Mayhem on AmRad 40 m. band

[Skywave]

The restrictions that public bodies such as regulators (OfCom etc), place upon any of us must be based on the principle of proportionality and can go no further than that.

Trouble with that is that one person's definition of "what is proportional" will differ from someone else's: there can be no absolute definition of the 'principle of proportionality'.

I support the licence structure, but it is not – as many imagine - a training course to enable radio amateurs to become competent at understanding RF engineering – it’s for the reasons stated. Some may want to read up beyond that – most (in my experience), do not. So long as they’re having fun, it’s of no great importance.

In my opinion, the licence structure should indeed amount to a training course to enable radio amateurs to become competent at understanding RF engineering. IIRC, that was once an 'understood' aspect of the Amateur Radio licence.
"So long as they’re having fun, it’s of no great importance." To them, maybe, but not necessarily to others: other users of the Amateur Radio allocations - or otherwise.

The RAE is a very elementary qualification which is why the C&G dropped it. We are constantly being regaled by the likes of RSGB with pictures of bright eight year-old kids who have passed the foundation licence – the only test that is mandatory – the other two bolt onto that).

And that very fact (it didn't used to be) was a large contributory factor towards my loss of interest in Amateur Radio: the gradual 'dumbing down', encouraged by the RSGB.

Al. / Oct. 10, '13 //

[pwdrive]

SWL DX with minimal equipment is a real skill, believe me, not so much tuning the tuned circuits but tuning your ears, try doing it with a regen or simple direct conversion, it's an art.
The best DX I picked up as a SWL was some bloke on the Falklands when the Argies were invading, that was done on a simple valve direct conversion receiver with a lump of wire hanging out the bedroom window, another interesting one was a commercial transoceanic flight which had blown an engine, Shanwick were asking how many souls on board, I found that amusing at the time as I always assumed a soul was present both during and after life and as such if it was after life it wouldn't be on the bloody aircraft, maybe he should have asked how many persons or bodies....

Clearly there are amatures who just want a chin wag on air and quick number spotting and clearly there are many that chose a more difficult challenge.
You could argue that it could be the large number of chin waggers that are keeping the bands from being shut down or hived off....

Lawrence.

[Robert Darwent]

I have been following this thread with interest. Like David, I am a radio amateur in name only. I gained my full licence (G0UHF) back in 1992 and so far I have never transmitted! I pretty much took the RAE because a friend of mine was keen to pass and I went through the syllabus with him. Although for a time I did have intentions of setting up a homebrew morse station, but that never materialised. My interest was always 'listening' for broadcast band DX, particularly transatlantic stations on the medium waves, something I still keenly do.

With regards David's opinions on SSB 'pile-ups' and the like, I must say I agree with his comments. Also the idea of small bands of amateurs setting off to distant uninhabited chunks of rock just to activate a rare prefix for a while, to me seems farcical. But then again, each to his own.

I must also share David's view, to some extent, about skill not being required with a good deal of reception on the bands. However, I must fully back Lawrence's comment when he says;

SWL DX with minimal equipment is a real skill, believe me, not so much tuning the tuned circuits but tuning your ears

which applies even more so with MW DXing and not just with 'minimal equipment' IMHO.

It is not just a matter of the same receiver and antenna giving the same results. To 'dig' distant stations out on the point of unintelligibilty and make a positive identification does require a good deal of skill in 'playing' the receiver controls much like a musical instrument. As with a musical instrument, doing that well takes skill not just experience and practice.

Just my thoughts, no doubt I'm in a minority of one again!

Regards

[pwdrive]

I doubt that you are in a minority Robert, there are many folks doing SWL and MWL DX, as you say it's not easy and is quite a challenge with receivers that do not have a full product detector with sideband selection when doing amature SWL DX.
In the early days it was mainly CW, if they were lucky they might have had a receiver with Xtal filter for single signal reception, those receivers with a Xtal filter were very good, still as good today 70 odd years on as they were back then, the only downside is that you need safe crackers fingers and a good oscillator to get it bang on the nose.

Ham radio operators and enthusiasts have done some remarkable work since the inception of Ham radio, always at the forefront of what can be done with various affordable technologies that came their way.
Take direct conversion receivers for example, these were heavily promoted 30 years or more ago in homebrew circles, they knew instinctively that they were on to something despite the audio image limitations of the early designs.
Now they have come full circle and of age, almost all modern forms of radio communication now use the principle of direct conversion from mobile phones to the military.
SDR is another area where Hams have been at the forefront, live SDR on your computer from installations all over the world, no need for a signal report, hear what your transmission actually sounds like from the part of the world your beaming at, all amazing stuff.

Ham radio is still very much alive on all fronts and long may it continue, weather folks have a fully operational station or just a simple regen or just experimenting.

Lawrence.

[Skywave]

It is not just a matter of the same receiver and antenna giving the same results. To 'dig' distant stations out that are on the point of untelligibility and make a positive identification does require a good deal of skill in 'playing' the receiver controls, much like a musical instrument. As with a musical instrument, doing that well takes skill, not just experience and practice.

Just my thoughts, no doubt I'm in a minority of one again!

I'm glad you joined this debate! As regards those comments, if you look back to what I wrote in post #8, you will see that you are clearly not in a "minority of one".

Al. / Oct. 10, '13 //

[Robert Darwent]

The selection of the operator-controlled variables - for the successful reception a weak signal in difficult conditions and subsequent successful replying transmission - is not only based on knowledge, experience and available equipment, but also skill: choosing when, what, why and how. In summary, the precise control of those variables that are under the operator's control: that requires skill.

I'm glad you joined this debate! As regards those comments, if you look back to what I wrote in post #8, you will see that you are clearly not in a "minority of one".

Sorry about that Al, I quickly read through the new posts in this thread earlier today on my mobile phone. I must have inadvertently skipped by your second paragraph in post #8 at the time.

Apologies for restating, albeit in my own way, your aptly put comments!

Regards

[Skywave]

No problem, Robert. At least I now know that I'm not in a minority of one! You and I might be in a minority of two, however . . . . but I think that that is very unlikely!

I look forward to reading more posts from you in the future. Oh, and yes, don't forget the Gallery and those 'photos., please.

Al. / Oct. 10, '13 //

[boiss]

Before I get interested whats going on with X band in the Western Mediteranean region? 40m nope, 3cm!
Mike

[Skywave]

Hi Mike: I haven't the faintest idea. But, and I have to ask this, you have some particular interest in 3 cm.? I'm fascinated: do let on, please!

Al. / Oct. 10, '13. //

[AmadeusMozart]

Ten years later than the last post but I feel it applies even more so today. I do wonder if it is still possible today what I did in the years 1979 - 1983 and work over a 100 countries on CW with a Yaesu FT-7 on 20m with a simple folded dipole approximately 10m up in the air.

The only experimentation I see is with antenna's - most seem to be only appliance operators and even making an antenna tuner is outside their interests (or capabilities?).

I's a sad state of affairs when you hear something like "I cannot tune my antenna with my antenna tuner. Can I put the antenna tuner you have for sale in series with my antenna tuner and then be able to tune my antenna?"

And another one: "My power supply is only 10 Amps and my transceiver is 100 watts so in order to cope with the current I just put another 20 A power supply in parallel with the first one"....

Talking about power supplies: One HAM was causing a lot of splatter and when it was mentioned to him he then goes on how the persons reporting it are wrong, it is all caused by the receivers being hooked up to a switched mode power supply. (and one was just hooked up to a 12V battery and another had an older rig running on the mains...).

Having said this, there is the occasional smart HAM who's involved in leading edge stuff and/or does great stuff with programming. Unfortunately more the exception than the majority involved in experimenting and moved the boundaries forward.

I'm impressed by SDR and the spectrum display's, stuff I didn't even dream about forty years ago.