My "Attitude"
Locked
12
12
 
|
The way the regulation reads, hams are being told they can put 50 watts PEP on an antenna, up to the gain of a dipole, and call that 50 watts ERP. Higher gain must be referenced to the dipole and the 50 watts reduced accordingly.
For mobile stations there is no mention of the idea that a LESSER antenna may have the 50 watts increased. 100 watts appears to be in excess of regulation. Stated another way, 50 watts max regardless, unless the antenna has more gain than a dipole in which case power must be reduced by a factor representing the gain of that antenna over a dipole. The whole thing is really interesting since there are really precise definitions of ERP elsewhere in FCC referencia. By the regular definition of ERP 50 watts into a dipole for 5.3 MHz at 108 feet over medium ground will have an ERP of 328 watts. At 50 feet the ERP is roughly 200 watts. We had best be very careful with our privileges on 60m, because all FCC would have to do is enforce regular definition of ERP and the same dipole at 108' would take seven and a half watts to obtain 50 ERP at pattern max. 73, Guy It may also be that whoever wrote the reg was having a brain f**t at the time, and they just haven't discovered it yet. The max pattern gain and takeoff angle on a dipole
|
|
|
Guy, K2AV wrote:
> The way the regulation reads, hams are being told they can put 50 watts PEP > on an antenna, up to the gain of a dipole, and call that 50 watts ERP. > Higher gain must be referenced to the dipole and the 50 watts reduced > accordingly. > > For mobile stations there is no mention of the idea that a LESSER antenna > may have the 50 watts increased. 100 watts appears to be in excess of > regulation. Stated another way, 50 watts max regardless, unless the antenna > has more gain than a dipole in which case power must be reduced by a factor > representing the gain of that antenna over a dipole. > Where did you get that interpretation? The ARRL Q&A, based on the FCC rules, says the following: <quote> The "best" antenna configurations are those with a proven track record on the lower bands, keeping in mind that using a loop or an array of some kind will require you to "do the math" to ensure you are not radiating more than 50 W ERP /in any direction/. The math is fairly straightforward. You must reduce your power by the number of decibels your antenna gain exceeds 0 dBd (0 dB relative to a half-wave dipole). Conversely, you can increase your transmitter power if your antenna exhibits loss compared to a dipole. Be prepared to document these situations in your station records, however. <endquote> Gus Hansen KB0YH ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
ARRL ain't the FCC. And the ARRL's
opinion is no mitigation whatsoever if I get an FCC pink slip. The reg is
the reg, and it's a strange brew for the FCC, where ERP normally has nothing to
do with dBd.
73, Guy.
----- Original Message -----
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] dBi dBd correction > The way the regulation reads, hams are being told they can put 50 watts PEP > on an antenna, up to the gain of a dipole, and call that 50 watts ERP. > Higher gain must be referenced to the dipole and the 50 watts reduced > accordingly. > > For mobile stations there is no mention of the idea that a LESSER antenna > may have the 50 watts increased. 100 watts appears to be in excess of > regulation. Stated another way, 50 watts max regardless, unless the antenna > has more gain than a dipole in which case power must be reduced by a factor > representing the gain of that antenna over a dipole. > rules, says the following: <quote> The "best" antenna configurations are those with a proven track record on the lower bands, keeping in mind that using a loop or an array of some kind will require you to "do the math" to ensure you are not radiating more than 50 W ERP /in any direction/. The math is fairly straightforward. You must reduce your power by the number of decibels your antenna gain exceeds 0 dBd (0 dB relative to a half-wave dipole). Conversely, you can increase your transmitter power if your antenna exhibits loss compared to a dipole. Be prepared to document these situations in your station records, however. <endquote> Gus Hansen KB0YH ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@... This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html This
email is a reply to your post @ http://n2.nabble.com/My-%22Attitude%22-tp2789182p2837840.html You can reply by email or by visting the link above. |
|
|
> The reg is the reg,
Absolutely! So let's read the reg and see what it says. Most arguments about the rules can be resolved quickly by doing this. When reading regulations, contracts, or other legalese, it's important not to read between the lines or "interpret." Read exactly what the words say, no more, no less. The relevant subpart is printed below and apart from the precise definition of "half wave dipole" is quite clear. It says nothing about a 50 W max transmitter power, only 50 W max ERP. Bear in mind that when they say "multiply" the transmitter power by antenna gain, it could mean multiplying by a number less than one (< 0 dBd) or greater than one (> 0 dBd). 73 and thanks for listening, Carl WS7L >From http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr97.303.htm 97.303(s): ...Transmissions shall not exceed an effective radiated power (e.r.p) of 50 W PEP. For the purpose of computing e.r.p. the transmitter PEP will be multiplied with the antenna gain relative to a dipole or the equivalent calculation in decibels. A half wave dipole antenna will be presumed to have a gain of 0 dBd. Licensees using other antennas must maintain in their station records either manufacturer data on the antenna gain or calculations of the antenna gain... ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by AC7AC
Why are you trying to make this so complicated? It's a straightforward calculation. A half-wave dipole is assumed to have 0 dBd gain (what a surprise) or a multiplier of 1. (There is no mention of ground, takeoff angle, blah, blah, it's zero dBd, period.) You model the antenna you want to use and get its gain (usually in dBi) and convert to dBd if necessary. Convert this number to a ratio and divide it into 50. That equals the allowable power input to the antenna. Using the example I offered earlier, I model a short whip over an assumed 20 ohm of ground loss. EZNEC reports -9.7 dBi or ~ -11.8 dBd. As a ratio this = 0.065. Dividing 50 by 0.065 we find that the allowable input power is ~765 W. You write this stuff down in your station engineering notes justifying your assumptions and operate in good faith. Wes Stewart, N7WS --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Guy, K2AV <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: Guy, K2AV <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] dBi dBd correction > To: [hidden email] > Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 7:30 PM > ARRL ain't the FCC. And the ARRL's opinion is no > mitigation whatsoever if I get an FCC pink slip. The reg is > the reg, and it's a strange brew for the FCC, where ERP > normally has nothing to do with dBd. > > 73, Guy. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Augie Hansen (via Nabble) > To: Guy, K2AV > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:14 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] dBi dBd correction > > > Guy, K2AV wrote: > > > The way the regulation reads, hams are being told they > can put 50 watts PEP > > on an antenna, up to the gain of a dipole, and call > that 50 watts ERP. > > Higher gain must be referenced to the dipole and the > 50 watts reduced > > accordingly. > > > > For mobile stations there is no mention of the idea > that a LESSER antenna > > may have the 50 watts increased. 100 watts appears to > be in excess of > > regulation. Stated another way, 50 watts max > regardless, unless the antenna > > has more gain than a dipole in which case power must > be reduced by a factor > > representing the gain of that antenna over a dipole. > > > > Where did you get that interpretation? The ARRL Q&A, > based on the FCC > rules, says the following: > > <quote> > The "best" antenna configurations are those with > a proven track record > on the lower bands, keeping in mind that using a loop or an > array of > some kind will require you to "do the math" to > ensure you are not > radiating more than 50 W ERP /in any direction/. The math > is fairly > straightforward. You must reduce your power by the number > of decibels > your antenna gain exceeds 0 dBd (0 dB relative to a > half-wave dipole). > Conversely, you can increase your transmitter power if your > antenna > exhibits loss compared to a dipole. Be prepared to document > these > situations in your station records, however. > <endquote> > > Gus Hansen > KB0YH > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@... > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: > http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This email is a reply to your post @ > http://n2.nabble.com/My-%22Attitude%22-tp2789182p2837840.html > You can reply by email or by visting the link above. > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/My-%22Attitude%22-tp2789182p2843062.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: > http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by JIM DAVIS-11
In a recent message, JIM DAVIS <[hidden email]> wrote ...
> If you've ever heard alot of the newer guys on the air their >electrical knowledge and operating >practices are rather lacking (even lacking the knowledge >of something as BASIC as "Ohm's Laws"), now that's BAD!!! > At least the vast majority of guys who were licensed before the 1980s >really did have to >understand >the electrical theory to pass the exams. Memorization just would not >work then as it seems to >now! That is very true for newer radio amateurs in the UK also. One only has to look at some of the old exam papers. UK Radio Amateurs' Examination Papers back to 1946 can be seen at http://www.g4dmp.co.uk/rae 73 -- David G4DMP Leeds, England, UK ------ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
What in the world does this have to do with Elecraft radio?
Sonny...NN8K -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Pratt Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 2:42 AM To: Elecraft Reflector Subject: Re: [Elecraft] My "Attitude" In a recent message, JIM DAVIS <[hidden email]> wrote ... > If you've ever heard alot of the newer guys on the air their >electrical knowledge and operating >practices are rather lacking (even lacking the knowledge >of something as BASIC as "Ohm's Laws"), now that's BAD!!! > At least the vast majority of guys who were licensed before the 1980s >really did have to >understand >the electrical theory to pass the exams. Memorization just would not >work then as it seems to >now! That is very true for newer radio amateurs in the UK also. One only has to look at some of the old exam papers. UK Radio Amateurs' Examination Papers back to 1946 can be seen at http://www.g4dmp.co.uk/rae 73 -- David G4DMP Leeds, England, UK ------ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by JIM DAVIS-11
JIM DAVIS wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with your "attitude" ! In fact I agree with it completely, as it seems > that the people that are getting into the hobby recently really don't know how to fully utilize > their equipment nor their antenna arrays. What amateur radio needs is more people who have been in the hobby a while to freely share their knowledge with others. we all started in radio with limited knowledge and learned along the way. Regardless of any thoughts some may have on current exams standards we owe it to ourselves and the hobby we get so much pleasure from to help newcomers to gain a better understanding of Amateur radio. 73 Brendan EI6IZ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Smithson
Elecraft is an Amateur Radio equipment manufacturer. This is an Elecraft
reflector/forum where Amateur Radio equipment, primarily but not always Elecraft, related issues are discussed. A poster asked what might be construed as a overly elementary question with regard to said poster's license class. One of the responses was construed as mildly abrasive eliciting further comments re. said "attitude." The 'offending party' then explained his point of view with regard to his perceived "attitude." Very much related to Amateur Radio and, albeit to a lesser degree, Elecraft. It's just a discussion, interesting to some, not so much to others. Live and let live. Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Smithson" <[hidden email]> To: "'David Pratt'" <[hidden email]>; "'Elecraft Reflector'" <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] My "Attitude" > What in the world does this have to do with Elecraft radio? > Sonny...NN8K > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Pratt > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 2:42 AM > To: Elecraft Reflector > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] My "Attitude" > > In a recent message, JIM DAVIS <[hidden email]> wrote ... >> If you've ever heard alot of the newer guys on the air their >>electrical knowledge and operating >>practices are rather lacking (even lacking the knowledge >>of something as BASIC as "Ohm's Laws"), now that's BAD!!! >> At least the vast majority of guys who were licensed before the 1980s >>really did have to >>understand >>the electrical theory to pass the exams. Memorization just would not >>work then as it seems to >>now! > > That is very true for newer radio amateurs in the UK also. One only has > to look at some of the old exam papers. UK Radio Amateurs' Examination > Papers back to 1946 can be seen at http://www.g4dmp.co.uk/rae > > 73 > -- > David G4DMP > Leeds, England, UK > ------ > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brendan Minish
I think some of you "old timers" are missing the point of generational
changes. I agree that there is no excuse for laziness however, times have changed in the world of technologies. You "old timers" were able to make a respectable livelihood at circuit/component level designing, testing and repairing. This is what the electronic/consumer market was all about. When software started coming into the picture you labeled it firmware, left it alone and gave it to the dork stuck in the corner to deal with because it wasn't hardware. And, you stated that his firmware was pointless because it couldn't do anything without your hardware. Well...if you haven't figured it out yet...times have changed. Now how many of you "old timers" could successfully write a line of software code (outside of "hello world") let alone a full-on application? How many of you "old timers" could derive a filtering algorithm and translate it into a software routine? Do I call you lazy or dumb because most of you can't? No...I wouldn't dream of it because that technology wasn't from your era. I agree with Brendan's last comment that the answer here is to help. But help is a two way street as well. Many "old timers" label some of the digital modes mainly PSK as "No Code Extra mode". Is it really? Can any of you old timers really explain how it works? Or do you just dismiss it because it isn't CW or write it off because you don't see any RLC networks? If you do your homework...these digital modes are far more complex to derive than CW ever was. So we have a clash of generational changes in both technology and people. Can we say one is better than the other? Nope, I don't think we can. Can we be happy that new members are joining the ranks? Well I am very happy. Do we owe it to ourselves to provide mentoring? I think we do. And just maybe...that idiot that couldn't explain what inductance is because all he has to do is push a button labeled "tune" will be the guy to fix a computing, networking problem on that new radio 10 years from now that is pure software defined because that isn't your cup of tea. K0ZU/Doug -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brendan Minish Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 8:56 AM To: JIM DAVIS Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] My "Attitude" JIM DAVIS wrote: > There's nothing wrong with your "attitude" ! In fact I agree with it completely, as it seems > that the people that are getting into the hobby recently really don't know how to fully utilize > their equipment nor their antenna arrays. What amateur radio needs is more people who have been in the hobby a while to freely share their knowledge with others. we all started in radio with limited knowledge and learned along the way. Regardless of any thoughts some may have on current exams standards we owe it to ourselves and the hobby we get so much pleasure from to help newcomers to gain a better understanding of Amateur radio. 73 Brendan EI6IZ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brendan Minish
I certainly agree with you Brendan. If we are going to keep this avocation healthy we must share knowledge whenever we can. I was one of the ones attacked by this accusation of being recently licensed and never learning anything again. I hope that this ridiculous thread will die soon because I am confident that the accusers are not as educated as the accused. Willis 'Cookie' Cooke K5EWJ, first licensed as KN5EWJ, 1956 Extra Class at the FCC, 1976 Air Force Navigator, 1962 Air Force Electronic Warfare Officer, 1963 BS Physics, Cum Laude, Sam Houston State, 1972 Professional Electrical Engineer, Texas 52999 Control Systems Engineer for 30 years. Willis 'Cookie' Cooke K5EWJ --- On Sat, 5/9/09, Brendan Minish <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: Brendan Minish <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] My "Attitude" > To: "JIM DAVIS" <[hidden email]> > Cc: [hidden email] > Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009, 7:55 AM > JIM DAVIS wrote: > > > There's nothing wrong with your > "attitude" ! In fact I agree with it completely, > as it seems > > that the people that are getting into the hobby > recently really don't know how to fully utilize > > their equipment nor their antenna arrays. > > What amateur radio needs is more people who have been in > the hobby a > while to freely share their knowledge with others. we all > started in > radio with limited knowledge and learned along the way. > > Regardless of any thoughts some may have on current exams > standards we > owe it to ourselves and the hobby we get so much pleasure > from to help > newcomers to gain a better understanding of Amateur radio. > > 73 > Brendan EI6IZ > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: > http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brendan Minish
Brendan,
You are perfectly correct we need to freely share the information we have with newcomers to the hobby. OTOH, since we are all supposed to have passed an exam which indicates we have at least some understanding of the fundamentals of radio and electronics. So I do believe we should be rightly disturbed if a fellow licensed ham does not know a resistor from an inductor, or a capacitor from a quarter wavelength, or a bit from a packet. Yet we see questions from time to time that indicate individuals who do not possess even that basic knowledge. It is then that we can know that person simply memorized the answers and gained no understanding when studying for the exam. While I would like to help, there are times I have to indicate that it is better to "hit the books" and learn at least the basic terms we use so we can communicate effectively. There are times when the best answer is to tell the person asking where to find the answers that they seek, and I will do that when I sense that the person asking the question wants to be spoon-fed with no effort toward learning. Yes, I expect those who have acquired gear new to them to read the manual, and I don't believe that is too much of an expectation on my part. :RANT OFF 73, Don W3FPR Brendan Minish wrote: > JIM DAVIS wrote: > > >> There's nothing wrong with your "attitude" ! In fact I agree with it completely, as it seems >> that the people that are getting into the hobby recently really don't know how to fully utilize >> their equipment nor their antenna arrays. >> > > What amateur radio needs is more people who have been in the hobby a > while to freely share their knowledge with others. we all started in > radio with limited knowledge and learned along the way. > > Regardless of any thoughts some may have on current exams standards we > owe it to ourselves and the hobby we get so much pleasure from to help > newcomers to gain a better understanding of Amateur radio. > > 73 > Brendan EI6IZ > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.23/2106 - Release Date: 05/09/09 06:54:00 > > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by k0zu
Agreed. It is funny. If you go back and look at very old articles in
QST, you will find that each generation of hams states how much easier the ones that came behind have it. Its human nature. The other piece of the puzzle is the difference between book learning, and applying something that has been learned. It is all well and good to understand ohm's law, but quite different to apply that. Which is why it is a, "License to Learn". This is where Elmering, and sharing make all the difference. Many aspects of society have changed that impacts this. But clubs, reflectors, newsletters and websites help share experience. Hopefully those trying to learn have someone near by to help, to show how it works, and explain things. That is one of the greatest parts of this reflector. Wandering off topic and learning from someone else's experience. Thanks to all for sharing and helping. 73 and have a good weekend. Dave Wilburn NM4M Doug wrote: > I think some of you "old timers" are missing the point of generational > changes. I agree that there is no excuse for laziness however, times have > changed in the world of technologies. You "old timers" were able to make a > respectable livelihood at circuit/component level designing, testing and > repairing. This is what the electronic/consumer market was all about. When > software started coming into the picture you labeled it firmware, left it > alone and gave it to the dork stuck in the corner to deal with because it > wasn't hardware. And, you stated that his firmware was pointless because it > couldn't do anything without your hardware. Well...if you haven't figured it > out yet...times have changed. > > Now how many of you "old timers" could successfully write a line of software > code (outside of "hello world") let alone a full-on application? How many of > you "old timers" could derive a filtering algorithm and translate it into a > software routine? Do I call you lazy or dumb because most of you can't? > No...I wouldn't dream of it because that technology wasn't from your era. > > I agree with Brendan's last comment that the answer here is to help. But > help is a two way street as well. Many "old timers" label some of the > digital modes mainly PSK as "No Code Extra mode". Is it really? Can any of > you old timers really explain how it works? Or do you just dismiss it > because it isn't CW or write it off because you don't see any RLC networks? > If you do your homework...these digital modes are far more complex to derive > than CW ever was. > > So we have a clash of generational changes in both technology and people. > Can we say one is better than the other? Nope, I don't think we can. Can we > be happy that new members are joining the ranks? Well I am very happy. Do we > owe it to ourselves to provide mentoring? I think we do. And just > maybe...that idiot that couldn't explain what inductance is because all he > has to do is push a button labeled "tune" will be the guy to fix a > computing, networking problem on that new radio 10 years from now that is > pure software defined because that isn't your cup of tea. > > K0ZU/Doug > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brendan Minish > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 8:56 AM > To: JIM DAVIS > Cc: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] My "Attitude" > > JIM DAVIS wrote: > >> There's nothing wrong with your "attitude" ! In fact I agree with it > completely, as it seems >> that the people that are getting into the hobby recently really don't know > how to fully utilize >> their equipment nor their antenna arrays. > > What amateur radio needs is more people who have been in the hobby a > while to freely share their knowledge with others. we all started in > radio with limited knowledge and learned along the way. > > Regardless of any thoughts some may have on current exams standards we > owe it to ourselves and the hobby we get so much pleasure from to help > newcomers to gain a better understanding of Amateur radio. > > 73 > Brendan EI6IZ > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
You're right Ron. Most of us are "appliance operators" now. I still like
playiung with my small homebrew rigs and the TCS. Only regret is I wished they'd kept at LEAST the 5 WPM requirement for Amateur Extra. I got mine back in the early 60's when you had to do the 20 WPM test at the FCC's office. Actually, I took three codes tests that day: 16 WPM groups, 20 WPM plain text for 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, and 20 wpm for Amateur Extra. This was followed by the elements for 2nd Class Ship Telegraph. Was a long day! 73, Sandy W5TVW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <[hidden email]> To: "'Elecraft Discussion List'" <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] My "Attitude" > Dave, NM4M wrote: > > QST, you will find that each generation of hams states how much easier > the ones that came behind have it. Its human nature. > > ------------------------- > > What a Ham needs to know to put a rig on the air today requires only a > tiny > part of the technical knowledge that past generations needed to know. > > Installing and repairing equipment also has grown more complex, just as > all > the various modes and procedures has made operating it more complex. Some > people do it all. Others specialize. Most Hams do a little of both. > > Even commercial licenses reflect this. Today a shipboard Communications > Officer may be licensed to operate the critical communications equipment, > but he/she is not allowed to repair or tinker with it in any way. In the > past, of course, "Sparky" was expected to do it all. > > If a modern Communications Officer wants to do repairs, he/she needs two > difference licenses from the FCC. Many ships find it more practical to > simply carry spares and let defective equipment be handled by specialists > in > port. > > > Ron AC7AC > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.23/2106 - Release Date: 05/09/09 06:54:00 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
> Only regret is I wished they'd kept at LEAST the 5 WPM requirement for > Amateur Extra. Soundly seconded. I do believe that some must be "prodded" into giving CW a try. Many would then discover how pleasurable it can be. Without even a minimal requirement, many will never discover this. Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: My "Attitude" [END of thread]
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-4
Guys - We're drifting a little far afield. (Sort of like the recurring
no-code etc. threads.. ;-) Lets end this thread for now. 73, Eric WA6HHQ Elecraft List Moderator Don Wilhelm wrote: > Brendan, > > You are perfectly correct we need to freely share the information we > have with newcomers to the hobby. > OTOH, since we are all supposed to have passed an exam which indicates > we have at least some understanding of the fundamentals of radio and > electronics. _..._ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [OT]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |