 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:55:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/5/2015 1:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:12:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>> Well, I do have a radio license. ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So do I. Albeit the lowest level (RT). I could use a marine radio on a
>>> fishing vessel or stand in for the RO on an Oil Rig.
>>
>> I thought you did - so I was a little surprised. :)
>
> There is a big difference between being able to use a radio and design
> and maintenance.
Well, true - I don't know what the UK tests are like - in the US, there's
a lot of radio theory even in the lowest level exams.
The Extra class license is (or at least "used to be" - I took my exams 20
+ years ago now, and that was only the technician level exam) more
difficult than some of the commercial license exams. At least, that's
what I was told by someone who had both a commercial license and an extra
class license. :)
>>> It is quite a fearsome exam. With Morse code and regulations.
>>
>> Code isn't required in the US any more - they dropped it out of (as I
>> understand it) fear that not enough people would join the hobby to
>> justify the spectrum use.
>>
>>
> It's not? I thought it was an international requirement for a Ham
> licence. Even at foundation level (5 wpm).
Nope, no requirement at all now. The ITU ratified a decision to allow
each country to decide on its own if CW was required or not back in
2003. The FCC dropped the requirement from all license classes in 2006
(effective in 2007).
I got a "technician" class license in the early 90's, just after the
requirement was dropped for that class (but the class was limited to 2m,
70cm, and 6m - nothing in the ranges the ITU required it for - generally
below 30 MHz IIRC). Same exam as the then-new "Technician Plus" (which
was the old "technician" class, confusingly), and my license was
grandfathered back to full Technician when the requierment was dropped
from all classes in 2007.
>>>> Even with well-filtered equipment, though, if I put the transmission
>>>> source for my radio right next to a computer monitor or CRT display,
>>>> I can cause some interference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Don't forget the cable. Bad connections can cause reflections. ;-)
>>
>> Oh yes, absolutely. I also tend to pick up RF from my PCs on my
>> headphones (the ones plugged into the PC), even with a proper ground.
>>
>>
> See, black magic. :-)
LOL
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/11/2015 08:12 AM, scott wrote:
>> I left a program running overnight. The next morning, even after booting
>> back into Mac OS, the text was still faintly visible.
>
> That should go away after a while,
It did. A few hours later, it was gone.
> but I'd be careful leaving a static
> image for any longer on that screen if that happens already after just a
> night.
Quite. We only have the damned thing for testing purposes...
>> Why lines though? Why not random snow or something?
>
> Designing RF stuff is tricky as every part of your circuit will blast
> all the other parts with whatever signal is on it. I suspect it's just
> some interference or some component creating harmonics, and they just
> happen to manifest as diagonal lines.
OK...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/11/2015 12:12 AM, Stephen wrote:
> It is quite a fearsome exam. With Morse code and regulations.
But do you have to be able to use a Smith chart?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/5/2015 4:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:55:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>>
>> There is a big difference between being able to use a radio and design
>> and maintenance.
>
> Well, true - I don't know what the UK tests are like - in the US, there's
> a lot of radio theory even in the lowest level exams.
>
What I meant was the difference between theory and practice.
> The Extra class license is (or at least "used to be" - I took my exams 20
> + years ago now, and that was only the technician level exam) more
> difficult than some of the commercial license exams. At least, that's
> what I was told by someone who had both a commercial license and an extra
> class license. :)
>
I should hope so. Was it military training? I've worked with a couple of
exRN "Sparkers" and "bunting tossers". There would be a lot of drink
involved, I would guess.
>>>> It is quite a fearsome exam. With Morse code and regulations.
>>>
>>> Code isn't required in the US any more - they dropped it out of (as I
>>> understand it) fear that not enough people would join the hobby to
>>> justify the spectrum use.
>>>
>>>
>> It's not? I thought it was an international requirement for a Ham
>> licence. Even at foundation level (5 wpm).
>
> Nope, no requirement at all now. The ITU ratified a decision to allow
> each country to decide on its own if CW was required or not back in
> 2003. The FCC dropped the requirement from all license classes in 2006
> (effective in 2007).
>
Obviously I'm not up to date. I imagine "Attics, cardigans and a tuned
loop antenna".
> I got a "technician" class license in the early 90's, just after the
> requirement was dropped for that class (but the class was limited to 2m,
> 70cm, and 6m - nothing in the ranges the ITU required it for - generally
> below 30 MHz IIRC). Same exam as the then-new "Technician Plus" (which
> was the old "technician" class, confusingly), and my license was
> grandfathered back to full Technician when the requierment was dropped
> from all classes in 2007.
>
All done by Magic. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> See, black magic. :-)
>
> LOL
>
>
>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/5/2015 6:28 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/11/2015 12:12 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> It is quite a fearsome exam. With Morse code and regulations.
