Rob K5UJ From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Tue May 3 12:46:48 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:46:48 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Mark Persons on transformer testing Message-ID: Broadcast engineer and consultant Mark W. Persons' Tech. Tips column in the current issue of RadioWorld is of interest to AM operators because it addresses the problem of transformer testing. http://www.radioworld.com/article/testing-and-using-power-transformers/278729 73 Rob K5UJ From hro5-2 at cox.net Thu May 12 01:14:25 2016 From: hro5-2 at cox.net (Jim Hill) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:14:25 -0700 Subject: [AMRadio] 250 Audio Amplifier FS Message-ID: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> I'm selling a Beachmaster 250 watt audio amplifier. It's a WW2 amplifier originally used with a PE75 and a bank of loudspeakers to communicate with the troops in WW2 battlefield conditions. Output tubes are 805's and rectifiers are 836's. Price is (almost) right with an ebay minimum bid of $5.00 and no takers, so far. It could be the basis of a modulator, providing power supply, input transformer, big tubes, etc., Unfortunately no modulation transformer is available. It is pick-up only at my home in the Los Angeles area See http://www.ebay.com/itm/250-watt-High-Power-Audio-Amplifier-/282031881900? I'm surprised about the lack of response. I took some really doggie audio amps to the TRW swap meet about a year ago and was mobbed by they audio guys. Some looked into other boxes in my pickup over my protests until they were personally satisfied that the boxes contained no electronic equipment. At 180 lbs, it is too heavy for an old guy like me and my old friends to move to the swap meet. Jim, w6ivw From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Thu May 12 06:22:46 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 05:22:46 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] 250 Audio Amplifier FS In-Reply-To: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: Jim, You might have your best chance at a hamfest. I looked at the photos of the amp. The reason it isn't getting any attention on eBay is that most audio gear on eBay only gets a lot of action if it is really nice looking and ready to put on a table and fire up and start operating. The rich eBay crowd who pay the high prices don't want to get their hands dirty doing any work on something. Also, they often don't know which end of a soldering iron to hold and are 100% plug and play consumers. If you put a hose on it and flushed out the dirt and let it dry for a few days that would probably help. It is mil. gear so it can probably get wet. You might also try an ad in the back of Electric Radio and the amfone.net sell forum and swap.qth.com. Another reason it isn't getting any bids is it is pickup only. I'd like to see it go to an AM operator instead of some glass audiophool. I'll tell you one thing--if I were out there where you are I'd get it from you in a second. 73 Rob K5UJ On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Jim Hill wrote: > I'm selling a Beachmaster 250 watt audio amplifier. It's a WW2 amplifier > originally used with a PE75 and a bank of loudspeakers to communicate with > the troops in WW2 battlefield conditions. Output tubes are 805's and > rectifiers are 836's. Price is (almost) right with an ebay minimum bid of > $5.00 and no takers, so far. It could be the basis of a modulator, > providing power supply, input transformer, big tubes, etc., Unfortunately no > modulation transformer is available. It is pick-up only at my home in the > Los Angeles area > See > http://www.ebay.com/itm/250-watt-High-Power-Audio-Amplifier-/282031881900? > > I'm surprised about the lack of response. I took some really doggie audio > amps to the TRW swap meet about a year ago and was mobbed by they audio > guys. Some looked into other boxes in my pickup over my protests until they > were personally satisfied that the boxes contained no electronic equipment. > At 180 lbs, it is too heavy for an old guy like me and my old friends to > move to the swap meet. > > Jim, w6ivw > From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Thu May 12 12:35:14 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:14 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Missouri ham petitions FCC to change sub-bands by mode (again) Message-ID: FCC is taking comments on yet another sub-band/mode petition. I am not exactly sure what this one is trying to accomplish and hope someone can explain it to me. I find it kind of confusing, at least what the ARRL news report says about it: http://www.arrl.org/news/missouri-radio-amateur-petitions-fcc-to-designate-symbol-communication-subbands Separately, the VOA Museum in Bethany OH will host a reception for hams attending the Dayton Hamvention: http://www.arrl.org/news/voa-museum-to-host-amateur-radio-reception-during-hamvention 73 Rob K5UJ From hro5-2 at cox.net Thu May 12 17:31:08 2016 From: hro5-2 at cox.net (Jim Hill) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:31:08 -0700 Subject: [AMRadio] B&W 5100 Modulation Transformer Message-ID: <20160512213110.UBVM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I have heard that B&W 5100 modulation transformers frequently fail when attempting to modulate above 100%. What is the failure mode (open winding, short to ground or other winding, etc.)? I am looking for an easy test that does not involve applying power. Thanks, Jim w6ivw From hro5-2 at cox.net Sat May 14 00:11:23 2016 From: hro5-2 at cox.net (Jim Hill) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:11:23 -0700 Subject: [AMRadio] 250 Audio Amplifier FS In-Reply-To: References: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <20160514041124.WRZX27016.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rob: Thanks for your answer. I thought a large metropolitan area like Los Angeles would provide enough potential buyers to get some bids. I might get some snipe bids at the last moment, but probably not. I think I'll part it out; and sell the power supply and tubes separately, keep other miscellaneous parts, and see if I can sell the cabinet to a scrap metal dealer. If not, there is always the yearly free bulky waste pickup . Hopefully, I can pack the power supply parts. I'm having another problem, I'm not getting any recent posts from AMRadio, including my last two. The last two received are from Donald Chester on 2/13 and Ken W8EK on 4/13/16. I subscribed using a different email address. I'll see what happens. Jim At 03:22 AM 5/12/2016, you wrote: >Jim, > >You might have your best chance at a hamfest. I looked at the photos >of the amp. The reason it isn't getting any attention on eBay is that >most audio gear on eBay only gets a lot of action if it is really >nice looking and ready to put on a table and fire up and start >operating. The rich eBay crowd who pay the high prices don't want to >get their hands dirty doing any work on something. Also, they often >don't know which end of a soldering iron to hold and are 100% plug and >play consumers. snip. > >73 >Rob >K5UJ > > >On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Jim Hill wrote: > > I'm selling a Beachmaster 250 watt audio amplifier. It's a WW2 amplifier > > originally used with a PE75 and a bank of loudspeakers to communicate with > > the troops in WW2 battlefield conditions. Output tubes are 805's and > > rectifiers are 836's. Price is (almost) right with an ebay minimum bid of > > $5.00 and no takers, so far. It could be the basis of a modulator, > > providing power supply, input transformer, big tubes, etc., > Unfortunately no > > modulation transformer is available. It is pick-up only at my home in the > > Los Angeles area > > See > > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/250-watt-High-Power-Audio-Amplifier-/282031881900? > > > > I'm surprised about the lack of response. I took some really doggie audio > > amps to the TRW swap meet about a year ago and was mobbed by they audio > > guys. Some looked into other boxes in my pickup over my protests > until they > > were personally satisfied that the boxes contained no electronic equipment. > > At 180 lbs, it is too heavy for an old guy like me and my old friends to > > move to the swap meet. > > > > Jim, w6ivw > > From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sat May 14 00:38:08 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 23:38:08 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] 250 Audio Amplifier FS In-Reply-To: <20160514041124.ROAX22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> <20160514041124.ROAX22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I did some checking and I think your posts are getting to the reflector because they show up in the archive but I don't know why you are not getting any mail. But I am not either, so it may just be a lack of message traffic on the reflector. I sure hope you don't destroy the amp by parting it out. That would be a real shame. I suggest you list it on the military radio reflectors. milsurplus at mailman.qth.net is one. 73 Rob On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Jim Hill wrote: > Rob: Thanks for your answer. I thought a large metropolitan area like Los > Angeles would provide enough potential buyers to get some bids. I might > get some snipe bids at the last moment, but probably not. I think I'll part > it out; and sell the power supply and tubes separately, keep other > miscellaneous parts, and see if I can sell the cabinet to a scrap metal > dealer. If not, there is always the yearly free bulky waste pickup . > Hopefully, I can pack the power supply parts. > > I'm having another problem, I'm not getting any recent posts from AMRadio, > including my last two. The last two received are from Donald Chester on > 2/13 and Ken W8EK on 4/13/16. I subscribed using a different email address. > I'll see what happens. > Jim From w5jo at brightok.net Sat May 14 08:18:46 2016 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 07:18:46 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] 250 Audio Amplifier FS In-Reply-To: References: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net><20160514041124.ROAX22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <3B4182C875EB4A608A248E6A797D7127@JimPC> Summer is coming and activity has been low. Even on other reflectors things are slow. Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- I did some checking and I think your posts are getting to the reflector because they show up in the archive but I don't know why you are not getting any mail. But I am not either, so it may just be a lack of message traffic on the reflector. I sure hope you don't destroy the amp by parting it out. That would be a real shame. I suggest you list it on the military radio reflectors. milsurplus at mailman.qth.net is one. 73 Rob From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sat May 14 15:03:24 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 14:03:24 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] ham AM rig mod. iron Message-ID: Someone asked about the mod. iron in a B&W 5100 blowing and the failure mode from going above 100% modulation. It wasn't stated whether the modulation was positive or negative. I do not have much experience with the vintage ham AM rigs at all so I was waiting for someone else to reply but since no one has I will comment. My impression is that many of these transmitters had iron that was just enough to handle the audio from a microphone into the rig but not much more because of size or cost. One problem in the old days was that hams operated without oscilloscopes or other modulation indicators so there may have been a lot of carrier clipping which eventually led to winding insulation breakdown since with the B+ to the final cut off on the secondary, the transformer was unloaded. In 1955 a new mod. transformer wasn't that big a deal. It's a bigger deal now, especially if you want a replacement to fit in the rig right. I would start out testing with a VOM. I'd put the Ohm meter across the primary and secondary and see if it is infinite resistance or none at all. There should be some nominal dc resistance. I'd see if there is infinite resistance between each winding and the core. If all that checks out okay, and the transformer is disconnected from everything you could try putting 120 v. AC on the secondary via an autotransformer (variac) and put an AC v. meter on the primary, increase the secondary v. and see what the meter on the primary does, measuring between CT and each side. You should be able to run the line v. up to 30 or 40 v. and see the transformation on the VOM. I think I'd just do the initial resistance checks and if I don't see shorts or opens I'd try it in the rig. I put a 2500 ohm 10 w. wire wound resistor from the secondary to ground in my 100 watt ham rig. Its value is the same as the anode impedance of the final PA and it is connected at the mod. transformer secondary at a junction between the secondary winding and the PA anode. one side of the resistor is grounded; the other side connects to a string of 1 KV PIV diodes, 3 in series in my case, with the cathodes on the B+ side. The idea is that when the B+ is modulated down to zero, the diodes conduct and the mod transformer sees a resistance load briefly instead of no load at all. The diodes don't matter as long as the total PIV is roughly double the peak positive modulated B+. In the June ER, Phil Legate AC0OB has an article on modifications to the EFJ Viking 2 and one of them involves a resistor diode string across the mod. transformer secondary. 73 Rob K5UJ From w5dvg at sbcglobal.net Sat May 14 17:30:56 2016 From: w5dvg at sbcglobal.net (Patrick Rogers) Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 16:30:56 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Apachie TX-1 Message-ID: <5BB59E72B3F34EAABBB49F17580DDEE3@780D2R9HN1> I just purchased a Heathkit Apache TX-1 that's in good shape. The only issue appears to be an AC hum on the CW signal. I assume that the caps need replacing. Any other suggestions (things to look for/check) as I work to bring this boat anchor back to life? Also, are there any AM nets in Texas, Central Texas? Thanks, 73's de Amateur Radio Station W5DVG Patrick Rogers From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sat May 14 19:10:22 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 18:10:22 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Correction Message-ID: I posted: "In the June ER, Phil Legate AC0OB has an article on modifications to the EFJ Viking 2 and one of them involves a resistor diode string across the mod. transformer secondary." That should have been the May issue of ER, issue number 324. Sorry for the mistake. 73 Rob K5UJ From w5jo at brightok.net Sat May 14 19:36:27 2016 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 18:36:27 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Apachie TX-1 In-Reply-To: <5BB59E72B3F34EAABBB49F17580DDEE3@780D2R9HN1> References: <5BB59E72B3F34EAABBB49F17580DDEE3@780D2R9HN1> Message-ID: <135F4C8DDFA7494BA8CADA44DCBF5CBA@JimPC> Hi Patrick, If you plan to use the Apache on AM there is no end to the modifications that you can find. I will let others tell you of them and urge you to assess them before doing them. You should decide what kind of audio response you want as the Apache was designed to limit the audio, which limits the bandwidth, in an era of transition to SSB. As for the activity in Texas, OK, LA, AR, you will find activity on 3.890 in the mornings around 6 or so and evenings. Most of the stations on those frequencies are from your area and would be glad to have you join in. You will find activity on 7.160 which requires an Advanced or Extra license so look at 7.290/95 for AM in the daytime. The 40 meter band has been long lately so no telling who you will find. Have fun and if you want or need help then find Jim, WD5JKO who lives in Round Rock. He is a respected AM operator and a very nice guy. 73, Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- I just purchased a Heathkit Apache TX-1 that's in good shape. The only issue appears to be an AC hum on the CW signal. I assume that the caps need replacing. Any other suggestions (things to look for/check) as I work to bring this boat anchor back to life? Also, are there any AM nets in Texas, Central Texas? Thanks, 73's de Amateur Radio Station W5DVG Patrick Rogers From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sun May 15 08:44:35 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:44:35 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition Message-ID: AM operators: As many know by now, a ham in Missouri, James E. Whedbee N0ECN, has filed a petition for a rule change that is described as having to do with something harmless called a "symbol rate." The reality is that it is a stealth bandwidth limit petition. Buried in the text at paragraph 17 is a clause that would limit all analog phone below 28.5 MHz to 8 kc at the -20 dB points: 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes below 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice); between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., double-sidebanded analog AM voice); ... Here we go again just like 10 years ago with the failed "regulation by bandwidth" proposal from ARRL. For all the same reasons, we need to be against this by filing comments with FCC, who currently can't even catch a lot of the deliberate QRM and guys running 5 KW RF amplifiers. Imagine having to bandwidth limit your HT-9 or Gates broadcast rig. Oh, it can probably be done in some way, but do we need it? Does every AM operator need this regardless of band conditions, time of day, power level, and modulation method because some guy who doesn't even seem to be active thinks we need it (or he needs it). The ARRL news report is below with more information. 73 Rob K5UJ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ARLB016 Missouri Radio Amateur Petitions FCC to Designate "Symbol Communication" Subbands James E. Whedbee, N0ECN, of Gladstone, Missouri, has petitioned the FCC to designate Morse (radiotelegraphy) Amateur Radio band segments as "symbol communication" subbands. The FCC has invited comments on his Petition for Rule Making (RM-11769), filed on May 2. Arguing that retaining the current regime of "legacy" CW subbands has proven to be grossly inefficient, Whedbee said he'd like to see the FCC delete all privilege restrictions that limit any part of the Amateur Radio spectrum to Morse code to the exclusion of other modes. RM-11769 can be found on the web at, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 . "Nostalgia for retention of Morse code telegraphy-only subbands is also an insufficient reason to avoid moving forward to [the] elimination of such subbands, because nothing about this Petition suggests the elimination of the mode itself, only that it not be the sole authorized mode in the subject subbands," Whedbee told the FCC. Whedbee characterized CW-only subbands as "an excessive regulatory constraint, as well as a poor use of the spectrum concerned." He proposed that the FCC's Part 97 rules reflect the "ultimate form of communication reproduced at the receiving end." As he explained it, his regulatory scheme would break down modes into three categories - "symbol communication mode" - for CW, digital, and other emission modes that reproduce a discrete symbol on the receiving end - "voice mode," and "image mode." "[C]ontinuing regulation by specific emission designator is proving to be onerous with changes to the state of the art," Whedbee said. "Accordingly, to continue developing the state of the art in radiocommunications, Amateur Radio needs to clearly get away from regulating in that fashion and return to consideration of what the receiving end of the communication reproduces." He proposed that where the Part 97 rules refer to exclusive radiotelegraphy allocations - or subbands - privileges be changed to reflect symbol communication modes. Where the rules prohibit voice and image modes, he would revise the rules to reflect symbol communication modes. In situations where current rules prohibit symbol communication modes other than Morse, that voice and image modes would be permitted, "with an exception for manually keyed" radiotelegraphy. For example, he would drop the distinction between 75 meters and 80 meters, authorizing symbol communication modes between 3.5 MHz and 3.65 MHz, and voice and image modes between 3.65 MHz and 4 MHz, with manual radiotelegraphy authorized throughout the band. Whedbee told the FCC that, if his Petition is accepted for filing and put on public notice, he would submit an appendix spelling out proposed service rules as part of his Petition. Commenters have 30 days to respond to Whedbee's Petition. NNNN /EX From lexnonscripta at usa.com Sun May 15 10:36:00 2016 From: lexnonscripta at usa.com (mark) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:36:00 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <071d4cce-52ae-d99f-1b92-171b87032941@usa.com> Thank You for this information. I would propose that those of us who wish to respond to this petition become better acquainted with reasons NOT to limit the bandwidth, in whatever form we can. Perhaps people a little more knowledgeable on the subject can offer a few points as to why this is a bad idea, as well as reasons to promote wider bandwidths. We dont have to merely give reasons in opposition, but benefits. Once a list is compiled, we can write individual letters referencing the list. Just a thought. Best, Mark KD9CXH - formerly KA9FBX > AM operators: > > As many know by now, a ham in Missouri, James E. Whedbee N0ECN, has > filed a petition for a rule change that is described as having to do > with something harmless called a "symbol rate." > > The reality is that it is a stealth bandwidth limit petition. Buried > in the text at paragraph 17 is a clause that would limit all analog > phone below 28.5 MHz to 8 kc at the -20 dB points: > > 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes below > 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB > > bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice); > between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the > > 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., double-sidebanded > analog AM voice); ... > > > Here we go again just like 10 years ago with the failed "regulation by > bandwidth" proposal from ARRL. > > For all the same reasons, we need to be against this by filing > comments with FCC, who currently can't even catch a lot of the > deliberate QRM and guys running 5 KW RF amplifiers. Imagine having > to bandwidth limit your HT-9 or Gates broadcast rig. Oh, it can > probably be done in some way, but do we need it? Does every AM > operator need this regardless of band conditions, time of day, power > level, and modulation method because some guy who doesn't even seem to > be active thinks we need it (or he needs it). > > The ARRL news report is below with more information. > > > 73 > Rob > K5UJ > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > ARLB016 Missouri Radio Amateur Petitions FCC to Designate "Symbol > Communication" Subbands > > James E. Whedbee, N0ECN, of Gladstone, Missouri, has petitioned the > FCC to designate Morse (radiotelegraphy) Amateur Radio band segments > as "symbol communication" subbands. The FCC has invited comments on > his Petition for Rule Making (RM-11769), filed on May 2. Arguing > that retaining the current regime of "legacy" CW subbands has proven > to be grossly inefficient, Whedbee said he'd like to see the FCC > delete all privilege restrictions that limit any part of the Amateur > Radio spectrum to Morse code to the exclusion of other modes. > > RM-11769 can be found on the web at, > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 . > > "Nostalgia for retention of Morse code telegraphy-only subbands is > also an insufficient reason to avoid moving forward to [the] > elimination of such subbands, because nothing about this Petition > suggests the elimination of the mode itself, only that it not be the > sole authorized mode in the subject subbands," Whedbee told the FCC. > > Whedbee characterized CW-only subbands as "an excessive regulatory > constraint, as well as a poor use of the spectrum concerned." He > proposed that the FCC's Part 97 rules reflect the "ultimate form of > communication reproduced at the receiving end." As he explained it, > his regulatory scheme would break down modes into three categories - > "symbol communication mode" - for CW, digital, and other emission > modes that reproduce a discrete symbol on the receiving end - "voice > mode," and "image mode." > > "[C]ontinuing regulation by specific emission designator is proving > to be onerous with changes to the state of the art," Whedbee said. > "Accordingly, to continue developing the state of the art in > radiocommunications, Amateur Radio needs to clearly get away from > regulating in that fashion and return to consideration of what the > receiving end of the communication reproduces." > > He proposed that where the Part 97 rules refer to exclusive > radiotelegraphy allocations - or subbands - privileges be changed to > reflect symbol communication modes. Where the rules prohibit voice > and image modes, he would revise the rules to reflect symbol > communication modes. In situations where current rules prohibit > symbol communication modes other than Morse, that voice and image > modes would be permitted, "with an exception for manually keyed" > radiotelegraphy. > > For example, he would drop the distinction between 75 meters and 80 > meters, authorizing symbol communication modes between 3.5 MHz and > 3.65 MHz, and voice and image modes between 3.65 MHz and 4 MHz, with > manual radiotelegraphy authorized throughout the band. > > Whedbee told the FCC that, if his Petition is accepted for filing > and put on public notice, he would submit an appendix spelling out > proposed service rules as part of his Petition. > > Commenters have 30 days to respond to Whedbee's Petition. > NNNN > /EX > ______________________________________________________________ > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net > AMRadio mailing list > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with > the word unsubscribe in the message body. > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to lexnonscripta at usa.com > From manualman at juno.com Sun May 15 14:29:43 2016 From: manualman at juno.com (manualman at juno.com) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:29:43 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition Message-ID: The only reason I can think of to not limit the bandwidth is that it typically makes one sound better (for whatever that's worth). However, if you don't have a great sounding voice to start with, it won't make any difference. The implication in the proposal is that SSB signals probably could have a maximum bandwidth of 4 KHz. Overall, all of this, if applied, would just eat up band space and generate tons of adjancent channel interference. Frequency separation between adjacent transmitting stations would, most likely, have to be increased to prevent interference. As far as the CW sub-bands (80, 40, 15 meters), other then 60 meters, they're not really exclusive. They'e shared with RTTY and data. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 15 May 2016 09:36:00 -0500 mark writes: > Thank You for this information. > > I would propose that those of us who wish to respond to this > petition > become better acquainted with reasons NOT to limit the bandwidth, in > > whatever form we can. Perhaps people a little more knowledgeable on > the > subject can offer a few points as to why this is a bad idea, as well > as > reasons to promote wider bandwidths. We dont have to merely give > reasons in opposition, but benefits. > > Once a list is compiled, we can write individual letters referencing > the > list. > > Just a thought. > > Best, > > Mark KD9CXH - formerly KA9FBX > > AM operators: > > > > As many know by now, a ham in Missouri, James E. Whedbee N0ECN, > has > > filed a petition for a rule change that is described as having to > do > > with something harmless called a "symbol rate." > > > > The reality is that it is a stealth bandwidth limit petition. > Buried > > in the text at paragraph 17 is a clause that would limit all > analog > > phone below 28.5 MHz to 8 kc at the -20 dB points: > > > > 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes > below > > 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB > > > > bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice); > > between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the > > > > 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., > double-sidebanded > > analog AM voice); ... > > > > > > Here we go again just like 10 years ago with the failed > "regulation by > > bandwidth" proposal from ARRL. > > > > For all the same reasons, we need to be against this by filing > > comments with FCC, who currently can't even catch a lot of the > > deliberate QRM and guys running 5 KW RF amplifiers. Imagine > having > > to bandwidth limit your HT-9 or Gates broadcast rig. Oh, it can > > probably be done in some way, but do we need it? Does every AM > > operator need this regardless of band conditions, time of day, > power > > level, and modulation method because some guy who doesn't even seem > to > > be active thinks we need it (or he needs it). > > > > The ARRL news report is below with more information. > > > > > > 73 > > Rob > > K5UJ From k4kyv at charter.net Sun May 15 15:38:04 2016 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:38:04 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> The latest (RM-11769) in a flood of rulemaking petitions filed to the FCC since the first of this year, is one that the AM community should take seriously, and hopefully respond with formal comments to the FCC's ECFS. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display This proposal ostensibly requests the FCC to eliminate all references to specific modes currently allowed in the CW/RTTY/data sub-bands, re-designating those modes under the blanket term "symbol". Secondly the proposal seeks to expand the current CW-only Novice and Technician HF privileges to include all forms of RTTY/data up to a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 kHz (the same as the nominal bandwidth of SSB). CW-only privileges at 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1 MHz would be expanded in similar fashion. What should concern us most of all is obscurely buried way down in paragraph 17 of the Petition. This is in reality a back-door bandwidth proposal, imposing specific numerical limits to the occupied bandwidths of all modes of emission on all amateur frequencies. AM would be limited to a maximum occupied bandwidth of 8 kHz. This would change a long-standing FCC policy to avoid specific bandwidth limitations for most amateur radio transmissions. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Petition: 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes below 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice); between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., double-sidebanded analog AM voice). . . http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 As one can see, this would impose an identical bandwidth limit to SSB and to AM. In any case it would impose an additional enforcement burden on the FCC, and additional compliance burdens on hams. While 8.0 KHz may seem to many to be a reasonable bandwidth for the usual AM signal, there is no compelling reason at this time to suddenly impose specific enumerated limits to AM or any other mode, especially considering that band congestion has fallen off in recent years compared to what we have endured in the past. The current bandwidth rules, based on "good engineering and amateur practice" were intentionally left vague to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and self-instruction in the radio art. See ?97.307(a) and (c). As just one example, what is wrong with running additional bandwidth with a clean signal when a certain band is lightly occupied, as on 75m and 160m during daylight hours, when an undistorted signal of twice that bandwidth would unlikely cause anyone a problem? Given the current lack of FCC enforcement of existing rules, particularly Part 15 and Part 18 limitations on harmful RFI radiation, and the FCC's apparent inaction on all but the most egregious violations of rules against deliberate ham-on-ham interference, what would be the point to now add new rules directing the Commission to further micro-manage amateur radio operation? The FCC released the Public Notice on 11 May 2016, announcing this Petition as RM-11769. Interested persons may file statements opposing or supporting this Petition within 30 days, with the deadline for comments falling on 10 June, 2016. From ne1s at securespeed.us Sun May 15 16:47:24 2016 From: ne1s at securespeed.us (Larry Szendrei) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:47:24 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1debed68-1743-2d73-bcea-f6f150f1b4ed@securespeed.us> On 5/15/16 2:29 PM, manualman at juno.com wrote: > The only reason I can think of to not limit the bandwidth is that it > typically makes one sound better (for whatever that's worth). How about these reasons: (1) It's another -unnecessary- restriction on our freedoms which we should not tolerate. (2) It's an attempt to fix something that's not broke. (3) It's something that the FCC will not have the resources, and possibly not even the desire, to enforce. (4) Some stock commercially-manufactured amateur transmitters of days-gone-by may not be able to meet that specification and therefore would become illegal. For example, I recently "swept" 3 different Central Electronics 20A exciters in good operating condition (and recently properly-aligned), and measure relative output vs. frequency for both the desired and undesired sideband in the SSB mode. None of them would meet the 8Kc @ 20dB spec EVEN IN SSB modes. This is because at audio frequencies above 3.5 Kc or so, the passive audio phasing network can't maintain it's +/- 45 degree phase relationship between the two audio channels which is necessary for cancellation of the undesired sideband, and hence those frequencies make it into the undesired sideband with minimal attenuation. The only way to meet this spec would be to severely restrict the audio bandwidth by making modifications to the speech amp or adding some sort of filter. (I did the latter to one of mine, as it's a rig I use regularly on those occasions I operate SSB, and I choose to occupy a channel width that's appropriate for the mode). Probably several other good reasons exist, but that's just off the top of my head. 73, -Larry/NE1S From oldrotorheadsarge at outlook.com Sun May 15 16:51:23 2016 From: oldrotorheadsarge at outlook.com (Robert Bethman) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 20:51:23 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> References: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> Message-ID: I can't determine if this individual is licensed or not. Even an address lookup finds nothing. It is obvious that he has intentions that are not in the best interests of the Amateur Service in a very broad way. I will definitely read the entirety, and craft a formal comment shortly. Regards, N0DGN Bob -----Original Message----- From: AMRadio [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Donald Chester Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 3:38 PM To: 'Rob Atkinson' ; 'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service' Subject: Re: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition The latest (RM-11769) in a flood of rulemaking petitions filed to the FCC since the first of this year, is one that the AM community should take seriously, and hopefully respond with formal comments to the FCC's ECFS. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display This proposal ostensibly requests the FCC to eliminate all references to specific modes currently allowed in the CW/RTTY/data sub-bands, re-designating those modes under the blanket term "symbol". Secondly the proposal seeks to expand the current CW-only Novice and Technician HF privileges to include all forms of RTTY/data up to a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 kHz (the same as the nominal bandwidth of SSB). CW-only privileges at 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1 MHz would be expanded in similar fashion. What should concern us most of all is obscurely buried way down in paragraph 17 of the Petition. This is in reality a back-door bandwidth proposal, imposing specific numerical limits to the occupied bandwidths of all modes of emission on all amateur frequencies. AM would be limited to a maximum occupied bandwidth of 8 kHz. This would change a long-standing FCC policy to avoid specific bandwidth limitations for most amateur radio transmissions. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Petition: 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes below 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice); between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., double-sidebanded analog AM voice). . . http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 As one can see, this would impose an identical bandwidth limit to SSB and to AM. In any case it would impose an additional enforcement burden on the FCC, and additional compliance burdens on hams. While 8.0 KHz may seem to many to be a reasonable bandwidth for the usual AM signal, there is no compelling reason at this time to suddenly impose specific enumerated limits to AM or any other mode, especially considering that band congestion has fallen off in recent years compared to what we have endured in the past. The current bandwidth rules, based on "good engineering and amateur practice" were intentionally left vague to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and self-instruction in the radio art. See ?97.307(a) and (c). As just one example, what is wrong with running additional bandwidth with a clean signal when a certain band is lightly occupied, as on 75m and 160m during daylight hours, when an undistorted signal of twice that bandwidth would unlikely cause anyone a problem? Given the current lack of FCC enforcement of existing rules, particularly Part 15 and Part 18 limitations on harmful RFI radiation, and the FCC's apparent inaction on all but the most egregious violations of rules against deliberate ham-on-ham interference, what would be the point to now add new rules directing the Commission to further micro-manage amateur radio operation? The FCC released the Public Notice on 11 May 2016, announcing this Petition as RM-11769. Interested persons may file statements opposing or supporting this Petition within 30 days, with the deadline for comments falling on 10 June, 2016. From mikebracey at att.net Sun May 15 16:57:13 2016 From: mikebracey at att.net (Mike Bracey) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 20:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> References: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> Message-ID: <1120139284.2999766.1463345833193.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Don, I would like to comment to the FCC. However, I must have taken too much allergy medication today. I can't seem to find the place to file a comment on the FCC website. 73, Mike / KE5YTV From: Donald Chester To: 'Rob Atkinson' ; 'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service' Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition The latest (RM-11769) in a flood of rulemaking petitions filed to the FCC since the first of this year, is one that the AM community should take seriously, and hopefully respond with formal comments to the FCC's ECFS. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display This proposal ostensibly requests the FCC to eliminate all references to specific modes currently allowed in the CW/RTTY/data sub-bands, re-designating those modes under the blanket term "symbol". Secondly the proposal seeks to expand the current CW-only Novice and Technician HF privileges to include all forms of RTTY/data up to a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 kHz (the same as the nominal bandwidth of SSB). CW-only privileges at 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1 MHz would be expanded in similar fashion. What should concern us most of all is obscurely buried way down in paragraph 17 of the Petition. This is in reality a back-door bandwidth proposal, imposing specific numerical limits to the occupied bandwidths of all modes of emission on all amateur frequencies. AM would be limited to a maximum occupied bandwidth of 8 kHz. This would change a long-standing FCC policy to avoid specific bandwidth limitations for most amateur radio transmissions. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Petition: 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes below 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice); between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., double-sidebanded analog AM voice). . . http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 As one can see, this would impose an identical bandwidth limit to SSB and to AM. In any case it would impose an additional enforcement burden on the FCC, and additional compliance burdens on hams. While 8.0 KHz may seem to many to be a reasonable bandwidth for the usual AM signal, there is no compelling reason at this time to suddenly impose specific enumerated limits to AM or any other mode, especially considering that band congestion has fallen off in recent years compared to what we have endured in the past. The current bandwidth rules, based on "good engineering and amateur practice" were intentionally left vague to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and self-instruction in the radio art. See ?97.307(a) and (c). As just one example, what is wrong with running additional bandwidth with a clean signal when a certain band is lightly occupied, as on 75m and 160m during daylight hours, when an undistorted signal of twice that bandwidth would unlikely cause anyone a problem? Given the current lack of FCC enforcement of existing rules, particularly Part 15 and Part 18 limitations on harmful RFI radiation, and the FCC's apparent inaction on all but the most egregious violations of rules against deliberate ham-on-ham interference, what would be the point to now add new rules directing the Commission to further micro-manage amateur radio operation? The FCC released the Public Notice on 11 May 2016, announcing this Petition as RM-11769. Interested persons may file statements opposing or supporting this Petition within 30 days, with the deadline for comments falling on 10 June, 2016. ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net/ AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net/ Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to mikebracey at att.net From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sun May 15 17:01:41 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:01:41 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: References: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> Message-ID: The guy who filed the petition is in the KC MO area and has been a Tech. class ham since around 1990 from what I recall, then he upgraded to General in 2011. He doesn't appear to be particularly active, if a qrz.com webpage number of lookups figure is anything to go by. I know, some will scoff at that metric, but over the years, I have observed a genuine correlation between number of lookups and operating activity with hams who have had a callsign for at least a few years and who are operating regularly, having at least a couple thousand lookups. Cyberhams, shack-on-a-belt types, guys who got a ticket for the hell of it but never set up a station are the ones with around 100 lookups. Rob K5UJ On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Robert Bethman wrote: > I can't determine if this individual is licensed or not. Even an address lookup finds nothing. > > It is obvious that he has intentions that are not in the best interests of the Amateur Service in a very broad way. > > I will definitely read the entirety, and craft a formal comment shortly. > > Regards, N0DGN > Bob From w5jo at brightok.net Sun May 15 17:06:51 2016 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:06:51 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: <1120139284.2999766.1463345833193.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> <1120139284.2999766.1463345833193.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Mike try this http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ Jim W5JO -----Original Message----- From: Mike Bracey Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 3:57 PM To: Donald Chester ; 'Rob Atkinson' ; 'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service' Subject: Re: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition Hi Don, I would like to comment to the FCC. However, I must have taken too much allergy medication today. I can't seem to find the place to file a comment on the FCC website. 73, Mike / KE5YTV From w5jo at brightok.net Sun May 15 17:43:32 2016 From: w5jo at brightok.net (w5jo at brightok.net) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:43:32 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> References: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> Message-ID: <409955AB66B54DFDB74A79961A26013B@JimPC> Ladies and Gentlemen, When replying to this topic please watch cross posting to another reflector. Not that is matters other than confusion as to some members of the other reflector. Some one has cross posted to Boatanchors and, while many of the members there are members on AM Radio, some are not and may not understand the topic. Jim W5JO Moderator From edwmullin at aol.com Sun May 15 18:03:57 2016 From: edwmullin at aol.com (edwmullin at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 18:03:57 -0400 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> Message-ID: <154b6727f57-fc3-12edf@webstg-m05.mail.aol.com> I've filed in opposition,? I lifted some very good parts from Don's email below. -Ed/KB1HYS -----Original Message----- From: Donald Chester To: 'Rob Atkinson' ; 'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service' Sent: Sun, May 15, 2016 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition The latest (RM-11769) in a flood of rulemaking petitions filed to the FCC since the first of this year, is one that the AM community should take seriously, and hopefully respond with formal comments to the FCC's ECFS. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display This proposal ostensibly requests the FCC to eliminate all references to specific modes currently allowed in the CW/RTTY/data sub-bands, re-designating those modes under the blanket term "symbol". Secondly the proposal seeks to expand the current CW-only Novice and Technician HF privileges to include all forms of RTTY/data up to a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 kHz (the same as the nominal bandwidth of SSB). CW-only privileges at 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1 MHz would be expanded in similar fashion. What should concern us most of all is obscurely buried way down in paragraph 17 of the Petition. This is in reality a back-door bandwidth proposal, imposing specific numerical limits to the occupied bandwidths of all modes of emission on all amateur frequencies. AM would be limited to a maximum occupied bandwidth of 8 kHz. This would change a long-standing FCC policy to avoid specific bandwidth limitations for most amateur radio transmissions. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Petition: 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes below 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice); between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., double-sidebanded analog AM voice). . . http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 As one can see, this would impose an identical bandwidth limit to SSB and to AM. In any case it would impose an additional enforcement burden on the FCC, and additional compliance burdens on hams. While 8.0 KHz may seem to many to be a reasonable bandwidth for the usual AM signal, there is no compelling reason at this time to suddenly impose specific enumerated limits to AM or any other mode, especially considering that band congestion has fallen off in recent years compared to what we have endured in the past. The current bandwidth rules, based on "good engineering and amateur practice" were intentionally left vague to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and self-instruction in the radio art. See ?97.307(a) and (c). As just one example, what is wrong with running additional bandwidth with a clean signal when a certain band is lightly occupied, as on 75m and 160m during daylight hours, when an undistorted signal of twice that bandwidth would unlikely cause anyone a problem? Given the current lack of FCC enforcement of existing rules, particularly Part 15 and Part 18 limitations on harmful RFI radiation, and the FCC's apparent inaction on all but the most egregious violations of rules against deliberate ham-on-ham interference, what would be the point to now add new rules directing the Commission to further micro-manage amateur radio operation? The FCC released the Public Notice on 11 May 2016, announcing this Petition as RM-11769. Interested persons may file statements opposing or supporting this Petition within 30 days, with the deadline for comments falling on 10 June, 2016. ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to edwmullin at aol.com From mjcal77 at yahoo.com Sun May 15 18:59:54 2016 From: mjcal77 at yahoo.com (CL in NC) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 22:59:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition References: <489796875.2845177.1463353194565.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <489796875.2845177.1463353194565.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Well, I am pretty sure after reviewing the proposal of this semantic conscious ham in the midwest, when I write my ARRL representatives about my concern on this new proposal, I will: 1- Not get a reply; 2- Get a reply that touts the state of the art and how we should look to move ahead.; 3- Get a reply that says the ARRL is always observant and protective of out spectrum rights. Sometimes the teats and boar analogy applies when trying to motivate our only hobby wide national spokesmen. Charlie, W4MEC in NC From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sun May 15 20:38:25 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:38:25 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: <489796875.2845177.1463353194565.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <489796875.2845177.1463353194565.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <489796875.2845177.1463353194565.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Charlie, the ARRL has nothing to do with it. It's a waste of time to comment to them. This thing is before the FCC. You have to comment to the FCC if you want any voice or vote. 73 Rob K5UJ On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:59 PM, CL in NC via AMRadio wrote: > Well, I am pretty sure after reviewing the proposal of this semantic conscious ham in the midwest, when I write my ARRL representatives about my concern on this new proposal, I will: 1- Not get a reply; 2- Get a reply that touts the state of the art and how we should look to move ahead.; 3- Get a reply that says the ARRL is always observant and protective of out spectrum rights. Sometimes the teats and boar analogy applies when trying to motivate our only hobby wide national spokesmen. From k4kyv at charter.net Sun May 15 22:30:59 2016 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 21:30:59 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition In-Reply-To: <1120139284.2999766.1463345833193.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net> <1120139284.2999766.1463345833193.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003b01d1af1a$fb889da0$f299d8e0$@charter.net> 1. Type your comments as a Word document, or plain text document. 2. Go to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ 3 In the ? ECFS Main Links? menu at the left-hand of the page, click on ?Submit a filing?. That should bring you to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display 4. Type ?RM-11769? in the box that asks for ?proceeding number? at the top of the page. Fill in the rest of the information requested on the form. 5. At the bottom of the page, submit your comments as an attachment, just as you would with an e-mail. 6. Click on the ?Continue? button and follow instructions from there. I would like to comment to the FCC. However, I must have taken too much allergy medication today. I can't seem to find the place to file a comment on the FCC website. 