[Milsurplus] Mil HF rigs not NTIA compliant

[Dick]

Every time someone starts talking about the "experts" in government, I just
point out how those "experts" created the 11 meter CB band for "Personal,
local communications."  Why didn't they choose VHF or UHF instead of what
was the lower end of our 10 meter band that can be used for DXing in band
openings?  They also tried to prohibit DXing on CB.  That's what led to the
colorful "handles" on CB.  The CBers started using them instead of their
call signs for illegal DXing.  Oh, and don't forget that the original CB
licenses didn't contain an N, W, K, or A as the first character, as required
by the international agreement the U.S. signed decades go.  In 1959, I tried
to be a legal CBer and obtained a license.  The issued call sign was 1Q7162.
Later, they had to accede to the international rules and changed all the
call signs.  By that time, the genie was out of the bottle and CB licenses
went the way of the dodo bird.

73,

Dick W1NMZ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Gottlieb" <nerd at verizon.net>
To: <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: 13 September, 2004 17:49
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Mil HF rigs not NTIA compliant


> > Does anyone check your selected radio for compliance with
specifications?
> > If not, who cares what equipment is being used?
> >
> > For lower-powered (less that 100W) USB voice communications (as opposed
to
> > high power or data communications), the required NTIA spec is nonsense.
> > It's just the sort of thing decreed, promulgated, and enforced by
> > government bureaucrats with very poor understanding of the technical
> > principles involved.
>
>
> Well, *you* know that, and *I* know that, but bureaucrats are bureaucrats.
> The Wing DC told me quite a tale, and he was actually serious.  He said
> there are satellites monitoring CAP HF comms and they do transmitter
> signature analysis and will know if someone is using an "unauthorized"
rig.
> I said that he couldn't possibly expect me to believe that and he got all
> huffy and that was that.
>
> > I personally find recent (1960 to date) military HF equipment to be
> > interesting technically and historically, but such equipment is usually
> > *not* very reliable over the *long* run, nor easy to troubleshoot and
> > repair without the specialized test equipment and supply infrastructure
of
> > the DoD.  I'd rather use a modern, light, compact, more capable, more
> > versatile, more efficient commercial ham set when it really counts (like
> > right now, if I were in the path of a hurricane).  A GRC-106 or -165, a
> > URC-32 or -58, a PRC-47, -74 or -70 or -104, an ARC-58 or -65 or 94?
> > Novelty use only!
>
> The 104 is a brick, very sensitive, and fits nicely in a laptop carrying
> case along with it's fishing pole antenna, a 66 foot per side dipole and
> para cord, handset, and home made interface box to my laptop for digital
> modes.  I put NiMH cells in the battery case and at 8.8 AH 28 Volts it
runs
> the radio a long time.  I have had it out in the field and I don't worry
if
> it gets rained on.  It just works.
>
> Peter
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>