|
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Brian" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In no particular order: 1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?) Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the membership. I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as members, but that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL. This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and non-members. Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership? They hired READEX to do a survey. It was supposedly a scientific sample of the membership. That was 1996. 5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree) YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is open-minded and progressive, etc. Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of both camps until they come to a concensus. The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing. No, it isn't. And it's spelled "consensus", as WK3C demonstrates. The "c-word" came into use because FCC said some years ago that they weren't going to do any serious restructuring until the amateur radio community came up with a consensus on what they wanted. That policy was quite visibly abandoned in 1998 when FCC issued an NPRM without any consensus being evident. But for several years the FCC was quite happy to avoid the issue based on the "consensus" argument. By 1998, the writing apparently was on the wall in the FCC that there probably was no rational reason to retain code testing. The FCC then gave pro-code advocates the opportunity to provide reasons for code testing and for various code speeds. The pro-code arguments were insufficient and all were denied by the FCC as being rational or otherwise justifiable. On some things there may never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Depends on the issue and how close to a consensus exists. There's a world of difference between a 90% majority and a 51% majority, for example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You're welcome. You make my point exactly!!! Of course. I'm very much an ARRL supporter, And a long-time member... but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Why is it "pathetic"? A significant number of hams are interested in "vintage" radio. Just like a significant number of people like antique furniture, classic cars, oldies music, past films and books, vintage clothing, etc. Doesn't mean they are "stuck in the past". I know a 9 year old who is fascinated with Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" - both the book and the 1949 film version. Is that "pathetic"? How about folks who restore and drive classic cars like 1960s Corvairs or Triumphs? Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. The organ grinder plays the same few tunes over and over. No matter what we hams did, or what the ARRL published, we'd get the same jeremiads from him. He's not involved. Anyone can sit on the sidelines like he does. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". Why not? Isn't there room for both? How many articles have there been in QST over the past few years on PSK, MFSK, WSJT, digital voice, IRLP.....? How many articles on "future systems" have you submitted? Or anyone else here, for that matter? You say you want more "tinkerers". At least the vintage radio folks are tinkering, and have an idea how their rigs work. They aren;t just buying and plugging in, with no concept of what goes on behind the panel. Isn't that a step in the right direction? I think one reason "vintage" radio has gained popularity is that many hams *want* to be knowledgeable and skilled in the technical side of radio, but the "future systems" stuff is too sterile and too inaccessible to them. Look at old radio mags and see how many "Build This Radio!" articles there were, describing receivers and transmitters that could be built by someone with a few tools and some basic knowledge. How much of that do you see in amateur radio magazines today? If a 50+ year old transmitter on a wooden chassis can put out a legal signal and make QSOs, what't the problem? Guess we've got to keep that sort of thing secret - might cut into Ikensu's sales.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!! I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". 73, de Hans, K0HB Is it really too much to have one issue out of 12 address vintage radio? Afterall there are some hams to whom this is of interest either practical or just as a window into history. Although my own interest is in new radios and how much they can pack into how little space, the vintage issue is a nice relaxing look at the past. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Leadership is when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement and then "do the right thing." Who decides what "the right thing" really is? That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may be right, but not overwhelmingly popular). Sure. In one group I was the director of, I directly defied a board decision, reinstating something that they revoked. But even then, I relied on the input of the people that were affected by the board's decision. They were displeased by the decision, and appealed to me to do something. They were right, so I did it. Then offered my resignation to the board for the defiance. (being a leader does not give you unlimited power) Oddly enough, my offer was unanimously rejected. I think the rest of the BOD was actually relieved. But the occasional and very uncomfortable times that you have to stick your neck out does not releas you from a obligation to listen as often as possible. For example, look at that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"? No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance operators. and we are headed in the opposite direction. Otherwise, they could just do a web vote popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the staff could handle the whole thing ... And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"? I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in "leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call, then it might as well devolve to that ... Must be pretty good to always know what the "right call" is. It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really think that's a good idea? Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior knowledge, insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the best choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term. Of course not. But they still have to represent their constituents. In our locale, we have had a number of County commissioners that believed they had the right ideas, to the point of ignoring what a large majority of the citezenry wanted, and with their "leadership" saddled the county with a huge new and unnesesary project and the billing therof. Commisioner 1 was the lowest vote-getter in the next election, and commisioner two was smart enough to not run again for that office. THe only one re-elected was the sole commissioner who voted against the project. These people displayed your kind of "leadership". Once. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!! I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". 73, de Hans, K0HB Hello there Hans ...... Again I have to say that our service, hobby, endeavor, passion, pastime, escape or whatever description or definition one makes is like the blind men and the elephant. Each have a part and use their senses-perception to come up with a concrete explanation of what they have. Ham radio is like this ..... and it is a strength not a weakness. I know a lot of fellows will say that the service is strictly defined by the FCC. That is a given but it has evolved into other areas. Kudos to the ARRL for a nostalgia issue or any topic issue that generates interest. I really think it is myopic to beat that "technical" horse as a lot of fellows are not as interested as others ... part 97 or not. Grabbing the technical end of the elephant and saying it is more important for the future just may not be the case ....I don't know. Technology will come and be absorbed by future hams more on the basis of modification of use rather than basic "new" discoveries. Like it or not the "marketplace" drives the existence of publications. I used to subscribe to Ham Radio .....if it was "that good" then we would still be getting it. The technos aspect just didn't ring enough ham bells out there. I'd like to say to all on the newsgroup .... Merry Christmas and the best for 04 73 KI3R Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa |
KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test. Yes. (But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant privileges.) So you think it is not only more difficult, but it is nott difficult enough? Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than before? What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted language of rrap is English. Funny, I understood that. We'll work through this with you Hans. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"KØHB" wrote:
"N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!! I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. I can't agree. I enjoy articles about vintage rigs. There is every indication that there are many others who enjoy them. I collect vintage rigs and restore them. Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". While I enjoy my vintage equipment, I don't use it every day. I run a Ten-Tec Orion. It is something from the present which was very much the future only a few short months ago. Len likes to prattle about ancient morse code yet most of us don't stick with only one mode. I discount Len's rants heavily since he isn't really involved and has little idea what radio amateurs are doing. Dave K8MN |
N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Last time a construction article with Nuvistors in it was when? Probably 1965 or so. Almost 40 years. The current issue of QST has some really up-to-date-technology in it, not quite Nuvistors, but well beyond spark. Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Yup, and a very interesting issue it is to me. For example, a full length article on how important the quartz crystal industry was to winning the war. (WW-II, that is!) Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Radio grade quartz was mined back then - today it's grown. Or another full length article on bringing a DX-100 AM transmitter (1955 era) up to factory spec. Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. The DX-100 was basically a bargain version of the Viking 2/ 122 VFO combo in one box. Not as good, though. YMMV. The article tells how a ham bought an old Heathkit rig on eBay, fixed it up, and put it on the air. Looks like he had fun doing it, too. Rig was actually Made In USA, and the present owner actually worked on it hisself. Very electro-politically incorrect. Or how about the leading edge article on restoring a 1948 wooden-chassis homebrew 2-tube transmitter? Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. The DX-100 was basically a bargain version of the Viking 2/ 122 VFO combo in one box. Not as good, though. YMMV. The article tells how a ham bought an old homebrew rig on eBay, fixed it up, made a few modifications and put it on the air. Looks like he had fun doing it, too. Rig was actually home-built by a ham - not even a kit. Parts were all Made In USA, and the present owner actually worked on it hisself. And it puts out a perfectly clean signal. Very, very electro-politically incorrect, though. How dare these hams actually work on their own rigs! Next thing you know, they'll be turning their backs on Ikensu.... Hang around, and pretty soon -- perhaps within the decade -- we'll get up to Nuvistor technology! PS: I almost forgot to mention, there's also some tantalizing information in this issue about panoramic reception, developed in 1932 by F3HM. Maybe it'll catch on! I recall about a decade ago when the IC-781 appeared how gaga some folks were over the display. As if nobody had ever done it before. Shades of the QS-59 receiver.... Also in the same issue of QST: - Article on using a transmitter-receiver modules to eliminate the key cable (tail wagging the dog..) - 5 page article on the K1B Baker Island DXpedition - Article on contesting as a "little pistol" - Article on "casual" RTTY contesting - "Short Takes" column on MultiPSK freeware package (does several flavors of PSK, SSTV, RTTY, AMTOR, Hellschreiber, and (oh yes) CW - 3-1/2 page article on building an AC wattmeter - 2 page "Hands On Radio" column. This is #12 in a series - subject is FETs. - 2 page "Hints and Kinks" column. - 5 page review of the Ten Tec Orion - 2 page review of the SGC add on audio DSP unit (ADSP2) - Correspondence from Members, Happenings, Technical Correspondence, Public Service, DX, Exam Info, World above 50 MHz, At The Foundation, Old Radio, YL News, SKs, New Products, 75/50/25 years ago in QST, Contest and hamfest calendars, W1AW schedule... - Microwavelengths (Part 1 of an article about microwave LNAs - no nuvistors in sight) - Results of June VHF contest, School club Roundup, August UHF contest. - and more. 160 pages this issue. How many articles of cutting-edge technology have you submitted? I've though of writing an article or two for QST myself. Probably wouldn't be cutting edge. Most contributions I could make would be geared toward homebrewing, and most likely on panel layout technique, ergonomics and (gasp) aesthetics. If they print an article about doing panels in Powerpoint, the state of Amateur radio equipment layout could use the boost. Hans would probably still make fun of it tho'! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Brian" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of both camps until they come to a concensus. The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing. No it doesn't. I've used consensus building for years. I don't do it unless a decision *needs* to be made. I even use it in situations where I have absolute dictatorial power, such as on my Ice Hockey team. I find out what the guys think on a lot of the issues. Then as long as it makes sense, and is within the rules I'll decide what they like. You'd be surprised how well they listen to you when they *need* to when you listen to them when you *should*. The Finnish government is made up of numerous political parties. There isn't much difference between most of them. Finns have typically governed through concensus politics. This has been their way for decades and they seem to have less trouble in getting things done than we do. Other BOD activities I've been involved in are run the same way - although I don't have absolute power there! 8^) On some things there may never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Leadership is when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement and then "do the right thing." Sure, ya have to do that sometimes. Problem is that if you use that courage and wisdom in the wrong way, you can find yourself on the outside pretty quickly. Then you're a leader with no flock. No leader at all. Jimmy Carter comes to mind. Len Anderson comes to mind. Otherwise, they could just do a web vote familiar with web voting? popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the staff could handle the whole thing ... Leaders get usually get elected or appointed or whatever because they have some values that appeal to those who are to be governed. The most successful leaders I know ask for and get as much input as they can when faced with decisions. Figuring that you know the answers and what you know is right regardless is hubris. As Phil Kane pointed out, there have been occasions when a "leader" in the ARRL has been recalled. There've been other occasions when an ARRL leader has been ousted in regular elections. Dave K8MN |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really think that's a good idea? Yes, sometimes I think it IS a good idea. That sort of activity is often called leadership. Other times I think it's NOT a good idea. The mark of a good leader is determining the difference. 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, You and I are on the same frequency on this one ... you said it clearer than I did the first time, but hopefully my explanation was better in response to Jim's question. 73, Carl - wk3c Carl, that's the one aspect that I have found the most disappointing about the ARRL leadership, they "governed" - like Clinton - with polls. Their big poll was one of the most poorly constructed polls I've ever seen. Even worse is that they paid an outside agency to do it - with our dues money. The fact that -I- helped pay for that poll and I didn't even receive a questionaire was just icing on the cake. I never saw the ARRL vision of the future as anything other than old men in Western Union garb tapping away at their keys. That should be their vision of the past, not the future. Repeating the past over and over again gets the ARS where? One more tube regen receiver article will likely put me over the edge. I know the ARRL is a superb watchdog concerning legislation that affects the ARS. They are also the best publishing house on radio related material. Their lab reviews are unrivaled. And their operating activities are lots of fun. Thus, I continue to support the ARRL. But with respect to the future, just about any decision is better than no decision. 73, Brian |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!! I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". 73, de Hans, K0HB Love him or hate him, LHA put the big nail thru that one. Brian |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In no particular order: 1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?) Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the membership. I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as members, but that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL. This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and non-members. Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership? I'm sure they did - one thing that they probably did right. But they also officially polled non-members. 5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree) YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is open-minded and progressive, etc. Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of both camps until they come to a concensus. The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing. On some things there may never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Leadership is when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement and then "do the right thing." Its tough being a leader. You can never make everyone happy. But doing nothing is likely to **** everyone off. Otherwise, they could just do a web vote popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the staff could handle the whole thing ... They probably are handling it. ;^) 6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too) I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old Man," but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower operating cost. Commercial gear? Why? Perhaps you misunderstand ... first, W1AW is running commercial gear (and has for many years). I believe the current main transmitters are super-commercial gear from Harris Corp., if memory serves me correctly, suplimented by some other commercial gear donated by some or all of "the big 4" ham equipment mfgrs. I've use Harris gear in the service. How about a prolonged lab test on real amateur gear? Or are the operations at W1AW really too severe for amateur gear? What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc. All of that could be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce operating costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...) I honestly have no problem with the transmissions. Perhaps W1MAN could contact with the ARRL to put out his bulletins and stop the duplicity. Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the other ARRL thread. I have been on business travel to the ITU in Geneva for two weeks and to New Orleans for a week of meetings and haven't been keeping up. Perhaps I was a bit rash in that statement. Let them bash ... NCI continues to gain new members (and the pace picked up quite dramatically with all of the publicity surrounding the Petitions before the FCC); the membership is, judging by the large number of e-mails I get, happy with our policies and actions and ready to continue to support NCI through the end-game; They needed an alternative to the status-quo. and our detractors still haven't presented the FCC with a single rational, valid, compelling reason to keep any Morse testing ... Aaron Jones was keeping the list of Morse Myths, and he's been silent for a couple of years. There must be nothing new to debunk. 73, Carl - wk3c 73, Brian/N0iMD |
|
KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!! I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". Huh? ARRL has several specialty issues, and many hams enjoy the Vintage radio issue. Myself included. Maybe you could write a cutting edge article or two? Want a future systems issue? get in touch with them and suggest it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message et... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Brian" wrote in message gle.com... Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the other ARRL thread. 73, Brian I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their goal but that does not constitute bashing them. I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap. What GAP? Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. Why should there be anything in its place? This isn't about some mystical quantification of effort, dedication, yada yada.... You are kind of right there Bill. I can prove to you without a doubt that a person can get on the air without ever taking a test. They can get on the air and run relatively high power without doing harm to themselves. There is no need for any yada yada at all. It isn't mystical, it isn't yada yada. It is philosophy. And my philosophy is that the amateur should want to be an amateur, and should have some level of knowledge in order to be there. The morse tests have completely disappeared for General and Extra without anything taking its place. If 5 wpm is dropped for tech, why should there be something to replace it? Now I'm a little confused. As far as I know, if you want a general or above, you still have to take a Morse code test. And they don't do tech plusses any more. My Tech license had no code test in it. I want to see something in it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made much much easier to get a license. Ending a requirement that no longer has a rational need does not translate into a search for some "replacement". If you had the opportunity to state what the replacement should be, what would you suggest? I support strengthening the tests. In general, I want more questions on theory, and more procedural questions. I wouldn't mind if there were a ham etiquette section added to the test. I want the new ham to come on board with some idea of what is expected of him or her in the way of how to conduct themselves on the air. I want them to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of electronics, and know some basics on antenna theory, like our "quarter wave dipole" discussion on rrap of a few months back proves is needed. You may want it made much easier to get a license, but I don't. Not a filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way of ensuring that the amateur has some level of acumen. Ending morse doesn't change the level of written tests. No kidding! I want the level of the tests changed though. And not to the level of the "average sixth grader" either. Otherwise, those who want little or no testing are just encouraged. Encouraged about what? About little or no testing. Instead, some members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me. "Some members"? Who? It is always easy to make non-speciifc accusations against unidentified "some members". W5YI for one. I trust you have read his work? W5YI's comments as to testing issues beyond the elimination of code testing are NOT, in any way, shape or form, the position or opinion of NCI. Show me where I said it was! As to other NCI members, assuming you can ID someone, they too may have a personal belief as to how testing should go... but that does NOT make their opinions or beliefs NCI doctrine. I'm not talking about NCI, I'm talking about NCI members. There is a difference. As far as I know, NCI has no official opinions beyond ending the Morse code test. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You're welcome. You make my point exactly!!! Of course. I'm very much an ARRL supporter, And a long-time member... but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Why is it "pathetic"? A significant number of hams are interested in "vintage" radio. Just like a significant number of people like antique furniture, classic cars, oldies music, past films and books, vintage clothing, etc. Doesn't mean they are "stuck in the past". I know a 9 year old who is fascinated with Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" - both the book and the 1949 film version. Is that "pathetic"? How about folks who restore and drive classic cars like 1960s Corvairs or Triumphs? Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. The organ grinder plays the same few tunes over and over. No matter what we hams did, or what the ARRL published, we'd get the same jeremiads from him. He's not involved. Anyone can sit on the sidelines like he does. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". Why not? Isn't there room for both? How many articles have there been in QST over the past few years on PSK, MFSK, WSJT, digital voice, IRLP.....? How many articles on "future systems" have you submitted? Or anyone else here, for that matter? You say you want more "tinkerers". At least the vintage radio folks are tinkering, and have an idea how their rigs work. They aren;t just buying and plugging in, with no concept of what goes on behind the panel. Isn't that a step in the right direction? I think one reason "vintage" radio has gained popularity is that many hams *want* to be knowledgeable and skilled in the technical side of radio, but the "future systems" stuff is too sterile and too inaccessible to them. Look at old radio mags and see how many "Build This Radio!" articles there were, describing receivers and transmitters that could be built by someone with a few tools and some basic knowledge. How much of that do you see in amateur radio magazines today? If a 50+ year old transmitter on a wooden chassis can put out a legal signal and make QSOs, what't the problem? Guess we've got to keep that sort of thing secret - might cut into Ikensu's sales.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote Why is it "pathetic"? A significant number of hams are interested in "vintage" radio. Just like a significant number of people like antique furniture, classic cars, oldies music, past films and books, vintage clothing, etc. Doesn't mean they are "stuck in the past". They already have a monthly feature called "Old Radios" and "75/50/25 Years Ago", and now a special "Vintage Radio" issue each year besides? Maybe we could do a photo-feature of "The Girls of Geratol Net" with a centerfold for those of you who get off on old stuff. (Yes, Virginia, there really is a "Geratol Net"!) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Oops sorry, I accidentally posted without comment
N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You're welcome. You make my point exactly!!! Of course. I'm very much an ARRL supporter, And a long-time member... but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Why is it "pathetic"? A significant number of hams are interested in "vintage" radio. Just like a significant number of people like antique furniture, classic cars, oldies music, past films and books, vintage clothing, etc. Doesn't mean they are "stuck in the past". I know a 9 year old who is fascinated with Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" - both the book and the 1949 film version. Is that "pathetic"? How about folks who restore and drive classic cars like 1960s Corvairs or Triumphs? Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. The organ grinder plays the same few tunes over and over. No matter what we hams did, or what the ARRL published, we'd get the same jeremiads from him. He's not involved. Anyone can sit on the sidelines like he does. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". Why not? Isn't there room for both? How many articles have there been in QST over the past few years on PSK, MFSK, WSJT, digital voice, IRLP.....? Here you have a pattern, Jim. As much as I like the new modes, All they are is install the software and hook up the interface. Troubleshooting is which software switch to change. How many articles on "future systems" have you submitted? Or anyone else here, for that matter? You say you want more "tinkerers". At least the vintage radio folks are tinkering, and have an idea how their rigs work. They aren;t just buying and plugging in, with no concept of what goes on behind the panel. Isn't that a step in the right direction? I just restored an SB-200. It was great fun resurrecting the old thing, and I learned a lot about RF amps. They were a mystery to me, and now I know their simplicity. I think one reason "vintage" radio has gained popularity is that many hams *want* to be knowledgeable and skilled in the technical side of radio, but the "future systems" stuff is too sterile and too inaccessible to them. Look at old radio mags and see how many "Build This Radio!" articles there were, describing receivers and transmitters that could be built by someone with a few tools and some basic knowledge. How much of that do you see in amateur radio magazines today? If a 50+ year old transmitter on a wooden chassis can put out a legal signal and make QSOs, what't the problem? Guess we've got to keep that sort of thing secret - might cut into Ikensu's sales.... Another way of enjoying the hobby! Now that I am getting my Morse code up to acceptable speed, I intend to build one of these old sets. I'm looking forward to working as much as possible while the new hams with their Ikensu's will be coming on the air at just about the minimim of the sunspot cycle are trying out their ssb and wondering what all the fuss about ham radio was about! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote If a 50+ year old transmitter on a wooden chassis can put out a legal signal and make QSOs, what't the problem? No problem at all if you want to waste your time with that, but to have the National Association of Amateur Radio feature half century old technology as feature article(s) in their membership journal speaks volumns. § 97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the ADVANCEMENT of the radio art. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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 |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test. Yes. Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the written test. (But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant privileges.) Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees! In fact, in 2000 FCC drastically *reduced* the written testing needed for a Tech. From two tests and pools, frowm which were derived tests with a total of 65 questions down to one test of 35 questions and a combined pool. FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate. The same FCC that sees "no regulatory purpose" in code tests. Is FCC mistaken? Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than before? What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? Sorry, Hans, I thought you had an engineering background. ;-) I'll rephrase: Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a given time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote Why is it "pathetic"? A significant number of hams are interested in "vintage" radio. Just like a significant number of people like antique furniture, classic cars, oldies music, past films and books, vintage clothing, etc. Doesn't mean they are "stuck in the past". They already have a monthly feature called "Old Radios" and "75/50/25 Years Ago", and now a special "Vintage Radio" issue each year besides? Maybe we could do a photo-feature of "The Girls of Geratol Net" with a centerfold for those of you who get off on old stuff. (Yes, Virginia, there really is a "Geratol Net"!) 73, de Hans, K0HB Are you aware of what the GERATOL net is all about? It doesn't sound like it from your post. They are an organization of and for Extra class amateur radio operators and promote usage of the Extra class band segments by an award program. The awards add difficulty to the pursuit since only stations worked in the Extra segments count for their equivalent of Worked All States, etc. It has nothing to do with age. http://www.skyport.com/geratol/ Greetings Extra Radio Amateurs Tired of Operating Lately Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Oops sorry, I accidentally posted without comment N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KØHB" writes: How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". Why not? Isn't there room for both? How many articles have there been in QST over the past few years on PSK, MFSK, WSJT, digital voice, IRLP.....? Here you have a pattern, Jim. As much as I like the new modes, All they are is install the software and hook up the interface. Troubleshooting is which software switch to change. Besides that PSK, MFSK, WSJT, digital voice, and IRLP are not "future systems". They are here now. A "future system" would have to be something envisioned but not yet set up in hardware and software to do it. In other words, it would need to be an issue of speculation. Now whether that would be good or bad or popular or unpopular, I don't know. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote If a 50+ year old transmitter on a wooden chassis can put out a legal signal and make QSOs, what't the problem? No problem at all if you want to waste your time with that, but to have the National Association of Amateur Radio feature half century old technology as feature article(s) in their membership journal speaks volumns. § 97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the ADVANCEMENT of the radio art. 73, de Hans, K0HB It's often helpful to have insight into the past and past systems to come up with the future proposals. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote Are you aware of what the GERATOL net is all about? Yes, I'm aware what it's about and 25 years ago I was a member (#515 if you care to check). Now it has devolved into an inbred group of about 50 people who meet every night on 75 meters and "exchange numbers". Some "difficulty"! Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!! !! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote It's often helpful to have insight into the past and past systems to come up with the future proposals. If you can persuade me that a transmitter comprised of 2 obsolete 1930's tubes cobbled together on a wooden chassis gives insights which lead to future breakthroughs in the radio art, then I'll owe you a lobster dinner at Dayton. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test. Yes. Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the written test. Balderdash! (But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant privileges.) Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees! In fact, in 2000 FCC drastically *reduced* the written testing needed for a Tech. From two tests and pools, frowm which were derived tests with a total of 65 questions down to one test of 35 questions and a combined pool. FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate. The same FCC that sees "no regulatory purpose" in code tests. Is FCC mistaken? Another argument for the no test agenda: We regularly hurtle at each other at combined speeds of 150 miles per hour and more, wearing nothing but street clothes, and strapped into devices carrying a large load of almomst explosivly flammable liquid. And we're afraid to let people run radios that are putting out the same power as the microwave oven over my stove? Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than before? What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? Sorry, Hans, I thought you had an engineering background. ;-) I'll rephrase: Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a given time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made? Most of the tinkerers I know are pro-code test amateurs. Mine isn't a scientific survey, but I've noticed a common thread among them. They are very interested in RF technology. They are intensely interested in Amateur radio. They really like getting their hands down into the equipment. And whether this is related or not, they are also very interested in Morse code. I've seen some cutting edge stuff made by these same people. I do not know one technician that has done as much as build his or her own antenna. Well wait, I built a 1/4 wave ground plane for 2 meters when I was a Tech. But that's it. Based on that admittidly small sample, I would have to say that we are putting out less tinkers per unit time, and almost certainly less per hamcapita. (Hans, that means tinkerers per total numbe of Hams. 8^)) - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
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! ;-) Cool!!! When? I'd love to read them. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote Why is it "pathetic"? A significant number of hams are interested in "vintage" radio. Just like a significant number of people like antique furniture, classic cars, oldies music, past films and books, vintage clothing, etc. Doesn't mean they are "stuck in the past". They already have a monthly feature called "Old Radios" and "75/50/25 Years Ago", and now a special "Vintage Radio" issue each year besides? Maybe we could do a photo-feature of "The Girls of Geratol Net" with a centerfold for those of you who get off on old stuff. (Yes, Virginia, there really is a "Geratol Net"!) 73, de Hans, K0HB Are you aware of what the GERATOL net is all about? It doesn't sound like it from your post. They are an organization of and for Extra class amateur radio operators and promote usage of the Extra class band segments by an award program. The awards add difficulty to the pursuit since only stations worked in the Extra segments count for their equivalent of Worked All States, etc. It has nothing to do with age. Tuning through one evening, I came across the net. After hearing it was the Geratol net, I perked up. This might be worth a few minutes of weird fun, hearing about peoples bunions and hernia operations. Nothing! a regular net, except for one person who asked how anothers wife was doing. "much better thank you" was the answer, then went on to net business. Sunnavgun! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote Well, there you have it. Element 1 is easier than 5 questions on the written test. No, you don't "have it" at all, Jim. Question for question, the Technician examination questions are noticeably more difficult than those on the old Novice examination, and there are more of them. Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees! Do you think they're right? (1) FCC thinks that 35 question Tech test is adequate. (2)The same FCC that sees "no regulatory purpose" in code tests. Is FCC mistaken? They are mistaken on point one. They are correct on point 2. Have the changes of 2000 resulted in more tinkerers entering the ARS in a given time period (say, per year) than before the changes were made? I have no way of knowing for sure. Neither do you. It is my belief, however, that the diminished emphasis on technical issues in the test, along with the 'Ham Press' lack of emphasis on technical matters, is making the Amateur Radio service less effective in recruiting those of an experimental and tinkering bent. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Oops sorry, I accidentally posted without comment How dare you? :-) LHA |
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote If a 50+ year old transmitter on a wooden chassis can put out a legal signal and make QSOs, what't the problem? No problem at all if you want to waste your time with that, but to have the National Association of Amateur Radio feature half century old technology as feature article(s) in their membership journal speaks volumns. § 97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the ADVANCEMENT of the radio art. The thing being ADVANCED is the peace and tranquility state of the amateur, Hans. That's important to their mental well-being. Going back to past technology, rebuilding and restoring, is SAFE. Such is a known quantity. It can be explained via many existing texts. SECURITY. No problems about learning anything new. All can become "expert" on things made long ago without undue struggle. Such is already-proven technology...no struggling with unproven ideas. There's also the Nostalgia of the Never. Most restorers were not alive or too young when old equipment was high-tech. They want to relive a pioneering past they never lived in, indulging in fantasy and make-believe through vicarious mental other-lives. Old radio is SIMPLE. Everything is analogue. No need to learn new things like digital frequency meters (why get direct numbers when it is so much "fun" to beat a 221 and interpolate from that little book?), or PLLs for VFO stability (let it warm up for a half hour first then squint at a hand-scratched dial reading and hope you are still in-band), or "product detectors" when everyone knows a detector is a diode and must always have a BFO. STABILITY. Not just in quartz crystal control of a single transmit frequency. Known quantities are stable...all that is required is to consult existing texts and pictures long in existance and praised by mostly-gone users. If it was good then it MUST still be good. SERENITY. Self-satisfaction of "accomplishing" what has already been done. Safe. Secure. Simple. Stable. Serene. Old ways are best... LHA |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Leadership is when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement and then "do the right thing." Who decides what "the right thing" really is? That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may be right, but not overwhelmingly popular). But ultimately it comes down to popularity, because if the "leader" makes unpopular-enough decision(s), he/she may not be a "leader" anymore. This happens in government, in business (if a decision isn't popular-enough with customers and/or stockholders), and in almost all voluntary organizations. For example, look at that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"? No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance operators. Agreed! But the leaders of the NCVEC committee disagree with us. And some of the provisions of the "Communicator" work against that. (No rigs over 30 volts??) But others will argue that an easier entry-level license will attract more new hams, and therefore more who will want to *understand radio*. After all, isn't education one of the B&Ps of the ARS? It boils down to the old argument of: "Become a ham to learn about radio" vs. "Learn about radio to become a ham" Otherwise, they could just do a web vote popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the staff could handle the whole thing ... And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"? I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in "leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call, then it might as well devolve to that ... They *do* have the intestinal fortitude to make the "right" call. But there's disagreement about what that call is. There are honest people on all sides of most disagreements. It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really think that's a good idea? Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior knowledge, insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the best choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term. Others describe the ARRL leadership as "self appointed gods of radio" who claim to "know what is best". And they use that description as a reason not to join. Like it or not, it's ultimately a popularity contest. And the long term is hard to gauge because things aren't left alone long enough. Even when they are, there is often little agreement with what the results mean. For example, did US amateur radio grow faster in the nocodetest 90s than in the allcodetest 80s? What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc. All of that could be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce operating costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...) IOW, you want to shut down the station. No, I wasn't saying that ... I was just "thinking out loud" about what things might be more cost-effectively provided by other means. If the bulletins and code practice were done online instead of on-air, what would be left of W1AW? The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting...... I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ... But what have you *done* to make that a reality except for talking about it? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!! I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street. Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue". 73, de Hans, K0HB Is it really too much to have one issue out of 12 address vintage radio? No. But every issue seems to have the same theme: vintage radio. Afterall there are some hams to whom this is of interest either practical or just as a window into history. Although my own interest is in new radios and how much they can pack into how little space, Tiny radios? May I suggest the "Tuna Tin," the "Tuna Tin Two," the all solid state "Altoids Tin?" More recently we've had the film can antenna tuner and the batteryless "Tic-Tac" diode receiver. the vintage issue is a nice relaxing look at the past. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE You might even enjoy CQ's calendar with vintage equipment photos. Brian |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: But others will argue that an easier entry-level license will attract more new hams, and therefore more who will want to *understand radio*. After all, isn't education one of the B&Ps of the ARS? It boils down to the old argument of: "Become a ham to learn about radio" vs. "Learn about radio to become a ham" What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Brian" wrote in message m... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... Afterall there are some hams to whom this is of interest either practical or just as a window into history. Although my own interest is in new radios and how much they can pack into how little space, Tiny radios? May I suggest the "Tuna Tin," the "Tuna Tin Two," the all solid state "Altoids Tin?" More recently we've had the film can antenna tuner and the batteryless "Tic-Tac" diode receiver. Not enough features to be interesting. I want a lot more "bells & whistles". Although now somewhat dated as other radios pack in more features, I bought one of the earliest TS-50 radios. At the time, it was the smallest radio around covering all the HF bands with typical user features. However the TS-50 would be representative of what I consider to be interesting in terms of compact size. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Subject: Why I Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/20/03 1:34 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Going back to past technology, rebuilding and restoring, is SAFE. Such is a known quantity. It can be explained via many existing texts. SECURITY. No problems about learning anything new. All can become "expert" on things made long ago without undue struggle. Such is already-proven technology...no struggling with unproven ideas. Is this why we are bombarded with stories about "ADA", 1950's era RTTY nets, and a whole plethora of what you did in NON-Amateur radio from the PAST four decades, Lennie? You sure haven't offered us anything new! Old radio is SIMPLE. So are you. Easy to see through and unlikely to ever be anything else but... STABILITY. Ahhhh...Now THERE is your shortfall. SERENITY. Self-satisfaction of "accomplishing" what has already been done. That would be you! Safe. Secure. Simple. Stable. Serene. Old ways are best... Thank God, then, that Amateur Radio hasn't been stagnant, huh, Putzman? Steve, K4YZ |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other. The ONLY way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license. Nothing else matters. Radio gods have spoken. LHA |
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:28:46 GMT, K HB wrote:
Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than before? What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted language of rrap is English. Yeah - to quote one of my favorite lines from the defunct "Amos and Andy" TV show "speak to the man in Algebra, Andy" Perhaps you can rephrase the question in the stone-furlong-fortnight system of measurement. Perhaps it needs a Yaenkel coordinate transform from reality to surreality. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com