73, Mike / KE5YTV From k4kyv at charter.net Mon May 16 15:34:47 2016 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:34:47 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] [CW] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands Message-ID: <001c01d1afaa$019729c0$04c57d40$@charter.net> RM-11769 is the latest of a flood of rulemaking petitions that have been filed to the FCC since the first of this year, but one I recommend we take seriously, and respond with formal comments to the FCC ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display The proposal ostensibly requests the FCC to eliminate all references to specific modes currently allowed in the CW/RTTY/data sub-bands, re-designating those modes under the blanket term "symbol". Secondly the proposal seeks to expand the current CW-only Novice/Technician HF privileges to include all forms of RTTY/data, up to a maximum bandwidth of 2.8 kHz (the same as the nominal bandwidth of SSB). The CW-only segments at 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1 MHz segments would be expanded in similar fashion. The petitioner has not proposed to eliminate what we know as the "CW bands"; these have been shared with RTTY and data ever since RTTY was first allowed, shortly after WWII. The only CW bands affected would be the Novice and Technician privileges on 80, 40 and 15, since Novices and Techs are presently allowed to run only CW in those bands. The petitioner wants to expand their privileges to RTTY/data. Privileges in the existing CW-only sub-bands on 6M and 2M would be similarly expanded. ARRL proposed a similar expansion in their petition RM-11759, now officially closed to comments. The change in nomenclature of the sub-bands from CW/RTTY/data to "symbol" is only a matter of semantics, similar to the change in the phone bands from AM/SSB/NBFM/SSTV to "phone/image" and would have no effect on operating privileges. As I see it, that is the ONLY thing in this entire petition that might actually have some merit. What should concern us most, obscurely buried way down in paragraph 17 of the Petition, is that this is in reality a back-door regulation-by- bandwidth proposal, imposing specific numerical limits to the occupied bandwidths of all modes of emission on all amateur frequencies. This would change a longstanding regulatory policy, probably dating back to the creation of the FCC all way up to now, which has been to avoid specific bandwidth limits for most amateur radio transmissions, for the stated reason of allowing amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and self-instruction in the radio art. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Petition (scroll down to Paragraph 17): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 Specific bandwidth would serve no useful purpose and would impose an additional enforcement burden on the FCC, and additional compliance burdens on hams. There is no reason now to suddenly impose specific enumerated limits to all modes, especially considering that band congestion has fallen off in recent years compared to what we have endured in the past. The current bandwidth rules, based on "good engineering and amateur practice" were intentionally left vague to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and self-instruction in the radio art. See ?97.307(a) and (c). Considering the current lack of FCC enforcement of existing rules, particularly Part 15 and Part 18 limitations on harmful RFI radiation, and inaction on all but the most egregious violations of rules against deliberate interference by amateur operators, in is questionable that new rules be added, directing the Commission to further micro-manage amateur radio operation. The greatest threat to CW operators in this, as well as the ARRL's recent petition to change the 80/75m phone/CW/automatic controlled digital sub-bands (RM-11759), is the matter of allowing digital data white noise to operate throughout the narrow-band (CW)sub-bands with a nominal bandwidth up to 2.8 kHz, the same as SSB phone and SSTV. If wide-band digital signals are to be allowed in the CW bands, why not SSB and SSTV? Analogue SSB would actually generate less QRM than digital data white-noise hash to CW operators. The FCC released a Public Notice on 11 May 2016, announcing this Petition as RM-11769. Interested persons may file statements opposing or supporting this Petition within 30 days, with the deadline for comments falling on 10 June, 2016. Don k4kyv From oldrotorheadsarge at outlook.com Mon May 16 17:41:12 2016 From: oldrotorheadsarge at outlook.com (Robert Bethman) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 21:41:12 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] RM-11769 Petition Message-ID: All, Upon downloading and going through the entire Petition, it is very puzzling. The petitioner is calling for "State of the Art Methodology/Communications", yet puts forth that computerized or electronic means of sending or receiving CW be replaced with "MANUAL CW". When this is put into the proper perspective, this petition is self-contradictory! The totality is essentially Swiss Cheese in its message/proposal. I indeed will submit a Formal Comment! Regards to All, Bob N0DGN From k4kyv at charter.net Wed May 18 00:19:06 2016 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 23:19:06 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] [CW] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands Message-ID: <001501d1b0bc$6afcaee0$40f60ca0$@charter.net> Looking over the comments to RM-11769, I see it has already drawn over 300 responses. I took a random sample of about a dozen comments, and the good news is that every single one I looked at was opposed to the petition. The bad news is, apparently, many CW operators have misinterpreted what is being proposed, and have been led to believe that the petition asks to "eliminate the exclusive CW sub-bands" and allow RTTY, data and other digital noise in our traditional CW bands. Typically, the comments I read went something like this, "I have been operating CW for 40 years. Please leave the CW bands alone." In reality, RTTY/data/digital noise has already been allowed for years; the "CW bands" haven't been ?exclusively CW? since RTTY was first introduced to amateur privileges, right after WWII. There are no ?exclusively CW? sub-bands on HF. The only thing that is "exclusively CW" on HF are Novice and Technician privileges. The bottom 100 kHz of 6m and 2m are the only exclusively CW amateur band segments. What the guy is proposing for HF in this regard is to change the name of the ?CW/RTTY/data? sub-bands to "symbol" in the wording of Part 97 rules, consistently as the phone bands were previously re-named "phone" instead of AM/SSB/SSTV - just a matter of semantics, except for the part about allowing Novices and Techs to run RTTY and digital data on HF (which I oppose, since with the General class exam so easy, let them upgrade if they want to run digital hash on HF). But he does want to eliminate the exclusively-CW rule and add RTTY/data to the 50.0-50.1 MHz and 144.0-144.1 MHz segments. As I see it, we have a problem because of what appears to be a widespread misinterpretation of the petition; this may cause the FCC to simply consider 95% of the commenters ill-informed and blow off the comments in opposition. That means some of us should compose some well thought-out comments, expressing opposition to the bandwidth proposals. A few of the commenters did apparently get a better grasp of exactly what is being proposed, and expressed opposition to allowing digital data with a bandwidth of up to 2.8 kHz in the so-called CW bands. If they are to open the CW bands up to 2.8-kHz wide digital hash, they might just as well allow SSB too, which would actually cause less disruption to CW operation than would 2.8 kHz of digital white noise. This petitioner is also proposing specific, enumerated bandwidth limits for ALL modes used in amateur radio, which would impose an additional enforcement burden on the FCC and additional compliance burdens on hams. While 8.0 KHz may seem to many to be a reasonable maximum bandwidth for the usual AM signal, there is no compelling reason at this time to suddenly impose specific, enumerated limits to AM or any other mode, especially considering that band congestion has fallen off in recent years compared to what we have endured in the past. This proposal would make no distinction between the bandwidths of double-sideband AM and that of single-sideband; they would both be limited to 8 kHz maximum. The current bandwidth rules, based on "good engineering and amateur practice" were intentionally left vague to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and self-instruction in the radio art. See ?97.307(a) and (c). Given the current lack of FCC enforcement of existing rules, particularly Part 15 and Part 18 limitations on harmful RFI radiation, and the FCC's apparent inaction on all but the most egregious violations of rules against deliberate ham-on-ham interference, what would be the point in now adding new rules directing the Commission to further micro-manage amateur radio operation? The FCC released the Public Notice on 11 May 2016, announcing this Petition as RM-11769. Interested persons may file statements opposing or supporting this Petition within 30 days, with the deadline for comments falling on 10 June, 2016. Don k4kyv PS: To view the comments submitted so far, go to the FCC web page below. You may have to manually copy and paste the URL into the address bar of your browser, since the Reflector software may add line breaks that render the link inoperative. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search_solr/doSearch?proceeding=RM-11769&ap plicant=&lawfirm=&author=&disseminated.minDate=&disseminated.maxDate=&receiv ed.minDate=&received.maxDate=&dateCommentPeriod.minDate=&dateCommentPeriod.m axDate=&dateReplyComment.minDate=&dateReplyComment.maxDate=&address.city=&ad dress.state.stateCd=&address.zip=&daNumber=&fileNumber=&bureauIdentification Number=&reportNumber=&submissionType=&__checkbox_exParte=true From k4kyv at charter.net Wed May 18 02:33:29 2016 From: k4kyv at charter.net (Donald Chester) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 01:33:29 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands (Bandwidth petition) Message-ID: <000101d1b0cf$313b1710$93b14530$@charter.net> Here is an example of a commenter who understood the proposal. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001740065 Here is an example of a one who misinterpreted it. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001740081 Unfortunately, when browsing through the comments I see a lot more of ones like the latter, than I see like the former. Don k4kyv From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Wed May 18 06:09:56 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 05:09:56 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] [CW] Elimination of CW-Only Sub-bands In-Reply-To: <001501d1b0bc$6afcaee0$40f60ca0$@charter.net> References: <001501d1b0bc$6afcaee0$40f60ca0$@charter.net> Message-ID: >While 8.0 KHz may seem to many to be a reasonable maximum bandwidth for the >usual AM signal, there is no compelling reason at this time to suddenly >impose specific, enumerated limits to AM or any other mode, especially >considering that band congestion has fallen off in recent years compared to >what we have endured in the past. This proposal would make no distinction >between the bandwidths of double-sideband AM and that of single-sideband; >they would both be limited to 8 kHz maximum. In addition, I understand the petition specified the 8 kc limit at the -20 dB points. I and I am sure others, do not know exactly how that translates to practical bandwidth, especially with a vintage rig. The petitioner is evidently not an operator of many of the modes he seeks to regulate, for if he were, at least for AM, he'd be aware of this difficulty. I want to not focus on the nerve of a relatively new ham trying to force his radio world-view on the rest of us, and instead address the problem of X kc at -Y dB. The past bandwidth attempt put the occupied bandwidth at -6 dB, which is similar to IF filter specifications and I think is more of a standard. I don't know how that translates to -20 dB and I guess it depends on the particular transmitter as to its practical bandwidth for received audio (assuming a receiver with the necessary passband), so measurement ability is needed by each operator, I lack that capability and I have no intention of buying a computer spectrum display rig to perform it just for this one requirement. Perhaps the petitioner assumes everyone runs a plastic radio and this is not an issue. In any event, it is a moot point because as Don stated, any numerical bandwidth limit rule is amateur radio re-regulation which is simply not needed. Rob K5UJ From nq5t at tx.rr.com Sat May 28 14:56:55 2016 From: nq5t at tx.rr.com (GRANT YOUNGMAN) Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 13:56:55 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] 80/40M K7DYY Super Senior Message-ID: <563316F7-4AAA-4C1A-9EEA-7E195FDA6BDC@tx.rr.com> Early last year I ordered an 80/40M Super Senior. By the time it was built and arrived in June 2015, we had decided to relocate from Dallas, TX to Savannah, GA. The shack and antennas were already being torn down and packed, and as it's turned out, I'm moving into a townhome community on Wilmington Island, GA with nasty and radio-unfriendly CC&R's. I had a good 25 years in antenna friendly country, but now it's her turn ? I'm learning to love battery powered QRP on a picnic bench or camp table with mostly invisible antennas :-) But I'll likely never have an opportunity to make good use of the SS. So ? I have a virtually new and unused SS for sale. On the air exactly 3 times before the last of the antennas came down a week after I got the radio. I cannot find the cable with the 4-pin mic connector on it for audio input, so it will also cost you a couple of bucks for a connector. I do have the 8-pin aux connector, but you may have to rewire it depending on whether your muting system needs NO or NC contacts. And all original docs. $1160 shipped with Paypal ? or $1100 cash for local DF/W pickup or delivery at Ham-Com. Grant NQ5T From nq5t at tx.rr.com Sat May 28 15:12:27 2016 From: nq5t at tx.rr.com (GRANT YOUNGMAN) Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 14:12:27 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] 80/40M K7DYY Super Senior In-Reply-To: <563316F7-4AAA-4C1A-9EEA-7E195FDA6BDC@tx.rr.com> References: <563316F7-4AAA-4C1A-9EEA-7E195FDA6BDC@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: PS ? this includes the K7DYY Mk II D-104 audio processor, new and never installed. Grant NQ5T K3 #2091, KX3 #8342 > On May 28, 2016, at 1:56 PM, GRANT YOUNGMAN wrote: > > Early last year I ordered an 80/40M Super Senior. By the time it was built and arrived in June 2015, we had decided to relocate from Dallas, TX to Savannah, GA. The shack and antennas were already being torn down and packed, and as it's turned out, I'm moving into a townhome community on Wilmington Island, GA with nasty and radio-unfriendly CC&R's. I had a good 25 years in antenna friendly country, but now it's her turn ? I'm learning to love battery powered QRP on a picnic bench or camp table with mostly invisible antennas :-) But I'll likely never have an opportunity to make good use of the SS. > > So ? I have a virtually new and unused SS for sale. On the air exactly 3 times before the last of the antennas came down a week after I got the radio. I cannot find the cable with the 4-pin mic connector on it for audio input, so it will also cost you a couple of bucks for a connector. I do have the 8-pin aux connector, but you may have to rewire it depending on whether your muting system needs NO or NC contacts. And all original docs. > > $1160 shipped with Paypal ? or $1100 cash for local DF/W pickup or delivery at Ham-Com. > > Grant NQ5T > ______________________________________________________________ From ranchorobbo at gmail.com Sat May 28 15:29:44 2016 From: ranchorobbo at gmail.com (Rob Atkinson) Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 14:29:44 -0500 Subject: [AMRadio] 80/40M K7DYY Super Senior In-Reply-To: <563316F7-4AAA-4C1A-9EEA-7E195FDA6BDC@tx.rr.com> References: <563316F7-4AAA-4C1A-9EEA-7E195FDA6BDC@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: > I'm learning to love battery powered QRP on a picnic bench or camp table with mostly invisible antennas :-) Grant, GL. All I ask is that you don't do like some of these nitwits and start blathering in print and on-line about how everything is good and satisfying and regular normal antennas aren't needed. The antenna hating / RF fear nut cases don't need any more bloviating they can use in court as justification for ordering some poor guy's antennas to come down. We all know the stealth #$%^ isn't _that_ good. The magazines are already full of glowing claims of stealth QRP nirvana from those who probably never had a decent antenna. Maybe you can operate AM piss weak with a Ranger or plate modulated Adventurer. Sometimes it works late at night in winter. Hpe to work you in Ga. 73 Rob K5UJ From w5jv at hotmail.com Sat May 28 16:35:56 2016 From: w5jv at hotmail.com (Doug Hensley) Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 20:35:56 +0000 Subject: [AMRadio] Heavy Iron For Sale in Central Louisiana Message-ID: Getting at that age where I need to think/deal with two projects I have. Look up my call (W5JV) on the QRZ ham call site and scroll to the bottom of the page. The 300G is shown working before we moved it. The heavy transformers, cabinet side, etc. were taken out to lighten it and a piano mover moved it off a U-Haul. The 30J-x is highly incomplete but the cabinet, power suppy & RF Coil frame are there. Would make a nice "roll your own" project for the engineer trained. Serious minded inquiries only; curiosity seeks will be ignored. Cheers, Doug W5JV

This page last updated 23 Oct 2017.