[Lowfer] The downside of PC's and radio

Thu Aug 5 13:11:15 EDT 2010

Zack there is something intangable about learning code or what ever. I 
call it "sweat equity". The more
effort one puts in the more enjoyment is realised. 

I was licensed 51 years ago as a young teenager. That was fearsome to 
go up in front of a
g-man to take the test. Since then I have not feared any test wether it 
was for Pilots license, commercial
radio license, or real estate license. Code itself is not a saleable 
skill these days but the learning experience
cannot be measured in terms of value,  I am certainly better off from 
the experience. 

I read some where the Navy flunked more cadets in WWII for lack of code 
skills than for flying ability. 

Trivializing the requirements wether code or technical proficency 
cannot produce a better person. Those
who take the easy path are the loosers. I am encouraged to see some new 
no code hams learning CW to expand their opportunities in qrp,DX, and 
contests. 

Off the soapbox for now
73 Paul k5wms

Quoting Zack Widup <w9sz.zack at gmail.com>:
> Some comments below ... 
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Andy - KU4XR <ku4xr at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I remember comments from some of my Elmers ( anyone remember that
> > term ?? ) when PC generated CW, and CW readers hit the market. 
> > They were aghast at the idea, feeling that it would be the demise
> > of ham radio. You know how you felt personally when the FCC decided
> > to lower the code requirements for entry into ham radio, only to
> > eventually drop the requirement altogether. Another " aghast " for
> > many an old timer who " HAD TO " pass the 20 wpm CW test to get the
> > extra class license. Lots of things have changed over the years,
> > for the better, or not is a personal opinion in most instances. 
> >
>
> I was never "aghast" at these things but just had no interest in using them
> myself. 
>
> CW has been my mode of choice since I was a Novice on the late 60's. I
> prided myself in passing the Extra in 1971. But I have no hard feelings
> against those who take the tests today. There are still people to work on CW
> and as long as there are some of us left, I'm happy. And there ARE newcomers
> who decide to learn Morse. 
>
> Also, I do play around with digi modes. They're a lot of fun. 
>
>
> > For sure however, is the fact that radio is no less technical today
> > than it has ever been in the past. Maybe even more so today with all
> > the new fang-dangled stuff on the market. Transmitter designs,
> > receiver designs, Pre-Amps, Filters, all the goodies to make your
> > radio " more funner " But the key element that was, still is, and
> > always will be the critical element to sucess is:::: The Antenna !!
> >
>
> That's true, but how many people are actually doing it? It seems a very
> small group is experimenting with Lowfer frequencies and an even smaller
> group on the microwave frequencies. I have equipment for all bands through
> 10 GHz for weak-signal work (CW/SSB) and I'm working on 24 and 47 GHz. There
> is no one within 100 miles for me to work above 432 MHz and only a small
> handful of people on 24 and 47 GHz in the Midwest. 
>
> For that matter, how many people build their own frequency counters,
> spectrum analyzers, power supplies, etc? Or even their own rig/computer
> interface cables?
>
> There are no lowfer operations very close to me, either, but at least the
> range is greater on those frequencies. I've been hearing several of the
> WD2XSH signals in the 500 kHz range. 
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
>
>
> > I think most everyone has a grasp of that fact, but over the past
> > couple of years, I have gone from having a " grasp " of that fact,
> > to " Knowing !! " it's a fact. Any transmitter will emit a signal,
> > and any receiver can be made to receive it. But not just any old
> > antenna will make this possible, especially at MF, LF, and below. 
> > >From my personal experience; at first, I was relying on my PC, and
> > all the wonderful software out there to do the job for me, and dig
> > out those weak signals. It wasn't until I started trying to get a
> > signal into the air on 1750 meters that I started to understand
> > just how important the antenna is. To this day; and I started
> > listening in 2007, I have yet to " Hear " a lowFER signal. And
> > when I started trying to get a signal on the air, I kept asking the
> > same question over and over; " Can you HEAR me ?? " I have never
> > gotten an answer on that question yet. I have received many Screen
> > Captures, and all of them Greatly appreciated. But I still have not
> > received a single report from anyone that they actually " HEARD "
> > audibly !! my carrier. To begin with, it didn't bother me too much. 
> > I was to busy enjoying the 400 to 700 mile distant screen captures. 
> > And I was thrilled that I was being received at those distances with
> > only a few microwatts actually getting into the ether. However, the
> > longer I have stayed with this little hobby, the more reading I have
> > done. I started finding articles from the guys of yester-year who
> > were being " HEARD " not just seen, and using CW too. The same
> > distances of 400 to 700 miles that I am being seen, they were being
> > heard !!! Average distances of 100 to 200 miles, all day, every day
> > using Plain Old CW seemed to be a standard occurence " back then "
> > I started looking at the antenna designs that some of the sucessful
> > operators were using, and their setups. That is when I started to
> > realize where I was really " dropping the ball " to say. My transmitter
> > was fine, but my antenna setup Stunk !! To get those 700 mile captures,
> > I was really relying on the guys who put lots of effort into their
> > receiving setups. I suppose that it was in 2009 that I really started
> > to become concerned with improving my antenna efficiency. I have read
> > a lot, asked way to many questions, enough to become annoying possibly. 
> > Because I realized that " I " was becoming too dependant on my PC, and
> > filtering software. I will never have the ultimate, or optimum antenna
> > setup, but I am striving to improve it to the last micro-dB that I can
> > get out of it. My Elmers used to tell me that " A good antenna, and
> > low wattage, can many times outperform a bad antenna with high wattage."
> > My hope is that someday soon, I will have a legal antenna that is
> > efficient enough to actually be heard, as well as be seen. And I guess
> > I need to emphasize that I am referring specifically to Part-15, and
> > not Part-5 operation. There is a thrill in this low power, short antenna
> > stuff. 
> >
> > To any newcomers to the lowFER world; invest the time, and put forth
> > the effort to erect the best possible antenna that you can, right from
> > the start. You certainly won't be unhappy that you did. 
> >
> > 73 to all, and enjoy the hobby :
> >
> > Andy - KU4XR - EM75xr - Friendsville, TN. USA
> > LOWfer Beacon " XR " @ 185.29875 KHz ( QRSS-60 )
> >
> > *** Temporarily OFF, while constructing a new antenna ***
> >
> > Coordinates:  N:  35º 43' 54" - W:  84º 3' 16"
> > http://www.myspace.com/beaconxr
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Lowfer mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Paul Daulton K5WMS
beacon WMS 185.302 khz qrss30/slow 24/7
Jacksonville,Ar 72076
em34wu