20070423.ba v04_n042.bam.20070423 >From ???@??? Sun Apr 22 20:39:44 2007 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:38:34 GMT From: Old Tube Radios To: Old Tube Radios Subject: BOATANCHORS digest 4042 Message-Id: <20070423013835.B89F5470171@srvr1.theporch.com> BOATANCHORS Digest 4042 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Nat'l NC-2040D - It's alive! by Bob Roehrig 2) Wanted: Info on Thordarson multi-match, T-21M62-A transformer by Roy Morgan 3) Re: Nat'l NC-2040D - It's alive! by "Arden Allen" 4) Johnson Desk KW by John Sehring 5) Link to transmitter pics. HELP! by john 6) Re: GB> Link to transmitter pics. HELP! by Richard Post 7) GB> Link to transmitter pics. Ad in PE 7-60 by Richard Post 8) Re: Link to transmitter pics. HELP! by stuck in 50s 9) Oregon Electronics A3 (or A3A) by stuck in 50s 10) Re: GB> Link to transmitter pics. Ad in PE 7-60 by stuck in 50s 11) WTB: Manual For Holtzer-Cabot Megger, Model PSM-2A by Mike 12) Re: Our Wonderful New "Extra" Class by WA1KBQ@aol.com 13) EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem by "James C. Garland" <4cx250b@muohio.edu> 14) Re: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem by stuck in 50s 15) Re: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem by Garey Barrell 16) Fwd: Re: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem by "James C. Garland" <4cx250b@muohio.edu> 17) Re: Our Wonderful New "Extra" Class by "Arden Allen" 18) Re: Our Wonderful New "Extra" Class by Tom Norris 19) Fwd: Opposed to RM-11306 Revision by WA1KBQ@aol.com 20) Opposed to Revision RM-11306 by WA1KBQ@aol.com 21) Re: Opposed to Revision RM-11306 by "Tom Rauch" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:52:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Bob Roehrig To: Old Tube Radios Cc: Old Tube Radios Subject: Re: Nat'l NC-2040D - It's alive! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Sehring wrote: > Well, after long & gentle resucitation, my National NC-2-40D is alive! > > Radio does have a strange AVC detector ct, need to think about that some more, > uses a 6V6! Huh? That circuit I gotta see. Bob Roehrig Aurora University Telecom dept. broehrig@aurora.edu K9EUI W9ZGP WD2XSH/19 630-844-4898 fax 630-844-4222 "Nostalgia is a thing of the past" ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20070417174848.03b39320@mailserver.nist.gov> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:48:56 -0400 To: Old Tube Radios From: Roy Morgan Subject: Wanted: Info on Thordarson multi-match, T-21M62-A transformer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Boatanchorites, Needed: Info on connections for the Thordarson multi-match, T-21M62 or T-21M62-A transformer. This thing is listed in their catalog 630 which I find at: but there is no connection information. (This site has many transformer catalogs.) At The AM Window I find connection info for earlier Thordarson multi-match modulation transformers: but I'm not sure if these connections also apply to the later T-21M series. Also, the transformer I have has no numbers on it! Any help much appreciated. Roy - Roy Morgan, K1LKY since 1959 - Keep 'em Glowing 13033 Downey Mill Road, Lovettsville, VA 20180 Phone 540-822-5911 Cell 301-928-7794 Work: Voice: 301-975-3254, Fax: 301-975-6097 roy.morgan@nist.gov -- ------------------------------ Message-ID: <003c01c78186$ae217ee0$eae47443@KB6NAX> From: "Arden Allen" To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Re: Nat'l NC-2040D - It's alive! Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:56:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ......Must be combo of that low-distortion infinite impedance detector ...... John, too pick a small bone: There's nothing inherently better about an infinite impedance detector compared to a diode detector regarding distortion. Theoretically a diode detector is the lower distortion of the two. It's what comes before the detector that has more to do with recovered audio assuming no added distortion from noise limiters and poor amplifier linearity to the speaker. AVC controlled IF amp linearity, IF amp stability, IF bandwidth, IF bandpass shape factor, IF transformer core linearity, etc., blah, blah....., can do more harm to the audio than what usually comes after the detector. Arden Allen KB6NAX ------------------------------ Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Mime-Version: 1.0 From: John Sehring To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Johnson Desk KW Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <20070418233015.A1C0534DFD2@filter6.e-filtering.net> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:30:15 -0600 (MDT) Can't quite explain it, but am so tickled to vicariously peek into the Johnson Desk KW via this thread. I'll never have such a rig but it's so much fun to take a mental walk through it. I can just see you all counting off the number & kind of VR tubes in it & ruminating along with what Ole Johnson was thinking of with all those mods, as hams transitioned from AM to SSB. I was just a kid then. :) Of course a Ranger was meant to drive it & I DO have one of those! --John Sehring WB0EQ/VE6 ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20070419181810.046e2020@pop-server.nc.rr.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:19:41 -0400 To: Old Tube Radios From: john Subject: Link to transmitter pics. HELP! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I've heard that this: http://tinyurl.com/38usu9 ...is a kit offered by one of the correspondence "technical schools" like NRI, or the like. I'm curious as I have the better part of two of these transmitters but have yet to find a manual or any documentation/schematic for the thing. Anyone recognize it, and can help me with the ID/info? John k5MO ------------------------------ Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:44:55 -0400 To: Old Tube Radios From: Richard Post Subject: Re: GB> Link to transmitter pics. HELP! Cc: glowbugs@piobaire.mines.uidaho.edu, boatanchors@theporch.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" You can find a picture of it in just about any late 1950's NRI ad in Popular Electronics until July or August 1960 when NRI changed models. It's missing the VT-224. October '58 Popular Electronics. Ad says. "YOU BUILD broadcasting transmitter" "As part of the NRI Communications course, you build this low-power Transmitter..." Can provide an ad copy if you wish. Does it have the 160 meter crystal? Rich KB8TAD At 6:19 PM -0400 4/19/07, john wrote: >I've heard that this: > >http://tinyurl.com/38usu9 > >....is a kit offered by one of the correspondence "technical >schools" like NRI, or the like. I'm curious as I have the better >part of two of these transmitters but have yet to find a manual or >any documentation/schematic for the thing. > >Anyone recognize it, and can help me with the ID/info? > >John k5MO > ------------------------------ Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:56:55 -0400 To: Old Tube Radios From: Richard Post Subject: GB> Link to transmitter pics. Ad in PE 7-60 Cc: glowbugs@piobaire.mines.uidaho.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Have uploaded ad copy from July 1960 Popular Electronics, believed to be the last ad that featured this transmitter. I don't have the August issue. The September '60 ad shows a new transmitter version. http://tinyurl.com/2pk4ts > >Can provide an ad copy if you wish. Does it have the 160 meter crystal? > >Rich KB8TAD > > >At 6:19 PM -0400 4/19/07, john wrote: >>I've heard that this: >> >>http://tinyurl.com/38usu9 >> >>....is a kit offered by one of the correspondence "technical >>schools" like NRI, or the like. I'm curious as I have the better >>part of two of these ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:08:59 -0400 (EDT) From: stuck in 50s Message-Id: <200704201408.l3KE8xtK004577@fracas.netboobie.org> To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Re: Link to transmitter pics. HELP! No paper but I remember seeing it in ads as a kid. Think it had a ST14-size RK-34 dual triode in output. & roger it being a correspondence school project w. ads in Popular Mechanics*, etc. Always marveled Any Dayton correspondence anyone? Got approval to sell yesterday, o'wise all quiet 'rm aka Marty *someone once mused the title is a glaring lie since there's never been a popular mechanic ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT) From: stuck in 50s Message-Id: <200704201416.l3KEGUKP004600@fracas.netboobie.org> To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Oregon Electronics A3 (or A3A) Itza 300V 200ma electronically regulated bench-warmer made in 1960. OK gizmo. Ring any bells? I've got one here & am interested in one R value. Was .5w resistor victim of sizzle-event. & found gud sub w. a A-B 2w pot. after, catch this, forgetting to bid in one nr bro's home that went for 99cts on ebay! Was gonna get it for R value. So a schematic'd be fb but just need one value TNX! Marty ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:20:38 -0400 (EDT) From: stuck in 50s Message-Id: <200704201420.l3KEKcfn004626@fracas.netboobie.org> To: Old Tube Radios Cc: glowbugs@piobaire.mines.uidaho.edu Subject: Re: GB> Link to transmitter pics. Ad in PE 7-60 rootie toot toot rootie toot toot that is an ad from the institute ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:09:48 -0700 From: Mike Subject: WTB: Manual For Holtzer-Cabot Megger, Model PSM-2A To: Old Tube Radios Message-id: <000601c78398$9ef480c0$6801a8c0@m0a1da7d341114> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Anyone have a spare one of these or one that could be photocopied? Mike VE7MMH ------------------------------ From: WA1KBQ@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:05:17 EDT Subject: Re: Our Wonderful New "Extra" Class To: Old Tube Radios MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1177247116" -------------------------------1177247116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit But this is exactly what the ARRL wants now isn't it? Heard yesterday on 75 meters, new "Extra" section. This is a word-for-word quote (no; it's not a joke): "I got a Siltronix; if I get the right slider, I can slide it on down to 75 meters, I think." "Yep; that's a good radio for sliding, but they do got a lot of bleed-over." "Yeah; them Siltronix sure will bleed..." ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1177247116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * This post contains a forbidden message format * * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * * Mail Lists at theporch.com only accept PLAIN TEXT * * If your postings display this message your mail program * * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -------------------------------1177247116-- ------------------------------ Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20070422073800.02496a28@muohio.edu> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:44:43 -0600 To: Old Tube Radios From: "James C. Garland" <4cx250b@muohio.edu> Subject: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Gang, After many moons I finally found a matching desk to attach to my Viking KW. There are some extra holes on the side of the drawers (where somebody evidently attached something) and two 1/4 in holes drilled in the top. The top appears to be linoleum of some sort, about 3/16 in thick and molded around the curved sides of the desk. It's the same color as the grey metal finish. There's quite a bit of discoloration on the top surface, including a 4x10 in area which is darker than the rest, presumably where somebody sat something for a long time. Any suggestions on how to refinish the linoleum? I doubt it could be repainted with anything that would stand up to desktop use. I was thinking trying auto polishing compound, but wondered what else people have tried. I can fill in the holes with bondo and touch them up. 73, JIm W8ZR ************************* James C. Garland 102 Spur Ranch Road Santa Fe, NM 87540 www.w8zr.net ************************* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:50:41 -0400 (EDT) From: stuck in 50s Message-Id: <200704221350.l3MDof1I011694@fracas.netboobie.org> To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Re: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem I've been looking for years. Please share desk's maker & dimensions Jim Thanks, Marty ------------------------------ Message-ID: <462B6D5B.2050704@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:12:43 -0400 From: Garey Barrell MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Re: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim - I replaced one linoleum desk-top with a gray formica, very close to the linoleum color. Does not "dent" from equipment, does not discolor, pieces with rubber feet stay put, and can be cleaned with just about anything you want without damage. The metal "trim ring" comes off, scrape off linoleum residue, and contact cement for the formica. Trim and sand the edges to fit and replace trim ring. 73, Garey - K4OAH Richmond Drake 2-B, 4-B & C-Line Service Supplement CDs James C. Garland wrote: > Gang, > After many moons I finally found a matching desk to attach to my > Viking KW. There are some extra holes on the side of the drawers > (where somebody evidently attached something) and two 1/4 in holes > drilled in the top. The top appears to be linoleum of some sort, about > 3/16 in thick and molded around the curved sides of the desk. It's the > same color as the grey metal finish. There's quite a bit of > discoloration on the top surface, including a 4x10 in area which is > darker than the rest, presumably where somebody sat something for a > long time. Any suggestions on how to refinish the linoleum? I doubt > it could be repainted with anything that would stand up to desktop > use. I was thinking trying auto polishing compound, but wondered what > else people have tried. I can fill in the holes with bondo and touch > them up. > 73, > JIm W8ZR > > ************************* > James C. Garland > 102 Spur Ranch Road > Santa Fe, NM 87540 > www.w8zr.net > ************************* > ------------------------------ Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20070422102559.024a52b0@muohio.edu> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:26:07 -0600 To: Old Tube Radios From: "James C. Garland" <4cx250b@muohio.edu> Subject: Fwd: Re: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:24:30 -0600 >To: stuck in 50s >From: "James C. Garland" <4cx250b@muohio.edu> >Subject: Re: EFJ Desk KW refinishing problem > >Hi Marty, >THis is the original EFJ-supplied desk that came as an option with >the Viking KW. SOme guy in Salt Lake City has the full Desk KW, but >somebody had stripped the RF innards out and replaced them with a >homebrew linear amp. I bought the desk part from him. He still has >the RF pedestal, whose cabinet seems in good condition. Might be a >good buy for somebody who wanted to upgrade the cabinet on their Viking KW. > >I can send you the dims for the desk attachment, but I don't think >that's what you wanted. BTW, I've thought for years that the desk >was specially made for EFJ by Steelcase. > >Jim > > >At 07:50 AM 4/22/2007, you wrote: >>I've been looking for years. Please share desk's maker & dimensions Jim >> >> Thanks, >> >> Marty > >************************* >James C. Garland >102 Spur Ranch Road >Santa Fe, NM 87540 >www.w8zr.net >************************* ************************* James C. Garland 102 Spur Ranch Road Santa Fe, NM 87540 www.w8zr.net ************************* ------------------------------ Message-ID: <000101c784fb$62377d90$99e47443@KB6NAX> From: "Arden Allen" To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Re: Our Wonderful New "Extra" Class Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:21:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > But this is exactly what the ARRL wants now isn't it? The political highway is paved with $$$$$$$$$$$$ Arden Allen KB6NAX ------------------------------ Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: WA1KBQ@aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Tom Norris Subject: Re: Our Wonderful New "Extra" Class Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:03:57 -0500 To: Old Tube Radios Re: siltronix comment about sliders and such. I've heard comments like this for years on 75 phone along with many other things that I'll not mention on a polite list. A lot of crude things seem to be said regularly by non-vanity Wx and Nx calls. A lot of "We've been using this frequency for forty years" goes on almost daily by the folks that are supposed to know better. You don't hear much of this on CW usually... What were the calls of