[Boatanchors] Receiver Technology

Sun Jan 16 11:06:28 EST 2011

QST is not all I'd like, but it's pretty good for a lot of people.
I never know what the ARRL's "agenda" is, but I hear a lot about it. Maybe 
someone will tell us.

No organization as large as ARRL can make everyone happy, but I think we owe 
them the existence of our hobby, to a major degree if not totally, so I 
appreciate them.  Doubly so since I'm too lazy to do much on my own!

If  you really want technical reading, there are countless texts and 
journals that can swamp at least 95% of us.  Ham Radio was good, but over 
most hams heads.  Wayne Green was a jerk, but 73 was good for simple 
construction articles.  Face it, most technically competent hams are trained 
in a technical field and do technical work.  Joe Taylor would have won his 
prize even without his ham license.  It is important, however, to expose 
kids to technical stuff, since it often leads them into technical careers. 
Read The Big Ear, about John Kraus.

I grew up with oldtime hams and the truth is that there were many appliance 
ops all along.  My dad held the hands of several to help them pass their 
tests and when they passed they bought rigs and got help with them from then 
on.  Yes, they at least showed the grit remember enough to pass, but they 
often never did anything more technical than ragchew on phone for the rest 
of their lives.

SO, how can we make ARRL more like we want it to be?

Get on CW and show us your skill.
Write a semitechnical article for QST, with explanations of 
technology that will help the masses improve their minds.
Send in some pictures of the nice gear you have built.
Teach a few license classes and start a ham club at your local high 
school or college.
Work with your ARES group to set up real interfaces with local 
government.  It doesn't matter if there are no real emergencies.
    The publicity and involvement are good for both sides.

Meanwhile, be greatful that ARRL has helped swell our numbers and that a 
dedicated staff of professional employees and volunteers works to preserve 
our privileges.  As for me, I consider membership a screaming bargain and I 
wish every ham would join!

Wilson
W4BOH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
To: <boatanchors at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Technology

-----Original Message-----
From: boatanchors-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:boatanchors-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of W3DBJ
> QST is garbage. Gave up my ARRL membership because of the "dumbing down"
of
> radio, and the fact ARRL has it's own agenda and doesn't reflect it's
> membership anymore.

And, in a strange case of irony, I joined so I could get to the QST
archives.  While I can't get anything newer than 6 years ago, I don't care.
Hollow state is where it's at.  These semiconductor things are just a
passing fad.

Best regards,

Michael, WH7HG BL01xh
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/NTH/index.aspx
http://wh7hg.blogspot.com/
http://kludges-other-blog.blogspot.com
Hiki Nô!

-----Original Message-----
From: boatanchors-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:boatanchors-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of W3DBJ
Sent: Saturday, 15 January, 2011 17:29
To: boatanchors at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Technology

QST is garbage. Gave up my ARRL membership because of the "dumbing down" of
radio, and the fact ARRL has it's own agenda and doesn't reflect it's
membership anymore.

As publications go, it was never the most technical, but it was probably the

most complete cross-section of amateur radio as a hobby, but I miss World
Radio more than QST

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Johnson" <scottjohnson1 at cox.net>
To: <w8au at sssnet.com>; <richardlo at admin.athabascau.ca>; "'Old Tube Radios'"
<boatanchors at theporch.com>
Cc: "'Old Tube Radios'" <boatanchors at theporch.com>;
<boatanchors at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Technology

> Brings up a good point.  I asked if I could take QEX in lieu of QST, ARRL
> of
> course said no.  One can't even wipe one's butt with those glossy pages in
> QST!
>
> Scott W7SVJ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boatanchors-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:boatanchors-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of w8au at sssnet.com
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 9:42 PM
> To: richardlo at admin.athabascau.ca; Old Tube Radios
> Cc: Old Tube Radios; boatanchors at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Technology
>
> At 04:03 PM 1/14/2011, Richard Loken wrote:
>
>>I recently read a copy of QST for the first time in a few years.  In it
>>(Jan
>>2011 or Feb 2011 maybe?) was a light weight article about the HRO and
>>the demand for change that drove its design.  The article is
>>lightweight to the point of being useless but it has references to
>>articles from the thirties and twenties that might be worth finding.
>>
>>Come to that, every article in that issue of QST was light weight.
>>Can't anybody read anything longer than two pages anymore?
>
> That's what QEX is for, in this modern era...  Things have changed, and
> not
> for the better, licensee wise....
>
> Perry  w8au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors

_______________________________________________
Boatanchors mailing list
Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors

_______________________________________________
Boatanchors mailing list
Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors 