In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:12:40 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data
and more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.
I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff and fewer
articles on building regen receivers with tubes, though.

Yeah, Nuvistors are getting hard to get.

And even half-a**ed decent transistors can blow their performance away,
with better ones being worlds better.

Better in some ways, worse in others.

The most recent construction article in QST using Nuvistors was when?

Ask Phil, he's the one who mentioned them :-) Seriously, I think it was in
the 60's

About 40 years ago.

... but I don't think tube projects have much relevance any more,

Why not?

Is there something wrong with using older technologies?

except,
perhaps for amplifiers, and you know how I feel about QRO ...

Purely an emotional thing, then.

Some hams recently have set new records by working EME on 24 GHz using small
(two-metre-diameter) dishes and power outputs of 100 watts or less. Neat stuff.
Their transmitters used transmitting wave tubes. I'll let you guess the
mode....

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

I did. And almost every other QST article since - well, you don't
really want to know how far back....

I don't recall them by title, but I probably read them ... my high
school
had an extensive collection of QSTs and I spend most of my study hall
time signed out to the library reading QST ... I think I'd read every
copy
they had in the collection by the time I graduated in 1967.

How far back did they go?

I honestly don't remember ... but well back into the 50's IIRC.

HAW! If you graduated in 1967, and the collection went back to, say, 1952,
that's 15 years. Like someone today with a collection that went back to 1988.
While certainly worthwhile and useful, I'd hardly call a 15 year collection
"extensive"...

If you don't like what's in QST, why not write some articles featuring things
you'd like to see? Heck, they published some of my stuff - they can't be *that*
fussy! ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY