|
On 19 Dec 2003 16:05:28 -0800, N2EY wrote:
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. I wasn't there (Dayton?) when Bill Cross said "the C word" but my understanding was that unless the ham community came with a consensus, it (we) were liable to get things that we may not like from the FCC if we back them into a corner. Perhaps - I hope - that was Bill's personal opinion and not "the official policy" of the FCC (we've differed on things before). With the latest Bureau restructuring, he now reports through another layer of supervision, and I understand that his immediate supervisor is now someone who is a ham, which was not the case before. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "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 The Geratol net fired up right on top of the DX window of 80 meters back in the 70s. I called them and they told me to get lost, they didn't work DX. I was DA2LJ and operating from Germany at the time. Just a bunch of losers in my book. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: Perhaps it needs a Yaenkel coordinate transform from reality to surreality. With the untimely loss of N0BK, somebody's gotta pick up the slack... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Oops sorry, I accidentally posted without comment How dare you? :-) HAH! I knew that one was coming! ;^) - mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote: In article , "Phil Kane" writes: Perhaps it needs a Yaenkel coordinate transform from reality to surreality. With the untimely loss of N0BK, somebody's gotta pick up the slack... Whoah!! Something happened to Dick?? 8^( - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len Over 21 wrote:
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. You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't true, but you could say it. You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner. You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you aren't an aviator. Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation in which you take no part. Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: 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. You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't true, but you could say it. I haven't. I don't. The only way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license. To you it doesn't count at all that "interest in radio" can result in a half century of professional work...including design in radio. To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing, designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio). No, FIRST one "must" get an AMATEUR license according to Herr Robust. You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner. I've been into "gardening" for over 40 years. At this same address. No amateur license required. No LICENSE required to garden. Not a problem. I can discuss gardening with any neighbor and they don't take offense. We share ideas, experiences, help each other out. In here, the arrogant officious ones DICTATE as to how all shall behave according to their holy rules. You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you aren't an aviator. I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive. I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd Class Restricted permit necessary. An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies, is it? I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant in that some time ago. Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation in which you take no part. Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions contrary to your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly, beligerantly go after any person who can stand up to you and show where your ideas aren't valid. The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust. They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments. I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness, but that IS true. I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you address others. Good luck on that one now! LHA |
Subject: Why I Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/23/03 12:00 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing, designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio). But to be a Radio Amateur, as defined by the Federal Communicaitions Commission, one must be a licensee. You can call yourself a "radio hobbyist", radio afficionado, CBer, or whatever else may fit. But "Radio Amateur" is not one of them. You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you aren't an aviator. I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive. But..but...but...LENNIE! YOU have been the one flaunting his copious retirement holdings and telling us how grand it is to be you! Are you now telling us you can't afford it...?!?! The average cost of obtaining a Private Pilot's license in 1974 (when I finished up my ticket) was around $2700. Todays it's just a bit over $3500. I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd Class Restricted permit necessary. Yes, Lennie...When you were a "student pilot" (snickering under my breath here!!!!!) a permit was required to operate the radios...One is STILL required if you intend to operate across an international boundry. Your "first phone" was not acceptable for operating an aircraft radio. The FAA did not accept ANYTHING except the Restricted Radiotelephone Permit as late as the 1980's. An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies, is it? Only you keep suggesting that "someone" suggests it is. I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant in that some time ago. Then at one time you were required to have a station license for your Part 95 (Subpart C) operations. No...one is not required now. However YOU suggest that it was not required "40+" years ago. Again, you are in error, "Mr. Radio Professional". Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation in which you take no part. Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions contrary to your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly, beligerantly go after any person who can stand up to you and show where your ideas aren't valid. So far, Your Putziness, you ahve FAILED to make any argument that suggests Dave's "ideas aren't valid". You HAVE demonstrated your gross ignorance on a great number of radio topics, and an even far greater number of issues (all, actually) relating to Amateur Radio. The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust. They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments. I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness, but that IS true. Again...YOUR assertion rings hollow. An error. A falsehood. I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you address others. Good luck on that one now! Dave! Did you forget to bow in deep reverence to His Radio Holiness, Sir Anderscum the First? I am soooooooooo (NOT!) ashamed of you! Steve, K4YZ |
On 23 Dec 2003 15:38:59 GMT, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Your "first phone" was not acceptable for operating an aircraft radio. The FAA did not accept ANYTHING except the Restricted Radiotelephone Permit as late as the 1980's. One could not hold an RP and a higher grade of radiotelephone operator license (which WAS valid for aircraft use) at the same time. It was the Radiotelephone Third Class Permit with Broadcast Endorsement that was not valid for aircraft operation. The solution was the License Verification Card, the same shape and color as the RP, attesting to the fact that the holder held an FCC radiotelephone or radiotelegraph First or Second operator license. The FAA was quite aware of this situation. We were asked about that many times by student pilots who held First or Second Class Radiotelephone operator licenses in that era and never got any feedback that the FAA wasn't accepting it in lieu of the RP. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Brian" wrote in message om... "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. But even if the poll was well done it ONLY shows a snapshot of opinion at that time. Given the prior (several years prior) almost universal opposition to droppping code and then seeing a significant shift from that 90% or more support to something closer to 1/2, one could easily conclude the shift was not going to stop and eventually more hams would support ending all code testing than keeping it. 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. Agreed. I'm ARRL also. But with respect to the future, just about any decision is better than no decision. Agree also. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote HF privileges would in the future be granted by taking the equivalent of a Technician test? HF privileges were granted in the past by taking a test far less demanding than the current Technician test. And Technicians of the past took the General written test AND a Morse test, but were not allowed on HF, but they could get a (simultaneous) Novice license and operate on HF (even though the General written they'd taken for Technician didn't allow them on HF or 2 meters). And you new kids think MY licensing proposal is strange! Merry (whatever god you worship) Feast, 73.5, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote HF privileges would in the future be granted by taking the equivalent of a Technician test? HF privileges were granted in the past by taking a test far less demanding than the current Technician test. True, but they were pretty limited otherwise. And Technicians of the past took the General written test AND a Morse test, but were not allowed on HF, but they could get a (simultaneous) Novice license and operate on HF (even though the General written they'd taken for Technician didn't allow them on HF or 2 meters). And you new kids think MY licensing proposal is strange! Hey, I think everything is strange, Hans! Merry (whatever god you worship) Feast, The same to you, be s/he vengeful thunderer or cosmic muffin. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes: HF privileges were granted in the past by taking a test far less demanding than the current Technician test. The old Novice written plus 5 wpm code was "far less demanding"? OK.... And Technicians of the past took the General written test AND a Morse test, but were not allowed on HF, but they could get a (simultaneous) Novice license and operate on HF (even though the General written they'd taken for Technician didn't allow them on HF or 2 meters). And you new kids think MY licensing proposal is strange! Even stranger is the fact that there was a period of time (1970s?) when FCC did not allow the simultaneous possession of both the Novice and Technician licenses, so when a ham passed the written test for Tech, he/she lost all HF privs - even though both licenses required the same code test. Merry (whatever god you worship) Feast, Happy Solstice 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "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. Then what am I missing? Question for question, the Technician examination questions are noticeably more difficult than those on the old Novice examination, and there are more of them. OK, fine. 5 more of them to be exact. Woefully inadequate? FCC disagrees! Do you think they're right? Nope. But they're the "expert agency"... And I also disagree with them on code testing serving "no regulatory purpose"... (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. I think they're worng on both points. YMMV But the main point is that they *can* be wrong. 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. That's true. But we can have impressions and opinions. 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. Agreed! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "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. I agree 100%! But what constitutes "the basics" is a question that will get all kinds of responses. And whether there should be just one level of license, or several, is another wide-open question. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 19 Dec 2003 16:05:28 -0800, N2EY wrote: 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. I wasn't there (Dayton?) when Bill Cross said "the C word" but my understanding was that unless the ham community came with a consensus, it (we) were liable to get things that we may not like from the FCC if we back them into a corner. I wasn't there either, Phil, but I got basically the same message. And its not a new message, either. Remember the Eye Bank Net? Perhaps - I hope - that was Bill's personal opinion and not "the official policy" of the FCC (we've differed on things before). I hope so, too. But after all, we hams are a "legacy" service that doesn't provide much revenue, has huge pieces of spectrum set aside for it, and is quite anarchic in some ways (no channelization, licensees building their own equipment, etc.) Indeed, the very concept of "radio operator" is considered archaic in most services - or they are going in that direction. With the latest Bureau restructuring, he now reports through another layer of supervision, and I understand that his immediate supervisor is now someone who is a ham, which was not the case before. Which could explain a lot of things. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: 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. You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't true, but you could say it. I haven't. I don't. Actually, you're quite the fibber. You have said it, and more than once. The only way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license. You can be interested in radio all you want without obtaining a ham license. You can even be interested in *amateur* radio without obtaining a ham license. That doesn't mean that you know much about it or that your interest runs very deep. After all, you've declared a decades-long interest in amateur radio and you've posted here for seven years or so without acting on that "interest". To you it doesn't count at all that "interest in radio" can result in a half century of professional work...including design in radio. I didn't write about "interest in radio". I wrote about "interest in amateur radio". What counts is the convenience you find in leaving out certain key words. To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing, designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio). Wrong again. You can build, test, design or smash all the radio and electronics items you like. That has nothing to do with the fact that you've yet to act on your supposed interest in amateur radio. No, FIRST one "must" get an AMATEUR license according to Herr Robust. Wrong, yet again, Doctor Evil. To join the fun in amateur radio, you've first got to obtain a license. You have to put your declared interest into motion. You have yet to do that. You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner. I've been into "gardening" for over 40 years. At this same address. No amateur license required. No LICENSE required to garden. Wooooooosh! That was an analogy zipping over your forehead. I didn't write anything about licensing gardeners. Not a problem. I can discuss gardening with any neighbor and they don't take offense. We share ideas, experiences, help each other out. Bully for you. In here, the arrogant officious ones DICTATE as to how all shall behave according to their holy rules. What holy rules would those be? You seem to be an arrogant, officious type of guy. Are you one of those who dictate how you'll behave or are you somehow a slave of the N2EY profile, unable to resist the outline of your likely actions? You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you aren't an aviator. I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive. I understand how it can be when you're on a budget. I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd Class Restricted permit necessary. Woooosh! Look out for those analogy strafing runs. An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies, is it? Don't you know? I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant in that some time ago. Good for you. Maybe that's just the place for you. Are there any R/C aircraft newsgroups for you to haunt? Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation in which you take no part. Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions contrary to your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly, beligerantly go after any person who can stand up to you and show where your ideas aren't valid. Oh, you're a fine, fine fellow to write of grace and gentle manner when it comes to differences of opinion. When you're busy standing up to me, do you think you'll ever get the spelling of "belligerent" or its variants down pat? The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust. They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments. I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness, but that IS true. Having the FCC accept your comments doesn't mean that you are a participant in amateur radio. I've already acknowledged that you've made comments to the Commission so the concept must not be at all foreign to me. Get your facts straight. I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you address others. Good luck on that one now! Why didn't you address the FCC in the same manner you've used here? Did you call anyone "Colonel Klunk" or make any nifty S.S. references? Did you include comments about "morsodism" or "the Church of St. Hiram"? This looks like another "do as I say and not as I do" on your part. Dave K8MN |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "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. I doubt anyone could convince you, but... The publication of actual homebrew equipment in today's ham mags may just get some folks to actually start tinkering. The fact that a 21st century had restored *and used* a ~50 year old homebrew rig says that it's not just something hams used to do years and years ago. The technology isn't nearly so important as the mindset that homebrewing is a viable alternative. And if the signal is up to modern requirements and the ham has fun, what's the problem? Couple months back there was a homebrew 17 meter DSB transceiver article in QST. Not exactly bleeding edge technology but it worked and the ham learned things and had a ton of fun. So it ain't just vintage stuff in QST. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "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. I doubt anyone could convince you, but... A person can learn a lot MORE from the older technology. It is a lot closer to the theory by virtue of simplicity. What would do a better job of teaching a newbie about antenna matching, a simple L or T network tuner, or an LDG tuner? What would teach a newbie the technical ins and outs of transcievers, a rock mite or a FT1000MP-Mark V? Or to keep within the bet, that wooden chassis three tube thing. And the newbies of today may become the bloody edge pro's of tomorrow. The publication of actual homebrew equipment in today's ham mags may just get some folks to actually start tinkering. The fact that a 21st century had restored *and used* a ~50 year old homebrew rig says that it's not just something hams used to do years and years ago. The technology isn't nearly so important as the mindset that homebrewing is a viable alternative. And if the signal is up to modern requirements and the ham has fun, what's the problem? Hear Hear! There is not thing one wrong with old technology, and the pursuit of that part of the hobby is every bit as valid as the latest gee whiz techno-marvel. Too many people seem to think that a ham can only enjoy one facet of the hobby, it would seem. I like and use the latest technology, but I just love the old stuff too. Couple months back there was a homebrew 17 meter DSB transceiver article in QST. Not exactly bleeding edge technology but it worked and the ham learned things and had a ton of fun. So it ain't just vintage stuff in QST. I'm homebrewing a high power tuner right now that will double as a piece of art. Bleeding edge technology? Heck no! if other hams don't like it, thay can just ignore my CQ!! - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "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. I doubt anyone could convince you, but... A person can learn a lot MORE from the older technology. It is a lot closer to the theory by virtue of simplicity. Sometimes, anyway. What would do a better job of teaching a newbie about antenna matching, a simple L or T network tuner, or an LDG tuner? Exactly! What would teach a newbie the technical ins and outs of transcievers, a rock mite or a FT1000MP-Mark V? Or to keep within the bet, that wooden chassis three tube thing. The wooden chassis rig is just a transmitter. But the Rock Mite comparison is dead-on. And the newbies of today may become the bloody edge pro's of tomorrow. Everybody's gotta start somewhere. Insisting that old and simple technologies have no place or are a "waste of time" ensures that a lot of folks won;t take the first step. The publication of actual homebrew equipment in today's ham mags may just get some folks to actually start tinkering. And that seems to really bother some folks... The fact that a 21st century had restored *and used* a ~50 year old homebrew rig says that it's not just something hams used to do years and years ago. The technology isn't nearly so important as the mindset that homebrewing is a viable alternative. And if the signal is up to modern requirements and the ham has fun, what's the problem? Hear Hear! There is not thing one wrong with old technology, and the pursuit of that part of the hobby is every bit as valid as the latest gee whiz techno-marvel. It's electro-politically incorrect, Mike. Too many people seem to think that a ham can only enjoy one facet of the hobby, it would seem. I like and use the latest technology, but I just love the old stuff too. Like being able to enjoy both a modern pickup truck and a '62 Corvair... Couple months back there was a homebrew 17 meter DSB transceiver article in QST. Not exactly bleeding edge technology but it worked and the ham learned things and had a ton of fun. So it ain't just vintage stuff in QST. I'm homebrewing a high power tuner right now that will double as a piece of art. Bleeding edge technology? Heck no! if other hams don't like it, thay can just ignore my CQ!! This afternoon I worked NN3SI on 40 CW. He was running an Omni 6, I was using the Southgate Type 7. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: I've though of writing an article or two for QST myself. Do it, Mike. Probably wouldn't be cutting edge. Doesn't matter. 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. Yep. Or how to make nice looking dials, labels, meter scales, etc. One ham I know has made a schematic drawing utility based on MS Paint. The various components are essentially clipart, as I understand it. Hans would probably still make fun of it tho'! ;^) So would some others, including at least one who's not even a ham. So what? One of my articles was June, 1994, IIRC. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: I've though of writing an article or two for QST myself. Do it, Mike. Probably wouldn't be cutting edge. Doesn't matter. 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. Yep. Or how to make nice looking dials, labels, meter scales, etc. One ham I know has made a schematic drawing utility based on MS Paint. The various components are essentially clipart, as I understand it. Hans would probably still make fun of it tho'! ;^) So would some others, including at least one who's not even a ham. So what? One of my articles was June, 1994, IIRC. Did this post just recently make it to your server, Jim? I posted it quite a while back. I've noticed this in a few of my posts to the group. I just wonder where the messages go for a few weeks? 8^) But yes, maybe I will just write something up. Maybe include ergonomics too. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: I've though of writing an article or two for QST myself. Do it, Mike. Probably wouldn't be cutting edge. Doesn't matter. 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. Yep. Or how to make nice looking dials, labels, meter scales, etc. One ham I know has made a schematic drawing utility based on MS Paint. The various components are essentially clipart, as I understand it. Hans would probably still make fun of it tho'! ;^) So would some others, including at least one who's not even a ham. So what? One of my articles was June, 1994, IIRC. Did this post just recently make it to your server, Jim? I posted it quite a while back. I've noticed this in a few of my posts to the group. I just wonder where the messages go for a few weeks? 8^) I use AutoAol and write my replies offline. Sometimes I don't see or reply to a post right away. But yes, maybe I will just write something up. Maybe include ergonomics too. Maybe we could collaborate on something like that. I have a number of ideas about ergonomics in hamshack and equipment layout, going back years before I ever heard the word. Built all my own shack furniture for the past 35 years or so because conventional stuff isn't well suited to ham use. (A basement shack gives one a lot of leeway). Have also used CAD to make a really neat custom dial drum for the Southgate Type 7. Or if ya just want a proofreader... 73 es GL de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com