"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.

My point is essentially that, IMHO, there is too much "nostalgia" and
"let's go back to the past" content in QST. I'd prefer a more bleeding
edge "let's push into the future" approach myself.

How about reprints of memorable articles from yesteryear? Two from
the 1950s which are still applicable today for every class of licensee
come to mind:

"Guys for Guys Who Have to Guy" (a basic paper on guyed towers)
"Over the Hills and Far Away" (ditto on tropo propagation)

Some articles are ageless ... I agree with the idea of occasionally
reprinting
classics that are still applicable ... or making a compendium of them
available
on a CD-ROM might be an even better approach.

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

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.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..

Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
e.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. 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.

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.

Otherwise, those who want little or no testing are just encouraged.





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?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. 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.

Siince the Novice license was discontinued, it has become more difficult to
become an amateur.

Not a filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way
of ensuring that the amateur has some level of acumen.

I don't hold the opinion that the Morse test established that the applicant
has any "level of acumen" (check with Funk and Wagnalls before you respond).

In the world of Amateur Radio there are users and tinkerers. We need more
tinkerers, not more users.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

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.

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; and our detractors still haven't presented the FCC with a single
rational,
valid, compelling reason to keep any Morse testing ...

73,
Carl - wk3c


Carl, just a gentle reminder. I do not bash the NCI but merely disagree
with its goals.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
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.

Last time a construction article with Nuvistors in it was when?
Probably 1965 or so. Almost 40 years.

There's an on-line index of QST, QEX and ham radio at the ARRL
website. Searchable by keyword, author, date, author callsign, all
sorts of stuff.

How about reprints of memorable articles from yesteryear? Two from
the 1950s which are still applicable today for every class of licensee
come to mind:

"Guys for Guys Who Have to Guy" (a basic paper on guyed towers)
"Over the Hills and Far Away" (ditto on tropo propagation)

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

I've read them - first time probably 30+ years ago. At least a few
times since then, too.

Lots of other classics. Having a QST collection helps. ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.

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.

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? 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"?

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"?

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?


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.

The transmitters (actually transceivers) used for bulletins and code
practice are Harris units. They are stock items. They were chosen for
that service because they were capable of total computer control and
because they were judged to be rugged enough for W1AW service.
Remember that the W1AW modernization was done more than a few years
ago, so you have to look at what was available then, not now.

The supplemental guest stations are for general operating and
contesting, and are not used when the bulletin/code practice sessions
are being run.

Homebrew transmitters *were* considered - that had been the standard
W1AW setup since the station was first put on the air more than 65
years ago. But the cost of paying staff members to design and build
such rigs was calculated to be greater than the cost of the Harris
units.

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.

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......

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

It would be interesting to see whether Carl considers my comments
"bashing"...

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;

And there are how many of them? ;-)

What percentage of US hams do they comprise? ;-)

Point is, the whole "consensus" thing is history. FCC is deciding by
different criteria now.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.

The most recent construction article in QST using Nuvistors was when?

My point is essentially that, IMHO, there is too much "nostalgia" and
"let's go back to the past" content in QST.

I disagree. There's a good mix now.

I'd prefer a more bleeding
edge "let's push into the future" approach myself.

Then write some articles about stuff you'd like to see there. Look at
the bylines of QST construction articles - most of them aren't by
staffers. They're written by hams - like me.

Remember that one of the biggest complaints readers had about QST in
the past was that it was "too technical". So QEX was started, and the
more technical stuff migrated there.

How about reprints of memorable articles from yesteryear? Two from
the 1950s which are still applicable today for every class of licensee
come to mind:

"Guys for Guys Who Have to Guy" (a basic paper on guyed towers)
"Over the Hills and Far Away" (ditto on tropo propagation)

Some articles are ageless ... I agree with the idea of occasionally
reprinting
classics that are still applicable ... or making a compendium of them
available
on a CD-ROM might be an even better approach.

Problem is, such a compendium would compete with the QST CD-ROMs. But
it's still a good idea.

I'd really like to see old and rare ARRL publications on CD-ROM, both
for historic and fund-raising reasons.

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?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

"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.

For example, a full length article on how important the quartz crystal
industry was to winning the war. (WW-II, that is!)

Or another full length article on bringing a DX-100 AM transmitter (1955
era) up to factory spec.

Or how about the leading edge article on restoring a 1948 wooden-chassis
homebrew 2-tube transmitter?

Hang around, and pretty soon -- perhaps within the decade -- we'll get up to
Nuvistor technology!

73, de Hans, K0HB

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!

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"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.

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 ... but I don't think tube projects have much relevance any more,
except,
perhaps for amplifiers, and you know how I feel about QRO ...

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.

73,
Carl - wk3c