Jim said:
>
not, necessarily, encouraging "ultimate stations" --- i.e., get 'em on the
band......
Precisely my point. Receive antennas are no longer just the domain of
ultimate stations. There's plenty of other options out there that are small
lot friendly, low-cost, fun to build. Plus, they won't get sick of calling
CQ after the first few months and working only the same guys (usually us).
Getting them on the band is great! Keeping them on the band is better.
Luckily, those two are not mutually exclusive :)
Mike N1TA
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:22 PM, James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>
wrote:
> Mike: I would posit we - the "top band community" - need to promote
> increased operations ---------- fuggedabout "decent rx antennas" --- just
> get more hams operating on top band:
>
> - emphasize the Maunder minimum
> - emphasize the rise of efficiency of small lot antennas, as a resulting
> "benefit"
> - emphasize the benefits of a new low band rcv arrays
>
> It's about encouraging hams to explore top band, as the "minimums" descend
> on us.....
>
> not, necessarily, encouraging "ultimate stations" --- i.e., get 'em on the
> band......
>
> 71.5/72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
>
> Guy said:
>
> >There is the issue of when people are actually listening on 160. *Sounds*
> dead because no one is there.
>
> ...AND THEN there is the issue of when people *can* actually listen; by
> that I mean, they have a decent rx antenna at their disposal.
>
> I've noticed quite a few locals (W1) with increasing interest in 160. The
> low-space rx antenna options out there are attracting interest. This is
> good. Bring on the minimum.
>
> Mike N1TA
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|