N2EY wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...

"Jack Twilley" wrote


If you were the average ham, Hans......

"Average" and "contesting" are incompatible concepts.


Agreed!

"Nothing average ever stood as a monument to progress.


Not entirely true.

Look at the "average" ham HF transceiver of, say, 40 years ago. Now
look at the "average" ham HF transceiver today. Not the
top-of-the-line, but rather what the middle of the pack can afford.
I'd say there's been some progress, particularly in what such sets
cost to buy new in terms of how many hours you have to work to buy
one.

And if Hams simply bought the "average" rigs of yesteryear in
preference to the improved ones, we'd still be getting those same
average rigs.

Of course one of the big reasons the *average* rig is better is a
trickle-down effect of techniques used on the top-of-the-line stuff.
Which stuff exists in large part because of the market created by
contesters and DXers.

Or look at the features, capabilities and cost of the average PC
compared to 5 or 10 years ago. Heck, the average new PC today is more
powerful (by a whole bunch of measures) than the top-of-the-line
machine of a few years ago - and it costs far less.

So I'd say that the *average* can actually be a monument to progress.


Gee Jim! average means just that. The newer better faster average rigs
and computers are getting their increased power or functionality FROM
the better than average machinery. No better than average machinery, no
increased capabilitied to eventually go into the average stuff.


- Mike KB3EIA -