At 08:06 AM 5/17/2005, Tom Rauch wrote:
> > > The advantage is that it's a new technology, which, in
>the long run, has
> > > great potential. Such innovation should be encouraged
>because it
> > > "advances
> > > the state of the radio art", which is one of the reasons
>we
> > > amateurs get to
> > > use valuable spectrum for free. The SGC implementation
>may have problems,
> > > but it might also have unique advantages, both of which
>nobody will know
> > > until people start to actually use them.
> >
> > Some people just like to have the state of the art. Solar
>panels
> > come to mind. My experience has been that a lot of
>"innovative"
> > technology comes with a long list of "features", but the
>one that
> > is almost always missing is "cost effectiveness."
>
>People sometimes thing because something passes TA is fit to
>be used. Some amplifiers and many radios are just barely
>better than class C for IM3 performance. It would be
>interesting to see where this product falls.
>
>Jim alluded to GG amps, but in fact GG amps because of
>large amounts of negative feedback inherent in the
>configuration are almost always exceptionally clean. Tetrode
>amps and solid state amps are another story.
>
>Cost effectiveness aside, I hope any restructuring tightens
>up on occupied bandwidth with clear regulations and
>manufacturers are forced to comply with reasonable
>standards.
>
>Right now the entire bandwidth fault falls on the end user.
>Manufacturers never have to test or comply with bandwidth
>regulations. As our hobby moves away from people skilled in
>the art and as it becomes less and less fashionable to give
>critical reports, a shift towards controls at the
>manufacturing end would be nice.
I don't know that I'd really want to impose controls on manufacturers, at
least to the degree customary in the commercial world (either for
amplifiers, antennas, etc.). Ham radio is fundamentally an experimental
service, and there should be freedom to buy and sell equipment that is
potentially inappropriate.
There is a requirement that all of us play nice in our sandbox, but I'd
hate to see a move towards tighter regulatory controls, because that starts
to make us look more commercial, and makes it much harder for the
proverbial garage tinkerer.
Sure, you might hate it when someone builds their own amp that has hideous
levels of distortion, and it might be (hopefully temporarily)
inconsiderate, but then, ham radio provides a way to correct that (with
gentle reminders, etc.). If everyone had to meet stringent technical
requirements the first time, it would be a serious disincentive for
experimentation.
When it comes to equipment being sold, I think that there should be a time
phased quality/performance requirement. You can sell something crummy and
experimental for a few years, but eventually, you've got to improve it to
meet the tighter standards. There's no excuse to sell the same crummy
design for 50 years. (Note well: Sell (as in newly manufactured
product). I'm not talking about someone restoring historical boat anchors,
etc..)
As far as testing goes, very few ham manufacturers can afford to do a real
high quality test program, and to impose that would result in most of them
going underground. (they'd still be in business, just harder to
find). Here's where organizations like ARRL or AMRAD do a real
service. They can do the tests, they have the equipment, they can publish
the results. They can use the "bully pulpit" to encourage better
performance. They can use that same bully pulpit to also encourage new
designs and new capabilities, and put the early test results in a context.
Keeping it on an antenna-ish topic, ARRL made a policy that mfrs couldn't
advertise unsubstantiated gain numbers for antennas. They could do similar
things for other components and subsystems. I don't think that we should
overly regulate, but verified performance knowledge is a good thing.
You said:"As our hobby moves away from people skilled in
the art and as it becomes less and less fashionable to give
critical reports, a shift towards controls at the
manufacturing end would be nice."
While the hobby is changing in demographics and interests, I don't know
that participants are less skilled in the art. It's just that the facets of
the art in which the skill lies is different. 50 years ago, there weren't
many people doing DSP, as there are now. 50 years ago, lots of people were
using tube rigs, some even built them themselves, even fewer designed
them. Some built them from kits, some built them from cookbook recipes in
the handbook, some actually designed from scratch. I don't know that
building a Heathkit DX100 would necessarily teach you how tube amps work
(at a circuit design level). You'd be good at soldering by the time you're
done, and you'd probably at least understand the functional block diagram,
which would help you pass your General written.
It's impossible to know, but I'll bet that the fraction of hams who
designed and built their own rigs is comparable to the fraction of hams who
design and build their own rigs today. It's just that there's a lot more
different kinds of rigs, so the number doing any one kind is smaller. When
my grandfather and dad were active, on HF you had two choices: CW or AM,
and VHF was pretty darn exotic, as was SSB. Today, the same tinkerer who
would have designed their own AM amp and modulator might be doing EME, or
PSK31, or phased arrays, or SSTV, or MFSK16, or packet, or satellite, or .....
Jim, W6RMK
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|