Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mc10.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mc10.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.82]) by air-md04.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMD043-8b824c04f9ef2c8; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:15:43 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-mc10.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id A49C938000232; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1OJQMn-0008PT-A4 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:14:45 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1OJQMm-0008PK-Q2 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:14:44 +0100 Received: from smtp6.freeserve.com ([193.252.22.191]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OJQMk-0002ha-9j for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:14:44 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3609.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1A55E1C00984 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:14:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3609.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0E0381C001B2 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:14:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from AGB (unknown [91.109.50.102]) by mwinf3609.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 7B6731C00984 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 14:14:31 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20100601121431505.7B6731C00984@mwinf3609.me.freeserve.com Message-ID: <24D8778B720A41D8B410E64F6B1FA4AF@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <002b01cafdcc$a7375ee0$0301a8c0@your91hoehfy9g> <1275001390.825.21.camel@pat-compaq-evo> <000c01cafe8c$0c4622c0$0301a8c0@your91hoehfy9g> <1275350740.31871.25.camel@pat-compaq-evo> In-Reply-To: <1275350740.31871.25.camel@pat-compaq-evo> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:14:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100601-1, 01/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: OT Stupid Crimals Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60524c04f9ed39ae X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 A recent survey reported in some very reputable sources suggests that "those who try to keep up with the Jones's" are among the unhappiest. Yes but how un happy do you have to be to carry out the survey in the first place ... ? The art of survey is taught as subject , the out come may be modulated by the construction of the questions and the certainty that only those interested will take part ... by default will be eager to project there egocentric stance by any opportunity .. as as for reputation well if you can manage to convince ten others of similar persuasion , then it 'must be' valid .... Engineering tends to be the opposite ? The QRP angle well yes , no , maybe Yes ....Can be fun can be a challenge for 'all' involved e.g, wspr with the time locked frame and array processed data matching or ros with the use of digital noise cancelation , but both of there are modern qrp systems , 500mW tx power and 500 watts cpu processing power and don't really offer advancement, tx 500 watts over the path and you could use a TRF drawing 500mW from a PP9 ... cw of course Maybe..... It has become a way of queue jumping , perhaps a bit like shouting 'help' on the hf bands NO ..., I have found that when called by a qrp station on HF (we are all qpr on mf) should I reduce my power to enable the transmitting station to join in the 'fun' , that's nearly always met with the closure of the contact on the grounds of 'ive lost you' G.. -------------------------------------------------- From: "g4gvw" Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:05 AM To: Subject: Re: LF: Re: OT Stupid Crimals > > Sorry about the delay in replying Mal but I think some other > correspondents do get the point I was trying to make. That you obviously > don't perhaps defines my point. A recent survey reported in some very > reputable sources suggests that "those who try to keep up with the > Jones's" are among the unhappiest. I guess that probably also says > something about those who strive to establish their credentials as > "Jones's". > It's too easy to use sledgehammers to crack nuts. A problem is that the > little guys get buried in the shrapnel that results. I and many others > have more respect for the little guy who gets his signal heard with > minimum power and resources than the guy who just winds up the Watts and > kills the band until he gets what he wants. And before we get into > debates about receiver performance those same little guys often struggle > to afford great receivers too! > > Your approach to the hobby may well be appropriate but after all it is > just a hobby, a pastime. It's just not an approach I'm in sympathy > with. > > 73 > > > On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 18:34 +0100, mal hamilton wrote: >> Om >> What do you think about an amateur who has a large house and big garden >> or a >> farm with acres of land for antennas. >> 1. Should he sell up and move to a council house with no garden >> 2. Remove all antennas and use a partridge joy stick >> 3. Give up amateur radio because of his advantage >> 4. Use only QRP so that noone can hear him/her >> 5. Discourage all radio amateurs to improve their station. >> 6. If one gets a good signal report immediately ground the antenna in >> case >> this is seen as having an unfair advantage >> >> What point are you trying to make ? >> g3kev >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "g4gvw" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:03 AM >> Subject: Re: LF: Re: OT Stupid Crimals >> >> >> > Sorry Mal >> > But that would also tend to suggest that it might be OK for an athlete >> > to take performance-enhancing chemicals in order to achieve an >> > "advantage" (your word) over less "advantaged" competitors in the quest >> > for "DX". >> > I'm not going to be "holier than thou" on this one but it does cause >> > one >> > pause for thought in terms of the morality of what is, after all, a >> > hobby pursuit! >> > >> > 73 >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 19:44 +0100, mal hamilton wrote: >> > > Warren >> > > His problem was that he got caught. Throughout the world lots of >> > > radio >> > > amateurs are running powers well above those permitted, especially >> > > when >> you >> > > take antenna gain into consideration. >> > > Big antennas with big gain on the higher freqs is not a crime. >> > > At one stage I had stacked 14, 21, 28 and 50 mcs yagis that gave me a >> > > terrific advantage although my RF did not exceed the permitted power. >> > > eg 400 watts with a 10 dB gain yagi gave me 4 Kw radiated power. I >> > > also >> have >> > > a NOV issued in 1962 for 1 kw power. >> > > Lots of stns in the USA are generating big erp,s >> > > G3KEV >> > > >> > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: "Warren Ziegler" >> > > To: >> > > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:04 PM >> > > Subject: LF: OT Stupid Crimals >> > > >> > > >> > > > Alan Potter ZL3II was busted by the NZ telecoms agency for running >> > > > excessive power (3100 Watts - the NZ limit is 500W PEP). >> > > > >> > > > The funny part is that he was caught because he posted a video on >> > > > Youtube demonstrating his 3100W setup! >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > 73 Warren K2ORS >> > > > WD2XGJ >> > > > WD2XSH/23 >> > > > WE2XEB/2 >> > > > WE2XGR/1 >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- >> > 73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw >> > qth nr felixstowe uk >> > (east coast, county of suffolk) >> > >> > >> >> > -- > 73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw > qth nr felixstowe uk > (east coast, county of suffolk) > > >