Roger (K8RI) <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com> wrote:
> SSB is nice to have, but used to be, constructing a simple CW
> rig in emergency cases was all you needed. Today, you
> might be hard pressed to get an an answer to a CW plea for help.
I agree. You need either SSB or PSK. And a PSK QRP project could
be simple, inexpensive, and easily taken to the field. But the PSK coding/
decoding would need to be built into firmware programmable controller,
FPGA, etc., and not depend on an external computer.
This would be a great project that would appeal to many modern hams
who are more comfortable with software and digital electronics than with
high-power analog.
If power limitations in the field keep you down to 5 - 10 watts, you'll have
far more success with PSK than with SSB.
> Home building is becoming a smaller % because most of today's new Hams
> have neither the knowledge or desire to build.
Given the rise of the maker movement, I think knowledge is a bigger barrier
than desire. And I don't think amplifiers are where the desire exists. This
mailing list is an outlier, not representative of most hams.
> We hams as a whole have always been cheap. We try to get the
> cheapest part without concern as to that cheap part's limitations.
And that has worked well for us for 100 years of ham radio. This is not
something that has recently changed. Why do so many QRP designs
use the NE602/612 mixer? It's cheap, draws low power, and good enough.
> That pretty much leaves few options for homebrewing. QRP, amplifiers,
> and possibly antennas.
I don't think it would be that hard to homebrew a 100W SSB rig, but
it's not a first project for potential builders. You need to start with
something
simpler.
> I see SSB transmitters without CW capability as being incomplete.
Adding CW to an SSB transceiver is trivial. Adding SSB to a CW rig is not.
> The complex circuits design, sophisticated/specialized parts, and
> circuit boards put all but the most simple designs beyond most potential
> (those with the desire) builders.
But in modern design, more and more of that complexity comes on a single
chip, and the builders doesn't need to design the internals. This makes the
line between designer and builder sharper than it used to be.
> For that matter, the servicing of most rigs requires some expensive, if not
> specialized test equipment.
This is a good reason for most hams to live somewhere behind the bleeding
edge of technology. This is the same reason why few of us work on our own
cars any longer. In an era of embedded computers and higher-density of
mechanical components under the hood, it is objectively more difficult to work
on your own car. This has nothing to do with laziness or lack of interest.
> I disagree withe the cost reasoning, Money can be saved IF the
> individual has the ability to search and sort, reasonable swaps within
> handy driving distance, the ability to recognize the good from junk, AND
> the time and patience to slowly accumulate parts, then homebrewing
> can save money (if you don't count your time and few builders do!.)
All that stuff is for experts who have been homebrewing for years. It's
irrelevant when thinking about why new hams don't join the homebrewing
thing. Today's expert homebrewers didn't start there either.
> No, things are not as plentiful, or cheap as in the 50s, 60s, and 70s when
> we cold purchase GOOD 813 Tetrodes for $5, (I purchased new Eimac
> 8877s for $305 but some sources are "relatively" inexpensive compared
> to new US made. and high power tubes are available at rather inexpensive.
Low power stuff is cheaper in real dollars than it has ever been. Have you
priced 2N2222's lately? It's high power that's expensive, and that limits it to
a smaller group. This applies not only to builders, but to buyers of
manufactured
products. I doubt we'll ever see 50% of active hams owning amplifiers > 100
watts,
barring a revolution in technology that makes high-power finals (either tubes or
solid state) very cheap.
(Always use real dollars, not inflationary dollarettes. Gas in the 1950's was
$0.38
a gallon, and the average yearly income was about $3,000. $5 then was more
like $50-100 now.)
73,
Cathy
N5WVR
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|