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: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>

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: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aed37c2f-a1b5-ab12-070a-60d9657ae7dd@securespeed.us>

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: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
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: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<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: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D594FEF5CAF4A8C80EEFB4F16819C46@JimPC>
	<000d01d1a3e9$4c6267c0$e5273740$@embarqmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALWD7Z6Enp9WHE2SwuGpqPqZg3Lq8HHMc8iJUxFcogtAoFG6xw@mail.gmail.com>

Bob and Jim and Larry, good comments.

Rob
K5UJ

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Bob. W4WSZ <w4wsz at embarqmail.com> 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: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM3PR14MB0896D8DA9A17D5C8151FDD5DBE780@DM3PR14MB0896.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

Then I have a small fortune in 5R4's, must have 15 or 20 of them.

Bill - K5MIL

________________________________________
From: AMRadio <amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>
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: <DM3PR14MB0896D8DA9A17D5C8151FDD5DBE780@DM3PR14MB0896.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALWD7Z463s-fLFOf6O_Q4PU9sfzFFmJ1SiwwCKddEZeAyKt-fQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM3PR14MB0896D8DA9A17D5C8151FDD5DBE780@DM3PR14MB0896.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CALWD7Z4BvGzxReg+AU1UQsAN6gVnJxcbgpcDDXXTrwt6FqSPZQ@mail.gmail.com>

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 <nbcblue at hotmail.com> 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: <CALWD7Z4TJT1FXEQAEvhSK=WK_a4NLF44jOyT6vHOcokY8QCntw@mail.gmail.com>

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: <CALWD7Z5YU0C=_eNd_ok5XqgiPvriUcuiNOAS7YhFUCE=g1MG_Q@mail.gmail.com>

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>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: <CALWD7Z6hD=xRbZvikea5cTtVJ==0=mSWS_9wKyfUQWbCaiCjrg@mail.gmail.com>

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 <hro5-2 at cox.net> 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>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: <CALWD7Z6rS+=pj4pw_PFgEWYb=oW-9==2ooeZsr3OtTek19Yxrg@mail.gmail.com>

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: <CALWD7Z6hD=xRbZvikea5cTtVJ==0=mSWS_9wKyfUQWbCaiCjrg@mail.g
	mail.com>
References: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net>
	<CALWD7Z6hD=xRbZvikea5cTtVJ==0=mSWS_9wKyfUQWbCaiCjrg@mail.gmail.com>
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 <hro5-2 at cox.net> 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>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>
	<CALWD7Z6hD=xRbZvikea5cTtVJ==0=mSWS_9wKyfUQWbCaiCjrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160514041124.ROAX22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net>
Message-ID: <CALWD7Z4HS9yOeP881WkPdFV-kjcHK2Qqd7FpJFGYh1nNHmm7og@mail.gmail.com>

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 <hro5-2 at cox.net> 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: <CALWD7Z4HS9yOeP881WkPdFV-kjcHK2Qqd7FpJFGYh1nNHmm7og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160512051435.GASM2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net><CALWD7Z6hD=xRbZvikea5cTtVJ==0=mSWS_9wKyfUQWbCaiCjrg@mail.gmail.com><20160514041124.ROAX22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net>
	<CALWD7Z4HS9yOeP881WkPdFV-kjcHK2Qqd7FpJFGYh1nNHmm7og@mail.gmail.com>
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: <CALWD7Z5zY3_5+HGqqH1fxQ7ZEbi9517m8HAFmHMbWSQBivnF-g@mail.gmail.com>

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: <CALWD7Z4htC6HA2h6L-4_ftRS42x6WULEF7qsjcfWF=5jdRVrLg@mail.gmail.com>

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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>

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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
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: <AABMVTSG7AE6K7S2@smtpout01.vgs.untd.com>

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 <lexnonscripta at usa.com> 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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
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: <AABMVTSG7AE6K7S2@smtpout01.vgs.untd.com>
References: <AABMVTSG7AE6K7S2@smtpout01.vgs.untd.com>
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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net>
Message-ID: <CY1PR07MB22472A0A65DBBC5F08836B1AA5760@CY1PR07MB2247.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

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' <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>; 'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service' <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<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 <k4kyv at charter.net>
 To: 'Rob Atkinson' <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>; 'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service' <amradio at mailman.qth.net> 
 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: <CY1PR07MB22472A0A65DBBC5F08836B1AA5760@CY1PR07MB2247.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net>
	<CY1PR07MB22472A0A65DBBC5F08836B1AA5760@CY1PR07MB2247.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CALWD7Z6P1pP-E7jX3RVrrEt1TR-ZWfp6gty+_3YxavN7ks7gTQ@mail.gmail.com>

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
<oldrotorheadsarge at outlook.com> 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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com><002001d1aee1$4cfa4600$e6eed200$@charter.net>
	<1120139284.2999766.1463345833193.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D52D041CC7DE4A329395454EFC7A860F@JimPC>

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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<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 <k4kyv at charter.net>
To: 'Rob Atkinson' <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>; 'Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service' <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
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: <CALWD7Z6W0BPAZ_CpjDtpfYKuj=TG5fff390aZUPu+meWBPHxXA@mail.gmail.com>

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
<amradio at mailman.qth.net> 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: <CALWD7Z5F_DkarrhVFhFm=RdD9gQrC8F53HvQFFiiearBcd2LXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<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: <CY1PR07MB22470D2C14F1A273E415AC6CA5770@CY1PR07MB2247.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

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: <CALWD7Z6TmF0cyG_iDR_dfRna4ocvFB38P+Vcad3ouFgDkWYG9w@mail.gmail.com>

>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: <B5E94D81-6D95-41FF-8A9A-4A487BD90969@tx.rr.com>

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 <nq5t at tx.rr.com> 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: <CALWD7Z54SZAch5JKfeGh_BcNfuoYrfGBzqiTywGX3-18aQyTLw@mail.gmail.com>

> 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: <CY1PR15MB06157E484344715F3B9431A891430@CY1PR15MB0615.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>

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