the people talking about this? Tom NU4G > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * > * This post contains a forbidden message format * > * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * > * Mail Lists at theporch.com only accept PLAIN TEXT * > * If your postings display this message your mail program * > * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------ From: WA1KBQ@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:47:22 EDT Subject: Fwd: Opposed to RM-11306 Revision To: Old Tube Radios MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_d60.76eaab8.335cf9aa_boundary" --part1_d60.76eaab8.335cf9aa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * This post contains a forbidden message format * * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * * Mail Lists at theporch.com only accept PLAIN TEXT * * If your postings display this message your mail program * * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --part1_d60.76eaab8.335cf9aa_boundary-- ------------------------------ From: WA1KBQ@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:24:31 EDT Subject: Opposed to Revision RM-11306 To: Old Tube Radios MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1177266271" -------------------------------1177266271 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry about the truncated previous posted message. I recently sent a comment to the FCC regarding RM-11306 which is legislation in review to modify rule 97.221 which would allow automatically controlled digital station operation outside current subbands. In addition I sent a letter to the ARRL and received a reply: Letter to the FCC: Comment to Ex-Parte Revision to RM-11306 I am opposed to any change to 97.221 that allows automatically controlled digital stations to operate outside the current subbands. ARRL reply HI Greg: Thanks for your message. I believe you may be reacting to inaccurate information that people circulated about RM-11306. No change to 97.221 is part of the ARRL Proposal. After the rules changes, League officials met with the FCC to amend the band-width proposal that had been filed with the FCC in 2005. As part of that meeting a new proposed allocation chart was presented. Unfortunately in editing the revised chart an inadvertent error was include which indicated that the ARRL wanted wide-mode modes able to operate anywhere. Let me assure you that was not and never was the intention or proposal of the ARRL. Unfortunately someone read it and started posting invalid information about "look what the ARRL is trying to sneak by" instead of first contacting us and asking what was going on. I can understand how they could believe that based on the error, but it seems a more sensible approach would have been to ask what was going on first. I am including a thorough statement from ARRL CEO Dave Sumner about what happened. So there is no confusion, we are not proposing that these automated robot operations be allowed anywhere except the very precisely defined areas where they are already allowed. If you have further questions please contact me. Thanks and 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Regulatory Information Specialist ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio 860-594-0236 dhenderson@arrl.org Thanks for your message. Here is some background on the subject you raised. In July 2002 the ARRL Board of Directors adopted the following policy: "At the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." The Board's objective was to update rules that were written long before the development of the current generation of digital modes so that digital emissions can be appropriately regulated in the future, while impacting traditional modes as little as possible. Turning that statement of principle into a detailed petition proved to be no easy task. The Board received input from an ad hoc committee as well as staff, and twice solicited input directly from the ARRL membership. Hundreds of comments were received each time and helped inform the Board's discussions. Finally, at its July 2005 meeting the Board concluded its review of a draft petition and authorized its filing, following final review by the Executive Committee. The resulting petition was filed on November 14, 2005 and was designated RM-11306 by the FCC, after which additional comments were filed by individuals directly with the FCC. Once the FCC had dealt with two outstanding proceedings, WT Dockets 04-140 and 05-235, we realized that the bandwidth petition was the next major Amateur Radio item in their hopper. On reviewing the RM-11306 petition, the comments, and the rules changes adopted in Dockets 04-140 and 05-235 it was apparent that some of the proposals contained in the petition had been affected by the changes adopted in the other two proceedings. It was also apparent that some aspects of the petition remained controversial. After reviewing the situation at its January 2007 meeting, the ARRL Board authorized General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD to determine what changes to the petition had to be made to align it with the new FCC rules, as well as which aspects of the petition were not controversial and could reasonably be expected to be included in an FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Chris did so, and a meeting was held with FCC staff on February 13. As are all such meetings, this was made a matter of public record by the filing of a notice with the FCC Secretary that immediately became part of the online record in RM-11306. The FCC staff was provided with