Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Are we in danger of being the last generation of hams? (And if we
are, what can we do to eliminate that danger?) First, a disclaimer. I'm into my fifth decade of being a licensed amateur, and figure I'm good for 3 or 4 more sunspot cycles of fun. I love amateur radio. But I worry sometimes. Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted to our use. I think if the members of ITU collectively asked "Are the hams of the world doing anything which justifies their generous chunks assigned spectrum?" the honest answer would be "Probably not." What are we going to do about that? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in news:1177105498.800186.298520
@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted to our use. That might have been true before 2000, but isn't true today. Some spectrum would be lost to services who are interested in VHF/UHF and above. But, noone wants HF any more, as is self evident by the lack of traffic across HF outside the ham bands. Even the broadcasters, like BBC of all entities, have reduced transmissions drastically across HF and migrated to internet servers. Check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio. You can listen to ALL the BBC radio stations from that webpage, live! The internet is really cheap to broadcast to...much cheaper than that monster out in the country with the big Sterba curtains. VOA is dead...RAI is dead...Radio Switzerland is dead. (http://www.eviva.ch/ if you like Swiss accordian music...(c ![]() Berner Oberland (http://www.beo.ch) in Interlaken, Bernese Oberland on beautiful Lake of Thun broadcasts 24/7 to the world. What amuses me is ARRL and the other lobbies haven't just been inundating ITU for the unused parts of HF. They can alwasy steal them back for WW3, if it lasts over 5 days...which I doubt. Larry W4CSC -- .. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:00:34 EDT:
Are we in danger of being the last generation of hams? I'd say no. At my test session of 25 Feb 07 there were at least two teen-agers applying for an amateur radio license. Given that I was born before the FCC was created, the "last" generation would be at least three before me... :-) (And if we are, what can we do to eliminate that danger?) What "danger?" I see none. But more on that later. First, a disclaimer. I'm into my fifth decade of being a licensed amateur, and figure I'm good for 3 or 4 more sunspot cycles of fun. I love amateur radio. Well, I've been a licensed commercial radio operator since 1956 and a licensed radio amateur since 2007. It has, in between getting a whole new station set up, been fun. I can't presume to guess how many sun cycles I'll have and I don't lose sleep over it. So far, I love my wife, but sincerely doubt I would ever love any radios like that. But I worry sometimes. Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted to our use. I would suggest rewording that to say "bring value to the citizens [of various nations] in terms of their enjoyment and well-being" or something like that. I don't see that an "exchange" of anything is necessary or warranted. Pulling out the Red Book (NTIA) or the big chart in Part 2, Title 47 C.F.R. on which radio service gets what in the EM spectrum, we can find some items for USA citizens that appear to have no intrinsic value whatsoever: 1. 30 KHz bandspace absolutely license free at 160 - 190 KHz. Been there a long time in regulations, sees little use. 2. 400 KHz bandspace for CB (40 channels at "11m") for nothing but Personal Communications. No license required. Heavily used on highways, all states. 3. 1.6 MHz (!) bandspace at 72 to 73, 75.4 to 76 MHz, 80 channels for nothing but model air and surface radio control. No license required. A very fun hobby. 4. There's more, also regulated by Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R., such as Family Radio Service unlicensed transceivers, but you get the picture, I'm sure. 5. I'm not even counting the RF emitters of very short range such as the Keyless Auto Entry transmitters (millions) or the Bluetooth earpieces (look, ma, no wires to my cellphone), the tens of thousands of Wireless LANs that have invaded residences, the "WiFi" links of Internet to PCs, or other RF emitters that make our lives easier now, replacing hard wired or mechanical functions done previously. All of the above services to citizens which could be categorized as "unessential" services since they don't immediately secure their absolute safety or insure their well-being. The above are available in nearly all countries although their authorized frequencies may vary due to their adminstrations' regulations. Items (2) through (5) came into being within the last two decades or so. The model radio control bandspace is only 100 KHz narrower than the worldwide 10m amateur band. Model radio control is pure hobby-amusement and no modeler (that I've heard/seen) makes any claims of supplanting vehicles in case of disaster or emergency, nor is that hobby claimed to be a starting point for any life-long career in using/designing vehicles, boats, or aircraft. I think if the members of ITU collectively asked "Are the hams of the world doing anything which justifies their generous chunks assigned spectrum?" the honest answer would be "Probably not." I will ask "which chunks in what spectrum?" Hams of the HF persuasion are one group, the "VHF-ers" (and up) are the other. HF has been relatively static in change for at least two decades, and decreased prior to that with many communications services formerly on HF migrating to satellite relay. The last HF amateur band worldwide use allocation happened in 1979 from the World Administrative Radio Conference and those new bands are dubbed "WARC" for short by hams. 1979 was 28 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any new users begging for HF bandspace. The new "channels" at 60m were assigned by the FCC for amateur use based largely on ARRL lobbying, on the basis of some kind of necessity of equatorial communications for [hurricane] disasters. The lobbying does not, to me at least, seem to take into account what the equatorial nations have done or not done for their communications. Regardless, the added amateur bandspace was just a few slivers. In the world above 30 MHz it is a whole new ballgame. Demands by business and governments up there are great. Nearly all of the US government's "auction" monies on new service providers come from there. The FCC's HDTV channel frequency reallocation plan has resulted in hundreds of MHz of new bandspace for new radio services, nearly all allocated under auction. Maybe there was some effort of amateurs to secure a little bit of the "700 MHz" vicinity openings for hams but I can't recall seeing any. But, the World Above 30 MHz is largely Line of Sight in use. The only real crowding of those bands occurs in big urban areas. There doesn't seem to be a Big Need for bandspace above 30 MHz for US radio amateurs. What are we going to do about that? Speaking from 54 years from my first HF radio experience to becoming a new amateur nearly two months ago and observing EM spectrum use while working in industry in all the time in between, I would say "don't take yourselves so seriously within your radio service!" Amateur radio is a hobby, a fun hobby. If other countries' hobbyists can enjoy some chunks of EM spectrum just for hobbyist fun, then why can't the USA? As to this whole claim of being a backup communications provider when the infrasture fails in disasters, I have to say show me in a detailed report where it was essential. Having been required to design electronics for terrible environments, I know that amateur radio equipment isn't going to survive better than the infrastructures' gear. [see May QST for one piece of equipment that didn't survive Katrina...lost with one amateur's entire station] The Public Safety Radio Services have their radios now and use them every day. NOAA has its weather observation services plus satellite downlinks. Harbor and inland waterways have their radio services and plans for emergencies there. The FAA routinely handles aircraft emergencies every week with the aid of radio. Believe it or not, the telephony infrastructure can come back to life when its subscribers stop all trying to use their switching system all at once; they've had battery backup in central offices for more than half a century. Truckers daily help fellow motorists on highways, sometimes alerted over their CBs. Yes, amateur radio CAN be a help in emergencies just as ALL citizens can be a help, with or without any license for anything. There hasn't been any need for trained morse code operators for over a decade for any WWII-era "pool" to help the nation. With anything in radio. The miliaries do adequate training of their members, government radio with theirs. I'd say the salient feature of amateur radio is its ability to introduce newcomers to a fascinating technologically- heavy activity...somethine they can have fun with while learning. For youngsters it MIGHT be a starting point for their eventual working careers. For adults and older folks it can be just fun in itself. There's seemingly some puritanical echoes in the general repeated "reasons" for being IN amateur radio...those leave out the FUN element. I see that as a liability to ham radio promotion, diametrically opposite to being an asset. Is having fun so terrible? Especially having fun while learning a new technology (for newcomers) or new application (for those already experienced)? Recreation IS, to my mind, an asset for all. It diverts our stresses from making a living, eases tensions, makes a life experience more enjoyable. If that recreation can also increase individuals' intellectual capacity, I say "so much the better!" Maybe I'm biased having been IN the electronics industry so long (sans 'benefit' of ham license) and maybe because I happen to like the fascinating technology enough that I liked most of my work. It has been a great, stimulating trip for me and it is still happening. It could be for others, too, those who look forward instead of backward to what was, a was that will never be again. 73, Len AF6AY |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 21, 2:45 am, Larry wrote:
