Karl-Arne,
At the time, a transceiver for that frequency would have been cost prohibitive
in
my opinion. I agree with Peter on this.
Someone earlier said that the FCC didn't screw the pooch when they did. When
the law was changed, 11 meter amps were already a hot item, and the ones who
thought up the rules ought to have had enough sense to know that they would
build them anyhow. All they did was limit what the amateur community could do.
I mean, what kind of thinking is it that they would say, no you can't do this,
thinking
that will stop it, when in fact the amp builders went ahead and built them
right on.
Now grant you in the 70's and early 80's there was a few busts, but now, they
absolutely do not care. Look how many of those little RM Italy pieces of s**t
are
being imported into the US, and they're turning a blind eye to it. Those are
some
of the cheapest built, dirty amps I've ever seen built.
I used to be affiliated with a company in Memphis, TN which made amps that were
mainly used on 11 meters to be honest. However, the owner of the company spent
the money to have them type accepted, and were made as, and did work as a 10
meter
transmitter. These had a built in low pass filter. What did the buyers do? As
soon as
they removed them from the box, they cut out the filter thinking that would
give them
a little more power. This "extra power" wouldn't have never been noticed or
shown on
a S meter. These truck stop technicians caused a lot of the problem such as
"peaking"
transceivers as soon as they were pulled out of the box. They did the same with
amps.
Then you have pirate radio which is a whole other story that we really don't
hear much
about. The 11 meter crew get's most of the blame, but they're still there. You
also have
a bunch of amateur operators who really shouldn't have a license, but they
never take
any heat it seems like.
Best,
Will
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 8/4/06 at 1:13 PM Karl-Arne Markström wrote:
>>They should have put it on
>>UHF.
>
>Actually, they (=FCC) did. The original "Citizen's Band" in 1946/47 was
>around 465 MHz.
>We would have been spared a lot of trouble if it had stayed there.
>
>73/
>
>Karl-Arne
>SM0AOM
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
>To: <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>
>Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 11:59 AM
>Subject: Re: [Amps] Grid Vs cathode drive
>
>
>>
>> > Looking back through my old (late 1950's and 1960's)ARRL
>> > handbooks, the 100watt rig was pretty standard - Heath,
>> > Hallicrafters, Collins. So I think it would have stayed
>> > pretty much that way, rather than a high gain amp.
>>
>> That's absolutely true. There is little doubt all radios
>> would remain about 100 watts. The bulk of radios always were
>> in that range, and as many people or more didn't use amps as
>> who do use amps.
>>
>> The only thing the FCC is to blame for is thinking US
>> citizens would not misuse CB when it was created as a cheap
>> alternative for necessary personal communications that
>> didn't quite fit into full blow commercial assignments, and
>> for putting the stuff on 27 MHz.. They should have put it on
>> UHF.
>>
>> 73 Tom
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amps mailing list
>> Amps@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/407 - Release Date:
>2006-08-03
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/407 - Release Date: 2006-08-03
>
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|