|
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 10:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com