Jim et al,
I think what is frequently overlooked when exchanges like this pop up is the
reality that many of us face. Lack of space and other resources are often the
overriding factors rather than lack of interest in the technology. One can
model an antenna using the latest and greatest software but in the end it is of
little use if you lack the resources to install it.
Don't have the space for the perfect 120 radial on/in ground system or the
elevated equivalent? Then an FCP or any other compromise option becomes the
reality. Some of use do the best we can with what we have. When I was first
licensed 60 years ago that seemed to be well understood. Now with everything
needing to be 'modeled to death' it seems it is often forgotten.
Reminds me of the recent report from The Warton School where a professor
surveyed her students and asked what they thought the average income of the
typical American family was. The students put in in the six figure territory
rather than the reality of $46,000 USD. Of course given that the budget for a
first year MBA student at Wharton is listed as a bit over $115,000 USD I
suppose the students able to sit in that classrooms might have a disconnect
with the real world.
Jim, I remember the first time I read any of your writing some years ago and it
was the article about all the various compromise antennas you had up at your
Chicago QTH. Yes, you installed them following the best practices as you
understood them at the time but as you noted throughout that piece, they were
often compromises, yet you were encouraging others not to let the compromise
aspect stand in the way. Also, as noted in your "Working 160 from a Small Lot"
presentation you advise "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". For
many of us that mantra is what keeps us on the air.
I think sometimes comments like the one that triggered this thread are not
meant as disrespecting or ignoring technology but rather just a reflection of
the realities many of us face. We put up what we can, get on the air, and work
what we can. I'm guessing most of us feel pretty proud of the accomplishment's
achieved with our limited resources. That seems like an important part of the
experience and in the true spirit of Amateur Radio. No doubt there's an app for
determining if that's true.
73,
Patrick, W7TMT
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:48
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCP vs On ground.txt
On 1/21/2022 11:19 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
> Thankfully for any of us that actually consider ham radio to be a
> technical hobby instead of just a wireless chat room, not everyone
> here shares your perspective.
YES! Much of the ARRL Handbook is tutorial material. Indeed, I'd wager that
most if not all of the teams that have put us in space first learned
electronics and radio from the Handbook.
And most of what I post online is aimed at helping folks learn. The
disappointing thing is when I do that, questioners seem to post new questions
suggesting they didn't bother to study either what I (or
others) had written on the reflector, or what I'd posted links to on my
website, some of which I'd spent weeks or months learning and writing about.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|