Don: You're mixing apples and oranges here. These are two different activities. It's also not clear to me, your statement "Putting these two actions together is interesting". That hasn't been done, nor, to my knowledge, was the intent of the ARRL "proposal for review" to the general amateur population. ARRL's proposal is a much broader scope of subbands by bandwidth "realignment". Actually, under the original ARRL proposal, dated August 24, 2004, the AM community was targeted with a max. of 9KHz bandwidth. However, other things within the proposal, were met with dismay and concern within the amateur service. I don't believe there has been any statement yet from the ARRL on the future of this proposed proposal. Since the ARRL Board of Directors is meeting this coming weekend, Jan. 21-22, this proposed proposal and comments received, are expected to be discussed and its future decided. Quote from the Board of Directors Meeting Notice: "In addition to considering and approving a budget for the new fiscal year, the directors are expected to talk about the status of the League's grassroots lobbying initiative, modifications to the ARRL's pending proposal to regulate Amateur Radio subbands by bandwidth rather than by emission mode, and the anticipated Petition for Reconsideration to the Broadband over Power Line (BPL) Report and Order the FCC adopted October 14."
To read the full Board Notice on the Meeting, go here: http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/01/18/2/?nc=1 I wouldn't close the door on the proposal for subbands by bandwidth rather than by emission mode yet. The ARRL has made no formal statement that it's backing away from taking this to the next level. Pete, wa2cwa On Tue, 18 Jan. 2005 16:57:15 -0500 "Merz Donald S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sounds like a trial balloon. No ARRL petition was ever filed though. > And based on these results, > none ever will be. Case closed. > > Putting these two actions together is interesting. It seems like the > ARRL was expecting digital-mode users to respond with positive > comments to the FCC. But the FCC said that the comments it received > were overwhelmingly negative. So it sounds like the digital mode > types didn't see the value to them in the bandwidth idea. Or maybe > they are just not a very vocal group. > > Unlike the AM group <grin>, whose membership seems to have the > disposition of your average confined Pit Bull. > > 73, Don Merz, N3RHT > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of peter > markavage > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL's Threatened Bandwidth Petition - > action > taken? > > > He might be referring to this Don: > from "THE ARRL LETTER" dated August 24, 2004 > > ARRL SEEKS COMMENT ON DRAFT "BANDWIDTH" PETITION > > The ARRL wants members' comments on a planned petition to the FCC > seeking > to regulate amateur subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode. The > ARRL > Board of Directors adopted the petition's guiding principle--to > create a > regulatory environment more accommodating to newer > technologies--two > years > ago, and it wrapped up its review of a draft petition in late July. > > "The main objective is to make appropriate provision for digital > modes in > the HF amateur bands, while preserving amateurs' prerogatives to use > the > traditional modes," said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ. "Regulation > by > Bandwidth" is the title of Sumner's "It Seems to Us . . ." editorial > in > September QST. > > The full text is here http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/04/0827/ > > Pete, wa2cwa > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:33:40 -0500 "Merz Donald S" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > Whoa...much confusion here. Yes, see QST Feb 2005 p. 83. > > > > 1. It was not an ARRL initiative. It was a petition filed with the > > > FCC by 3 hams who are not ARRL officers and who have no ARRL > > affiliation that I know of. > > > > 2. The FCC denied the petition saying that its current rules were > > > adequate. > > > > 3. The FCC's response specifically stated that "the petitioners > > failed to show that there is 'a particular problem' with stations > > > using AM." > > > > This was an FCC action on a petition not initiated by the ARRL, > but > > simply reported in the pages of QST. > > > > As far as I can tell, the ARRL supports the use of AM to the > extent > > that you would expect for that tiny niche of their members who > care > > about AM. Correctly, the ARRL recognizes that AM is not the issue. > > > The issue is whether Powell's FCC will sell the bands out from > > underneath us to the highest bidder. For some hams, this sellout > has > > already happened in the form of BPL. For the rest of us, AM or > > other, the wolf is at the door. And the ARRL is the only voice we > > > have. > > > > 73, Don Merz, N3RHT > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of P Cour > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:11 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [AMRadio] ARRL's Threatened Bandwidth Petition - action > > taken? > > > > > > I understand the February issue of QST briefly > > mentions that the League has scuttled the idea of > > petitioning the FCC to segregate our modes and > > activities by bandwidth. > > > > If this group has indeed abandoned the idea, it will > > have been the result of public protest against such a > > scheme, which the League had aired as a draft proposal > > to elicit comment. > > > > As far as I know, the group in Newington has never > > revealed the specific comments submitted to its > > volunteeer administrators and/or paid staff. Nor has > > the group even offered a tally of pro and con > > sentiment. > > > > Anyone on here already have the issue to > > affirm/dispute word the ARRL may have seen the light? From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 19 08:53:53 2005 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Original-To: [email protected] Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: from mail13.voicenet.com (mail13.voicenet.com [207.103.0.39]) by mailman.qth.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 59A5C859C1C for <[email protected]>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:53:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10342 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2005 13:48:10 -0000 Received: from email2.voicenet.com (HELO voicenet.com) (207.103.0.26) by mail13.voicenet.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2005 13:48:10 -0000 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by voicenet.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) id j0JDm9j1028675; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:48:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:48:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Discussion of AM Radio <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [AMRadio] Physical Reality of Sidebands References: <> In-Reply-To: <> X-Mailer: Voicenet Webmail X-IPAddress: 65.32.144.158 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-BeenThere: [email protected] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list Reply-To: Discussion of AM Radio <[email protected]> List-Id: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio.mailman.qth.net> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/private/amradio> List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:53:53 -0000 Hi John, Yep I agree on all this. Actually I and Q as I remember was a Hazelteen (sp) patent that RCA had to buy. the R-Y B-Y detector was developed by RCA later to avoid the license fees from Hazelteen. Growing up into color TV near RCA's plants and Sarnoff was ben a bif help to me on early undestanding (college years0 of how color worked. I actually worked with RCA Sarnoff while DE at NJ Network on their first HDTV analog system which used yet another subcarrier in the imaginary plane at about 3 mhz to add the side panels for the wide screen. Amazing math tricks are used in all this. Kepp up the good work. Larry On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:12:42 -0600, "John Coleman, ARS WA5BXO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > Yep, I know Larry, but I had already gotten deeper than I intended to. > Because most of the video is motionless, the sidebands come out at > multiples of the sweep rate. The color sub carrier frequency which is > only transmitted in burst mode as previously describe, was chosen at the > odd frequency that it is, so that in spectrum, most of the sideband > energy containing the color info, would fall between the energy of the > black and white info. This was in hope of having less "intermodulation" > at the detector. As for I know, it was not until Magnavox produced the > first COMB FILTER that we were able to make use of this bit of spectrum > conservation. It is interesting to note that the color sidebands were > 500KHz of upper and lower sideband spectrum except at the phase > difference of around 80-100 deg where the flesh tones are produced and > at that phase difference the band width is much greater but only on one > sideband. The RCA CTC 4 chassis made use of this with the "I and Q" > demodulation system, a very difficult sweep / band pass alignment > procedure. > > This is all getting off the subject, but it was interesting to me that > all this could be kept separate with the fast switching on and off of > the burst and changing bandwidth of the I and Q modulated signal. > > I love all this type of discussion. I am afraid I would have to lean > towards the theory, that it is what ever fits the need of the detector. > > At what wavelength does Electro-magnetic radiation become a particle? > > Is the Universe homogeneous or chaotic? That depends upon how it is > observed. > > John, > WA5BXO > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 2:40 PM > To: Discussion of AM Radio > Subject: RE: [AMRadio] Physical Reality of Sidebands > > John, > > You are close. That was the old black and white days. Since color its > divided > down from 3.579454 to 15, 726.xx (approx) and vertical is 59,94 not > 60.00. > > Larry W3LW > > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:58:04 -0600, "John Coleman ARS WA5BXO" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > > > > Don, I have often pondered the same thing here is another example. > > > > The Horizontal sweep rate of a TV is 15750 hz. Every 1/15000 of > > a sec there is a sync pedestal, and on the back porch of it is a burst > > of a few cycles (as I remember it was 8 to 10 cycles in length) of the > > color sub carrier (3.579545 MHz). This burst is removed and processed > > by an amplifier that is key on by the horizontal retrace pulse which > has > > been synced to the horizontal sync pulse that rides atop the sync > > pedestal just in front of the color burst. The 8 cycle color burst is > > phase compared to a crystal oscillator in a phase locked loop. A good > > synchronized scope can look at the full video detected signal and > spread > > the back porch of the sync pedestal out and view the 8-10 cycles of > the > > burst. I often wondered what a spectrum analyzer would look like when > > monitoring the output of the burst amplifier with the phase detector > > diodes remove. > > > > The burst amplifier was a simple tetrode whose plate circuit had > > a parallel tank tuned to 3.58 MHZ and where the detected video was > > applied to the grid through a small coupling capacitor that would > > differentiate and pass the frequencies higher than 3 MHz. The grid > leak > > was returned to a circuit where a positive pulse from the fly back was > > present to trigger the tube on. The output tank was link coupled to > the > > phase detector. > > > > > > John, > > WA5BXO > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > AMRadio mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > >
