On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 09:22:53PM -1000, Ken Brown wrote:
> In the questions regarding how important is 6 meters, 2 meters, 70 cm, I
> was thinking about a home station transceiver, and I answered
> accordingly. For a home station, I don't really want DC to daylight in
> one box.
Just to stir things up a bit, I really wonder if anything below 20m
and CW is really needed in a low end radio these days. With many new
or at least new to HF hams out there, there is IMHO a demand for
a low priced radio.
Anything longer in wavelength than 20m is difficult to place an antenna
in a small or apartment, and making someone pay for something they think
they may never use is bad business.
IMHO the lower bands and CW should be cheap options, so that most people
are encouraged to buy them anyway, but if someone does not know how to
copy or send morse code, they would feel better if they did not have to
pay for it. Nor would they want to buy bands they could not use.
I'm not trying to start a code/no code debate, I'm only discussing it in
relation to specifying a minimal cost/feature radio that will sell well.
I often read comments by hams who are not on the air because they can't
afford a radio, and I think there would be a demand for a small, low
power radio, 20m-10m, USB only, with a digital readout for under $300.
Many of them have never copied a single dit over the air. So they don't
see the need for CW, and I'd rather they buy a radio and get on the air
than try to convince them.
If I had the money to buy one and could get a general coverage receiver,
AM reception, the lower bands and CW, I would probably buy one with the
options, but if making those optional allows the radio to sell for
$100-$200 less, it's worth it, IMHO.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|