KØHB wrote:
On May 19, 7:13 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

I'm all about technology. I do want it to be relevant, not just
technology for it's own sake.


"Relevant" is a moving target, Mike. I think we should encourage technology
"just for it's own sake".

Keeping in mind that some technology is a dead end.



Some percentage (invariably a LARGE percentage) mosly likely will end up no more
than a technical curiousity (for the moment, anyhow). But if ARRL can light a
technological campfire for us to gather round, even small percentages of PBI's
maturing will justify the effort.

Good technology:

Getting more people on narrow digital modes.

I still want a PSK31 HT. Young people like to text. Having an HT that
can display text that costs nothing beyond the initial cost of the HT,
and the cost of charging batteries.

Oh yeah, while we're at it, I don't know if that HT with the camera is
still being produced


None of that is new technology, Mike, just "more of the same old stuff in a
different sack". "Texting" and "cameras in an HT" are mass marketed by the
millions and already owned by every bubble-gummer in the country who has access
to a cheap cell phone!

So much of what we use is not terribly new. Certainly SSB was around a
long time before Amateurs adopted it in large numbers. Technology is not
just about what is cutting edge, but is often about can be done
efficiently and at a good cost. While PSK has been around for a while,
availability of computers/soundcards/software to allow Hams to
experiment with it was critical to having many adopt it.


As much as I prefer regular transceivers, SDR radio would be a pretty
interesting way to go. Big hint to the mfgr's: Sell something usable
that isn't a kilobuck+. I saw the ones out at Dayton, and a better price
point is advised.

Hopefully this new "pillar" isn't about hints to manufacturers defining
their product offerings, but about fostering an amateur radio environment which
breeds a spirit of experimentation and tinkering among amateur licensees.

I want to see more pages of ham-authored articles in QEX, not more commercial
advertising in QST.

The RF world is fairly mature at this point. (please no comparisons to
that physicist who said "everything is known") The earth shaking
developments tend to come a little further apart these days. I would
guess that most new innovations will be incremental, though it would be
cool to be proven incorrect on that.

I just don't know how many fundamental breakthroughs will be made by
some Ham working in his or her garage.

More to the point in my mature technology outlook is that when something
gets to that point, much of the research and innovation needs a fair
amount of money put into it to get very far.

Hopefully this new "pillar" is about petitions to FCC to loosen up our spectrum
to new modes and techniques. Back when ARRL/FCC were haggling about how to
refarm the so-called "Novice bands", I suggested that they be set up as
experimental reservations where forward looking amateurs would be encouraged to
try new or unconventional technologies. Instead, FCC copped out and just
shuffled some mode-boundaries around.

I wouldn't argue about your idea. I think it is pretty sensible. There
would probably be a lot of hand wringing about it by some folk, I suspect.


- 73 d eMike N3LI -