On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:18:30 -0700, bb wrote:


ICOM had the Very YL's in bathrobes.

So far nobody seems to have any idea what the the point was they were
trying to communicate. I sure don't, but at least Icom donated some
equipment for prizes.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

What is missing is how much current licenses are used. With that data
we could guesstimate expirations. That would take a study that the FCC
doesn't have the resources to fund and one the ARRL may not want to
know the answer to.

There may be a point in the future where the new loss of members begins
to increase but there is no way to forecast that because licenses are
good for 10 years and there is no way to project future expirations
because we don't have any idea what current license usage is.

Measuring how crowded the bands are? But that would require
measurements from years ago to mean much. Assuming that most
hams using their license spend about 2 to 3% time transmitting and
the rest listening (tuning around the bands looking for interesting
DX or rag chews) one could get a rough idea how many active
hams exist. Do one measurement on a contest weekend, and another
on a non contest weekend. From a QTH in the midwest. One would
have to figure how many hams are in propagation range at the
time of measurement.

robert casey wrote:

What is missing is how much current licenses are used. With that data
we could guesstimate expirations. That would take a study that the FCC
doesn't have the resources to fund and one the ARRL may not want to
know the answer to.

There may be a point in the future where the new loss of members begins
to increase but there is no way to forecast that because licenses are
good for 10 years and there is no way to project future expirations
because we don't have any idea what current license usage is.

Measuring how crowded the bands are? But that would require
measurements from years ago to mean much. Assuming that most
hams using their license spend about 2 to 3% time transmitting and
the rest listening (tuning around the bands looking for interesting
DX or rag chews) one could get a rough idea how many active
hams exist. Do one measurement on a contest weekend, and another
on a non contest weekend. From a QTH in the midwest. One would
have to figure how many hams are in propagation range at the
time of measurement.

Reminds me of an old giggler.

Guy tunes around looking for a hole on 20M, finds one and asks "Is this
frequency in use?"

A snarly 30 over nine signal pops up "Yes it's in use, I'm listening on
it."

w3rv

For those that don't these
are the ones that have the answers as to why, for example the cell phone -
instant messaging fits their needs and interest better. I don't know if
the ARRL even bothers to try and collect this kind of data.


This competition, coupled with the testing requirements,
sure puts ham radio at a disadvantage. How many kids,
saddled with tons of tests and other such from school,
really want to be bothered with more of this?

In article ,
Mike Coslo wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Every student going though the electronics and engineering courses
at the college here knows very well what a ham ticket is (the
instructor is a ham), and darn well pass any of the exams
blindfolded... seldom do they see the need or have the desire when
they have tuned the bands and listened...

You think most other colleges are different?

Dunno. Where I am employed, one of the EE courses specifically ends
in a Ham ticket being received.

My point is that Internet and cell phones are to Ham radio as fish
are to banjos. 8^)

This is starting to sound like an over the air Ham conversation.
Exchanges like this are why I have no desire to be one.

Maybe you could drop rec.radio.shortwave off the newsgroup header like I
did.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Do you know of a source for reliable data on ham licenses that drills
down below the often quoted total licenses outstanding. Are there any
studies that estimate the number of active licenses and ages of the
holders and how those numbers have trended over time.

It looks like the bottom line is that back in
June 1997 there were 678,473 licensed hams
and in May of 1995 there were 664,972 licensed hams.
Thats a decrease of 2 percent over 8 years. Its a decline but not by
much.

Does anyone have statistics that go back three or four decades??



Part of the problem here is that the "base" demographic numbers of total US
population is changing. The increase or decrease in the absolute numbers of
hams is not germane.

A more accurate statistic for the last 40-50 years is the change in the
percentage of hams in the total US population.

Example:

say you have 200,000 hams in 1930 in a population of 200 million (1%) vs
250,000 in 2000 in a population of 350 million.
Even though you have an increase in the ABSOLUTE number of hams the
PERCENTAGE of hams is going down.
In this example: As a group, the relative impact and visibility of hams vs
the total US population is going down.

Does any one know the URL of an accurate set of historical ham population
data? Hopefuly from the very begiining of FCC licensing?

Dan Yemiola
AI8O

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

krackula wrote:

Collins is old tube stuff. Fine radios no doubt, but hardly worth the
price of a decent new rig.



- Mike KB3EIA -



maybe the value of the radio is in the beholder
or it's applications ........

for example , I have a satori / sherwood modded
, full boat, drake r-4c and a fully loaded FT1000 field ....sitting
side by side .. here in the shack and the so called " old tube
r4-c " blows the doors off my much newer
and more expensive FT1000mp v . the FT1000 receiver
is an embarrassment as compared to the drake on
weak DX in a VERY crowded CW band.

What I would like to see is some data to back that up. If the tube
stuff is better, then I'd go for it in a minute.


No problem: http://www.sherweng.com/presentation.html

This guy obviously knows what he's talking about so shaddup and pay
attenetion, you just might learn something Michael.

Thanks for the link, Brian. It is pretty interesting

no comparison
at all. people tell me that many of the collins receivers can be
tuned up to outperform even the drake r4-c receivers. maybe THAT is
why people pay more for a drake r4-c ( I have $1200 to $1400
invested in mine , so far ) or collins !!


Yeah . . I have a stock late S/N meatball S3B I just might juice up one
of these days. I also have a JRC NRD-545 you'd probably enjoy. Quirky
thing but once you get on top of it it really cooks.


certainly the value is
in the weak signal / crowded band performance to me and
looks like it is to a LOT of other people too.

obviously , for your operating needs, solid state rigs do the job

Perhaps not so obviously. I've been getting into Hollow state
technology recently. Bought a couple olde tube Heathkits


100% dumpster ballast.

Negative. Their absolute performance is not an issue. I was never
exposed to tube technology, ever. These units are simple, and I will use
them to learn about the hollow state. As long as they work, I will be
well served by them.


and their power
supplies at Dayton, and will restore them. I came into Ham radio (radio
at all) too late for tube stuff, and frankly, the tube rigs seem very
cool to me.



.... but for those of us that need competition grade cw receivers
...... some tube receivers are still doing a better job. different
strokes for different folks. I've got the best of both worlds and ,
for me, tubes still do a better job in certain applications. ( both
my amps a alpha and a henry have tubes too ) ......... I do
use my FT1000 for my transmitter / exciter tho .. ha ha ha ha ah.

It would seem that you should sell that FT1000 and go strictly tubes if
all you do is use it for transmitting. 8^)


Ouch: How do you spell clueless? I loves you dearly Michael, you're a
very nice guy and yer heart is in the right place but you have this
frustrating penchant for getting over yer head at warp speed when
discussions turn to even moderately deep-end techie sorts of topics.
You done it again.

I've made a career of it


This guy is obviously into low-band weak signal dxing on 160/80/40 etc.
Those of us take this game seriously understand what it takes in the
way of rcvr performance.


He's talking about using his modded R4-C as an
outboard RX because of it's legendary front end performance, it's
blocking dynamic range and it's third order intercept points as they
relate to successfully dealing with very difficult band conditions.
Which leaves out your Heath treasures and all members of the FT-1000
clan in this particular pursuit.

"If the tube stuff is better, then I'd go for it in a minute" eh? Welp
there ya go.

It was an interesting report to look at. I would have to say that there
is more to the game than the 2KHz dynamic range, as important as that
is, especially to CW users.

But I do appreciate the info!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

.. . . .

certainly the value is
in the weak signal / crowded band performance to me and
looks like it is to a LOT of other people too.

obviously , for your operating needs, solid state rigs do the job

Perhaps not so obviously. I've been getting into Hollow state
technology recently. Bought a couple olde tube Heathkits

100% dumpster ballast.

Negative. Their absolute performance is not an issue. I was never
exposed to tube technology, ever. These units are simple, and I will use
them to learn about the hollow state. As long as they work, I will be
well served by them.

OK, OK you're excused. This time.


Ouch: How do you spell clueless? I loves you dearly Michael, you're a
very nice guy and yer heart is in the right place but you have this
frustrating penchant for getting over yer head at warp speed when
discussions turn to even moderately deep-end techie sorts of topics.
You done it again.

I've made a career of it

Yeah, I've NOTICED!

GROAN!

bang head on desk

repeatedly


He's talking about using his modded R4-C as an
outboard RX because of it's legendary front end performance, it's
blocking dynamic range and it's third order intercept points as they
relate to successfully dealing with very difficult band conditions.
Which leaves out your Heath treasures and all members of the FT-1000
clan in this particular pursuit.

"If the tube stuff is better, then I'd go for it in a minute" eh? Welp
there ya go.

It was an interesting report to look at. I would have to say that there
is more to the game than the 2KHz dynamic range,

I agree with that for the most part but I'd like to see your list.

as important as that
is, especially to CW users.

Great rcvrs is great rcvrs modes aside. Where did you get the notion
that the guy is excusively a CW op? For all we know he could be a
phone-only op.

But I do appreciate the info!

Look at it as a mythology, hype and general BS buster. You can lay down
$2,300 for a new MP Mark 5 or pay maybe $500 for a clean used IC-746
and wind up with essentially the same signal handling capabilities and
still have most of the commonly-used bells & whistles.


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

In 1963, the CBers outnumbered the Ham Population.

The number of US hams exceeded 250,000 in 1963.

1917 - about 6,000


1928 - about 17,000


1936 - about 46,000


1950 - near 90,000


1956 - over 140,000


1958 - about 160,000


1963 - over 250,000


1977 - 327,000

1989 - over 500,000

1997 June - 678,473

2001 Jan 1 - 682,240

2002 Oct 31 -- 684,355





Total number of USA Licensed Amateurs by License Class

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech/+ - 334,254
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total all classes - 674,792


As of April 3, 2005

Novice - 28,869 (-41.48%) (-20,460)
Tech/+ - 318,221 (-4.80%) (-16,033)
General - 137,093 (+21.67%) (+24,416)
Advanced - 76,706 (-23.13%) (-23,076)
Extra - 106,238 (+34.91%) (+27,488)

Total All Classes - 667,318







Total all classes (5/14/00) - 674,792
Total all Classes (4/21/03) - 687,860
Total all classes (9/6/04 ) - 674,788
Total all classes (4/3/05) - 667,318

Total loss of 7,474 since 5/14/2000 ( Was 674,792)
Total loss of 7,470 since 9/6/2004 ( Was 674,788)
Total Loss of 20,542 since 4/2003 (all time high of 687,860)

Notes,
For the 9th straight reporting period, all classes except for Extra
declined. There was a net loss of 845 licensees in this reporting period
from the last reporting period.

The base totals are from implementation of the then new licensing changes in
May 2000. September 6, 2004 is the date I started measuring the changes. The
peak number was in April 2003.

Ace - WH2T
--------------------------------



"dan Yemiola" wrote in message
...

Does any one know the URL of an accurate set of historical ham population
data? Hopefuly from the very begiining of FCC licensing?

Dan Yemiola
AI8O

"Dr.Ace - WH2T" wrote in message
...
In 1963, the CBers outnumbered the Ham Population.

The number of US hams exceeded 250,000 in 1963.

1917 - about 6,000


1928 - about 17,000


1936 - about 46,000


1950 - near 90,000


1956 - over 140,000


1958 - about 160,000


1963 - over 250,000


1977 - 327,000

1989 - over 500,000

1997 June - 678,473

2001 Jan 1 - 682,240

2002 Oct 31 -- 684,355


Could you add the corresponding general population figures. Then we could
see if the number of hams is growing faster or slower than the general
popluation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE