Do you use an amp?

[ve2nsm]

Self explanatory, I can't find the other poll.

BTW, I'm not against amps, I'm planning to build one (solid state) someday. It's just that some people tend to think that it's an indispensable piece of equipment.

[kj3n]

You're missing a step between "regularly" and "rare".

Ocassionally: About 10-20% of the time. ;)

[ve2nsm]

Well, I guess 10, 20% is regularly.
It does not have to be often to be regular, that's what my doctor told me :D

[kq9j]

This argument over amplifiers is silly. Everyone uses an amplifier. That PA in your rig, be it solid state or tube, is amplifying the signal your transmitter produces. The usual standard for an HF rig seems to be 100 watts. There are some reasons that number came into existence, likely the tubes that were available, the size of power supply needed etc., but it is still just a damn number. If transmitters and transceivers had instead all been designed for 50 watts output, or 200 watts output, we'd STILL be having this dumb fight over whether people should use amplifiers (to further increase their output) or not.

There are NO absolutes in this. Sometimes two stations can copy each other fine each using 100 watts or less; other times amplifiers are necessary. The truth is yes, you can make a lot of contacts with 100 watts or less but that doesn't somehow automatically mean the op has an excellent antenna or is a better operator.

I have had qso's with 100 watt stations on 160 that were perfectly readable; most of the time though if I want to sit back and ENJOY a rag chew with somebody, I would prefer they are running some power because if they aren't the noise just makes it miserable. And that goes for the other bands as well now that we are into thunderstorm season.

An amplifier can make the difference between a mere contact and an enjoyable conversation.
Amplifiers are NOT a bad thing. Some people need to get over it.

[ve2nsm]

You know what? It's true!
The argument is not about the power, it's about the box... and it's silly :D

[WA6MHZ]

I'd just LOVE to run an amp, in fact I actually have one, but have never plugged it in. Its a Yaesu FL2100F, maybe it works who knows? The problem is that I don't have 220 in the shack. And the nearest 220 outlet is in the garage probably 100ft away. Thats a Long extension cord, especially for one that would have to be run outside in the weather, and where rats could chew through it and burn the house/garage down! NO, it is not possible to rewire the house to send it to the shack. It would cost Hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to have an Electrician come out to the house and run it around through the attic and down into the shack. I know I am not going into that attic, its chock full of Black Widow spiders just Waiting for me to poke my head in there. Not a chance!!! So, no 220, no Amp. And running it on 110 is also out of the question as the shack is wired for 1 fifteen amp service, and the moment I keyed up the PA, it would blow the breaker. So I am lucky to get away with my 160 watt VHF/UHF amps. Consequently I have no hope of breaking pileups, but I do quite well considering the antenna is a G5RV and the rig barefoot. Just need more patience and skill to work the DX with no Amp. OH, what a life, to have a High power amp and get through on the FIRST CALL!!! But another thing about amps. I presently don't have any TVI complaints or angry neighbors. The moment I go from 60W to 2000W, every phone, stereo and TV in my small little neighborhood will hear me. Old ladies will even hear me calling in their Teeth Fillings. And it won't be hard to figure out who the PERP is, since I normally say only one thing. My callsign, over and over calling the DX. Same callsign thats on my car, so it will be hard to blame it on CBers down the block. So, no amp here, atleast not in the visible future. Amps are for the WEALTHY!

[KC7UP]

If I lived at 0 deg Lat. I would never have to use it however at 46N it becomes necessary at contest time.
Curt

[CT2JUT]

HF Amplifiers are nice!

I also prefer Tube PA.

Anyway, i even prefer a good gain antenna, less power comsumption and output signal aswell.

I´ve had QSO´s with stations running only 100W that seem to be running much more when working with beams.

So i guess, the use of a PA should be done as a last thing.

[wy6k]

... Amps are for the WEALTHY!

Ummm, or for the really committed non-wealthy.

I know several hams who are decidedly not-wealthy, or even well off, who 220 v power, manage to buy amps and keep them running, and put up pretty large antennas. They just are committed to ham radio rather than anything else.

If you want to be balanced, you know - have a social life, eat out, try new wines, take vacations, travel, play golf, go boating, or whatever stuff you like, etc. - you might have to have a bit more money to have enough left over for an amp. :-)

[ka5row]

:D I run my Kenwood TL-922A very often (80%). Many times I will drive it with only 50 watts for about 500 out. That way I get a little boost and don't bother other stations.

[kr2d]

No amp for me at this time. Improving my antenna system is a higher priority.

[kj3n]

Well, I guess 10, 20% is regularly.

To me, regularly would indicate about 50%.

[kj3n]

Amps are for the WEALTHY!

Oh, what a load of BS. Amps can be had at bargains if you know where to look. My AL-80B cost me $600. Yes, it's used. So what?

How much money have you pissed away buying all those boat anchors? Buy a couple less for a change. :rolleyes:

NO, it is not possible to rewire the house to send it to the shack. It would cost Hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to have an Electrician come out to the house and run it around through the attic and down into the shack.

Man , you've got expensive labor out there. Just another reason not to move out to CA. ;)

Now, granted I have a sub panel in the shack (was there when I moved in due to an expansion of the house many years before we bought it), but 1-2 hours of my own time and less than $75 in parts netted me a nice 220VAC outlet. Even if I had to run 100 feet of wire, I'd still do it myself.

I know I am not going into that attic, its chock full of Black Widow spiders just Waiting for me to poke my head in there. Not a chance!!!

What a Nancy-Boy!. A couple of well-placed bug bombs would cure that problem. :rolleyes:

OH, what a life, to have a High power amp and get through on the FIRST CALL!!!

Got news for you; even people with amps don't always get through on the first call. So much for that myth.

But another thing about amps. I presently don't have any TVI complaints or angry neighbors. The moment I go from 60W to 2000W, every phone, stereo and TV in my small little neighborhood will hear me. Old ladies will even hear me calling in their Teeth Fillings.

Uh, there's a pretty wide selection of power levels between 60w and 2000w. An AL-80B does 1KW at most. Typically, I run mine at about 600-800w.

So, no amp here, atleast not in the visible future.

Well, not at least until you stop giving excuses and whining...... :p

[W7WV]

I have had amps in the past, 4 to be precise. They ranged from 500-legal limit amps.
But when it's all taken it it just kind of takes the sport out of making a contact to me.
And not into contesting so it's just not that important to me.

[kj3n]

No amp for me at this time. Improving my antenna system is a higher priority.

As it should be.

[KB3LIX]

No amp here either.
Won't be any until I buy that winning PowerBall ticket.

[NL7W]

Amps are cheap...

I found my used Alpha 374A for $1000. I replaced the HV capacitive input filter's equalization resistors, electrolytics, and two others on circuit card(s), and the amp operates "like new" again. Old parts replacement = $150.

Oh, I did replace the old (ugly) sticky paint front panel with a new on from Alpha, and it looks "like new" again, also. New front panel = $145.

This conservatively rated 1200 watt amp will run for another 25 years, if treated with care -- maybe with the same set of tubes?

Life is too short for QRP.

[KC2TAU]

Amps are cheap...

I found my used Alpha 374A for $1000. I replaced the HV capacitive input filter's equalization resistors, electrolytics, and two others on circuit card(s), and the amp operates "like new" again.

Oh, I did replace the old (ugly) sticky paint front panel with a new on from Alpha, and it looks "like new" again, also.

This amp will run for another 25 years, if treated with care -- maybe with the same set of tubes?

Life is too short for QRP.

$1,000 cheap? Since when was a grand pocket change? Spending $450 to get my Icom 703 was a major expenditure for me and took quite a bit of saving up from doing chores around the house and selling things.

Life is too short for QRP? Life is too short to sit on your ass indoors while a perfectly sunny day goes by when you could be hiking around, setting up, hanging out and operating as a cool breeze blows by.

[wb6mmj]

I run my amplifier when I need to.
I built it to be used, not sit there and look pretty.
There is nothing like a Homebrew 4-1000.

[NL7W]

$1,000 cheap? Since when was a grand pocket change? Spending $450 to get my Icom 703 was a major expenditure for me and took quite a bit of saving up from doing chores around the house and selling things.

Life is too short for QRP? Life is too short to sit on your ass indoors while a perfectly sunny day goes by when you could be hiking around, setting up, hanging out and operating as a cool breeze blows by.

$1000 is Alaskan pocket change... :D:D:D

Hiking is a favorite past time in these parts. We usually take a .44 mag and pepper spray for personal safety reasons. Heck, the .44 is almost a requirement while fishing the favorite salmon spots -- bears like salmon, too. You can never be too careful.

The handgun is a bit heavy to lug around...

Come on up!

[NA4BH]

I have an AL 80B. It might have 10 minutes use on it (had it for about a year). If need be I push the 75 watt class-A button on the MarkV and fire the monster up. As far as breaking pile ups, it is all about the timing.

[K0DXC]

I have never used an amp, and I don't plan on using one for a long time.

[NL7W]

I run my amplifier when I need to.
I built it to be used, not sit there and look pretty.
There is nothing like a Homebrew 4-1000.

Variac on the HV PS? What... 4, 5, or 6 KV on the plate?

I remember a mod'ed BTI 4-1000 I used years ago. There's nothing like a orange/cherry glowing 4-1000!

73.

[NL7W]

I have never used an amp, and I don't plan on using one for a long time.

I didn't either, when I was a teen. Then, my TS-120S could work the world. Building my own HF yagis and quads helped to make up for the deficiency in power.

[KI4WCA]

$1000 is Alaskan pocket change... :D:D:D

Hiking is a favorite past time in these parts. We usually take a .44 mag and pepper spray for personal safety reasons. Heck, the .44 is almost a requirement while fishing the favorite salmon spots -- bears like salmon, too. You can never be too careful.

The handgun is a bit heavy to lug around...

Come on up!

A HANDGUN for those bears!!???I would use a 454 casul as a minimum.Maybe a 500 SW.But seriously, if it were me, I would use a 416 weatherby magnum.With solids.44's just tick em off.Those are BIG tough critters.And we are food to them!

[wb6mmj]

Variac on the HV PS? What... 4, 5, or 6 KV on the plate?

