I believe Zack is right. Most hams are afraid of anything less than plug and
play. So they are not willing to invest in a transverter that they think would
be too complicated to operate...
And yes, you and I know that modern transverters are not that difficult to get
on the air. But, do the "other guys" know that?
I still think advertising is the key. Some experienced ops answering questions
in the forums will help (I've posted a few times). But I would like to see
some articles about station building and operating by some experienced ops.
Articles in QST and CQ are great, Eham.net is a great place as well. And lets
face it, Eham will publish just about anything, hi hi.
For example, how about a couple of short articles on buying a modern 222
transverter, how to hook it up and get on the air with it. And maybe what you
did with it when it was up and running...
73
Dan
--
K9ZF
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
former K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269
Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla>
List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:15 PM, Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe most of the hams that are active just want radios they can take
>out of a box, plug in and use. I don't think that's true for
>contesters - it requires a lot of work to build even a small contest
>station.
>
>I've always been a builder. My VHF+ station consists entirely of
>transverters. I built all of them. I also built all the antennas I'm
>using. But even if you bought a transverter from Down East Microwave
>or somewhere, maybe it is just too much for the typical ham to figure
>out how to interface it. I'd like to think that's not true.
>
>I built the 222 MHz transverter designed by Zack Lau W1VT. I believe
>it appeared in QEX magazine in 1993. You can find templates for the pc
>boards at the ARRL site. I made my own boards. This transverter is a
>great performer.
>
>W1GHZ also sells boards for a small 222 MHz transverter designed to
>work with the FT-817. It should work with any transceiver if you
>connect it properly.
>
>Again, maybe that's just too much work for most people.
>:-(
>
>In contests in this area, all the VHF contesters who have more than
>one band seem to have 222. I usually work almost as many people on 222
>as I do on 432 in contests.
>
>73, Zack W9SZ
>
>
>On 2/15/14, Duane - N9DG <n9dg@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> --------------------------------------------
>> On Wed, 2/12/14, Peter Laws <plaws@plaws.net> wrote:
>>
>> "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I, for one, am not interested in
>> being belted *or* flayed. But yes, that would surely be helpful if for no
>> other reason than to make sure there is more than one point of view
>> represented."
>>
>> Based on my experiences of trying to do just that for more than 10 years now
>> on places like eHam is that you will find more than likely to be simply
>> "unheard" than be criticized for posting information about what we do on the
>> "ultra highs". But yes, please do chime in, it gets pretty lonely out there
>> trying to offer information to the masses about what we do on these bands.
>>
>> There was a recent eHam.net article ("222 MHz the missing Band - Still
>> Missing") posted by W4KYR asking why after 10 years after someone had posted
>> that same question in a previous article that there are still no all band,
>> all mode, radios with 222 in them from I, K, Y, or even anyone else. The
>> responses were interesting. Several of us pointed out that there are a
>> couple readily available off the shelf transverter options to get going on
>> 222 SSB/CW. And I further pointed out that for fixed station uses where
>> portability isn't important transverters are a better way to go anyhow. That
>> was basically the exact same comment I made 10 years previously to the
>> article cited by this most recent one.
>>
>> Then there were numerous comments that conflated FM only gear availability
>> with the topic of the article that was specifically about SSB/CW capability.
>> But then also many of the posters to that article were so completely fixated
>> on the notion that only legitimate way to get on on a band is to buy it in a
>> box from I, K, or Y they simply couldn't (refused to??) comprehend that
>> there are others ways to get onto 222. There's this really peculiar
>> perception out there that if it isn't available from I, K, or Y, then it
>> doesn't exist. And that it won't exist until it can be bought from I, K, or
>> Y.. This widely held belief out there in amateur radio land has baffled me
>> almost more than the reality of there being 10's of thousands of radios with
>> 6m, 2m, and 70cm in them already out there in people's hands that never get
>> used on those bands and modes.
>>
>> So I will continue assert that it is not equipment availability, or
>> availability of information about what we do that is the limiting factor for
>> why people don't get on these bands and modes we do, it is something else.
>>
>> Duane
>> N9DG
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>VHFcontesting mailing list
>VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|