bb wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


Probably the latter. Certainly a lot of small bands would be very
interesting. There would be a fair amount of equipment going out of use,
which would be a shame. No doubt modifications could be made, but with
many bands, the old equipment only has so many switch positions! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


Wow! For want of a band switch, you would let go of better (24hr)
coverage?

Maybe Jimmy the Riveter wouldn't mind stopping by with a chassis punch
and wire up a new switch for you.

It would be nice if all you had to do was put in a switch with more
positions on it, but those darn "innards" would have to be modified too.
Old equipment would probably have only a few bands it would operate on,
and the olde analog dials would add to the problems. The old stuff would
probably just have to be written off as a loss.


Heaven forbid that a ham would modernize his station.

Here's an idea. Just keep on using them as they are, on the bands they
are on.

Newer equipment would be

more amenable to modification, and displays would more likely continue
to work. Of course, someone has to do the mods, or the new equipment
gets consigned to the recycle bin too. Some of the newer equipment would
possibly not be convertible


People who have MARS licenses do it every day. I wonder if Steve ever
held a position of "authority" in MARS?


Okay, so lets say we just ditched all the analog equipment, and most
all of the digital equipment up to date of change.


Knock yourself out.


Now lets talk about antennas. It isn't likely that we will have single
antennas at any station, save for the resurrection of the old general
purpose dipole fed with ladder line, run through a tuner. That's one
that olde tyme hammes will recognize! I suppose the Steppir antennas
could work if you have enough coin. The method proposed by Jim will not
accommodate the tricks we use now to provide an acceptable match as the
major HF bands will not be harmonically related.


Trap dipoles don't have to be on bands that are harmonically related.


Perhaps we should go back to what Jim posted with his original question:


Jim's quote
* Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in
* the "60 meter" region.
*
* Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either:
*
* 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to
* 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc..
*
* or
*
* 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such
* as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the
* same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc.
*
* Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz
* overall?

End Jim's quote.


Under Jim's scenario, we would be adding several bands.

That trap dipole would be interesting indeed! Likely mostly traps.
Maybe I'll try to design one. Jim will have to give me the specific
frequencies that will be added in his scenario.


And trsp dipoles are not a very universal answer. In my situation I
would have to make a loaded trapped dipole for 80 meters and to cover
other bands. Now *that* would be a hoot! And quite heavy.


All in all, no thanks.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Congrats. You've just made "Full" member.

Full member of what? I've given my opinion, and it is based on some
technical and practical reasons.

Your reason is that my opinion makes me a full member of something
because I gave an answer based on those reasons.

If you want to say I'm wrong, then fine. I don't care about being
proven wrong. Show me *why* my opinion is wrong. If I can't refute it,
I'll admit it and I'll learn something from you.

But otherwise you're just castigating me for the sake of doing it.

- Mike KB3EIA -