New Attack on Extra Class Licensees regarding 75 meters

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by NK2U, Nov 27, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. W3WN

    W3WN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    No problem. Just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page, so to speak, comparing apples to apples, not cucumbers to avocados!

    And to be fair, yes, there are times (excluding contests, of course) when the band is crowded. At least more crowded when it’s been the few times lately I’ve been listening. And this can certainly vary not only by time of day but part of the continent, as well.

    So do we maintain a large Phone sub-band... currently 80% of the 80/75 meter band... for those few (non contest) occasions when it is busy, let alone very crowded... and continue to choke the digital users with limited spectrum in the process... or do we allocate back a small portion of the sub-band, allocating it BACK to the digital users, with (IMHO) minimal overall impact on daily or weekly Phone users? Logically & rationally, which answer to that question makes more sense?
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
    N0NB, N0TZU and N2SR like this.
  2. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page


    Are you familiar with the older QST issues that always had technical articles ranging from the rank beginner to the technically advanced operator? Today, it almost seems like how to solder a PL-259 is the most technically advanced article that appears in the magazine. I am being a bit sarcastic. However, for a supposedly technical "hobby", the magazine has really "dumbed down" the technical side with the number of truly technical articles published are barely a shadow of what were in the magazine in the past.

    QEX, basically, has the articles that, in the past, would have been in QST proper.

    The lack of a reasonable number of technical articles in QST is just another of the many reasons that I do not rejoin the ARRL.

    Glen, K9STH
    N3AB, WE4B, K0UO and 1 other person like this.
  3. W9BRD

    W9BRD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Such letters have fallen into to two general classes across the life of QST: "There's not enough in QST about <myParticularInterests>" and "There's too much in QST about <interestsThatAren'tMine>." The "too technical" v "not technical enough" viewpoints are pretty much the same divide, stated differently.

    Such initiatives as launching QEX were intended to provide better coverage of amateur's radio's widening technical field. What many of those who opine that "QST used to be more technical" commonly fail to mention -- perhaps because they have failed to observe -- is that amateur radio tech is now far more diverse, and generally better and more professionally engineered, than the highest amateur radio tech available in Baby Boomers' early ham years. The stress of balancing coverage of that highly diverse and optimized tech with the ongoing non-technical needs of a journal of a not-for-profit membership organization -- QST has never been a "technical journal" -- is high.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
    W0FS, N0TZU and N2EY like this.
  4. W9BRD

    W9BRD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not, generally, the QEX articles I've seen -- and that was true even when I was on the QST staff a quarter of a century ago. But there's another aspect: Much greater editorial rigor was -- is, I hope, although it's alarming that the QST masthead no longer has "technical editor" in any of the titles of the individuals on it -- applied to QST treatments, as they were assumed to be of sufficient interest to a generalist readership that the staff had to pay extra attention to their potential reproducibility (assuming a construction article) by the readership. Why devote four or six QST pages to, say, a construction project that only a few hundred -- at most -- readers may duplicate? Such TLC is much less in evidence in QEX because QEX is supposed to be more about wrestling with the alligators.

    That amateur radio is a technical hobby is debatable. The technical aspects of license-study materials, for instance, in any era are in my opinion best thought of as mirroring the technical coverage of FCC's (now historical) commercial operator license exams: That coverage was there to acquaint operators with the tech to be used rather than supporting any assumption that the operators would build the tech to be used. One's participation in amateur radio may be largely technical; or largely about operating; or largely about public service; or a combination of all three in any proportion. How should the editorial content of QST best serve that reality?

    If QST and hams generally seemed "more technical" in the far past, in my opinion that's because more hams were generally better acquainted with much simpler, less-diverse tech, which QST and the Handbook duly reflected. Early Heathkits and Johnsons and Globes looked like they were designed with little more technical savvy (and, in some cases, less) than what one saw reflected in the ARRL Handbook or Radio Handbook.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
    N0TZU, N1BCG and N2EY like this.
  5. W9BRD

    W9BRD Ham Member QRZ Page

    I saw the picture sufficiently differently to become a Life Member in 1976. I figured then that I'd be involved in amateur radio for much of the rest of my life. The prospect of having the option of continually subjecting the organization to an "is it still good enough?" test did not occur to me, because I understood its role in enabling and furthering in the generic the amateur radio I had enjoyed thereto, and the amateur radio I expected to enjoy for decades to come. The vicissitudes of what QST might or might not cover from month to month -- that is, the degree to which it would please or displease me -- or decade to decade didn't enter into my considerations.
    N2EY and W4NNF like this.
  6. N1BCG

    N1BCG Ham Member QRZ Page

    QST vs QEX

    I can see how it would be very difficult to meet everyone’s expectations with just one publication, even more so these days. One group just wants to get on the air and communicate. Another wants to design and build. Both have a place in amateur radio. I can also see how QST and QEX would attract different advertisers.
    N0TZU and N2EY like this.
  7. W9BRD

    W9BRD Ham Member QRZ Page

    The advent of the single-crystal-gate IF filter was the beginning of the end for receiver building by "most" hams under FCC jurisdiction. Post-WW2, the advent of SSB continued that shift. Hams still commonly home-built their transmitters, but as new bands and SSB came in, along with the need to do heterodyne detection by means other than a diode and a BFO, the value proposition of commercial gear rose until receivers and transmitters were more commonly than not store-bought, at least as kits.

    The post-WW2 rediscovery of so-called product detection is particularly interesting to me. When pentagrid converters came in for broadcast receivers in the 1930s, hams soon realized that a pentagrid converter could serve well -- as the "second detector" -- for CW reception. The snag with this was that (a) such tubes couldn't be just rebiased for AM (envelope) detection (they had been expressly designed to minimize the sort of distortion that envelope detection leverages); and (b) there was a Depression on, so to be able to receive CW with a pentagrid detector and envelope-demodulate AM, one would have had to build in two switchable detectors, as opposed to using just a diode for AM and turning on a BFO for CW. Economics won.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
    N2EY and W4NNF like this.
  8. KJ4VTH

    KJ4VTH Ham Member QRZ Page

  9. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    At the rate straw men are being erected and burnt down, soon we as a country will have to import hay to feed our horses over winter. :D
    KD8TUT likes this.
  10. W1VT

    W1VT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
    W4NNF and N2EY like this.

Share This Page