I remember a mod'ed BTI 4-1000 I used years ago. There's nothing like a orange/cherry glowing 4-1000!

73.

Yes I use a Variac. That is to keep it legal.

[K0DXC]

helped to make up for the deficiency in power.

100 watts is perfectly efficient, you just have to be a good operator (which you probably are)

I will probably get an amp someday, I just probably won't ever use it. When I do, it would be to snag the next Scarborough Reef DXpedition in 50 years when I'm in my old age.

[NA4BH]

50 years when I'm in my old age.

Thanks for reminding us...... :D :D :D

[NL7W]

A HANDGUN for those bears!!???I would use a 454 casul as a minimum.Maybe a 500 SW.But seriously, if it were me, I would use a 416 weatherby magnum.With solids.44's just tick em off.Those are BIG tough critters.And we are food to them!

Actually, the brownies are usually more afraid of us -- we are not food. They usually, out of instinct, chase down a human (1) if the human runs, (2) gets between her cubs, (3) or is seriously startled. Most browns will fake charge, if you stand your ground. If not, they'll knock you down, bite your torso and maul a bit, if you play dead. If a serious brown is protecting a stashed food cache, like a covered and rotting moose carcass, just off an established trail, then you might be in for trouble. Big bears have quite literally caught, and stomped till jellied inside (killing), quiet runners on established trails just a few hundred yards off the roads and on the established Anchorage trail system.

The good news is this: Brown bears will most typically avoid humans in the wild. Talk and make noise when on-the-trails. Let them know you are there.

Actually, I'm more afraid of a really hungry black bear. They don't have many inhibitions...

Life's a gamble in Alaska... It's tougher in Alaska! :D

[KC7UP]

Reminds me when I lived in Talkeetna.
Curt

[kg4kww]

Do you use an amp?

Don't use one or own one for HF.

Do have amps for 144 mhz and 432 mhz

[kb3laz]

Yes I use an amp almost every night to ragchew on 75m.
However in the mornings I check into a lot of nets that discourage amps, so I run a 100w. Also when im on 20m, 40m, or 10m its 100w or sometimes QRP.
So I guess regularly would be correct in my case, lol.

[A71AN]

Self explanatory, I can't find the other poll.

BTW, I'm not against amps, I'm planning to build one (solid state) someday. It's just that some people tend to think that it's an indispensable piece of equipment.

I never used an amp. so far and doing just fine with 100W per foot on all bands except 80 and 160 which I am not yet having an antenna for, other wise I do at least 100QSO'S per day under all sort of conditions, specailly the far east and NA.

Operating CW 100W will do you all you need


73

[al7n]

Never have run more than 150 watts in my 51 years licensed....on the ham bands that is.

I've found that if the bands are "open" and you can hear 'em you can usually
work 'em with that power level and an efficient antenna system that doesn't use all the RF heating something up.

If the bands are not open, don't matter how much power you run or
what kind of antenna you got, you ain't gonna talk to anybody.

[K0HWY]

All my contacts have been made using 100 watts or less. Perhaps I'm just not a hardcore ham but I can't justify spending one thousand plus dollars just to make a few more contacts. I've worked around the world on 100 watts and a homemade wire antenna, a lot of which has been during a time in which the bands have been in generally crappy condition. The only benefit I could see in having amplification might be to boost my signal up a little when operating AM. But even at that, I don't need a huge amp.

[w8znx]

an amp is simply a tool
neither good or bad
using that tool
depends on what kind of work
you wish to do

there are lots of times and places
that many ops will never need a amp

there are other times and places
when you are going to need an amp

75 meters
ragchew contact summer nights
an amp is a very usefull tool

if you know how to fix one
an amp can be quite cheap

one of my amps
bought not running for $75
6 hours work and $100 in parts

mac

[NN4RH]

I don't think an amplifier would help me. "If I can hear them I can work them" but I think I've figured out that is because I have such high noise levels here that there's a lot I cannot hear.

If I used an amplifier, a lot more people would be hearing me that I still cannot hear. I believe the term is "Alligator". So what would be the point? I'd just be another one of those stations like you find in contests that obviously are running legal limit amps but are stone deaf.

No, first priority is to fix all the noise problems around here.

[N5MOA]

I live outside of town, my noise level is usually pretty low. I've heard stations I can't work more than once.
Inverted V's at 40 feet are all I have to work with, I'm budget challenged right now. A tower, rotor and beams are a long way down the road, 4 kids will do that to you.
I do have a SB-200 I got years ago, and to answer the poll question, I do use it. Sometimes 500-600 watts will do the trick 100 watts won't. Sometimes it won't.

[k8wpj]

Actually, the brownies are usually more afraid of us -- we are not food. They usually, out of instinct, chase down a human (1) if the human runs, (2) gets between her cubs, (3) or is seriously startled. Most browns will fake charge, if you stand your ground. If not, they'll knock you down, bite your torso and maul a bit, if you play dead. If a serious brown is protecting a stashed food cache, like a covered and rotting moose carcass, just off an established trail, then you might be in for trouble. Big bears have quite literally caught, and stomped till jellied inside (killing), quiet runners on established trails just a few hundred yards off the roads and on the established Anchorage trail system.

The good news is this: Brown bears will most typically avoid humans in the wild. Talk and make noise when on-the-trails. Let them know you are there.

Actually, I'm more afraid of a really hungry black bear. They don't have many inhibitions...

Life's a gamble in Alaska... It's tougher in Alaska! :D


I'll settle for some good old fashioned Cleveland street violence. At least then I know what i am up against...

[ab8ma]

The argument is not about the power, it's about the box... and it's silly :D


Yup. My A80-B is still in the box. Haven't even taken the tape off yet. Got it in Dayton at the strong insistance of the XYL. Free shipping :)

Still playing with the Palstar tuner I got last year in Dayton as a pre-requesite for any amp I may get. Driving THAT with the MFJ antenna analyser I got 10 years ago (Forgot it took 10 batteries instead of 8).

[ab8ma]

it would be to snag the next Scarborough Reef DXpedition in 50 years when I'm in my old age.


You are not saying 63 is old, I hope. :)

[AC4BB]

I don't understand why Anyone would use an amp ALL of the time. The rules say to use the MINIMUM amout amount of power to maintain contact. Some people are just addicted to the idea they HAVE to Have an amp on constantly.

[K3UD]

I have never owned an HF external amplifier, did use the Clegg Apollo 6 meter amp for a few years. The only times I ever used a HF amp was when I was operating at and multi op contest station. Other than for 6 meter meteor scatter, I never felt the need for an HF amp. On the other hand I did own some radios that put out a fair amount of power like the Yaesu DX-560 and the Swan 500 / 700 series of radios.

73
George
K3UD

[WB2WIK]

I don't understand why Anyone would use an amp ALL of the time. The rules say to use the MINIMUM amout amount of power to maintain contact. Some people are just addicted to the idea they HAVE to Have an amp on constantly.

::Here's an example "why:"

Calling CQ. You have no idea who may answer you or who you may be trying to contact, since you're not in contact yet. Logic dictates that the more power you run, the more, or farther (or both) answers you may get. If you are answered by somebody who tells you you're "59 plus," then it might be time to bypass the amp; but until then, there's no way to know if you're running excessive power, or maybe not enough power (which may be the case if you call CQ ten times and nobody answers).

Another example: Working a fading band, which I do quite a lot. It's fun. Signals are all weak and the band is about to fold up entirely, but there's still a few out there to work if you try. Rarely can lower power stations make any contacts at all on such occasions, but high powered stations, especially that combined with really good antenna systems, can often "milk" the band another 15-30 minutes after everybody else gives up.

Another example: 10 meter meteor scatter. This takes experience and technique, and almost always requires high power to achieve. Signals can be very weak and mostly absent, peaking occasionally to above noise level, but it's enough to complete contacts if you try. In the ARRL 10 Meter Contest when the band is absolutely stone-cold "dead," I've continued making contacts this way, via m.s., with other savvy operators who know how to do it. Adds QSOs and prevents boredom.

Actually, there are dozens of examples of "why high power" works, and why it might be used literally all the time by some stations.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::Here's an example "why:"

Calling CQ. You have no idea who may answer you or who you may be trying to contact, since you're not in contact yet. Logic dictates that the more power you run, the more, or farther (or both) answers you may get. If you are answered by somebody who tells you you're "59 plus," then it might be time to bypass the amp; but until then, there's no way to know if you're running excessive power, or maybe not enough power (which may be the case if you call CQ ten times and nobody answers).

Another example: Working a fading band, which I do quite a lot. It's fun. Signals are all weak and the band is about to fold up entirely, but there's still a few out there to work if you try. Rarely can lower power stations make any contacts at all on such occasions, but high powered stations, especially that combined with really good antenna systems, can often "milk" the band another 15-30 minutes after everybody else gives up.

Another example: 10 meter meteor scatter. This takes experience and technique, and almost always requires high power to achieve. Signals can be very weak and mostly absent, peaking occasionally to above noise level, but it's enough to complete contacts if you try. In the ARRL 10 Meter Contest when the band is absolutely stone-cold "dead," I've continued making contacts this way, via m.s., with other savvy operators who know how to do it.


None of those are reasons to have an amp on "all the time" unless all that you do are those three things. In particular, the CQ reason is the flimsiest of the lot.


Actually, there are dozens of examples of "why high power" works, and why it might be used literally all the time by some stations.

WB2WIK/6

I don't think that there's any question that high power works. The criticism is that it isn't always necessary. This is CLEARLY true as evidenced by the vast majority of hams who operate without one.

[WB2WIK]

None of those are reasons to have an amp on "all the time" unless all that you do are those three things. In particular, the CQ reason is the flimsiest of the lot.



I don't think that there's any question that high power works. The criticism is that it isn't always necessary. This is CLEARLY true as evidenced by the vast majority of hams who operate without one.

::The "vast majority" don't operate without one. Even based on this very simple and limited poll here, we had 67 respondants thus far, and of those, 24 said they use an amplifier often, or even all the time. That's 36% "yes."

In my experience, the real number, among stations who actively work HF, is higher than this. I'd say it's about 50%. Amongst DXers and contesters, more like 80-90%.

CQ Magazine took a similar poll of its readership, most of whom are likely active on HF since this is a magazine that is slanted heavily towards DXing and contesting, and the results of that poll indicated about 65% used amplifiers often.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::The "vast majority" don't operate without one. Even based on this very simple and limited poll here, we had 67 respondants thus far, and of those, 24 said they use an amplifier often, or even all the time. That's 36% "yes."

In my experience, the real number, among stations who actively work HF, is higher than this. I'd say it's about 50%. Amongst DXers and contesters, more like 80-90%.

CQ Magazine took a similar poll of its readership, most of whom are likely active on HF since this is a magazine that is slanted heavily towards DXing and contesting, and the results of that poll indicated about 65% used amplifiers often.

WB2WIK/6

As I said, the "vast majority of hams", I did not qualify that to shift the results in any particular direction. In particular, the question is not directed purely at contesters or those who, in your opinion, "actively work hf." I know and know of quite a few QRPers who claim to "actively work hf" and never use an amp (where amp means exceeds power of the typical hf transceiver).

All of the mentioned polls have self selection bias (and that's not the only bias) and should be taken with a grain of salt. Even taking that into account, however, it still evades the question unless the ONLY thing that you do is contesting.

The point of my comment is that most hams make many contacts without an amp. You cannot cite usage of amps taken by unscientific polls to refute this well known fact. I presume that you are not trying to suggest that one cannot communicate without an amp? That would be a ludicrous and unsupported statement.

Thus, it follows directly that using an amp is not necessary to make the majority of contacts that most hams make. It also follows directly from this that using an amp to make similar contacts is using more power than necessary. Thus finally, it follows that if you are using an amp all of the time then you are most likely using more power than necessary at least some of the time. Which, of course, was the original point.

[ve2nsm]

The point of my comment is that most hams make many contacts without an amp. You cannot cite usage of amps taken by unscientific polls to refute this well known fact.

Oh man, now you've done it.

Got that logbook handy? :D

[WB2WIK]

You cannot cite usage of amps taken by unscientific polls to refute this well known fact.

::"Well known facts" usually aren't either.

Very poor choice of words. However, I understand your intent.

My unscientific poll (personally) is I take notes when I'm operating, and try to record what the other station's running, if he tells me (most do). In going back through my log notes (and I make probably 70-150 contacts a week on average, casual ragchews) I find about 65-70% tell me they're using amplifiers, on SSB. It's a bit less on CW and also less on PSK31. The number running "high power" (with or without an external amplifier, since some rigs can run legal limit "barefoot") on AM is astonishing, and very high. About half the guys I work on 75m or 160m AM are running 375W carrier power, which is legal limit for the mode (assuming 100% modulation) -- and considering the equipment being used, I'd guess a fair number are running much more than that!

Most of my "UK" contacts say they're running "400W" because that's their legal limit, but most are running amps capable of much more. Wonder how many are really holding it down to 400W?;)

A lot of Russians say "KW" with a silent wink in their signal. One popular DXer from the Ukraine works in the high power broadcast industry and is running his "KW" using a tube that can run about 25x that power. We'll never know...

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::"Well known facts" usually aren't either.

Very poor choice of words. However, I understand your intent.


In this case, it is, however. You know as well as I that most hams don't have an amp for HF. We're not talking about contesters. A properly designed method would reveal this fact although I don't think anyone's bothered to try. When I say well known fact I'm talking about the large body of evidence in support of the fact. For example, all novices from the fifties until the novice license was phased out were limited to 250 watts max for about the last 30 years or so and 75 for the approximately 30 years before that. Look at ham shack pictures here and on eham. Look at sales figures for amps/rigs. Look at the vast support for QRP operation. Look at article after article after article and post after post after post which supports this. The fact is, it IS a well known fact that most hams use a 100 watt rig and no amp and a lot of hams use much less. Of course, many hams use more, but I don't think that you have any evidence that counter my statement of "most."

Moreover, the thrust of this sub-discussion is related to using an amp ALL of the time which none of the mentioned polls reveal as a majority in any sense of the word.


My unscientific poll (personally) is I take notes when I'm operating, and try to record what the other station's running, if he tells me (most do). In going back through my log notes (and I make probably 70-150 contacts a week on average, casual ragchews) I find about 65-70% tell me they're using amplifiers, on SSB. It's a bit less on CW and also less on PSK31. The number running "high power" (with or without an external amplifier, since some rigs can run legal limit "barefoot") on AM is astonishing, and very high. About half the guys I work on 75m or 160m AM are running 375W carrier power, which is legal limit for the mode (assuming 100% modulation) -- and considering the equipment being used, I'd guess a fair number are running much more than that!


With all due respect, you are biased and want to support your opinion. I'm not saying that you're lying, I believe that's your experience, I'm saying that you can't use your own logbook as evidence to support your point. In particular, your signal will affect your operating attitude which will affect your contacts.


Most of my "UK" contacts say they're running "400W" because that's their legal limit, but most are running amps capable of much more. Wonder how many are really holding it down to 400W?;)

A lot of Russians say "KW" with a silent wink in their signal. One popular DXer from the Ukraine works in the high power broadcast industry and is running his "KW" using a tube that can run about 25x that power. We'll never know...


What's your point? That people break the law? So what? You were supporting the contention that it's necessary to use an amp ALL of the time. I'm countering that and suggesting that it's not necessary. Observing that some stations break the law does not support your point. If it's necessary to use > legal limit to make a contact then that contact is non-feasible, hence, one should make a different contact. There is no implicit right to talk to DX stations, or any station for that matter, with any quality level of signal.

I've not suggested that one shouldn't use an amp, I'm only asserting support for the statement that one should not use an amp all the time and that there is no valid argument that can support that because of the rules regarding minimum necessary power. The only counter is that the only contacts one makes are those which require the legal limit. This is very unlikely as the many people who've made DXCC - QRP will attest. In other words, not only must you restrict your operations to those which require the power under normal circumstances but also to not make those contacts when band conditions allow such contacts with lesser power.

[K5UOS]

I don't have a very high power amplifier and have a tendancy to listen more and operate less when my favorite bands are not in the best "condition".

However, those fellas with an amp or better antennas still make the effort.
That might be why there appears to be a higher percentage of operators using amps...these guys are operating more in the minimum conditions we are experiencing.

Often, the success of many QSO's using certain of my HB rigs is due to the other operators receiver and/or power level.

I suspect even the unscientific polls will indicate fewer operators using amps in 3 or 4 years. Power is relative. I enjoy the challenge of low power (20W or less) and to me my HB 60W PA is high power.

K5UOS

[K0DXC]

You are not saying 63 is old, I hope. :)

:D I just put in a random number.

[wa9cwx]

AMPLIFIER ?? "We don't need no stinkin' amplifier..."

Well, not USUALLY.

I have always HAD one, since the mid sixties, but I actually use an amp only at the end of a DXpediditon IF I have not worked them.

Or as the band is fading and I REALLY want a particular DX contact.

I don't think I have ever used one in a regular ragchew type QSO.

MAYBE on 80 a few times, but again, that is chasing DX.

MOST of my DX chasing is around 100 -200 watts with the FT1000D.
MOST of my QSO's overall are with other rigs and about 25 - 50 watts.

I do operate 75 AM on occasion, and for that, I run a Heath SB221 at about 250 watts output.

I had a beautiful 4-1000A homebrew monster for 25 years, but again, seldom real use of it.
I currently have a Henry 2k-4, Henry 2KD5, and the Heath SB221. All run 3-500 finals. I do have one running on 220 V that I had installed just FOR that amp, even though I have probably made less than 20 QSO's with it in 5 years or so.

Frank

[KB2FCV]

When I had my SB-220 I used it probably 10-20 percent of the time as I chased a bit of dx back in those days. I sold my 220 after I moved into an apartment and had very little provision for antennas or running any power. I have since picked up an HT-33A amp. It does work, I plan on occasionally using it when needed but it's by no means for serious work - more for a collectors standpoint as I have the matching sx-101a and ht-32a. The next amp I may invest in is something for 2 meters for eme work... 500-1000 watts preferably.

[w4glm]

Use them Regularly, I have two, one solid state (IC-2KL) and the other an older Ten-Tec Titan. I switch back and forth to exercise all those older
filter capacitor's, don't drive either too hard and they both seem to make a
diffference in either crowded conditions or when atmospheric's are poor.

[W1GUH]

OK, so I told a little white lie. I don't use an amp, nor do I own an amp because, in my present situation it'd be useless 'cuz I couldn't use it.

But, if I did have a situation where I could us one, I'd most definitely use it regularly. While it's true that 100w, or even less, will get you around the world a few times, it's also true that the power can make many contacts, and especially the rag chews, a lot more pleasant and QRM free.

[WB2WIK]

Well after several days the results of this particular unscientific poll indicate there's no "vast majority" at all, and surely no vast majority who don't have amplifiers.

This poll indicates:

Of 84 respondants, 44 don't have amplifiers and 40 do. That's 47.6% amplifier ownership. Not a "vast minority."

Of the respondants, 29 out of 84 replied they use their amplifier often or all the time. That's 34.5% who use their amplifier a lot. 11 of 84 acknowledged having an amplifier but say they hardly ever use it.

QRP's fun and I do that, sometimes. My best VHF-DX using QRP is 83,333 miles per Watt, working K2RTH/4 in Miami on 50.090 MHz while running 30mW output from here in Los Angeles. He was actually running less and was able to crank it down to 5mW and was still about 339. That would have been 500,000 miles per Watt for Bruce.

Problem is, conditions only get that good rarely and if I wait around for a repeat, I'll be waiting a long time.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

Well after several days the results of this particular unscientific poll indicate there's no "vast majority" at all, and surely no vast majority who don't have amplifiers.

This poll indicates:

Of 84 respondants, 44 don't have amplifiers and 40 do. That's 47.6% amplifier ownership. Not a "vast minority."

WB2WIK/6

The vast majority of hams don't have amps and this "poll" doesn't refute that. Your poll has a gigantic self selection bias. It only attracts people interested in talking about amps. I didn't even bother to vote and I read the thread.

Basically, your poll indicates that half of the currently active qrz forum members interested in talking about amps, own on or claim to own one.

[WB2WIK]

The vast majority of hams don't have amps and this "poll" doesn't refute that. Your poll has a gigantic self selection bias. It only attracts people interested in talking about amps. I didn't even bother to vote and I read the thread.

Basically, your poll indicates that half of the currently active qrz forum members interested in talking about amps, own on or claim to own one.

::How do you figure the "vast majority?" I don't get it.

This QRZ.com poll, over which I can have no influence at all, indicates 46 "no," and 42 "yes." Of the 42 "yes," 29 indicate they use amps frequently or all the time, and 13 indicate only occasionally. But they're still "yes" answers, representing 47.7% amp ownership. The "no's" represent the other 53.2%.

There's no vast majority anywhere in there. There's barely a simple majority.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::How do you figure the "vast majority?" I don't get it.

This QRZ.com poll, over which I can have no influence at all, indicates 46 "no," and 42 "yes." Of the 42 "yes," 29 indicate they use amps frequently or all the time, and 13 indicate only occasionally. But they're still "yes" answers, representing 47.7% amp ownership. The "no's" represent the other 53.2%.

There's no vast majority anywhere in there. There's barely a simple majority.

WB2WIK/6

Again, I'll try and explain. Your poll shows nothing. It is not a random sample. Perhaps I'm confusing you with someone else, I thought that you understood basic statistical sampling and what a self selection bias is?

At any rate, you can't extrapolate your results to the general ham population. However, any number of other ad-hoc, but decidedly more random samples show that the vast majority of hams don't own amplifiers. Look at any of the "show your shack" threads. While it also has a self selection bias it is more likely to be uncorrelated with amp ownership than your poll. Basically, you've asked people interested in amplifiers if they have an amplifier. OF COURSE you are going to see a high percentage of ownership or wishful ownership. Here, I'll respond to your poll and distort your numbers even more.

A useful poll does not allow the participants to select participation themselves and it accounts for various biases that always exist in polling.

Everything from just talking to hams at a hamfest to sales numbers to article after article and post after post discussing what people use shows that the majority of hams don't have amps. Once we factor in that most hams are techs and only work 2 meter FM , we can easily get vast majority although it's my contention that the vast majority of general and higher hams don't have amps either.

Your results don't contradict what most of use know. That of all the ham shacks we visit and of all the hams we've known the vast majority use a 100 watt transceiver. This has been true since the 100 watt transceiver became ubiquitous.

[WB2WIK]

I disagree.

First of all, this isn't "my" poll, it was started by VE2NSM. Impossible to predict how random, accurate or inaccurate it is.

Next, if you really look at the "shack" pictures, and record data, I think you'll find as I did that half the photos show amplifiers. But I have no idea how random is the selection of photos. Maybe only people with amplifiers take photos and submit them. No way to know any of this; but my data refutes your claim, just looking at what's been posted on this board.

Next, eHam.net has a "bio" that specifically asks people about the equipment they're using. Not everybody fills it in, not everybody completes any of it; but for those who do, when I take a very large random sampling of people contributing content, more than 50% indicate they at least "own" an amplifier, and about 20% indicate they own multiple high powered amplifiers. Start looking up the participants in any threads, on any subject except "QRP."
Take data, see what you find.

Lastly, I'd guess I'm a lot more active on the bands than you are, making a lot more contacts. I base this on a variety of data sources including qty of look-ups right here, DX search posts and spots from several sources, web searches for your callsign, etc. I'll concede you may never work anybody using an amplifier, that's surely possible.

But I certainly do, and they're about half my contacts. After the bands close and we're still chasing DX (like at midnight on 20m), I'm still making contacts and about 90% of my contacts are using high power. If they weren't I wouldn't hear them (they're at the noise level with high power).

WB2WIK/6

[N6WK]

I agree Steve,
I use my Amp a lot. Usually only at about 750 Watts OUT, but I can step it up if needed.
Many people claim that running QRP is fun, and it probably is, but all the work to QRP goes to the guy trying to receive the weak signal.
It is all about Antenna, Antenna, Antenna, but when conditions are poor, you need to couple a Nice Amp into the Equation.
:)

73,
Gordon

[ab8ro]

I disagree.

First of all, this isn't "my" poll, it was started by VE2NSM. Impossible to predict how random, accurate or inaccurate it is.


No, it's not impossible at all. It is inaccurate.


Next, if you really look at the "shack" pictures, and record data, I think you'll find as I did that half the photos show amplifiers.


I have, and I haven't.


But I have no idea how random is the selection of photos.


Agreed. Again, it's self selected, although it's likely to be more random than this poll which is specific to amplifers.


Maybe only people with amplifiers take photos and submit them. No way to know any of this; but my data refutes your claim, just looking at what's been posted on this board.


We're not looking at the same data.


Next, eHam.net has a "bio" that specifically asks people about the equipment they're using. Not everybody fills it in, not everybody completes any of it; but for those who do, when I take a very large random sampling of people contributing content, more than 50% indicate they at least "own" an amplifier, and about 20% indicate they own multiple high powered amplifiers. Start looking up the participants in any threads, on any subject except "QRP."
Take data, see what you find.


I'm telling you I have, and I disagree. Moreover, all of that data combined only selects hams who are also active on the internet. Again, that's not likely to correlate highly with amp ownership, but it's not random.


Lastly, I'd guess I'm a lot more active on the bands than you are, making a lot more contacts.


No disagreement. But again, your log book is EXTREMELY biased and you can't use that to refute the point. You've already said this and I pointed this out to you. Your opinion is biased to begin with.

All of this is beside the point in any case because my original point is that you cannot justify using an amp all of the time. This informal poll, self selected for people who are interested in amps shows that as well. Only 5% use an amp all the time. Even this slanted poll shows that the vast majority of hams polled seldom use an amp.

[WW3QB]

I pulled some stats from the 2007 CW and SSB Sweepstakes logs submitted. Note that these are contesters, and I know someone will post that contesters are more likely to use an amp. But just for argument's sake I'll post these. High power is greater than 150 watts PEP (suggesting an amp), low is 150 watts PEP or less (a typical barefoot rig), and QRP is 5 watts PEP or less.

2007 CW Sweepstakes

High: 483 logs 38%
Low: 645 logs 51%
QRP: 128 logs 10%

2007 SSB Sweepstakes

High: 654 logs 42%
Low: 844 logs 54%
QRP: 71 logs 5%

(Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding)

First I'll say that CW participation is strong. It's no surprise (at least to me) that SSB'ers were a bit more likely to run high power and the CW'ers are more likely to be QRP.

My personal experience is that on SSB that there are a lot of amps (subjective). I have an old amp (FL-2100B) and use it about half the time. Amps are mentioned less (if at all) during CW QSOs.

[ab8ro]

I pulled some stats from the 2007 CW and SSB Sweepstakes logs submitted. Note that these are contesters, and I know someone will post that contesters are more likely to use an amp. But just for argument's sake I'll post these. High power is greater than 150 watts PEP (suggesting an amp), low is 150 watts PEP or less (a typical barefoot rig), and QRP is 5 watts PEP or less.

2007 CW Sweepstakes

High: 483 logs 38%
Low: 645 logs 51%
QRP: 128 logs 10%

2007 SSB Sweepstakes

High: 654 logs 42%
Low: 844 logs 54%
QRP: 71 logs 5%

(Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding)

First I'll say that CW participation is strong. It's no surprise (at least to me) that SSB'ers were a bit more likely to run high power and the CW'ers are more likely to be QRP.

My personal experience is that on SSB that there are a lot of amps (subjective). I have an old amp (FL-2100B) and use it about half the time. Amps are mentioned less (if at all) during CW QSOs.

That's good data but you're right in that it's pretty clear that a contester is more likely to use power. We also have to exclude at least a few rigs capable of 150w.

But, that notwithstanding we have 60% of contesters not using an amp. Of course, that doesn't mean that they don't have one. They may feel more competitive in the medium or low power category, but my intuition says that's not too likely.

Now, I don't have to tell you that your contest represents a tiny portion of hams. That is, most don't participate in contests. Your own numbers tell you that's the case.

[WB2WIK]

Contesters statistically represent about 15% of all active hams, but only about 3% of all hams. This is pretty irrefutable since it's really easy to check.

But contesters represent about 40% of all hams who spend more than $3000 annually on their hobby. That's also pretty irrefutable since the data comes from the amateur radio retail suppliers, with data aggregated by CQ magazine, and published only last year.

As such, they're a minority but a very powerful one, a driving influence over what the equipment and antenna manufacturers will develop because as a minority, they spend more money on the hobby than the majority. They're also a vocal minority with huge influence at the League, the IARU, and elsewhere. Contesters donate more to amateur radio "causes" than any other subdivision, with cash donations to DXpeditions, the ARRL Foundation, internationally recognized DX foundations who sponsor costly endeavors and so forth.

When I look at the list of those donating to build the ARRL's educational, research and other foundations, it's almost entirely contesters and DXers. Look at the list: It's published.

I'm a "Diamond Club" member myself for many years, meaning that instead of paying the regular League annual dues I pay more than $75 a year, with the excess being a donation. A lot of people do this, and when you review the list, they're contesters and DXers in the majority.

Food for thought.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

Contesters statistically represent about 15% of all active hams, but only about 3% of all hams. This is pretty irrefutable since it's really easy to check.

But contesters represent about 40% of all hams who spend more than $3000 annually on their hobby. That's also pretty irrefutable since the data comes from the amateur radio retail suppliers, with data aggregated by CQ magazine, and published only last year.

WB2WIK/6

I don't disagree with any of that. You might even be able to argue that amps create the most "air minutes" or even the greatest number of contacts. None of that is what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that MOST hams, that's a quantity of people, not dollars or air minutes, don't use an amp.



As such, they're a minority but a very powerful one, a driving influence over what the equipment and antenna manufacturers will develop because as a minority, they spend more money on the hobby than the majority. They're also a vocal minority with huge influence at the League, the IARU, and elsewhere. Contesters donate more to amateur radio "causes" than any other subdivision, with cash donations to DXpeditions, the ARRL Foundation, internationally recognized DX foundations who sponsor costly endeavors and so forth.

When I look at the list of those donating to build the ARRL's educational, research and other foundations, it's almost entirely contesters and DXers. Look at the list: It's published.

I'm a "Diamond Club" member myself for many years, meaning that instead of paying the regular League annual dues I pay more than $75 a year, with the excess being a donation. A lot of people do this, and when you review the list, they're contesters and DXers in the majority.

Food for thought.


Trying to argue that contesters are important, besides earning an eyeroll, is appeal to false authority and meaningless in this context. They are sill a minority of hams.

As far as that's concerned, however, as I pointed out in another thread, I couldn't care less if gear manufacturers and the ARRL folded up shop tomorrow. If those things are important to you, then you're right, you should support them.

[AC4BB]

::Here's an example "why:"

Calling CQ. You have no idea who may answer you or who you may be trying to contact, since you're not in contact yet. Logic dictates that the more power you run, the more, or farther (or both) answers you may get. If you are answered by somebody who tells you you're "59 plus," then it might be time to bypass the amp; but until then, there's no way to know if you're running excessive power, or maybe not enough power (which may be the case if you call CQ ten times and nobody answers).

Another example: Working a fading band, which I do quite a lot. It's fun. Signals are all weak and the band is about to fold up entirely, but there's still a few out there to work if you try. Rarely can lower power stations make any contacts at all on such occasions, but high powered stations, especially that combined with really good antenna systems, can often "milk" the band another 15-30 minutes after everybody else gives up.

Another example: 10 meter meteor scatter. This takes experience and technique, and almost always requires high power to achieve. Signals can be very weak and mostly absent, peaking occasionally to above noise level, but it's enough to complete contacts if you try. In the ARRL 10 Meter Contest when the band is absolutely stone-cold "dead," I've continued making contacts this way, via m.s., with other savvy operators who know how to do it. Adds QSOs and prevents boredom.

Actually, there are dozens of examples of "why high power" works, and why it might be used literally all the time by some stations.

WB2WIK/6
You'll Notice that I said Uses an amp"All" time Which is pointless." I never said you'll never need the amp ."Although,I do just just fine without one and have for years. If you need one "All the time" you probably have a very CRAPPY antenna and have to have the amp to compensate for it.??

[w8znx]

If you need one "All the time" you probably have a very CRAPPY antenna and have to have the amp to compensate for it.??

no not true,
summer nights 160 / 75 meters fone
you pretty much need an amp and a good antenna
" all the time "

tonight band went long, worked / rag chewed, ops in NC, AZ, CA, WA,
only one of these stations would have heard me
if i had not been running a amp

all of the stations worked were running amps and good antennas
still had to, back down rf gain, turn up the audio gain,
put on the cans to hear some of them

0430 gmt 75 meters some op shows up running 90 watts

thanks for the call om

turn on your amp
if you do not have one
try agn this winter when we can hear you

Mac

[k0cmh]

I might use one if I had one.

[AF9J]

I wish people wouldn't get bent out of shape about the amp issue. I love QRP, but I'm NOT a purist about it (or about sticking exclusively to CW for that matter either). I posted in the "I rarely use an amp" portion. When I was more heavily into VHF/UHF weak signal stuff, I wasn't averse to using an amp on 222 or 432. The last amp I used on HF - wellllllll, that's a little tricky to describe. The last "proper" amp I used on HF, was back in the 80s, when I used the homebrew 3-500Z amp at the Univ. of WI club station, W9YT. The last "really it's an amp" I used - last night on 10m AM.

My FT-301SD is really a QRP rig. I won it off of eBay a few weeks ago. When it arrived, I was annoyed to see a power amp bolted to the back of it (I felt at the time it had been misrepresented, and I'd been fooled). Further questioning on the Fox Tango group, turned up the info, that the final amplifier for the FT-301 and FT-301D (which bolts to the back of the radio, and is fed via BNC feeds, that are similar to transverter feeds) was available as an accessory for the "S" (QRP) series of these cool radios. One guy even told me on the Fox Tango group, that he purchased the piggybback amp (called a booster by Yaesu), within weeks of getting his FT-301S. I disconnected the amp (leaving it bolted onto on my FT-301SD), and bridged the amp feeds, to reconvert the radio back into it's original QRP power configuration (this can also be done with the FT-301 & FT-301D, to make them purely QRP radios). Well, last night out of necessity (I was NOT getting out with 2.5W of carrier on 10m AM), I reconnected the piggyback amp, which increased the carrier power to 25W. As a result, I had a nice 30-45min QSO with a ham in Oklahoma, whereas the night before, under similar conditions, I called until was blue in the face, with the rig in QRP configuration, with no answers.

I guess the point I'm making (and that others have made), is that as long as you don't use it as a crutch there are times when power (in the form of an amp, or a higher powered rig), does come in handy for making the QSO. As for using only the power necessary for effective communications. That's a pretty open ended reg. Admittedly there are times when it's a clear cut case of excessive power (such as QSOing with the guy across town while running 1500W). But in other cases, what's effective communication? 20 over 9 full quieting? Q4 copy? Q3 copy? Using only the power needed for effective communications is a relative term/concept.

Just my 2 cents,
Ellen - AF9J

[ab8ma]

I might use one if I had one.

Exactly. Excellent point. Should have been one of the poll choices.

I would be interested in the effect of a filter imposed such that 160 and 75 meters were excluded. How many operators on 40 and higher need an amp?

How many of those operators that do not need an amp still want one? Again, there may have been times when the amp was needed, but a 45 minute wait provided the change in conditions in such a manner that the contact became possible.

I present this because of my own situation. My only antenna is a Carolina Windom CW40 up about 50 feet. I run an Icom 775DSP which can put out 200 watts. If I can hear the dx, I usually can work them.

I do not need an amp. But, I own one. Just have not yet taken it out of the box. I just wanted one. Irrational but true.

[g4lna]

I voted All the time but I better explain, I only ever run about 150 Watts although the amp can run well over 400 Watts, under running makes for a nice clean transmission which is more important to me than running lots of power.

[wy6k]

Can I change my vote? I voted all the time but it really should be regularly. Not that it actually matters, however.

[kj3n]

Not that it actually matters, however.

That can be said for a great many things here on The Zed. ;) :D

[ky5u]

That can be said for a great many things here on The Zed. ;) :D

Including your comments... :-)

[KC9NRN]

Self explanatory, I can't find the other poll.

BTW, I'm not against amps, I'm planning to build one (solid state) someday. It's just that some people tend to think that it's an indispensable piece of equipment.

If I could afford one I wouldn't mind but I'll worry about it after I get to Extra. I seem to get out far enough as is, for now. :)

[WB2WIK]

no not true,
summer nights 160 / 75 meters fone
you pretty much need an amp and a good antenna
" all the time "

tonight band went long, worked / rag chewed, ops in NC, AZ, CA, WA,
only one of these stations would have heard me
if i had not been running a amp

all of the stations worked were running amps and good antennas
still had to, back down rf gain, turn up the audio gain,
put on the cans to hear some of them

0430 gmt 75 meters some op shows up running 90 watts

thanks for the call om

turn on your amp
if you do not have one
try agn this winter when we can hear you

Mac

::Very well put, Mac. 75m on a static and lightning-crash filled evening is just such a joy without an amplifier. Many times, 5kW would not be excessive on this band, just to make contacts over the prevailing noise.

All things depend on how easily satisfied the user is. If I'm satisfied simply "making some contacts," and having people hear me enough to make contacts, I can make a lot of them with 5W, especially on 20-30-40m CW.

But I'm not so easily satisfied, and enjoy working the really weak ones that others often don't bother with. Those guys are generally farther away by another bounce or two. I can call them with 100W but it won't make the contact, usually.

I've built a lot of amplifiers over the years and never regretted any of them. Still run a kW on 144 MHz for scatter, and without it life would be very boring.

WB2WIK/6

[WS2L]

This year I have been a ham for 30 years being licensed at 13 years old. Over the 3 decades I never owned an amp and in that time I was able to get WAS, WAC and DXCC with about 220 countries confirmed.

A few weeks ago I decided that I wanted to try my hand at buying a used HF amp so that I could join in some round table QSO's on 75 meters with friends from NH, MI and FL on 75 meters. I purchased a Yaesu FL2100F from a friend of mine who cut me a huge break on the price. Unfortunately it was not until about a week ago that I was able to get an HF antenna up. I have been fooling around with it on 75 meters and getting good signal reports when switching between the amp being in line and out of line. So now I am searching for a used in as mint condition as possible an FT101 series transceiver which is a match to the amp. I will not give up my TS2000 but recently I have been regretting selling a TS530SP I sold in 1990. So now I'm looking for either a TS530, TS830 and more then these two an FT101. When I find the right one for me I will snatch it up.

[WB2WIK]

This year I have been a ham for 30 years being licensed at 13 years old. Over the 3 decades I never owned an amp and in that time I was able to get WAS, WAC and DXCC with about 220 countries confirmed.

A few weeks ago I decided that I wanted to try my hand at buying a used HF amp so that I could join in some round table QSO's on 75 meters with friends from NH, MI and FL on 75 meters. I purchased a Yaesu FL2100F from a friend of mine who cut me a huge break on the price. Unfortunately it was not until about a week ago that I was able to get an HF antenna up. I have been fooling around with it on 75 meters and getting good signal reports when switching between the amp being in line and out of line. So now I am searching for a used in as mint condition as possible an FT101 series transceiver which is a match to the amp. I will not give up my TS2000 but recently I have been regretting selling a TS530SP I sold in 1990. So now I'm looking for either a TS530, TS830 and more then these two an FT101. When I find the right one for me I will snatch it up.

::FT-101 might be a good nostalgia piece, but as a rig, the TS530 or TS830 will run rings around it in every way. Every way. The Kenwood's 6146 PA tubes are better, more available and cheaper than the Yaesu's sweep tubes; these two Kenwood models cover the WARC bands, which the FT-101 does not. The two Kenwoods are more stable, and have digital readout, which the FT-101 does not. They even have better modulation characteristics.

The FT-101ZD (very late model of the series) would be the only member of the FT-101 series I'd even consider using on the air (and not just be a collectable sitting on the shelf). It does have digital display, 6146 final tubes, etc -- almost a "Kenwood."

WB2WIK/6

[kj3n]

That can be said for a great many things here on The Zed. ;) :D
Including your comments... :-)

Pot. Kettle. Black. :p :D

[ky5u]

Dear j3n,

Yo Momma!

[WB2WIK]

I don't disagree with any of that. You might even be able to argue that amps create the most "air minutes" or even the greatest number of contacts. None of that is what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that MOST hams, that's a quantity of people, not dollars or air minutes, don't use an amp.



Trying to argue that contesters are important, besides earning an eyeroll, is appeal to false authority and meaningless in this context. They are sill a minority of hams.

As far as that's concerned, however, as I pointed out in another thread, I couldn't care less if gear manufacturers and the ARRL folded up shop tomorrow. If those things are important to you, then you're right, you should support them.

::Well, it's been another few days and the poll is up to 116 respondants now.

The respondants here on QRZ.com state:

50% use an amplifier sometimes (58 out of 116), and 50% don't.

33% use an amplifier frequently or "all the time."

The "vast majority" of hams not owning amplifiers has not surfaced, as I imagined it would not -- because this vast majority simply doesn't exist, except in your claims.

The 50/50 mix this poll indicates is almost exactly what my own log notes indicates, averaged over several thousand contacts.

Makes me a better believer in "exit polls," where the media predicts the outcome of elections by polling only a few dozen people (out of hundreds of thousands) -- they're pretty accurate.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::Well, it's been another few days and the poll is up to 116 respondants now.

The respondants here on QRZ.com state:

50% use an amplifier sometimes (58 out of 116), and 50% don't.

33% use an amplifier frequently or "all the time."

The "vast majority" of hams not owning amplifiers has not surfaced, as I imagined it would not -- because this vast majority simply doesn't exist, except in your claims.

The 50/50 mix this poll indicates is almost exactly what my own log notes indicates, averaged over several thousand contacts.
WB2WIK/6

Do you not understand that your poll is meaningless? I thought you worked in manufacturing? Go back and look at the contest data posted. It's more accurate than your poll and is still slanted.

Do you understand what a "self selection bias" is?

[n5xm]

I use an AL-80A I bought used from a friend a couple of years ago, usually at 500-600 watts. I use it most of the time and am 99.5% CW. I ragchew, chase DX, and love contests. I have a nice little TA-33 beam at about 45 feet, so I'm OK there. I've been licensed about 12 years, and did not have an HF amp for 11 of those years, and did just fine. On the other hand, I've worked some nice DX at the very bottom of the cycle with the Ameritron. The bottom line is that I'd rather have one than not. I get the above power output with about 35 watts from my Orion. Yeah, I've wondered about those Russians, and have heard the same rumors about megapower.

[CT2HMX]

Hello. I have a TL922 but i not use all times the linear amp because two reasons: 1:Energy on power lines is very expensive to the final customer in Portugal.
2: I dont have an qso with a station if i no listening the station.

73 from Hugo Barata CT2HMX

[WB2WIK]

>Do you not understand that your poll is meaningless?<

No, I don't.

>I thought you worked in manufacturing?<

::Yep, and I employ a lot of people far smarter than you're proving to be.

>Do you understand what a "self selection bias" is?<

::Sure I do. This poll, right here on QRZ, which is not "my" poll, but someone else's, has absolutely nothing to do with self selection bias.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

>Do you not understand that your poll is meaningless?<

No, I don't.


Well, I forgot that it's not your poll, so that's at least vacuously true.


>I thought you worked in manufacturing?<

::Yep, and I employ a lot of people far smarter than you're proving to be.


Perhaps that's true, I've never claimed otherwise. Really, is that sort of attack necessary?


>Do you understand what a "self selection bias" is?<

::Sure I do. This poll, right here on QRZ, which is not "my" poll, but someone else's, has absolutely nothing to do with self selection bias.

WB2WIK/6

Haha, it just dawned on me that you think self-selection has something to do with the poll writer. That's very funny. Here ya go, the standard wikipedia article on selection bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


Selection bias is a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The term selection bias most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, due to the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account then any conclusions drawn may be wrong.



Self-selection bias, which is possible whenever the group of people being studied has any form of control over whether to participate. Participants' decision to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, making the participants a non-representative sample. For example, people who have strong opinions or substantial knowledge may be more willing to spend time answering a survey than those who don't.


This poll almost certainly has a strong self-selection-bias and I'm quite sure that it's not the only bias. You can overcome the bias by taking background level into consideration, but you've done no such thing with your simple analysis. The poll itself is poorly designed and almost certainly contains, among others, confirmation bias.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I thought that you would know more about statistical sampling than you've exhibited here. I'm no expert on the subject, I bet someone who works for you might know a bit about it though. To be sure, any poll where the participants choose to participate based on interest will have self-selection bias. Without correction you cannot make any inference about the general population that it's drawn from.

In other words, this poll is meaningless. It says nothing about the general amateur population.

PS: I responded to the poll incorrectly for fun. Be sure to take that into account in any future analysis.

[W4HAY]

Very rarely, and only for the SSB emergency nets. It's fired up and loaded into the antenna every couple of months "just to blow the cobwebs out".

Since I'm mostly on CW, I don't need it.

I'll do some occasional SSB contesting, but still don't use it. I'd feel "dirty" if I did.

[ve2nsm]

The poll is not as I expected (yes, it's mine) but like ab8ro says, it became obvious that it was biased.
I still stand by my opinion that "the vast majority of hams don't own an amplifier".

[WB2WIK]

Self-selection bias is kindergarten level stats study and only indicates that those participating have an option to do so; it's an "opt in," v. "opt out" selection.

Virtually all polls are in this category, including the ones taken by TV ratings companies to determine who's watching what programs. Participants are all volunteers and have opted in. Exit polls after elections are self-selected; nobody has to be polled, it's all voluntary. They're extremely accurate.

However, this does not render them inaccurate at all. In fact, almost all valid polls and their published results had self-selection. So what? To categorize such as "inaccurate" or "wrong" is ridiculous.

My personal (previously reported) "logbook poll" has nearly no self selection bias whatever, since it is not voluntary. I write down what everybody tells me they're running, whether they want me to or not. They don't have any choice in the matter. The only inaccuracy would be if people lied to me, and that can happen in any poll, also. It should be about 99% accurate based on a sample size of 3000 stations and a global active (HF)amateur population of about one million.

WB2WIK/6

[KA4DPO]

I never operate without my trusty Eimac 8973 in grounded grid configuration amp. Now most folks like to run wide open but I keep the drive power low and the plate dissapation at around 50%. I had to build a diversion tunnel off of the Patomac river to help cool it but it really helps cut through the pileups. Of course when the band starts shutting down I'll crank up the drive and usually can get through.

Power requirements are kind of high so I don't recommend this amp for just anyone. It's for those of us who understand the true concept of all knobs to the left and the value of a good echo mike.

Now if I could just figure out what's causing these sores?:eek:

[ab8ro]

Self-selection bias is kindergarten level stats study and only indicates that those participating have an option to do so; it's an "opt in," v. "opt out" selection.


Yes, so your assertion that this poll has nothing to do with self-selection-bias is COMPLETELY wrong. Anyone who understood self-selection-bias wouldn't have made that statement.


Virtually all polls are in this category, including the ones taken by TV ratings companies to determine who's watching what programs. Participants are all volunteers and have opted in. Exit polls after elections are self-selected; nobody has to be polled, it's all voluntary. They're extremely accurate.


So, tell us then, since this is such easy stuff, why is that the case? For extra points explain why the accuracy of exit polls cannot be used to support the inaccuracy of YOUR analysis of this poll?


However, this does not render them inaccurate at all. In fact, almost all valid polls and their published results had self-selection. So what? To categorize such as "inaccurate" or "wrong" is ridiculous.
WB2WIK/6

Again, tell us why some published polls can have self selection bias and still be used for inference?

Now, for extra points, how accurate is this poll with respect to predictions about the general amateur population? Don't forget to show your work.

[ve2nsm]

My personal (previously reported) "logbook poll" has nearly no self selection bias whatever, since it is not voluntary. I write down what everybody tells me they're running, whether they want me to or not. They don't have any choice in the matter. The only inaccuracy would be if people lied to me, and that can happen in any poll, also. It should be about 99% accurate based on a sample size of 3000 stations and a global active (HF)amateur population of about one million.WB2WIK/6

It is highly biased since the stations contacted are DX chasers or contesters and these stations are much more likely to own an amp.
Most of the ragchewers and people that only talk between them and that never in their life answered a CQ call are NOT in your log.
All the stations that don't speak english are also NOT in your log so it's pretty fair to say that your logbook does not represent a good sample of the amateur population.

[NN3W]

That's good data but you're right in that it's pretty clear that a contester is more likely to use power. We also have to exclude at least a few rigs capable of 150w.

But, that notwithstanding we have 60% of contesters not using an amp. Of course, that doesn't mean that they don't have one. They may feel more competitive in the medium or low power category, but my intuition says that's not too likely.



You;re assuming they're in the contest to compete instead of submitting a log simply to submit a log, and they didn't really want to compete and they didn't feel like turning on the linear.

Just looking at the number of low power entrants from my club, I can tell you that most all of them have a linear.

[N2RJ]

That's good data but you're right in that it's pretty clear that a contester is more likely to use power. We also have to exclude at least a few rigs capable of 150w.

You obviously have no clue about contests. Low power and QRP/p categories are growing steadily. Even the big guns like K3LR are starting to compete in the low power category in some contests.

But, that notwithstanding we have 60% of contesters not using an amp. Of course, that doesn't mean that they don't have one. They may feel more competitive in the medium or low power category, but my intuition says that's not too likely.

Go ahead and ignore the contest results staring you straight in the face...

Now, I don't have to tell you that your contest represents a tiny portion of hams. That is, most don't participate in contests. Your own numbers tell you that's the case.

Tiny portion of hams? Hmm. Why is everyone complaining that contesters clog up the bands, when only a tiny portion of hams participate in them?

[ve2nsm]

You obviously have no clue about contests. Low power and QRP/p categories are growing steadily. Even the big guns like K3LR are starting to compete in the low power category in some contests.



Go ahead and ignore the contest results staring you straight in the face...



Tiny portion of hams? Hmm. Why is everyone complaining that contesters clog up the bands, when only a tiny portion of hams participate in them?