>
> But do you have to be able to use a Smith chart?
Not for an operator's ticket.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
FYI
Humphrey Lyttelton. That reminds me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007jndb
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 20:51:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> FYI
>
> Humphrey Lyttelton. That reminds me.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007jndb
Awesome, thanks for that. Have to see if I can dig up episode 1 if it's
not on listen again. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:31:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> Well, true - I don't know what the UK tests are like - in the US,
>> there's a lot of radio theory even in the lowest level exams.
>>
> What I meant was the difference between theory and practice.
OIC, yeah.
>> The Extra class license is (or at least "used to be" - I took my exams
>> 20 + years ago now, and that was only the technician level exam) more
>> difficult than some of the commercial license exams. At least, that's
>> what I was told by someone who had both a commercial license and an
>> extra class license. :)
>>
> I should hope so. Was it military training? I've worked with a couple of
> exRN "Sparkers" and "bunting tossers". There would be a lot of drink
> involved, I would guess.
He has some military training, yeah - navy, IIRC. But also had been
involved in other commercial radio ventures as well over the years.
In his younger days, drink might've been a thing, but by the time I met
him, I don't think he was drinking at all any more. Far as I know, he's
still kicking around the church where I met (and worked) with him.
>>> It's not? I thought it was an international requirement for a Ham
>>> licence. Even at foundation level (5 wpm).
>>
>> Nope, no requirement at all now. The ITU ratified a decision to allow
>> each country to decide on its own if CW was required or not back in
>> 2003. The FCC dropped the requirement from all license classes in 2006
>> (effective in 2007).
>>
>>
> Obviously I'm not up to date. I imagine "Attics, cardigans and a tuned
> loop antenna".
Hehehehe, yeah, I didn't even realise that I'd been promoted to "full
technician" in 2007. Only found out a couple years ago when I was
looking at updating my address for my license. Which reminds me, I need
to update my address (I haven't been active in a few years).
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/6/2015 2:24 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:31:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>>> The Extra class license is (or at least "used to be" - I took my exams
>>> 20 + years ago now, and that was only the technician level exam) more
>>> difficult than some of the commercial license exams. At least, that's
>>> what I was told by someone who had both a commercial license and an
>>> extra class license. :)
>>>
>> I should hope so. Was it military training? I've worked with a couple of
>> exRN "Sparkers" and "bunting tossers". There would be a lot of drink
>> involved, I would guess.
>
Forgotten Smiley --- :-) ^
> He has some military training, yeah - navy, IIRC. But also had been
> involved in other commercial radio ventures as well over the years.
>
He would know then. :-)
I didn't actually mean to ask about his drinking habits. :-(
It was one of those social things.
>> Obviously I'm not up to date. I imagine "Attics, cardigans and a tuned
>> loop antenna".
>
> Hehehehe, yeah, I didn't even realise that I'd been promoted to "full
> technician" in 2007. Only found out a couple years ago when I was
> looking at updating my address for my license. Which reminds me, I need
> to update my address (I haven't been active in a few years).
>
Good luck. Tony Handcock put me off bring a Radio Ham. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 16:37:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/6/2015 2:24 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:31:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>> The Extra class license is (or at least "used to be" - I took my
>>>> exams 20 + years ago now, and that was only the technician level
>>>> exam) more difficult than some of the commercial license exams. At
>>>> least, that's what I was told by someone who had both a commercial
>>>> license and an extra class license. :)
>>>>
>>> I should hope so. Was it military training? I've worked with a couple
>>> of exRN "Sparkers" and "bunting tossers". There would be a lot of
>>> drink involved, I would guess.
>>
> Forgotten Smiley --- :-) ^
Took it as implied. ;)
>> He has some military training, yeah - navy, IIRC. But also had been
>> involved in other commercial radio ventures as well over the years.
>>
>>
> He would know then. :-)
>
> I didn't actually mean to ask about his drinking habits. :-(
> It was one of those social things.
Oh, no, I understand. :) I had never really even thought about it with
him - IIRC, he's probably pushing 90 now - when I met him he had already
"retired" (though continued to be extremely active in a lot of things).
>>> Obviously I'm not up to date. I imagine "Attics, cardigans and a tuned
>>> loop antenna".
>>
>> Hehehehe, yeah, I didn't even realise that I'd been promoted to "full
>> technician" in 2007. Only found out a couple years ago when I was
>> looking at updating my address for my license. Which reminds me, I
>> need to update my address (I haven't been active in a few years).
>>
>>
> Good luck. Tony Handcock put me off bring a Radio Ham. ;-)
We're looking at moving again soon (not far, though), and my radio
knowledge will probably become important again. Good thing I kept the
gear and the antenna. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
