[Milsurplus] What was the ARRL thinking ?

[hwhall@aol.com]

Some of the Handbook stuff is handy projects to have around the shack or the workbench.  Some of it is candy for the construction fanatic to play with and the tinkerer to think about. It's almost like asking why someone likes the music you hate. The attraction varies with the individual.
I kinda liked reading about complicated projects & how they were accomplished.  I think I learned a good deal about what it possible.
WayneWB4OGM
On Saturday, September 26, 2026 at 05:29:22 PM MDT, Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:

 In a lot of radio books i recently bought is "How to Become A Radio Amateur", 1974, from the ARRL amateur radio national organization. Most of this book is sugar - coated basic theory; i'm fine with that. But 2 chapters cover building your own receiver and transmitter. The transmitter looks do-able without much pain; it's a single dual section tube; easy enough. But the receiver ! It's 4 transistors, 2 ICs, and 5 coils to wind. If that's not enough fun yet, you also get to etch the printed circuit board ! Oh boy, i can hardly wait to get started ! Should only take a little more than 2 months, after school. I suggest the ham radio beginner is more interested in "getting on the air" than initially learning to be an electronics tech and making circuit boards and winding torroids. There has always been a big choice in used shortwave receivers out there; they vary in lack of features, but are usable and affordable, and without having to etch your own circuit boards. The transmitter is much simpler and you have the reasonable  choice, build or buy. I myself started around 1977 with a WW2 surplus Navy TCS pair, along with an add-on Heathkit selectivity device. It wasn't UL Approved, the transmitter supply was a shock hazard, but it worked, and cost about the same, and worked better than this ARRL publication pair. I don't think i ever met a radio hobby beginner who was looking forward to etching their own circuit boards. I have never seen at any swapmeet this ARRL project. I do have 2 sets of the previous 1960s ARRL all - tubes  'Novice beginner's radios', built with varying skill.  But i recall seeing these in the mid 1960s and thinking about all the metalwork required. How practical is that, for a beginner ?  Yes, why not make it hard for the Novice; see if they can tough it out ? A friend, John Nelson, told me about a 'suitcase radio' he saw at Amateur Radio in Georgetown part of Seattle in late 1970s, with sign "Makes a good Novice radio". I thought, perfect ! Everything a Novice class ham radio should be: low selectivity, miserable dial readout, hard to operate. That will separate the sheep from the goats. What was the ARRL thinking ? -Hue Miller  ( K7HUE )Newport, Oregon

Sent from my Galaxy
______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20260927/af07cc81/attachment-0001.html>