[NLRS] Vote for technical QST content

Wed Apr 8 17:23:10 EDT 2009

Hi Phill  Bruce and all.

CCertainly i think there is a kind of shortage of technical no how in the
ham radio comunity now.

How ever not every one is able to work on some of this stuff.

The one thing that does bother me ist that there are alot of hams who can't
even salv simple problems.

Some how we need to teach more of them how things work.

I will say i am not really capable of working on small things but over the
years i have learned enough that if something fails and even if i can't work
on it i can tell some one who can whare they should start looking.

I have over the years heard some extra class hams come up with the strangest
things and ideas to salv a problem.

I even had one person ask me if they could get a rubber duck to work on 80
meters.
I had a hard time to keep from laughing.
But now with things the way  they are and you can sit down and take tests
until you pas and not really study well that's what you get.

I have allways felt when you get the extra class you should have to prove
you know something.

wether it's knowing cw well or know alot about weak signal work or are good
with emergency prepardness something i don't care.

So who knows i don't pretend to have all the answers.
But that sed should be talked about.
Thanks 73 Matt ka0pqw

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Hejtmanek" <p_hejtmanek at yahoo.com>
To: "Bruce Richardson" <w9fz at w9fz.com>
Cc: <NLRS at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [NLRS] Vote for technical QST content

>
>
>
> Hi Bruce, et al,
>
> Interesting comments in your note.  As it happens, I was just recently
surveyed by ARRL, but not about QST content, but about digital mode
contesting (which I have never in my 39 years of hamming participated it;
great targeting, eh?).
>
> Unfortunately, the spudgun article may reflect the level of technical
interest or expertise of most of our fellow hams.  For every one of us who
hacks on some transverter project and burns his/her finger with a soldering
iron, there are 20 or more handie-talkie guys, kerchunking repeaters, or the
guys who find the need to discuss their gallbladder problems, at length, for
hours on 75m.
>
> Hey, they're hams, too, and I believe in live-and-let-live.  And ARRL has
to cater to the majority, so like you said, we should just be ready to read
more of that in QST in the coming months.
>
> Sometimes I wish QEX was a little less "super-technical" at times, so it
could possibly attract more readers.  There are plenty of hams who would be
interested in learning more, but perhaps for them QEX is a little daunting,
especially in some of the more theoretical areas.
>
> It's almost like they need a QST for the masses and another mag somewhere
between QST and QEX.  However, the track record of the more focused ham
magazines has not been all that good.
>
> The folks at ARRL HQ do listen, though.  About a year ago, I read through
a new QST and felt the need to comment on the issue as a whole, so I sent an
email to the editor.  I received an almost instant response, and ended up
having my comment printed in the magazine.
>
> I would encourage you techie types to make your voices heard, or we will
see nothing but spudguns.
>
> 73,
>
> Phil   kf9us
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/8/09, Bruce Richardson <w9fz at w9fz.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Bruce Richardson <w9fz at w9fz.com>
> > Subject: [NLRS] Vote for technical QST content
> > To: nlrs at mailman.qth.net
> > Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 2:21 PM
> > I was at Superfest in Milwaukee last weekend and chatted
> > with Steve Ford WB8IMY at the ARRL table.  I shared with
> > him
> > my interest in the technical side of the hobby and that I
> > already subscribe to QEX (and to QST for 33 years). I let
> > him know that about three times a year, I actually put down
> > QST and say "that was a good issue".  I told him
> > how much I
> > liked the "Technical Design Contest" they had and
> > the
> > articles generated by that. I also let him know how much I
> > liked recent Rick Campbell articles.
> >
> > The sad news that he related to me is that they respond to
> > polls.  And the polls tell them that QST is still too
> > technical for a large number of their subscribers. (I
> > don't
> > recall being polled recently).  Each month, there is an
> > opportunity to "vote" on articles and Steve
> > related that
> > Rick Campbell's article came in VERY low in
> > attractiveness.
> > Guess what recent article pegged the meter in
> > attractiveness?  The spud-gun article.
> >
> > So, I'm encouraging my NLRS and Badger Contester
> > friends
> > (who subscribe to QST) to vote more often for the articles
> > you like.  We won't change the whole world, but at
> > least we
> > can make a point to speak up.  Please don't be alarmed
> > if I
> > periodically point you to a hotlink to share your views on
> > which articles you liked this month.
> >
> > In the "members only" section of the ARRL
> > website, you might
> > want to start with:
> > http://www.arrl.org/members-only/qstvote.html
> >
> > I haven't seen the May issue and I'm just opening
> > my April
> > issue now.
> >
> > So, share your views on what you see in QST.  It will be
> > all
> > Spud-guns and how to put on powerpole connectors if we
> > don't
> > speak up.
> >
> > 73
> > Bruce Richardson W9FZ
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > NLRS mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list:
> > http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html