RadioBanter - View Single Post

June 15th 04, 02:21 PM

(Fractenna) wrote in message ...
You've copy-pasted one paragraph of one of this guy's personal
comments on the K1DFT thing into something it's not in order to suit
your own personal agenda(s).

Hi Brian,

Nice to hear from you.

The ARRL NE Convention at Boxboro is planning a two hour forum for Rob
Vincent's work. Perhaps you might present an example where a 'new' technical
subject has been given that much focus at an ARRL sponsored event?

I don't follow any of it. K4WGE made the definitive comment on this
one. "Open podiums gratis: Do as you will with 'em." So K1DFT is
taking advantage of the offer. Whoopie: So what?

I am of the opinion that it is proper and fitting to have this
venue as a forum
for Rob's work, but the time devoted would appear to indicate some sort of
point of view, don't you think?

No. See K4WGE post. All 30 sessions are two hours long. I could get
two hours. You could get two hours. Moses could get two hours.

Is there, for example, a separate talk by W8JI
telling us why the Vincent claims are not accurate? Balance would be very
nice. That is my opinion; yours may differ.

I'm sure the senior antenna gurus will provide plenty of "balance" if
K1DFT discloses his design details at the upcoming session. Until then
balance ain't gonna happen.

Also, your point is well taken. It would thus appear that perhaps--if there IS
such a strong interest from the members--

There's a huge difference between idle curiosity and genuine technical
interest. K1DFT's PR apparatus has managed to stir up a huge bunch of
the former at the Popular Science level amongst the membership. It's
gone far beyond just ham radio, it's also popping up all over the
physics and science junkies groups, websites and blogs. So did a
couple 200 MPG carburetor type "inventions".

that the ARRL do a short, factual, and
newsy piece on their web site. Otherwise, in an ARRL sponsored event, and an
ARRL sponsored web page, there is certainly a point of view so cast, don't you
think, Brian?

No. The posting of a place/date/time of a specific presentation is
simply a news announcement, nothing more, nothing less. Which is the
League doing it's job again.

I do have a personal point of view, Brian, that is frankly, quite well informed
and objective. It is not an agenda. I am not an activist.The ARRL has done many
good things, and it has done others that some feel are more activist oriented,
and--in my opinion-- not fostering new technologies such as UWB; cognitive
radio; and of course, BPL.

Uh-huh. Lemme guess: Hams need to dive into cognitive radio so that
ham radio and BPL can live happily forever together in the 2-80Mhz
spectrum. Got it, yessir, we gotta do that. Maybe when pigs fly.

Hams, in recent years, have little (if any) to show
in being part of the technological revolution in wireless that has occured in
the last decade.

(1) The commercials have long since surpassed the abilities of the
basement tinkerers to add anything of consequence to the related
technologies. Why whould Joe Ham futz around with his soldering iron
when he can walk out of a Wal-Mart with a shopping bag full of
wireless technology *and* change from his hunderd dollar bill? (2) I
personally know dozens of hams and I don't know one who is bemoaning
the lack of any type of high-speed comms in the ham bands. The FCC
bent over backward a few years ago to provide space for experimental
spread spectrum ops in the 70 cm band. TAPR launched into a
collaborative SS hardware development effort seven or so years ago.
Nothing. Nada. Zip, there hasn't been a single spread spectrum QSO yet
that I've heard about.

Translation: Meager to nil real interest amongst the proponents,
potential developers and the potential users of wide modes despite the
ongoing volume of whining about the lack of ham development work in
this field.

It would be a shame if the DLM designs of Vincent were used
(as a counterexample) in that context for PR sake by the ARRL or anyone
else--

Makes no sense.

if, and until, the claims are verified and the technology has been
demonstrated to offer NEW and UNIQUE benefits.

I agree with that and I don't see where the ARRL isn't also in
agreement.

I speculate that we will see a full, front page article on the wonders of the
DLM antenna in the QST September issue, to coincide with the Boxboro ARRL
Convention. Of course, that COULD be construed as an ARRL 'agenda', Brian.
And, of course, my opinions may prove to be only partially justified here, and
maybe totally wrong. Who knows-)?

Calm down Son, you're spring is wound too tight again.

Brian, do you have a technical opinion on the claims of the Vincent DLM
technology? I appreciate that you may wish to wait for more data.

No I don't have a "technical opinion" on it, there's not enough
technical info available on the thing to even start to formulate an
engineering opinion. What I do have is a healthy dose of skepticism
and I'll stick with it until such times as this magic monopole has
been thru a collection of independent tests and peer reviews.

I'm too busy to mess with this further = Two-Way exchange over.

'Bye.

73,
Chip N1IR

w3rv