Because this tiny portion is very active DURING the contest and it adds up to the normal traffic so, yes, it gives the impression that contesters clog up the band. Now if all the ragchewers would start a one on one qso simultaneously on different frequencies on a given weekend, the results would be horrendous :p

[WB2WIK]

It is highly biased since the stations contacted are DX chasers or contesters and these stations are much more likely to own an amp.
Most of the ragchewers and people that only talk between them and that never in their life answered a CQ call are NOT in your log.
All the stations that don't speak english are also NOT in your log so it's pretty fair to say that your logbook does not represent a good sample of the amateur population.

::I completely disagree. It's not biased at all, since my logbook represents (sample taken) 3000 random contacts, primarily rag-chewers who responded to my CQs on 160, 80, 40, 20, 17 and most recently 10m also (sporadic-E stuff happening now). It contains very few 15m QSOs and I discounted any on 30m or 60m where we have a power limitation imposed by law. They're not DX chasers or contesters (although some surely may be); it's just a cross-section of society on the bands -- as opposed to the cross-section here on QRZ.com, many of whom really are not on the bands, they're just "here."

A lot of my contacts are with DX stations, simply because they answer me. In some cases, they speak very limited English but we get by. I speak conversational German, enough French to have a QSO, and enough Farsi to get arrested; sometimes I let my XYL chat with people in Spanish or Tagalog, or Visayan/Cebuano, since she's very fluent in these (she's from the Philippines and these were native languages for her there).

However, interestingly enough, both "polls" had almost identical results: 50% say they own and use amplifiers.

Where, exactly, was your "poll" taken, and what were the results? I already asked if you can provide a brief log of recent HF contacts to indicate those using vs. not using amplifiers, and you wouldn't do that. I would, and would be happy to add to it on request. My logs go back to QSO #1 in 1965; that was nearly 400,000 QSOs ago. I can pick any sample over the past 20 years and get about the same results.

WB2WIK/6

[WB2WIK]

I see now this "poll" on QRZ is up to 129 respondants and the data has skewed slightly more in favor of "those who use amplifiers."

60 report "no" (46.5%) and the rest report "yes" (53.5%), with 35.6% reporting "frequently" or "all the time."

Again, this almost exactly mirrors my own personal logbook findings.

You can't argue facts. They are what they are.

If this poll extends to 1000 respondants, it's unlikely the percentages will change much at all.

Yes, this is an opt-in poll, but people who are vehement on both sides should have equivalent tendancy to respond. As is the case with most polls.

WB2WIK/6

[WB2WIK]

Yes, so your assertion that this poll has nothing to do with self-selection-bias is COMPLETELY wrong. Anyone who understood self-selection-bias wouldn't have made that statement.



So, tell us then, since this is such easy stuff, why is that the case? For extra points explain why the accuracy of exit polls cannot be used to support the inaccuracy of YOUR analysis of this poll?



Again, tell us why some published polls can have self selection bias and still be used for inference?

Now, for extra points, how accurate is this poll with respect to predictions about the general amateur population? Don't forget to show your work.

::This isn't East Michigan U. or Davis, my friend. This is real life, and I'm really on the air. Your arguments won't impress prospective employers.

WB2WIK/6

[ve2nsm]

Where, exactly, was your "poll" taken, and what were the results? I already asked if you can provide a brief log of recent HF contacts to indicate those using vs. not using amplifiers, and you wouldn't do that. I would, and would be happy to add to it on request. My logs go back to QSO #1 in 1965; that was nearly 400,000 QSOs ago. I can pick any sample over the past 20 years and get about the same results.

I didn't talk about any poll, I say it's my opinion, my experience as a ham since the last 15 years.
Most of the hams don't own an amplifier.

Now if you don't agree with me fine, but don't come flashing your logbook as a "proof".

For my part this discussion is over.

[WB2WIK]

I didn't talk about any poll, I say it's my opinion, my experience as a ham since the last 15 years.
Most of the hams don't own an amplifier.

Now if you don't agree with me fine, but don't come flashing your logbook as a "proof".

For my part this discussion is over.

::Well, that's fine. I have a very different opinion, based on more activity and more contacts, thus a larger data base from which to formulate one.

However, I have no problem with your opinion. In your own circle of ham radio acquaintences, I'm sure what you're told us is accurate. I just don't believe it represents the norm.

And I do work a lot of DX (outside NA) stations.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::This isn't East Michigan U. or Davis, my friend. This is real life, and I'm really on the air. Your arguments won't impress prospective employers.

WB2WIK/6

Asserting which employers I may or may not impress isn't a refutation, even though it is funny. It doesn't matter how much you are on the air, or how real world you think that you are and others aren't, you have yet to demonstrate that your inference is correct.

[ab8ro]

You obviously have no clue about contests. Low power and QRP/p categories are growing steadily. Even the big guns like K3LR are starting to compete in the low power category in some contests.

Go ahead and ignore the contest results staring you straight in the face...


Which state that the majority of those competing in that competition didn't use an amplifier. What exactly do you think that you're refuting?


Tiny portion of hams? Hmm. Why is everyone complaining that contesters clog up the bands, when only a tiny portion of hams participate in them?

Nice demonstration of your failure to grok the basic information involved. Someone else already explained it to you, but, let me ask you just one or two questions to get you to think correctly about the data.

1) What is the average number of participants in U.S. contests?
2) How many hams are there in the U.S.?

[ab8ro]

::Well, that's fine. I have a very different opinion, based on more activity and more contacts, thus a larger data base from which to formulate one.

WB2WIK/6

More evidence that you don't understand sampling. The size of the sample, beyond a certain point, may not actually improve, and may in fact, harm the ability to infer results.

[WB2WIK]

>Which state that the majority of those competing in that competition didn't use an amplifier. What exactly do you think that you're refuting?<

::Confusing. The majority of those in the competiton are using amplifiers, as the "high power" category remains the most popular one; has been for decades and still is. What Ryan was pointing out is there is growing popularity in the "<150W" (low power) and "QRP" categories of competition, which still are not as popular as "high power," but are growing. A stated (cause) major reason for this is the "high power" category is so incredibly competitive that only truly "world class" stations can even dream of placing in the top 10, or even in the top 25. These are million-dollar (and more) stations, generally, with most of the money having been invested in large antenna systems -- amplifiers are very cheap compared with towers and beams. Also, a number of the "big guns" who have been winning the contests for years are bored with winning all the time and decided to switch to low power so they could attempt to dominate a whole new class of competition. That was the K3LR (et al.) example.

>Nice demonstration of your failure to grok the basic information involved. Someone else already explained it to you, but, let me ask you just one or two questions to get you to think correctly about the data.

1) What is the average number of participants in U.S. contests?<

::About 3500 for the DX contests. More, for Field Day and other "general participation" events.

>2) How many hams are there in the U.S.?<

::About 500,000 when you remove multiples and clubs from the ARRL ULS data base. However, of those 500,000, how many are actually active? That's the more important question. The League believes it's about 250,000. Probably as good a guess as any. Of those, how many are active on HF, or even have HF privileges beyond 200 kHz of 10m phone and some CW privileges with a 200W maximum power limitation (i.e., Technician class licensees)? The League believes it's about 125,000, and that's probably as good a guess as any, also.

Still, doesn't prove much, since contesters who own a dozen amplifiers are often now "entering" contests in lower-power classes, just because they want to.

WB2WIK/6

[WB2WIK]

More evidence that you don't understand sampling. The size of the sample, beyond a certain point, may not actually improve, and may in fact, harm the ability to infer results.

::I understand sampling just fine.

What I don't understand is trying to create an academic debate from weak material nobody cares about.

There is no completely unbiased poll to determine how many hams have amplifiers, or use them. Then, there's almost no unbiased poll on any subject, so who cares?

A participant's willingness to participate in a pole indicates self-selection. So what?

All this knowledge, plus $4.29, will get you a gallon of regular gasoline at the pump.

A willingness to accept others' wisdom based on substantially more experience and data than you have available can get you a paying career. This isn't a practice life.

WB2WIK/6

[k8jd]

I actually have had 3 different external amps over the years.
Back in the 70s I built a 4 x 811A ampl for 80M out of junk parts, drove it with an ARC5 transmitter and could run right to the legal limit with it. I could send a short CQ and get several answers each time. I would usually pick the weakest one to start a QSO.
I got bored with that and traded it off ...
Later, in the 80s I got a Henry 2K in another horse trade and ran that on 10M at a previous sunspot minimum. I could call several CQs on the dead band and usually pick up some transequatoreal DX. After the QSO I could tune across the band and hear some other QSOs going. Kind of livened up ;the band. :)
At that time I also ran a solid state amp on 2M to boost my 10 Watt TS700A signal up to 140 W to compensate for a low antenna since I had no tower to put my Yagis up on.
Now I have no amp and use between 5 and 100 watts on HF and seem to do fine.

[N2RJ]

Which state that the majority of those competing in that competition didn't use an amplifier. What exactly do you think that you're refuting?

Nevermind, I see you back up my point.



Nice demonstration of your failure to grok the basic information involved. Someone else already explained it to you, but, let me ask you just one or two questions to get you to think correctly about the data.

1) What is the average number of participants in U.S. contests?
2) How many hams are there in the U.S.?

Change that number to active hams and come back to me.

There are many "dead" licenses that don't see any use.

[WB2WIK]

Nevermind, I see you back up my point.





Change that number to active hams and come back to me.

There are many "dead" licenses that don't see any use.

::Ryan, the League has estimated "active" hams in the U.S as 250K. However a lot of those are Technician class and have very limited HF privileges, with no "high power" privileges below 50 MHz at all. The most recent estimate I've seen for "active - HF" amateurs in the U.S. is ~125K.

Probably a reasonable guess. Hams licensed and equipped should number higher than that, but having a ticket and equipment doesn't get one on the air.;)

73

Steve WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::I understand sampling just fine.


Then you should understand that the poll is meaningless.


What I don't understand is trying to create an academic debate from weak material nobody cares about.


If you don't like having to support incorrect assertions then don't make them. The poll is clearly weak yet you have continuously attempted to assert that one can infer results from it. Obviously you care enough to continue to defend an indefensible position.


There is no completely unbiased poll to determine how many hams have amplifiers, or use them.


Nobody is saying that there is. The point is that this poll does nothing to refute that fact and you have asserted otherwise. I've told you several times that this poll is meaningless and you have disagreed.


Then, there's almost no unbiased poll on any subject, so who cares?


Again, your failure to understand is only more and more evident. You can correct for bias but your analysis did no such thing. When pressed to defend your analysis you resorted to fallacious argument.


A participant's willingness to participate in a pole indicates self-selection. So what?


So, you can't, without correct analysis, draw any conclusions from the poll. In other words, it is meaningless, a point which you disagree with but are unable to back up.


A willingness to accept others' wisdom based on substantially more experience and data than you have available can get you a paying career. This isn't a practice life.

WB2WIK/6

You've demonstrated fairly conclusively that despite your "experience" you lack the knowledge required to analyze the data correctly. Introducing an unrelated goal such as "obtaining a paying career" doesn't change the facts of the question regardless of the truth or non-truth of this new assertion.

[ab8ro]

Nevermind, I see you back up my point.





Change that number to active hams and come back to me.

There are many "dead" licenses that don't see any use.

Steve answered the question for you, the point still holds.

[WB2WIK]

You've demonstrated fairly conclusively that despite your "experience" you lack the knowledge required to analyze the data correctly. Introducing an unrelated goal such as "obtaining a paying career" doesn't change the facts of the question regardless of the truth or non-truth of this new assertion.

::My intention is not to impress you with my great wisdom; I couldn't care less. The fact is, analyzing data is an extremely narrow talent in our technological age, and one that is likely to get you, personally, nowhere.

Just some advice.

Stop trying to demonstrate how smart you are, you haven't convinced a soul beyond yourself -- and have become argumentative to the point where I doubt even you're convinced.

Departing academia and entering the real world can be a real shocker. Brace for it.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

::My intention is not to impress you with my great wisdom;


Which is good, because you haven't.


Just some advice.


I don't want or need your advice, let's stay on topic.

[WB2WIK]

More evidence that you don't understand sampling. The size of the sample, beyond a certain point, may not actually improve, and may in fact, harm the ability to infer results.

::The only reason a sample size could harm this ability is if it were a poorly chosen sample unrepresentative of the whole. That can happen with any sample size. When the sample finally reaches 100.0%, it is perfect and irrefutable data.

Obviously this indicates the trend to be: In general, the larger the sample, the more accurately it reflects the whole.

If you can dispute that with any actual facts, I'd just love to hear them.

[WB2WIK]

Which is good, because you haven't.



I don't want or need your advice, let's stay on topic.

::I offered because you can certainly use some advice. It is noted here that your contributions to this board are mainly argumentative in nature, and generally for no particular reason.

[ab8ro]

::The only reason a sample size could harm this ability is if it were a poorly chosen sample unrepresentative of the whole.


Like this poll, for example.


If you can dispute that with any actual facts, I'd just love to hear them.

You've answered your own question. You said:


::Well, that's fine. I have a very different opinion, based on more activity and more contacts, thus a larger data base from which to formulate one.


You don't seem to realize that your ANY log book is necessarily biased. Adding your samples to the "database" may harm the results.


That can happen with any sample size. When the sample finally reaches 100.0%, it is perfect and irrefutable data.


No, that's the second part of my statement. You can harm results if your sample is poorly gathered, but you do not necessarily improve an inference by gathering more data.

The sample size necessary is dependent, in part, on what you are trying to infer about the population. Here's a basic link that explains basic stats 101 level material

http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c000709a.asp


Obviously this indicates the trend to be: In general, the larger the sample, the more accurately it reflects the whole.


Biased samples may actually indicate incorrect trends. This is obvious. Sampling has to be done carefully in order to rely on any statistical results about the population. If sampling isn't done correctly then your analysis must account for that fact.

[ab8ro]

::I offered because you can certainly use some advice. It is noted here that your contributions to this board are mainly argumentative in nature, and generally for no particular reason.

Certainly for no particular reason that you seem capable of understanding.

[ab8ma]

You guys are in agreement.

We need more data. Better data.

Steve was not presenting his logs as proof. It was data. Thats all.

We all would like to know the results of a larger set.

[WB2WIK]

You don't seem to realize that your ANY log book is necessarily biased. Adding your samples to the "database" may harm the results.


::You're right: I don't realize that, because I believe it's nonsense. Why, exactly, is my log book "poll" biased? In what manner? Why does adding samples to that data harm the results?

[WB2WIK]

This little "poll" right here is a great example of how adding samples hasn't changed a damned thing.

Right from the start, the ratio of "no amp" to "amp" owners/users was about 50/50.

Now at 134 respondants (or samples), it's still that way: 47% say "no," 53% say "yes," and 34% say, "yes, frequently or all the time."

The results haven't changed yet, from 12 respondants to 134. I'd say if we have 1340 they still won't change, and if we had 13400 they still won't.

An argument is made about how flawed such a poll as this is: Scientifically, by definition, it, like most polls, is of course flawed.

However, how accurately does it reflect reality?

I'd say extremely accurately. Nobody can provide evidence that it isn't accurate, even if by coincidence.

WB2WIK/6

[ab8ro]

This little "poll" right here is a great example of how adding samples hasn't changed a damned thing.

Right from the start, the ratio of "no amp" to "amp" owners/users was about 50/50.

Now at 134 respondants (or samples), it's still that way: 47% say "no," 53% say "yes," and 34% say, "yes, frequently or all the time."

The results haven't changed yet, from 12 respondants to 134. I'd say if we have 1340 they still won't change, and if we had 13400 they still won't.

An argument is made about how flawed such a poll as this is: Scientifically, by definition, it, like most polls, is of course flawed.

However, how accurately does it reflect reality?

I'd say extremely accurately. Nobody can provide evidence that it isn't accurate, even if by coincidence.

WB2WIK/6

Again, it shows that you don't understand sampling at all. You are naively projecting a sample statistic onto the population. It isn't necessary to show that it is inaccurate. It is necessary to show that it IS accurate in order to support any claim that the poll is meaningful. In addition to not understanding elementary statistics you also don't understand logical fallacy.

Since you assert that the poll has meaning, you must show how you have corrected for self selection bias. The sample IS biased by self selection relating the question that you are trying to ask. To draw any conclusions about the population you must correct for that bias.

[kj3n]

Did Tim get a new call and I missed it? :confused:

[ab8ro]

You guys are in agreement.

We need more data. Better data.

Steve was not presenting his logs as proof. It was data. Thats all.

We all would like to know the results of a larger set.

Steve IS arguing that the poll can be used to infer results about the general ham population yet he is unable to correct the poll for self selection bias. His own log adds nothing to the data and there are several suggestions for better sources elsewhere in this thread.

It isn't a larger set that's needed, it's a set that properly reflects the true underlying distribution.

[ab8ro]

This little "poll" right here is a great example of how adding samples hasn't changed a damned thing.

Right from the start, the ratio of "no amp" to "amp" owners/users was about 50/50.

Now at 134 respondants (or samples), it's still that way: 47% say "no," 53% say "yes," and 34% say, "yes, frequently or all the time."

The results haven't changed yet, from 12 respondants to 134. I'd say if we have 1340 they still won't change, and if we had 13400 they still won't.

WB2WIK/6

I don't disagree with that. Just like if you asked 10 nuns, 100 nuns, or 1000 nuns if sex was better than chocolate you'd probably get similar answers. Just like this absurd poll it wouldn't say anything more about what women in general think about the question.

What the poll shows, as I've already pointed out, is that about 1/2 of the QRZ members likely to engage in a poll and thread about amplifiers own an amplifier or claim to own one. It says nothing at all about the ham population in general. Again, adding more biased samples does not improve your ability to infer results about the general population.

[WB2WIK]

You're still not getting it, and you've avoided my question well:

How is my personal "logbook" poll biased? In what way? Be specific.

My "logbook" poll is just raw data. I don't ask anybody if they use an amplifier. I don't ask anybody if they like amplifiers, or if they have multiple amplifiers. I don't ask them anything at all, other than, "What are you running over there?" -- and I only ask that if they don't tell me, first.

I record the "rig" details as much as I can, including the antenna system, if they tell me.

That's the data base for the poll.

How, exactly, is this biased? We're all dying to hear this.

[ab8ro]

You're still not getting it


ok.


We're all dying to hear this.

Good to know!

[WB2WIK]

Checkmate.

[ab8ro]

Checkmate.

Yep, you win Steve, you're such a genius. How did you craft such a clever move? I mean, you're so right, how could it be possible that a list of contacts made by one ham is biased towards the types of contacts that one ham makes? That's just not possible.

From now on I'm going to be looking for great words of wisdom from you. You seem like the type of guy who's really educated and understands the deepest aspects of building a solid argument.

[WB2WIK]

...and Mate.

[ab8ro]

...and Mate.

Wow, you're sooo smooth. Since you know so much, I have a question for you. Why doesn't my logbook show the same distribution as your log book? I mean, if a log book isn't biased then shouldn't all log books show a similar distribution?


PS: I might be wrong, but I think that it's "check", and "Mate", or, "check", and "checkMate", but not "checkMate" and "Mate", the latter is redundant. You might want to "check" on that before you misuse it again.

[ab8ro]

Wow, you're sooo smooth. Since you know so much, I have a question for you. Why doesn't my logbook show the same distribution as your log book? I mean, if a log book isn't biased then shouldn't all log books show a similar distribution?


PS: I might be wrong, but I think that it's "check", and "Mate", or, "check", and "checkMate", but not "checkMate" and "Mate", the latter is redundant. You might want to "check" on that before you misuse it again.

What, no answer? I was really hoping to get that insight pretty quickly.

[kb3laz]

When I look at my log book I notice that most people I talk with on 75m use an amp. This is not so on other bands. However others may have different data in their logs. I think that is the point ab8ro is trying to make. A hams log is bias to that ham alone, and does not speak for all. EX.. if I ragchew with the same group of people every night and they use amps thats going to effect the end results of my data.

73 de kb3laz

[ab8ro]

When I look at my log book I notice that most people I talk with on 75m use an amp. This is not so on other bands. However others may have different data in their logs. I think that is the point ab8ro is trying to make. A hams log is bias to that ham alone, and does not speak for all. EX.. if I