Anything less than perfection is unacceptable. Why should the "deserving"
few, who, at the expense of their bank accounts, marriages, and everything
else, that have achieved the pinnacle of antenna development and
implementation, have to put up with shoddy antenna construction, and less
than optimal performance? After all, it is the "deserving" that provides
the role model and the signals for the rest of the unwashed masses to follow
and work.
Unless the masses can produce a signal that is 95% (one standard deviation)
of optimal , they should stay off the air. It is too much of an effort to
pull their puny signal out of the ether....
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Jordan
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:19 PM
To: Rob Atkinson, K5UJ
Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] QST (was radials
This thread is getting painful to follow...
There are so many bad signals out there...give me a break. Just
because a guy uses a flag pole, or gutter or wire in PVC buried in the
ground is no excuse to call the signals 'bad'. These are antenna
challenged stations. The operators have just as much fun or perhaps
more than the guy with stacked yagis. Perfection doesn't equal joy IMHO.
Surely it occurs to you that some folks don't want to spend 40 hrs
installing 20-50-100 radials. Perhaps the few db improvement isn't worth
it to them or they just don't have the space or some other realistic
reason that they choose not to go to the "N"th degree. What about all
the QRP guys out there...are their signals also considered "bad" just
because they aren't pounding into your receivers front-end at +60db over
"S"9? Please, get a grip. There are stations all over that are
challenged in one way or another...some times it is the operator,
sometimes equipment, sometimes antennas, sometimes all three. However,
isn't that why we pay so much for these fancy transceivers so we can dig
them out of the noise, haha.
I love the low end of the solar cycle. Finally, I get a chance to use
the features that most of the time are left in the default mode or off.
Sorry, for the tone of this note but I'm not in agreement with the
overall proposition that started this thread and many have provided
common sense and reasonable responses that seem to not have made much of
an impact in your point of view. So, how about just dropping it ;-)
There are lots of operators out there that don't need their stations to
be the strongest, loudest, best, largest, most expensive, or equal to
commercial grade, etc.
They just want to enjoy, in their own way, the magic of amateur radio.
Enjoy,
dave
wa3gin
Rob Atkinson, K5UJ wrote:
>Jim,
>
>I must disagree with you on several points....
>
><<<1) QST is intended for general readership and one goal is to
>encourage folks to get on the air. To that end, their goal would not
>be well served by article that insisted that nothing is worth doing
>unless you can implant 120 radials a full wavelength long of the
>finest oxygen free copper, carefully implanted into precision sliced
>turf, which is watered by an automated system, and that's only for
>those pikers that can't afford to copper plate the back 40 of their
>saltwater marsh with the full sized vertical array for 160m. <yes, I
>am exaggerating, but you get the idea..>>>>
>
>I don't know where the 120 figure came from, but I never stated that as an
>absolute requirement. I realize you are exagerating however I do believe
>the inverted L article did in fact convey the impression that a ground
>system, which is truely one half of the antenna, is not particularly
>important. You may dispute that and I don't intend to argue it further
>since it is a subjective matter but I stand by my interpretation as being
>rational. I think putting up the best possible antennas we can with our
>resources is a desireable goal. If anything that radiates is okay, is now
>the dominant philosophy, then why not do away with tower talk, and all the
>exchanges on troubleshooting and improvements?
>
>
><<<2) I think that even QST's editorial board would concede that QST's
>technical review standards are uneven. I don't think anyone should
>be under the impression that it is a "rigorously peer reviewed
>journal", or, for that matter, that there is extensive technical
>review, other than for obvious errors. (I can cite specific examples
>over the past few years of blatantly incorrect and/or unsafe
>practices, if you like.) Hey, they have a limited budget, and they
>essentially have to live what contributors are willing to write. I
>suspect that would be counter productive to start coming down too
>heavily on would-be contributors for technical review:
>
>a)it would slows down the process (e.g. it takes a year to get
>published in an IEEE journal, if you're lucky)
>
>b) it would be frustrating and discouraging to the authors, who are
>doing the writing out of love, not as their full-time day
>job. Nobody will earn a living from writing for QST, even if you
>wrote every article in every issue.
>
>I would gripe more if things with technical inaccuracies appeared in
>QEX, for instance, because the expectations are higher.>>>
>
>I merely pointed out a need for a minor change to one paragraph. I hardly
>think this would delay publication or cause any sane author to give up and
>go away. I know an author who put up with months of revisions. That
>didn't stop him. Also, radio topics are not fundamental breathtaking
>research that must be communicated immediately because a nobel prize is on
>the line. If an antenna article is delayed a few months to make it better,
>that is not the end of the world.
>
><<<3) Hey, if you're a competitive sort, why not let the unwashed masses
>believe something they read in QST, when you know better, and can
>whip the pants off them as a result. Maybe these articles are a
>carefully laid plot to encourage the competition to do something wrong?>>>
>
>surely you are not serious. Yesterday was April 1 so I guess not. There
>was a time about 30 years ago when I would have been tempted to agree. The
>problem today is that there are too many bad signals out there already, due
>to compromise antennas such as flagpoles, istotrons, slinky indoor coils,
>and all sorts of other stealth CC&R compliant antennas. I think hams who
>can put up real antennas, deserve to be told how to properly do the job.
>After that if they want to go into denial and think half the antenna is
good
>enough, that's their business.
>
>
><<<4) With respect to the change over the years in content (often
>described as "lots of pictures of appliances, less technical
>content"): In these internet days, there's lots of other sources for
>information, some better, some worse. The function of a ARRL
>magazine as a "technical journal of record" is fading away, replaced
>by books, websites, and so forth. Partly this is because the level
>of integration of the components has increased (not many folks
>building CW keyers with discrete transistors to make the flipflops
>these days, I suspect), changing the fundamental nature of "radio
>experimenting and homebrewing". Partly this is because the nature of
>Amateur Radio itself has changed in the last 30-40 years.>>>
>
>On the contrary, I think the need for an authoritative avenue of
>communication is even more important now, for the very reason you give,
that
>there are all sorts of other uncontrolled, unedited sources of information.
>It is now possible for anyone to set up a website with the patina of
>authority and legitimacy, and fool the uninitiated with "quack" antennas
and
>so forth. The internet in fact is a breeding ground for junk science,
quack
>medical remedies and other nonsense, and let's face it, the ham antenna
>market has had its share of this over the years. More now than before, ham
>magazines such as QST have an even greater responsibility to publish good
>advice based on sound engineering and measurement.
>
><<<One doesn't look to back issues of QST for design information so much
>any more. >>>
>
>This is true, but I'd like to point out that it is partly due to
>availability. The ARRL should consider making the entire run of QST
>available to members on the web, instead of selling it for hundreds of
>dollars on CDs. Professional associations have done this with their
>journals and it is a great member benefit. ARRL might get a lot of new
>members just for this alone.
>
>73,
>
>rob / k5uj
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
>Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|