wrote in news:1177105498.800186.298520 @y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted to our use. That might have been true before 2000, but isn't true today. Some spectrum would be lost to services who are interested in VHF/UHF and above. But, noone wants HF any more, as is self evident by the lack of traffic across HF outside the ham bands. MF/HF is only a minor fraction of our allocations. Maybe it's not vulnerable, or maybe it is, but compared to the massive amount of VHF/ UHF spectrum we could lose, I consider HF an insignificant issue. So I pose my question again..... "What are we going to do about that?" 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 21, 11:09�am, wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:45 am, Larry wrote: wrote in news:1177105498.800186.298520 @y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted to our use. That might have been true before 2000, but isn't true today. *Some spectrum would be lost to services who are interested in VHF/UHF and above. *But, noone wants HF any more, as is self evident by the lack of traffic across HF outside the ham bands. MF/HF is only a minor fraction of our allocations. * In terms of how many kHz we have, yes. Except for 6 meters has more kHz than all of the 9 MF/HF bands plus the channels at 60 meters. Same for almost every amateur allocation above 30 MHz. But for some reason those HF/MF bands are considered extremely desirable by radio amateurs. Maybe it's not vulnerable, or maybe it is, but compared to the massive amount of VHF/ UHF spectrum we could lose, I consider HF an insignificant issue. Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... So I pose my question again..... *"What are we going to do about that?" The first thing is to simply *use* that spectrum. The very best argument for reassignment of spectrum is that the folks who have it aren't using it. or aren't using much of it. That argument was one reason we lost 220-222 MHz: the folks who wanted it were able to convince FCC that we hams could fit all of our 220-222 activities into 222-225. But you can't force amateurs to operate on certain bands. They can be encouraged, but not forced. So the question becomes "what will make the VHF/UHF amateur bands more attractive to hams?" Perhaps a new generation of near-geosynchronous amateur satellites would attract more activity. Or the deployment of a highspeed linked repeater network. But those things require sizable infrastructure investments by amateurs. --- Perhaps, when we speak of those VHF/UHF bands, we're seeing history repeat itself. In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most- useful wavelengths. After the 1912 laws went into effect, amateurs could get station licenses for any of the 'shortwaves' simply for the asking. But once those amateurs showed how useful those 'shortwaves' were, others followed, and by 1924 or so amateurs were confined to certain bands. No longer could amateurs simply pick a wave and get a license to use it. Then in 1927 came the "1929 rules", which significantly narrowed some of the existing bands. 40 meters had been 7000 - 8000 kHz before the 1929 rules, but once they went into effect, the band was 7000 - 7300. 20 meters went from 14000 - 16000 to 14000 - 14400. There were other changes such as requiring stable and clean signals. Some said that those 1929 rules would strangle amateur radio, and would soon kill it off due to overcrowding and the expense/complexity of a "1929 transmitter". But exactly the opposite happened, because in the years after the 1929 rules, the number of US hams almost tripled and the technology used took great leaps forward. We hams got our enormous VHF/UHF allocations after WW2, when much of it was considered relatively useless, or at least not as useful as the lower frequencies. That's all changed in the past couple of decades. Perhaps it's 1929 all over again in some ways. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 20, 6:00 pm, wrote:
Are we in danger of being the last generation of hams? (And if we are, what can we do to eliminate that danger?) in danger? perhaps we are but we have ALWAYS been in such danger are we likly to lose specturm? almost certainly are we doomed? not likely OTOH we certianly could use to be more encouraging of new hams was at a Hamfest only yesterday the first for my wife as arelitivly new general and she felt kida out of place and not exactly welcomed (She is someone that they don't know quite what to make of although most of the folks in room are more likely to have talked to her on Air than they haare to have talked to me" and fewer stil of know exactly what to make of me but those are other stmatters one thing our clubs and hamfest comittees could do is be a bit more organized about welcomeing New Hams |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 11:52 am, wrote:
On Apr 21, 11:09?am, wrote: But you can't force amateurs to operate on certain bands. They can be encouraged, but not forced. So the question becomes "what will make the VHF/UHF amateur bands more attractive to hams?" Perhaps a new generation of near-geosynchronous amateur satellites would attract more activity. Or the deployment of a highspeed linked repeater network. But those things require sizable infrastructure investments by amateurs. it would require not money but a Govt foot in the rear to gain Acess to those orbital spots there is already something of a traffic jam OTOH one thing that might help is for old hams to learn more about about how we can in fact in Do such things as EME I ended up giving going abit about Modern EME and Ms work at our local hamfest ( I may end up riding a circut giving tlaks on the subject in the UP but that is another thread |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Bonine wrote on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:19:50 EDT:
wrote: I think if the members of ITU collectively asked "Are the hams of the world doing anything which justifies their generous chunks assigned spectrum?" the honest answer would be "Probably not." What are we going to do about that? I'm frankly more concerned about the people aspect of this issue than the spectrum issue. That's a very valid concern and goes to the core of present- day amateur radio activity. As others in the thread have pointed out, HF spectrum is not particularly valuable these days. I don't think we're in any huge danger of losing those allocations. Even VHF and the lower end of UHF aren't as sought-after as they once were. True enough at the regulatory level. The thing that bothers me is the decline in the number of active ham radio operators. Ham radio as a hobby has many aspects, but most of them involve collaboration with other people, either on the air or otherwise. As the number of people declines, the potential for the hobby as a whole declines. Our entire USA society has far more available recreational pursuits now than a half century ago when I was a young adult. That affects every recreational activity, not just amateur radio. It is also quite normal in human society. On the other hand, the newcomers to amateur radio are, just barely, keeping pace with the number of licensee expirations. That has been going on for four years since the peak of 2003. Further, newcomers have been entering the ham world above 30 MHz, a region quite different from the older, established HF world. Communication is a common desire in all human groupings. In all forms. In 2004 the US Bureau of the Census reported that one out of three Americans had a cell phone subscription. Not bad for a public service that, 20 years ago, barely had enough users to be worth a poll-taking effort. The Census Bureau also said that one in five American households had some form of Internet access; the Internet went public in 1991, just 16 years ago. Internet access is not possible without some form of personal computer which, a quarter century ago, were things only for computer hobbyists. We all have had wired telephone service all our lives yet that didn't exist two centuries ago. We have, nearly everywhere, more TV channels for news as well as entertainment now than the TV Boom times of the 1950s. We have the CDs for music, video, and personal data such as photos (instant digital, no going to "have them developed"). We have boom boxes, IPods, and broadcast receivers built into headsets. We are almost awash with individual information and entertainment input. :-) Considering all of the above, I was a bit surprised to see so many folks younger than I (almost everyone is) in the 20 or so at my amateur radio test session of 25 Feb 07. There were about 10 more in the beginning but those were doing adminstrative changes or changing from Tech Plus to Tech, clearing the room for the actual testing. I live in a rural area, so I see this trend more than those of you in densely-populated areas. Our local club is teetering on the edge of extinction, and the people who are involved tend not to be much interested in radio -- they care more about the social aspects of drinking coffee with their buddies. When it's time to mount some kind of local effort, be it Skywarn, Field Day, or even the annual picnic, it's harder and harder to attract a critical mass of people to participate. That is common in human groupings. Clubs are essentially fraternal orders, though usually on a smaller scale. Some were formed for a specific purpose, not necessarily for the entirety of all amateur radio activities. Clubs about specific activites will, over time, morph into reflections of those in the club who wish to lead more than be enthused about an activity per se. That is normal also. Depending on the type of leadership, a club may or may not be "good" for that activity. Unfortunately, quantification of "good" tends to be subjective to every interpreter of it. I suspect that my view is atypical, but I don't know if it's atypical because it forecasts what's in store for ham radio as a hobby, or atypical because it's not seeing the positive aspects like young people entering the hobby. But the future of the hobby depends on *people*. Absolutely depends on people. My issue with "my" national organization is that they pay too much attention on extremes, the long-timers and the newcomers. They almost ignore the huge demographic grouping in the middle. They have made very little attempt to recruit membership of the huge license class (the biggest for years, without doubt) who were restricted to the spectrum above 30 MHz in the USA. The continuing emphasis in activities have been on "the bands" referring to HF, the old ways of the hobby. That went, in my view, from "gentrification" to "stratification." That reflects downward to the local club level. I'm all for "young people" entering amateur radio. But that is not the only demographic source of newcomers. An objective examination would show that "young people" are the most- influenced by peer pressure and the tremendous entertainment resources available to them now. Largely ignored is the twenty- and thirty-somethings who have started to stabilize in their life experience, have reached an economic level where they can afford a hobby and have some leisure time available. I've always heard the carbon-copy stories that described teen "discoveries" of radio and that becoming their lifelong passion. It was never in regulations that one had to be a teen-ager to begin in amateur radio, nor any life oath of obeisance to amateur radio had to be sworn. On closer scrutiny, most of those teeners were such 40 to 30 years ago. Times and our society have changed but most such story- tellers seem to be unchanged. ... To me, the goal is to recruit young folks into the hobby and to actually involve them so that they're active hams instead of numbers in a listing. That's an excellent beginning. A caveat: If they are active, the activity does not have to be activity of the mode of 30 to 50 years ago. Newcomers will find their own way to their own desires of activity...just like old-timers did a long time ago for their desires. Newcomers are PEOPLE. They are not "recruits" (a la military) who must be indoctrinated almost forcibly into certain ways. While that is almost done in some clubs, it has a negative effect and the newcomers tend to say/think unprintable words to would-be leaders and drop out of the hobby in disgust. Newcomers to the hobby don't all accept the "territorial imperative" of the long-timer who continually implies "THIS is how WE do it in ham radio." Newcomers can become familiar quickly enough with accepted formality and self-styled "radio cops" aren't needed on the air. Neither should there be a continual expressed bigotry about CB by radio amateurs. CB has been around for 49 years in the USA. I would say that the amateur radio of now is interesting enough to the generations of now. The statistics seem to bear that out. Those actively engaged in recruiting newcomers need to look around at what is popular to the generations of now in ham radio. That may be the hardest task of all...learning what is new by those who thought they knew it all. Clubs as "recruting stations" for ham radio need honest enthusiasm about PEOPLE of all kinds, all ages, be friendly on a people level and not try so hard at "selling" the hobby. Newcomers who've shown up at a club have already expressed enough interest to show up, do not need the "salesmen" types who want to "make a deal" for them. I just don't know what those ways are. There's no sure-fire cure. I'm not sure that there needs to be one. I've suggested a few but examples of good and bad (and indifferent) leadership abound in the various local fraternal orders and other-hobby clubs. As we agree, times have changed. That is not only for amateur radio but other hobby activities as well. We all have to change to stay "with it." 73, Len AF6AY |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:52:02 EDT:
On Apr 21, 11:09?am, wrote: On Apr 21, 2:45 am, Larry wrote: wrote in news:1177105498.800186.298520 Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted to our use. That might have been true before 2000, but isn't true today. ?Some spectrum would be lost to services who are interested in VHF/UHF and above. ?But, noone wants HF any more, as is self evident by the lack of traffic across HF outside the ham bands. Maybe it's not vulnerable, or maybe it is, but compared to the massive amount of VHF/ UHF spectrum we could lose, I consider HF an insignificant issue. Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... Are radio amateurs going to "lose" EM spectrum space? I didn't know this was so dictated. If amateurs want to keep something in radio, they have to continually fight for it; just because they got some allocations once doesn't mean it is forever. In the last half century, amateur radio worldwide has GAINED allocations, not lost. Begin with WARC-79 decisions... So I pose my question again..... ?"What are we going to do about that?" The first thing is to simply *use* that spectrum. The very best argument for reassignment of spectrum is that the folks who have it aren't using it. or aren't using much of it. How does "*use*" of line-of-sight get publicized nationally? The NTIS has a specific EM Survey mobile unit which has been used to take readings of certain areas of the United States over an extremely wide range of frequencies. Those surveys are available to the public and each one is extensive, technically explicit. Other than "popular activities" described in amateur radio interest periodicals, the use of line-of-sight frequencies is mentioned only in regards to an already-allocated radio service in trade journals. That argument was one reason we lost 220-222 MHz: the folks who wanted it were able to convince FCC that we hams could fit all of our 220-222 activities into 222-225. "220" wasn't the only amateur band in dispute in the last half century in the USA. The politics of the various disputes can't be simplistically interpreted. As I recall, not a user of "220" at the time, the ARRL did not argue effectively enough for its retention to convince the FCC. But you can't force amateurs to operate on certain bands. They can be encouraged, but not forced. Yes, they can be forced. See "200 Meters and down." So the question becomes "what will make the VHF/UHF amateur bands more attractive to hams?" I wasn't aware that the ham bands above 30 MHz were not attractive. Radio equipment manufacturers are continually supplying radios and advertising VHF-and-up radios, have been for years. There's obviously a market for them as witness the continued advertising campaign waged with high monetary values. Since the inception of the no-code-test Technician class license 16 years ago, the vast majority of newcomers in the USA have entered amateur radio in the "world above 30 MHz." The Technician class has become - easily - the most numerous of all US amateur radio classes. No-code-test Technicians were banned from privileges below 30 MHz in the USA. "Techs" continue being newcomers despite cessation of morse code testing in the USA for amateurs. The migration to VHF and above in amateur radio is not confined to the USA. JARL and Japanese electronics industry have developed D-Star specifically for digital modes on VHF and above. AOR in Japan has one digital voice adapter for voice-bandwidth radios and another one from Germany has been described in the April QST issue this year. While US HF-only hams may shun digital anything on "their" bands, such is readily useable on VHF and above with no basic changes. Perhaps a new generation of near-geosynchronous amateur satellites would attract more activity. Perhaps it would be prudent to take a good look around at the activity at VHF and above that is going on today? Or the deployment of a highspeed linked repeater network. But those things require sizable infrastructure investments by amateurs. Is that a necessity? In 1977 I was shown the start of what would grow into the present-day Condor Net on the "220" band, operating in three states (CA, NV, AZ) and capable of being tone-coded-linking from one repeater to any other repeater. That was without using conventional digital logic or the ubiquitous microprocessor. Sizeable investment by amateurs? Yes, but also willingly done. Well done, I might add. The latest ARRL Repeater Directory shows an enormity of repeaters ("sizeable infrastructure investments"), most of them public-access, installed and operated by radio amateurs. Repeaters have been put into place all over the USA in the last three decades plus. Even without repeaters, the use of VHF-UHF and even low microwaves by radio amateurs has become sizeable in urban areas of the USA. --- We hams got our enormous VHF/UHF allocations after WW2, when much of it was considered relatively useless, or at least not as useful as the lower frequencies. That's all changed in the past couple of decades. Not being a licensed radio amateur right after WWII, I was unaware that "VHF/UHF" was "useless." Edwin Armstrong pioneered FM broadcasting there in the 1930s. Public safety radio started the use it in the last 1930s, finding it very useful compared to the old HF radios a few agencies had. The US military was already using low VHF in the 1930s and would continue that with the famed "walkie-talkie" of WWII. The fledgling TV broadcast industry and their equipment makers had already standardized on low-VHF frequencies in the 1930s (via the "first" NTSC). The US military switched to low-VHF FM radios for vehicular operation en masse at the beginning of WWII...even the USN had its "TBS." Radar, a savior of tacticians in WWII, had to operate on UHF and microwaves, was predictably quite successful in that RF region. Still is. All of the preceding paragraph took place 7 decades ago, not a "couple" of them. Perhaps it's 1929 all over again in some ways. Perhaps too many of the HF persuasion are affected with ennui over their self-imposed limitations of radio use. I still see an unlimited vista of hope and adventure in the future. The state of the art of radio-electronics is constantly advancing. By the looks of things, it isn't about to stop anytime soon. Change keeps happening. Those who refuse to change, want their endless youthful discoveries to continue, want to close off amateur activities to what was long ago, will all mourn and wail over "losses." The rest of the world will continue without them, changing things to fit the new people, not the old ones. Those who want something will have to go out and WORK for it, DO something about it, not sit around and grouse about things not being the same. The new people will have earned theirs and the future will be different. I say good for them! 73, Len AF6AY PS: No "artifacts" were exploited or utilized on this text file upload. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2nd generation DRM receiver due out in December | Shortwave | |||
2nd generation DRM receiver due out in December | Shortwave | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Antenna | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Homebrew | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Homebrew |