[CW] ARRL MUST GET BETTER

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/8/05 12:34:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
k4kyv at hotmail.com writes:


> > >> I don't like the content of "QST", I'd rather
> > >> get "QEX" than "QST".
> 
> > >> The technical content of "QST" has gone from "some
> > >> extremely challenging",
> > >> to some "quite easy" to articles which are
> > >> written at 6th grade level.
> >... One thing that
> >irked me is that I became a Life Member in
> >about 1980. Then they created "QEX", and moved
> >alot of the good stuff (that I thought I had paid
> >for) to "QEX".
> >One thing I don't particularly enjoy in QST is the
> >"Lifestyle Pieces". You know, like the retired
> >Doctor who goes on boat trip with ham radio, etc.
> >These seem kind of like "Trailer Life" type
> >articles
> >Then one that took the cake was the two page
> >article on using the phonetic alphabet. You know,
> >like "A" is "ALPHA", "B" is "BRAVO", etc. I
> >couldn't believe that would warrant a two page
> >QST article!
> 

I have every QST back to the late 1920s, and some even further back. Worse, 
I've read all of them! 

There were incredibly basic articles in every era. And complaints in every 
era that QST was "too technical" and "we're not all engineers" and such.

The article on phonetics seems silly to those of us with experience. But for 
many  newcomers and even some old timers, phonetic use is a useful skill they 
need to learn. 

There was a time when most people knew something about "radio" - back when 
most BC sets needed an "aerial", and it took some skill to tune in a station. 
And when many people had radio sets with "shortwave" bands.

Today a lot of people come to ham radio without any of that background. It 
shows on the air and in the kinds of questions people ask. 

In the bad old days, most of us started out as Novices on HF CW. Usually we 
had many many hours of listening to hams and other HF stations before we ever 
got a license. Most of us used separate transmitters and receivers, which meant 
we had to learn about control systems, antenna changeover, etc. And putting 
up simple wire antennas. And the concept of tuning a receiver with an analog 
dial, knowing where the band edges were, etc. 

Today it's almost all transceivers and HTs, and many if not most newcomers 
start out on VHF/UHF. Completely different environment that requires different 
skills. 

> QEX evolved from the old Experimenters Section in QST.
> 
> Now, in QST, most of the construction projects are accessory toys such as 
> keying monitors, line voltage indicators and field strength meters, or silly 
> 
> little novelties like a QRP cw transmitter built into an empty match box. 

Why are they silly? I think such articles are interesting, if for no other 
reason than to show that you don't need a kilobuck transceiver to make QSOs.


> The "technical" articles are mostly at the novice level, designed to 
> explain 
> to newcomers such things as proper microphone technique, what SWR is and how 
> 
> to use the ALC in a transceiver. In other words, QST has evolved into what 
> is primarily a "Novice" publication even though the Novice class licence is 
> being phased out.

But beginners are not being phased out!

There used to be a "Beginner and Novice" section in QST, which in its day was 
filled with the same sort of articles. How many simple MOPA Novice 
transmitters were there in those years, compared to SSB/CW transceivers? 


  Occasionally there are some good antenna articles, but 
> 
> most of the real technical stuff is in QEX.  I resent being a full member 
> but having to pay extra for a second publication (which I don't do), for the 
> 
> material that I most interested in.
> 

I think the main problem is that there is so much variety in ham radio that 
nobody gets everything they want. Or even most of what they want. 

How many hams do you know who run 100% homebrew stations?

> With the advent of the internet, the news content in QST (and the other 
> remaining "mainstream" ham publication) is old by the time it arrives in the 
> 
> mail.  Up-to-date "happenings" are now obtained off the web, so QST has 
> become less usesful in that aspect as well.
> 

Agreed - but it's still useful from a historical perspective. Ten years from 
now, how much of what's on websites will still be available? I'll still have 
my QSTs. 

This is one reason I think the BoD minutes belong in QST. I can easily look 
at BoD minutes from 40 years ago. Will the hams of 2045 be able to do the same?

> Supposedly, the annual fee is for League membership, and the publication is 
> 
> an extra that comes with it.  If they insist in dividing the publication 
> into two magazines, members should have a choice of which one to receive.  

There's more than two magazines - there's NCJ too. 

QST is defined as the "journal of the ARRL", so it's part of membership.

> To  me, the present-day QST clearly indicates that the League has accepted  
> 
> "dumbing down," even though they would never admit to that.
> 
> 


Here's a challenge:

Take any year of QST from, say, the 50s, 60s, or 70s, and compare the 
technical articles to those of the past 5 years or so. Compare an entire year and see 
how many there are, and what they covered.


There is one *big* difference that I note, and it may be the key to the 
complaints:

Before about 1980 or so, it was common to see actual *radio sets* as 
construction projects in QST and other radio mags. Transmitters, receivers, even a few 
transceivers. Articles that screamed "BUILD THIS RADIO" at you. They ranged 
from simple 2 tube bloopers and one-tube Novice rigs to monsters like W2LYH's 
23 tube sectionalized receiver (Bob was one of my Elmers even though I never 
met him) and rackmounted kilowatts. Even if you never built anyhting, they gave 
the impression that hams could and did design, build and understand radio 
sets.

But starting in the 1970s, such articles became much fewer and far between. 
Maybe they're in QEX, but not the issues I've seen. There are lots of accessory 
and antenna articles, and gadgets, but not nearly so many actual tx and rx.

I don't know any ham mag that has that sort of article on a consistent basis 
any more except "Electric Radio". 

Kinda like a meal with all appetizers and desserts, but no main courses.

And there is a solution:

Write some articles for QST! I did so, and got some published. Nothing big or 
fancy but they did get published. Of course some other stuff was turned down 
that I thought was pretty good but that's life.

Suppose we all set down and wrote the kinds of articles we want to see, and 
sent them in. Look at your old QSTs - most of the articles that were not 
columns were *not* written at Hq. In fact, some projects even made it into the 
Handbook and other publications.

And unlike the old days, the 'net permits us to collaborate on articles, 
edit/proofread each other's stuff, etc. 

ARRL pays for articles they publish. A one-pager will buy a year of QEX and 
then some...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY