"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