a shortened list, or subset, of proposed rule changes from that contained in RM-11306. The list is included with the notice of the meeting. Because the proposals affecting the bands above 28 MHz had not aroused much controversy, they were retained in the shortened list. Regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission remains controversial below 28 MHz because of perceived potential impact on established operating patterns, so these proposals were removed from the list with one narrow exception. The exception is necessary because, as discussed on page 11 of the RM-11306 petition, under the existing rules there is presently no effective bandwidth limit on HF digital operations. Digital emissions using multiple carriers, such as OFDM, can be designed for any bandwidth while staying within the existing rules. So, the subset of proposed rule changes given to the FCC on February 13 includes a bandwidth limit of 3 kHz on RTTY and data emissions below 28 MHz. It is important to understand that this does not increase the allowed bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions; it actually represents a new limitation that accommodates existing practice but prevents future monopolization of large segments of our narrow MF/HF bands by a single digital station. Also, the limit would not apply to phone emissions. Some confusion has resulted from an item that, through oversight, was not deleted when the list of proposed rule changes was shortened. Because RM-11306 had proposed that bandwidths in most of the band segments now used for CW and RTTY be limited to 200 Hz and 500 Hz respectively, the existing 500-Hz bandwidth limit that applies to certain automatically controlled RTTY/data stations was redundant and could be dropped. However, because the subset of proposed rule changes does not substitute regulation by bandwidth for regulation by mode of emission, the 500-Hz limit needs to be retained. General Counsel Imlay has filed an erratum with a corrected list of proposed rule changes that makes it clear there should be no change to the existing Section 97.221. We regret the error. Some amateurs have observed that the subset of proposed rule changes provides less protection to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than was afforded by the ARRL's proposals in RM-11306. This is true. However, it is not true that less protection is afforded than is the case with the existing rules. In fact, protection against interference from wide digital modes would be increased, not decreased, by adoption even of the subset. The ARRL Board, having studied the situation literally for years, continues to support the principles of regulation by bandwidth that are contained in the original RM-11306 petition. Regulation by bandwidth provides a better regulatory framework, not only for the introduction of future digital emissions but for the protection of traditional narrowband modes as well. By providing the FCC with a subset of the modifications proposed in RM-11306 the ARRL has offered an alternative that, it is hoped, will make it easier for the FCC to move at least part of the way in that direction. David Sumner, K1ZZ Chief Executive Officer, ARRL March 22, 2007 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1177266271 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * This post contains a forbidden message format * * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) * * Mail Lists at theporch.com only accept PLAIN TEXT * * If your postings display this message your mail program * * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -------------------------------1177266271-- ------------------------------ Message-ID: <014701c78548$0b3990d0$660fa8c0@radioroom> From: "Tom Rauch" To: Old Tube Radios Subject: Re: Opposed to Revision RM-11306 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:37:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sorry about the truncated previous posted message. I > recently sent a comment > to the FCC regarding RM-11306 which is legislation in > review to modify rule > 97.221 which would allow automatically controlled digital > station operation > outside current subbands. In addition I sent a letter to > the ARRL and received a > reply: > > Letter to the FCC: > Comment to Ex-Parte Revision to RM-11306 > I am opposed to any change to 97.221 that allows > automatically controlled > digital stations to operate outside the current subbands. Sumner isn't exactly telling the whole story, and neither are the guys circulating the rumor this change will allow automatically controlled digital stations everywhere. They BOTH are misleading people!!! Automatically controlled stations have been around for several years now and you can count them on your fingers and toes. It's laughable that the RTTY and digimode guys are all in a frenzy over this. It's really a non-issue for everyone. If you read what the ARRL filed and look at the rules the only real significant change is the ARRL is expanding the allowable bandwidth of RTTY from 1 kHz to 3 kHz and removing the 300 baud data rate restriction. Contrary to what Sumner says, they are NOT increasing protection or maintaining protection of narrow modes from wide modes. Sumner is full of beans on that statement. So contrary to rumors the robots are NOT coming and the ARRL isn't doing exactly what Sumner said either. At least if we are going to object let's object to the real problem. http://www.w8ji.com/fact_or_fallacy.htm 73 Tom ------------------------------ End of BOATANCHORS Digest 4042 ******************************