|
Locked
Welcome all...........
To those joining this group, I will be slowly but surely putting more
information on this site. I have added a small number of links in the links section. I will be adding images of equipment also. Please bear with me. This is a free site so the amount of memory is limited. If you wish to post images, please be frugal as these images can use up memory fast. I will inform you about any new changes as I go along. This should be a nice site once I get it going. BTW, email works just like the other site or sites but you can send images. The images will not be shown on this site but are passed through to all members. K2WH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
All members
To all members....
The following ground rules apply and they are not at all restrictive. 1) No profanity (Unless approved) 2) Try to stay on subject - Hallicrafters 3) You may refer to Ebay 4) No porn of any kind. 5) Image size when attached to emails, =< 500k Please note, members messages, picture, files or other stuff is not moderated by me. This is a free site and can be useful for our common interest. So, don't abuse it. Have fun. K2WH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
SX-111
Anyone out there have an SX-111. I have one and have been using it on
the air however, I recently installed an outboard preamp (Solid state) that helps the receiver quite a bit. I installed the preamp because the receiver seems so deaf from 20 meters and up. 80 and 40 are fine. I did a complete tune up including front end and both IF's. I checked the tubes and all seem OK. Is it possible the front end of this receiver is very good on 80 and 40 and stinks on the higher bands? K2WH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
Email Attachements
I would like to reiterate a previous statement. Attachements such as
images to email messages directed to this site are passed through to all members. That is, all members will recieve the image. The text or wording with that image will be displayed here on this site with a notation that the attachment is or was not stored. Various other items can show up here also such as if you forward a page from ARRL, will show here with images in the page missing but the text intact. The page forwarded will be recieved by the members intact. I will demonstrate on my next msg by forwarding an ARRL page. Oh, and attachements or page forwarding can only be done outside this reflector meaning from your email program such as Outlook. K2WH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
Emailing: 100.htm
开云体育R&O fails to adequately take into account the technology's potential to interfere with Amateur Radio and other licensed services, the League called the FCC's action to permit BPL "a gross policy mistake." The R&O, the ARRL said, "represents a classic case of prejudgment" by an FCC that knew better but ignored evidence already at its disposal." name=DESCRIPTION>Test page.?
This ARRL page was sent using "Send page by Emal".? It will
display
on the reflector
site with missing information, but when received at the
members
QTH, will be
whole.
K2WH ?
ARRL Tells FCC to "Reconsider, Rescind and Restudy" BPL OrderNEWINGTON, CT, Feb 7, 2005--The ARRL has petitioned the FCC to take its broadband over power line (BPL) Report and Order (R&O) back to the drawing board. In a Petition for Reconsideration filed today, the League called on the Commission to "reconsider, rescind and restudy" its October 14, 2004, adoption of new Part 15 rules spelling out how BPL providers may deploy the technology on HF and low-VHF frequencies. Asserting that the R&O fails to adequately take into account the technology's potential to interfere with Amateur Radio and other licensed services, the League called the FCC's action to permit BPL "a gross policy mistake." The R&O, the ARRL said, "represents a classic case of prejudgment" by an FCC that knew better but ignored evidence already at its disposal. "It is readily apparent that the Commission long ago made up its mind that it was going to permit BPL without substantial regulation, no matter what the effect of this flawed application of old technology is on licensed radio services," the League's petition declares. The ARRL accuses FCC Commissioner Michael Powell and his four colleagues of deliberately authorizing "a spectrum pollution source that has, time and again, been demonstrated to be incompatible with existing licensed uses of the limited and unique high frequency spectrum." The ARRL said BPL's interference potential makes BPL "a bad method" of providing broadband services to homes and businesses. While expressing appreciation for Commissioner Michael Copps' concerns regarding BPL's potential to interfere with Amateur Radio and his call for quick complaint resolution, the League said his admonition "has not been heeded by either the Enforcement Bureau or the Office of Engineering and Technology." The latter has "inexplicably taken control of BPL interference investigations and has adjudicated not a single one to date," the ARRL added. Pilot BPL projects have demonstrated that interference to licensed services is "extremely difficult or impossible to eliminate," even with close cooperation by the BPL provider. "Not a single interference complaint has been resolved except by termination of the BPL test," the League's petition maintains, and the Commission has "swept all interference complaints under the rug." In its eagerness to satisfy a policy goal, the Commission covered up "the bad news" about BPL that it already had in its hands, even before it released its Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the proceeding, the ARRL charged. "The Commission wanted nothing to contradict its enthusiasm about BPL," the League said, and its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) saw to it that evidence of the "fundamental incompatibility" between BPL and incumbent HF radio services "was suppressed, ignored or discredited" by ad hominem arguments aimed at the messengers of the bad news, principally the ARRL. In the filing, which included several technical exhibits to bolster its major points, the ARRL further argued that Powell--a self-described "cheerleader" for the technology--should have recused himself from voting on the R&O. The chairman, the ARRL says, violated the FCC's own ex parte rules by attending a BPL provider's demonstration October 12, after the FCC had released its agenda for the October 14 meeting. Powell "tainted this proceeding" by taking part in the demonstration, and that alone is sufficient to have the Commission vacate and reconsider its action. The League also said the FCC's "late and incomplete" responses to ARRL's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests fail to show any support for FCC's conclusions regarding interference to licensed services from BPL. The ARRL filed FOIA requests in 2003 and again last year calling on the Commission to produce tests and other documentation that the agency said it had used in developing its new BPL rules. The highly redacted information release contained nothing that supports the FCC's conclusions about BPL's interference potential and suppressed negative recommendations from its own technical investigators, the petition says. "The released information establishes that the Commission failed to conduct impartial, reasoned rulemaking." The ARRL also said the R&O falls short in substantively evaluating BPL's interference potential. Beyond that, the Commission used an unlawful "balancing test" that weighed BPL's purported benefits against its interference to licensed services. "Worse, it has done so in a way as to create a hierarchy of licensed radio services and characterized them by how much interference each service deserves," the League's petition asserted. The ARRL called the approach untenable under the Communications Act, and its marginalization of the Amateur Service "discriminatory and unreasonable." The Communications Act, the League's petition points out, requires an objective determination from the outset that the likelihood of harmful interference from a proposed unlicensed service is virtually nil. "There is no statutory underpinning for the application of a 'balancing test' between interference from unlicensed facilities to licensed radio services based on the FCC's preconceived conclusions about the social or economic benefits of the unlicensed service," the ARRL concluded. The FCC's statements and action in the proceeding suggest the agency doesn't believe Amateur Radio is very important and does not deserve protection from interference to the same extent other licensed services do, according to the ARRL. The interference mitigation rules the R&O incorporates are both ineffective and inequitably applied, the ARRL's petition further argues. Noting the new rules do not require BPL systems to shut down in the event of interference except as "a last resort," the League said the practical effect is "that systems will never have to shut down, even though the BPL operator may have proven ineffective at remedying serious, ongoing harmful interference to the Amateur Service." The petition says the R&O marks the first time in history that the Commission has authorized an unlicensed service with significant and demonstrable potential to interfere with licensed radio services while not requiring its immediate shutdown if it does interfere. The League says the new rules accord priority to unlicensed BPL, "regardless of the preclusive effect" or the duration of interference. The Commission's "business as usual" attitude flies in the face of its own admission of BPL's higher potential to interfere when compared to other Part 15 systems, the ARRL says. In its unanimous BPL decision, the Commission, the League says, has abandoned its fundamental obligation to avoid interference in telecommunication systems, instead requiring complainants to initiate contact with BPL providers and "beg for resolution." Precluding interference by so-called "notching" techniques is not the answer either, the petition asserts. Notching has proven difficult to implement effectively and "has not been successful generally in remedying BPL interference at test sites," the ARRL contended. Even more absurd, the League says, is that the R&O doesn't require BPL systems deployed before a date 18 months after its publication to comply with the new rules unless the system causes harmful interference and the operator fails to take necessary steps to eliminate occurrences of harmful interference. "As the result of this holding, it is apparent that the BPL facilities installed before July 7, 2006, never have to come into compliance with the new rules," the ARRL maintained. BPL systems not yet in operation "cannot be allowed to skirt the rules limiting interference potential" that long, according to the petition. The League's petition also faults the Commission's adopted measurement standards. The League's Petition for Reconsideration in ET Dockets 03-104 and 04-37 is on the ARRL Web site.
Page last modified: 07:32 AM, 08 Feb 2005 ET Page author: awextra@... Copyright ? 2005, American Radio Relay League, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
New files upload
I have added two files to the "Files" section of this site. They are
MSword documents that list many images that I have on my computer of Hallicrafters equipment. I started a campaign to save images of paper and metal tags used on Hallicrafters equipment. I also started to save images of various Hallicrafters gear, front panel, main tuning dials etc. If you have need of any of these images let me know and I will forward them to you. Please be aware some of these images are high resolution and the file size over 1 megabyte. K2WH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
Re: New files upload
开云体育Craig, ? I do not have SX-42A labels.? I assume you mean SR-42A? ? Bill ? From: Craig Roberts
[mailto:crgrbrts@...] ? Hi Bill, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
Additional Image Information
I should mention, the many images I have of labels and tags on Halli
equipment are actual images of real labels but are usually not "Art Ready" for printing on your printer and pasting into your restored radio. A lot of them are complete and ready to print but due to shooting angles, lighting etc. some of the images will show you exactly what the label looks like and you can then make one with your own graphics program and printer if so desired. Depends on how much of a purist you are. I saved as many as I could since these lables will eventually be lost to history since they are so fragile at this stage of their life. Bill K2WH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
Re: Additional Image Information
Yes. Click on "Files" on the left hand side of the screen. In the
files section, you will find (2)MSword files with the information you need. As to the SX-42 labels, I do not have labels (yet) for the SX-42. Apparently they are rare. Regards, Bill K2WH --- In HallicraftersRadios@..., "magnuson27" <magnuson@m...> wrote: could it be posted)? Also I think Craig Roberts would like labels for a SX-42. Ithink only SX-42 and SX- 42U were made and not a 42A. --- In HallicraftersRadios@..., "magnuson27" <magnuson@m...> wrote: could it be posted)? Also I think Craig Roberts would like labels for a SX-42. Ithink only SX-42 and SX- 42U were made and not a 42A. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Locked
Wanted HT-32 Front Panel................
I am in need of an HT-32 front panel with or without the black
bezel. The panel should be perfect or near perfect. Please send replies and prices to: K2WH@... K2WH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill (Group Owner)
