To: | "[email protected]" <[email protected]> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: QSY |
From: | Daniele Tincani <[email protected]> |
Date: | Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:19:51 -0700 (PDT) |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1312471191; bh=8b9rlUYqR1jM1+L2Oo3uUq3qdqdljSBWxKpVBvFqa/Q=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=K8v5v1LCIc77Qek9QMbGxHKBtFEo1RRBqj0SeoDMFAw71phIjicqOR9eKDS1iYJ8+s8Fkagcb8NFwgiNWYZFbpvJaL5lB846azsVNc2vnteC36XhMZYg+093/L05/7DpND+ebeyAmhpspLq/D4hItnFa6/MtpIRdlynumgWQVn0= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=L78xec/P5hsM9RBpJvisXbVo+uZUYtKfouPHoRD4cX5gVxRgHqiQCWMzvmXG2/oA0M7ZLqgiInB1zTGIFARxGU8R5/siWTR+Xd1svDJsByL4OJVouCbOz40zb3np1HUAR0ZpH7LKZBPYF0/a9T9WcQ3zFdJxnzc3zP4uXYUB7VM=; |
Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
In-reply-to: | <1312469333.2428.33.camel@pat-compaq-evo> |
References: | <312BD2C5CADC454991068C505649EF6A@IBM7FFA209F07C> <CAHAQVWMJp-vgbSjhF3x1piFBJPcd2HgPV91TQdpovt6wP9W8cg@mail.gmail.com> <1312469333.2428.33.camel@pat-compaq-evo> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
In my view (I'm a bit OT, probably) we are now discussing about dignity and - in the end - about freedom.
73
D.
From: g4gvw <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2011 4:48 PM Subject: Re: LF: QSY Hi Roger, Alan G3NYK and myself often debate this (being 'ole fogeys'). Personally I would align this with the failure of our education system to engage students in the sciences and mathematics in our schools. When I was at school you could go along to any of our science masters and get involved in a discussion about crystal sets, aerials etc. even though I cannot remember any one of them being licensed. We had a school radio club that was effectively run by ourselves with the encouragement of the school. A lab tech taught me to solder. He didn't have any interest in electronics or radio but he could sure use a "bolt" and a bunsen burner! Also, in those days, kids (especially boys) had HOBBIES not HOODIES! We built model aircraft, boats, carts, radios. We could even attach a bike dynamo to a Mamod steam engine! You could learn about tearing the wings off a Keil-Kraft model glider by fitting a Jetex engine. You could almost blow yourself up making rockets from cigar tubes and "flash" powder. There was even a magazine called "Hobbies Magazine". The "EAGLE" had a centre spread that never ever featured a "boob" as far as I can remember but oh those cut-away drawings of the "Flying Scotsman"! We were excited by all that stuff. Now, today, I see on the TV news that vast numbers of the population are becoming addicted to "Smartphones". I remember a few years ago when describing a 'mobile phone' as a "radio transceiver that connects to a telephone network" to some friends in the pub, that eyes glazed over! "Technology" these days tends to mean "Meeedja studies" doesn't it? I agree that "sumpn needs to be done" but what? I think we are fighting a change that is as much cultural as technical. Discuss. :>)) 73 On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 14:03 +0100, Roger Lapthorn wrote: > Chris (et al) > > In the last few years I've given talks at 5 different radio clubs in > East Anglia. Some were well attended and thriving, others small but in > good shape and one was clearly in trouble. A common thread throughout > was a distinct lack of younger members. > > Although this is not a subject for further discussion on the > LF-reflector it is something that should concern us all. We need to > find more ways of making the hobby inviting to younger people without > "dumbing it down". How? As a teenager I was fascinated by short-wave, > communicating by string, radio, light beams and earth currents. Today, > the advances in technology make what we do appear far from > marvellous. > > Not sure of the answers but amateur radio in 2020 may be just a > handful of pensioners talking about how good it was in the old days. > No doubt Mal will be one of them. > > Did I also note in the RSGB's survey that LF was an interest mainly of > the older members? > > 73s > Roger G3XBM > > > > > On 4 August 2011 09:48, Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mal and LF, > Mal says: > "If one is plagued with environmental noise and poor signal > quality on LF/MF then maybe this is not the band for You." > You might be right, but it's fun trying! I have very much > enjoyed the last couple of years on 136/7 despite the > difficulties. > Well, I'm not sure the QSY is a solution either. When I rotate > my 2m beam and watch the noise level on the s-meter, the noise > goes up by about 18db as the beam points down the line of the > houses in my street. Not surprising I have trouble on LF. > All you can do is the best with the circumstances you're > presented with. > Lack of activity is as much due to us (radio amateurs) in > general getting older and dropping out of the hobby, with few > youngsters following on, as anything else. > Thanks to those who commented about SNR, I agree with others > observations. > Vy 73, > Chris, G4AYT, Whitstable, Kent. > > > > -- > http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ > http://www.g3xbm.co.uk > http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm > https://sites.google.com/site/sub9khz/ > -- 73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw qth nr felixstowe uk (east coast, county of suffolk) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: QSY, g4gvw |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: 137 from /p, wolf_dl4yhf |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: QSY, g4gvw |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: QSY, g4gvw |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |