Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
(N2KMF)
on
September 7, 2003
View comments about this article!
I was reading a thread a while back about a fellow who had lost his log entries due to a hard drive failure on his computer, and it started me thinking about the wisdom of keeping a log in a computer. I was thinking that outside of special circumstances like a contest, it is far better to keep an old-fashioned paper logbook than it is to keep it on a computer. Here are my reasons:
1. Paper is a less volatile medium than computer storage. All it takes is an unfortunate instance like a hardware failure or a virus to wipe out months, or even years worth of QSOs. Paper is flammable, and can be destroyed by prolonged exposure to water, but in the long run is more durable than data stored on a computer.
2. Paper logbooks will remain readable for decades. Disks can become flukey after quite a short amount of time, and through accidental exposure to heat, magnetic fields, etc. Even CD-ROMS can be damaged by a fairly minor scratch or ding, making them unreadable.
3. Paper logbooks will not have accessibility problems in the coming decades. I have probably 50 or so 5.25" floppy disks that I can't read; my current computer has no 5.25" drive. And some of the files on my oldest 3.5" floppies are unreadable in any meaningful sense not because the disks are bad, but the files on them use a format that modern software can't read. And this is stuff that is only 15 years old. Will you be able to read that CD in 20 years? And if you can, will you have software to read whatever format your logs are in?
Now, I am by no means a Luddite. In fact, I write software for a living. So I have a decent perspective on this sort of thing. And I keep a paper logbook (after a very brief flirtation with writing my own logbook database). Why? Because 20 or 30 years from now I want to be able to look back and see the contact I made with KC4AAA at the South Pole, or the CW QSO I had with the USS Batfish. I just don't think a computer log will allow me to do that.
Hams aren't the only ones with this problem. NASA has it also. Years worth of data from various space missions like Voyager, Pioneer and Mariner are on magnetic tape that is gradually decaying, and in any event the equipment to read those tapes is either very old or not obtainable. And of course, data formats have changed so they would have to be converted.
Now, computer logging does have its place. It is almost a must for serious contesting, to keep track of points and to prevent dupes. It is also quicker. -- But for everyday contacts, no thanks. I'll stick to my trusty old logbook.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KF3KWO on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with you, KMF. I combine the two techniques by keeping a spreadsheet log on the computer (Windows Excel) and updating it every week or so from the paper log I keep. I then print it out with more blank log pages so I'll almost always have a neat log. My main log is the paper log, with the one on the computer available for reprinting in case the paper log is destroyed.
What I don't have room for on the computer-printed log is room for all the details I've scratched into the margins of the log - mostly QSO details (if the other operator mentions age, military service, exotic overseas locations, or if it was just a really nice chat), special event mailing addresses, and the like. So I have to make the font really tiny for the "Comments" section for each QSO so I can squeeze a bunch of it in.
One thing I do at the rig is use scratch paper to record the QSO info and then make a nice and neat entry into the paper log. That way mistakes will be on the scratch paper, not the log. And like I said, about once a week I update the computer log and print it out.
73 de Jeff
KF3KWO
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KA5N on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In many ways technology tends to remove the personal part of experiences. It is still disconcerting to me to answer a "CQ contest" that is speaking in one voice and having the station come back in a different voice.
Sure, one is a recording and sometimes I wonder which one. There is something about looking back over a handwritten log that is superior to any electronic record. Amateur radio was certainly more of a challenge in the past and the struggle heightened the sense of accomplishment. When things are too automated you might as well have a robot do the whole thing.
Allen KA5N
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K0BG on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have kept all of my original log books from many years ago. Every once in a while, I dig them up and look through them. It is almost as much fun as the original contact.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KA8TVJ on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a system administrator and a teacher of computer networking at a technical college, I deal with this problem all the time myself. "Planned obsolescence" never seems to be much of an issue for computer hardware and software manufacturers; the technology advances fast enough all by itself to make older systems obsolete just because the users feel the need to "keep up."
That's half the problem right there. When the urge to upgrade comes along, ask yourself, do I NEED any of the new features in the upgrade? Is it worth potential compatibility issues down the road? As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If upgrades are necessary, be sure to take measures to preserve data in the new format BEFORE you need it. Convert file types and storage media when you do the upgrade--when you are likely to have both the new and old software and equipment installed side-by-side. It's a pain in the neck, but it will save you a whole bunch of headaches a few years later.
There's a lot to be said for keeping one or two old computers with the old software installed around. We all need to clean out the old junk sometimes, but that dusty old '486 machine with DOS and Windows 3.1 just might be able to read some of the old data that the latest and greatest system can't.
By the way--did you know that you can still install a 5 1/4" floppy drive in a modern PC? Not many folks do these days. You'll need a working drive, and a cable with the right plug for the drive. Older PC's had floppy drive cables with both kinds of connectors, so sometimes you'll find one in an old machine. You have to tell the computer what kind of floppy drive(s) are installed with the BIOS setup screens you can access at bootup. Even the new machines have these, but they don't always tell you what key to press at bootup. Try tapping delete, esc, F2, or F10 through F12 right after you see the lights on the keyboard blink. One of them will usually work and kick the machine into the setup mode. Search for the floppy disk types and tell it what type of 5 1/4" drive you put in, reboot, and you're ready for some data recovery.
Places I've worked at have learned the hard way that "paperless" systems aren't. There's just no substitute for a hard copy you can put away in a file cabinet. In fact, the best strategy is to use multiple backup media and formats. In a pinch, at least one of them will work. Relying on only one file format and backup medium can come around and bite you when you need the data the most. If you have networked PC's, back up files onto another machine, then copy them off onto removable disks. If the data is valuable, and you have the means, store another copy somewhere "off site," as a hedge against disaster.
Don't rely on floppy disks. In the past several years, I've found more and more unreliable disks brand new, right out of the box. The disk manufacturers don't spend much time and money on quality control these days because they're just a cheap commodity now. CD's are a good choice, but make two copies in case one fails.
Your log is is your station's history. It deserves some care in preserving it. Companies spend big money on data archiving because they put a dollar value on their data. Treat your log the same way--invest in some preservation measures. The cost of a a little extra time, paper, disks, or even hanging on to an old computer "just in case" instead of trading it away may pay off down the road.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KF3KWO on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
// Places I've worked at have learned the hard way that "paperless" systems aren't. There's just no substitute for a hard copy you can put away in a file cabinet. //
They used to say the Navy was going to be "paperless" and "smokeless". Neither happened. "Paperless" is a dream. You always need something you can hold in your hand, because the computer/system eventually does go down, and always when you need it the most.
73 de KF3KWO
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by G4HZV on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very well put. We are surrounded by too much unnecessary technology. Paper logging is simple, cheap, non-volatile (subject to floods and fires!)and requires minimal brain overhead when operating. Why make life more complicated than it needs to me?
The other plus is less clutter and electrical noise in the shack.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AC4UR on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just had to add my 2 cents also. I chase DX on 40 meters using QRP. Each country is hard won. Finding the DX, fighting more powerful stations then trying to get a QSL. I keep a paper log but I have a data base to keep track of the countries worked and confirmed. I can update the data base every time a new country is worked or when a QSL shows up in the mail box. This will not lead to any serious loss if I lose the data base or hard drive. An hour or so will rebuild the data again.
The problem I have with computer logging is getting QSLs that are not valid. I received a card from ZL7 only to find the mode is incorrect. Just this week I received another card from a country I sent several cards to had the band wrong. I can't count either of these as confirmed. Each card came in with a computer label on the back with my contact info. If the label is incorrect there is no way for the other operator to reissue a card with the right info unless they have an original paper log. Both of the cards I received used computer logging and no paper backup. This represents a great loss for me as the probability of working them again is slim. I also missed out on 3V8BB I had worked during a contest. A typo into their logging program wiped my contact out of existence. I had tried for several hours just to be heard.
These problems with errors can happen with paper logs as well but there is enough info to trace a problem. If an operator is confirming my contact on 10 meters and all the rest of the page is for 40 meters he can tell something is wrong.
For me the paper log will be the choice. I love computers and have several but they will only compound the human error factor.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by W4KPA on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree 100%. The big problem is not so much losing your data due to a hard drive crash or damage to a disk. The problem is getting stuck with with an orphan program, data file, or disk type that can't be read any more. The way things change in this business you can end up with a lot of data you can't reach. In fact, I've got 20 years worth of logs on 5.25 inch disks based on a DOS program. Fortunately, I've got the paper logs too.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by W4MY on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Paper or electronic, IMHO, really isn't the issue. I think it just boils down to how important the data is and what the owner wants to do to keep up with it. Both have their good and bad points. I've had hard drive crashes and I have had paper logs get lost in moving. Is that the fault of the medium? No, its my fault. Leaving a paper log in a box in a wet basement is just as bad as relying on a hard drive with no backup.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KD5VHF on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Every now and then just print out what you have stored. Is this too much trouble?
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by DOODAH on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Decent logging software has a user group, or you can find out from someone (even the author perhaps) where your precious data is held (which file).
Then, all you need to do is burn it to a good gold CDR as backup. Keep one in the house, one at work, one at a friend's house if you're really paranoid.
Do this every xx months - the lifespan of a CDR is irrelevant if you only need to go back a few months in
an emergency.
Too simple?!
73
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K0ABE on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To err is human…. To really screw things up you need a computer…
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N8UZE on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I keep both a paper log and a computer log. Yes that means entering the data twice. However, I can take the paper log out to the sofa and sit and thumb through and travel down memory lane. The computer log lets me sort and evaluate the data. i.e. Do I have xxx confirmed? How many countries do I have? etc.
For contests, I print out the Cabrillo file from the contest software and staple it into my log book so I have a paper copy of that info too.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KC8YHU on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I also agree that paper logging is the best. I have a paper log on all the shortwave stations I have heard and there is just something about fliping though the pages that a computer just cant cause. Also paperlogs are cheaper than a computer log. You got $1000 for the computer and $300 to get MS Office so you can use Access or Excel. Paper log, $1 notebook from the dollar store and another buck for a pack of pens. Also causes less RF than a computer.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by LNXAUTHOR on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
- guess what i'm going to take with me when i go portable/QRP in the woods next month? (besides my ft-817)...
- hmmm, let me think... a thin binder w/a pen, pencil and arrl log sheets - OR - a laptop with charger and a spare battery?
- OTOH, i have found some nice open-source logging clients (i don't use any proprietary software)... the nice thing is one can modify the source and rebuild the client to output ASCII text entries for printing logs in 'arrl format'...
- i prefer paper logs, but i can see the application of computer logging for specific events/time periods...
- but i'd make a paper backup just in case...
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I use paper logs for every day contacts but the computer is nice for contest. Easier to check for dups. I always print these out after the contest. I worried more about it when the FCC required them than I do now but I still log every contact except two meter mobile.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by W4REB on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I, like many others, share both views. Having been licensed for well over a quarter century, and having a lot of "wall paper", including many VHF/UHF/EME Contest awards, I have to agree that paper is certainly more convienent, especially when running a rover or portable station. The laptop simply takes up too much time.
However, I also believe computers have their rightful place in logging, especially in duping. Even when logging calls from the field or in contests, and I do use paper, I ALWAYS, scan, or re-enter them via keyboard for posterity. And I do this before mailing in the logs so the PC can perform the arduous task of weeding out the dupes!
Ralph, W4REB EM78/EL96
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very good article and thoughts. I have all of my logbooks going back to 1971...I guess that I am old-fashioned. It does become a problem when I want to search a particular contact that is five years old or so. I will use computer spreadsheets for certain QSO information or tracking of where I am with regards to a specific award.
For hard-core contesters at the top of the heap, the computer logging programs are required. I have a lot of fun with the lower key contest categories such as QRP portable in the VHF contest where I carry a paper log to my portable locations.
I had an experience where an operator made many QSOs from HC8N on Six Meters and lost the computer log data after they came back to the US. Fortunately, another operator came a few weeks later and had made a hard copy along the way that saved the day. Many of my DX friends do keep a hard copy or copy written by hand of some of their Six Meter DXing trips.
To each his own...
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by WB4M on September 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I just spent a few weeks typing my log data into a computer logging program. The data began in March of 1978. I had a number of calls that are now SK's, also a number of calls that no longer matched the data in my paper log, indicating newer hams had taken the old calls by the Vanity program. Also a number of hams had moved to a new QTH. And then again, many were still in the same place and held the same old call as 20 years ago or more. It was quite interesting... I'll never give up my paper log.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2KMF, your logic is seriously flawed. You assert that
1. digital media like CDs and floppies are not archival (true)
2. file formats change over time (true)
and conclude that one should therefore use paper logs, forgoing the many benefits of computer logging: realtime searching, sorting, filtering, QSling, tracking, and reporting.
One can easily enjoy these benefits and overcome the above two problems by frequently printing one's log using fonts that are readable by optical character recognition (OCR) software. Such paper printouts are certainly the equal of paper logbooks for archival storage, and are guaranteed to be readable by future computer systems.
I have no argument with an op who wants to log QSOs by hand using pencil and paper any more than I have an argument with people who like to restore and run steam engines, but lets not confuse being wistful with being optimally effective.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AC3P on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There must be something in the air or it's the phase of the moon. I was just talking with some friends about this over the weekend.
I came across some of my old logs and paged through them. I have long ago lost my Novice log but still have my Tech and Advanced logs going back to 1964.
That was quite a trip down memory lane. Not only do I have a lot of SK's logged in there, but I also have signatures of SK's who operated my station during that time. That's something you can't get with a computerized log.
I can see a use for computerized logging for contests and field day, but for casual home station use paper logging is superior.
I went computerized a few years ago and I can't tell how many logs I have lost due to head crashes and defective backup disks. Also the amount of information that you can enter from a QSO is limited by the software design.
When I started out in the radio game, we were required to log every transmission. There was no QRZ.Com so we had to get the mailing address from the station op during the QSO. I also would add other notes such as the type of equipment the other op was using.
I recommend paper logging to everyone. Years later you might enjoy flipping through those logs when the PC you are now using is obsolete, the logging program is orphaned, and the media, whether 8-inch, 5-inch, 3 1/4 inch floppy or CD has been corroded by the ravages of time.
As for me, I will be returning to the tried and true spiral-bound logging version 1.0.
73
Frank AC3P
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA6YQ:
I fail to see where my logic is flawed. After conceding two main points, you point out that it doesn't matter anyway. I deal with databases on a daily basis, and I have done so professionally for a decade. I was a teenager at the dawn of the personal computer age, and in fact use my computers regularly for ham radio related activities (Examples: satellite tracking, HF propagation prediction, VHF/UHF coverage prediction, APRS). Yet I still use a paper logbook.
Every HF, SSB/CW VHF, and satellite contact I have made is in there (I don't bother logging my 2m/440 FM contacts). That medium will be readable FAR longer than any computer medium/format. Yes, you could have copied your original logs from your 8" floppies, to 5.25", then to your 40 meg hard drive, then to 3.5" floppies to transfer them to the brand new Windows 95 machine, and then back onto floppies for your brand new Windows ME machine, then onto a CDR for archival purposes. But you will still have to copy them next time you significantly upgrade your machine. And so it goes on, for decades. Which seems like quite a lot of work, when all you have to do is write it down in a notebook.
I did however say that computer logging does have a place. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for contesting (although I generally avoid contests). I use my paper logbook for operating during Jamboree on the Air every year, but if I were running a "real" special event station I would use a computer to keep track of contacts. And perhaps, if you are chasing paper awards like Worked All Galactic Entities keeping a computer log makes sense. But for just regular operating, paper beats rock (silicon).
I'll leave you with one last example why. Back at the beginning of February, I was making some casual contacts on 40 meters, and I happened to be listening to the ECARS net when a fellow came up on frequency saying that the shuttle was overdue for landing. I logged that in my logbook, and switched on the TV. I have a record of when and what I was doing when I first heard the news. I doubt that would have made it into a computer log.
73 all de Bill
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K3YD on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would hate to make a serious contest effort without the benefit of computer logging.
That said, I too keep a paper log for general operation. It is so simple for a quick QSO, it's a place to keep station information (i.e. SWR readings, antenna notes, etc.), it's not limited to a single line entry for a memorable QSO, and it's easily congigured for a couple of QSOs in a minor contest.
Oh, computer tracking for awards is an issue, but I can and do enter the relevant QSO's (and only those QSOs) into a spreadsheet.
In this era of PDA's many people still use a notebook and pencil to keep track of appointments and telephone numbers. Logging is the same thing--whatever works for the user.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K3FT on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As most of the posters have noted.. the paper log book wins out over the digitally stored method hands down.
For ease of use, storage, checking and reviewing, and general things paper logs can't be beat.
For such things as checking for QSL status (sent/rcvd) WAS/5BWAS, County hunting, DXCC, etc., an electronic log can't be beat for sorting, checking, verifying, etc.
I do that as many of us do. I input all my paper logs into the spreadsheet and add data like County, State, City/state/name (for contest QSO's) and the like. Then I do a sort to update my listing.
When I'm done.. I print out a complete log and that's my archival copy. I also print out a nice sorted sheet with my Counties, States, and Countries. That way it's right by the rig so I can reference it when I work (what I think may be) a new one.
The digital method is a good one for adminstrative tasks and the like and I'm glad we have it.
But for fun, enjoyment,and ease of use.. the paper format can't be beat.
73
Chuck K3FT
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DOODAH:
One question: 20 or 30 years from now, are you certain that CDROM drives will still be available to read those backups? Or will you have to convert them into Hyper-Mini CD's or Quantum Qubes or whatever the next nifty storage device that comes along happens to be?
I actually have the makings of several different computers at home in my basement. I could probably make an XT machine, a '286, a '386, and a couple of '486s. I have a running Pentium desktop machine and a '286 laptop that I use mainly for the geek factor (I have Minix installed on it, and thus can proudly say I am probably the only person within a hundred miles that can multi-task on a '286). I could, if I so desired, get several machines running, and I have enough old network cards to string them together. So, I COULD convert old data to new, if I really tried hard enough. But why bother? I have it in black and white, in my own handwriting, with copious notes on anything I think is relevant.
73 de Bill.
|
| |
|
Hard drive failures
|
|
|
by AA6E on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I try not to chuckle when people say they lost 5 years of data when their hard drive failed. All hard drives _will_ fail eventually. If you care about your data, you have to arrange a regular back-up system. All my data is mirrored off-site every night. What about yours?
(I 'peer' with my other Linux site using rsync over DSL. My mirror is there, and theirs is here.)
FWIW, I am running parallel paper & computer logs. It's a lot easier to search for a call sign or extract a country report from a good computer log, but there are the 'archive' and tangibility problems that need paper.
For real permanency, nothing much beats cuneiform on fired clay tablets. (Great for recording 5 wpm CW QSOs, too. :-)
73 - Martin
|
| |
|
RE: Hard drive failures
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA6E:
Even better than using cuneiform on fired clay tablets (which are fragile) are runes inscribed into granite. I would use Egyptian Heiroglyphics (or perhaps Mayan), but frankly my tastes run towards more angular scripts. I blame Tolkien.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by W8AKS on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amen Brother!!!!
I just lost my entire log (5500 +) including some all time new ones that were not backuped on paper. I upgraded my os and backuped everything to a zip drive. When I went to restore, quess what, the zip disk was bad and I lost not only my ham stuff but all my financial papers, etc. This is the second time and It is the last time. Back to the paper for me!!! I also used to be a application manager, so not a newbie to computers. Tks for a good, timely article.
73
Marty
W8AKS
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by W8AKS on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amen Brother!!!!
I just lost my entire log (5500 +) including some all time new ones that were not backuped on paper. I upgraded my os and backuped everything to a zip drive. When I went to restore, quess what, the zip disk was bad and I lost not only my ham stuff but all my financial papers, etc. This is the second time and It is the last time. Back to the paper for me!!! I also used to be a application manager, so not a newbie to computers. Tks for a good, timely article.
73
Marty
W8AKS
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by DOODAH on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> N2KMF
>One question: 20 or 30 years from now, are you certain that CDROM drives will still be available to read those backups? Or will you have to convert them into Hyper-Mini CD's or Quantum Qubes or whatever the next nifty storage device that comes along happens to be?
You've missed the point, OM ;o)
The backups are in CONJUNCTION with the still-working software. The object is to do backups on an ongoing basis using whatever media is suitable at the time, such that you never lose more than xx months of data at the worst. All previous backups from xx YEARS ago are no longer needed.
Backup any file that has its date/time stamp changed whenever you've added to the log, and the setup program that you might need to re-install on a fresh PC.
73
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KX2S on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I went to computer logging about 3 years ago. I will never go back to paper logs. It took me 2 months to enter all the data from my paper logs. My paper logs dated back to March 1961. Stated logging the day I received my novice (WV2SQY).
I do regular backups of my log to different places and media. I zip up to diskette, I zip a copy to my wifes computer and send a third copy to my computer at work. There is no way with a paper log that I can say last time I worked you it was 25 years ago. I find it very useful in keeping track of my DXCC and WAZ stats. I find it strange that logging is no longer even required. In the old days the feeling was you better do the logging right, never know when the FCC is going to come knocking on your door. Guess thats when the government had enough money to support it's divisions. Knew things were getting real bad when they decided to give up testing. There was a real feeling of acomplishment walking out of the FCC office with your upgraded license.
73 Ed
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2XE on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why is it that every eHam.net article always boils down to old vs. new digital modes???
Can't we all just find some middle ground? Even though I personally see paper logs as old technology, outdated and completely useless, I do respect the right for other Hams to use this silly, slow and old-fashioned log keeping method.
I do see the day coming when the FCC will outlaw pencil usage for log keeping. Those arguements for longevity and superior robustness in emergency situations are just pathetic pleas from a bunch of old nostalgic pencil pushers who are afraid of change.
Just because some Hams can really handle a pencil well doesn't make them better operators. I really am getting sick and tired of these pencil elitest Hams and I think it really ruins the hobby for the rest of us.
There's a whole bunch of new ways to record data now. This isn't 1917 anymore.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DOODAH:
Point taken. Concurrent backups and conversions can LESSEN the risk, but not completely overcome it. Do you read-verify your backups? Also, being basically lazy, it just seems like a damned lot of work when all I have to do is write it down once.
For casual operating, and for a record that will out-live me by decades, you can't beat pen and paper.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2XE:
I'm even worse than the pencil elitists. I use a pen! I can't stand pencils.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K2ACX on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2XE wrote:
"Just because some Hams can really handle a pencil well doesn't make them better operators. I really am getting sick and tired of these pencil elitest Hams and I think it really ruins the hobby for the rest of us."
Come on John, ANYONE can log at least five QSO's per minute on paper by hand! I'm done listening to you no-pencilers whine and complain. Seems kids these days want everything handed to them on a zip disk- incentive logging killed this hobby!
All the best,
Brian K2ACX
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8AKS:
Unless you immediately verify that the media you created is readable, it cannot be trusted as a backup. This is "Using Computers 101"; its basic hygiene, like checking your brakes before driving through the Sierras.
Sorry you lost your data, but the fault was yours.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by JA2WWE on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have always been a paper logger- Computer logging is just too much of a liability
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2KMF, you wrote "I fail to see where my logic is flawed. After conceding two main points, you point out that it doesn't matter anyway."
I didn't say "it doesn't matter anyway", I said "by printing your log using OCR-readable fonts, you retain the benefits of paper logs (archival, human readable), assure future readability by any computer, and gain the many benefits of computer logging. If this is to be a civilized discussion, then I suggest that you focus your rebuttal on this point, rather than misinterpret it as "it doesn't matter anyway".
Regarding your point that moving logs from PC to PC during upgrades is "quite a lot of work", lets get specific. I have been logging by computer since October 1990. My log contains north of 15,000 QSOs. In the past 13 years, I have switched from a Commodore Amiga to a 386 to a 486 to Pentium to a Pentium 4. Copying my logging software and log from one machine to another takes 30 minutes, but lets say that these four transitions cost me a total of 4 hours. I can print readable characters at 30 words a minute. I can accurately type at 60 words per minute, but my software automatically logs frequency, mode, date, and time; given a callsign, its often able to fill in name and QTH from past QSOs or a callbook lookup. So while I might have to print a 10 word log entry (20 seconds), I can electronically log an entry by typing the equivalent of 3 words (3 seconds). 20 seconds of printing times 15K QSOs would have required ~83 hours of printing over the past 13 years. My actual workload was 3 seconds times 15K QSOs, a bit less that 13 hours. Combining that with the 4 hours spent moving logs during PC upgrades, we have 83 hours for paper logging vs. 17 hours for electronic logging. Which is more work?
Your final point was that one is more likely to record interesting information in paper logs than computer logs. While that might be true for you, its certainly not true for me. Since my software automatically captures all of the details -- frequency, mode, time, date, etc. -- I can concentrate on the QSO and have more time available to capture details about the QSO, which I can record more efficiently by typing than by writing.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2KMF, you wrote "I fail to see where my logic is flawed. After conceding two main points, you point out that it doesn't matter anyway."
I didn't say "it doesn't matter anyway", I said "by printing your log using OCR-readable fonts, you retain the benefits of paper logs (archival, human readable), assure future readability by any computer, and gain the many benefits of computer logging. If this is to be a civilized discussion, then I suggest that you focus your rebuttal on this point, rather than misinterpret it as "it doesn't matter anyway".
Regarding your point that moving logs from PC to PC during upgrades is "quite a lot of work", lets get specific. I have been logging by computer since October 1990. My log contains north of 15,000 QSOs. In the past 13 years, I have switched from a Commodore Amiga to a 386 to a 486 to Pentium to a Pentium 4. Copying my logging software and log from one machine to another takes 30 minutes, but lets say that these four transitions cost me a total of 4 hours. I can print readable characters at 30 words a minute. I can accurately type at 60 words per minute, but my software automatically logs frequency, mode, date, and time; given a callsign, its often able to fill in name and QTH from past QSOs or a callbook lookup. So while I might have to print a 10 word log entry (20 seconds), I can electronically log an entry by typing the equivalent of 3 words (3 seconds). 20 seconds of printing times 15K QSOs would have required ~83 hours of printing over the past 13 years. My actual workload was 3 seconds times 15K QSOs, a bit less that 13 hours. Combining that with the 4 hours spent moving logs during PC upgrades, we have 83 hours for paper logging vs. 17 hours for electronic logging. Which is more work?
The above analysis ignores another major time savings attributable to electronic logging: QSLing. My logging software automatically prints QSL cards, 4 per sheet of 8.5" x 11" index stock. Besides being far less expensive then pre-printed QSL cards, this approach eliminates the time required to manual print the QSO details on each QSL, leaving more time for operating.
Your final point was that one is more likely to record interesting information in paper logs than computer logs. While that might be true for you, its certainly not true for me. Since my software automatically captures all of the details -- frequency, mode, time, date, etc. -- I can concentrate on the QSO and have more time available to capture details about the QSO, which I can record more expeditiously by typing than by writing.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2KMF, you wrote "I fail to see where my logic is flawed. After conceding two main points, you point out that it doesn't matter anyway."
I didn't say "it doesn't matter anyway", I said "by printing your log using OCR-readable fonts, you retain the benefits of paper logs (archival, human readable), assure future readability by any computer, and gain the many benefits of computer logging. If this is to be a civilized discussion, then I suggest that you focus your rebuttal on this point, rather than misinterpret it as "it doesn't matter anyway".
Regarding your point that moving logs from PC to PC during upgrades is "quite a lot of work", lets get specific. I have been logging by computer since October 1990. My log contains north of 15,000 QSOs. In the past 13 years, I have switched from a Commodore Amiga to a 386 to a 486 to Pentium to a Pentium 4. Copying my logging software and log from one machine to another takes 30 minutes, but lets say that these four transitions cost me a total of 4 hours. I can print readable characters at 30 words a minute. I can accurately type at 60 words per minute, but my software automatically logs frequency, mode, date, and time; given a callsign, its often able to fill in name and QTH from past QSOs or a callbook lookup. So while I might have to print a 10 word log entry (20 seconds), I can electronically log an entry by typing the equivalent of 3 words (3 seconds). 20 seconds of printing times 15K QSOs would have required ~83 hours of printing over the past 13 years. My actual workload was 3 seconds times 15K QSOs, a bit less that 13 hours. Combining that with the 4 hours spent moving logs during PC upgrades, we have 83 hours for paper logging vs. 17 hours for electronic logging. Which is more work?
The above analysis ignores another major time savings attributable to electronic logging: QSLing. My logging software automatically prints QSL cards, 4 per sheet of 8.5" x 11" index stock. Besides being far less expensive then pre-printed QSL cards, this approach eliminates the time required to manually print the QSO details on each QSL, leaving more time for operating. This software also keeps track of the QSL cards I send and receive, suggesting alternative confirmations for overdue cards and generating the submission report that accompanies the cards I send to the DXCC desk. Again, more time savings.
Your final point was that one is more likely to record interesting information in paper logs than computer logs. While that might be true for you, its certainly not true for me. Since my software automatically captures all of the details -- frequency, mode, time, date, etc. -- I can concentrate on the QSO and have more time available to capture details about the QSO, which I can record more expeditiously by typing than by writing.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2ACX: Just as one can learn to send CW at 30 wpm with a paddle or bug, so can one learn to touch-type at 60+ wpm. It does require some effort, but I'm sure you're not the type of person who wants things handed to you on a platter...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by JJ1BDX on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I take a memo on a scratchpad paper while in QSO, but I immediately type in all the necessary information into the text editor screen on my server machine. I feel that is much easier to take a backup of my log, as a part of our daily operation of the server systems.
Nothing against paper logging and even making it accessible with the OCR (a good idea), but without the computer logging ability I won't be able to manage the past history of my contacts anyway.
73 de Joe JJ1BDX/3 es K1BDX
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KN4LF on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I run the excellent N3FJP general logging program for keeping track of contact totals, awards, etc. but still keep a paper log in parallel PRECISELY because of the volitility of magnetic storage limitations.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K2ACX on September 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA6YQ:
Just hoping you detected the humor!
All the best,
Brian K2ACX
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA6YQ:
Yes, printing out an OCR version of your log will actually fulfill two requirements, one that you have a paper record, and second (provided of course that you have a scanner) that you will be able to convert your logs. And as I have pointed out, if you are making contacts to earn awards, or to win a contest, using a computer to log your contacts makes sense.
Me, I just want to have fun. And it doesn't take me 20 seconds to write down a time, freq, QTH, callsign, signal reports, and a name. Maybe ten seconds, at the outside. And I write them down as they are given to me, so there is no practical way you can enter them faster than I can. The only exception is for CW QSO's, when I transcribe (with pen and paper up to 15 or 16 wpm, and in a text editor for faster speeds)everything sent, and log the contact afterwards. Since my QSO's tend to be more than just the standard exchange of calls, reports, names, and QTH's, speed of logging isn't an issue.
As for what is extra work, once I log a contact, I have it. No extra work to convert it is necessary. I log during the contact, which lasts more than the 10 seconds needed to log it. I would do the same with a computer, but since I am already in the QSO it isn't really "extra work". It doesn't take away from operating, and since I am operating it doesn't take away from me doing other things. Copying and/or converting IS extra work. And a potential place for things to go wrong.
And if we are talking about time, we should also talk about cost. How much does a computer cost, compared to a logbook? Obviously, one doesn't buy a computer strictly for logging, as they are a versatile tool. We'll assume (since you have at least 15K contacts) that 5% of your computer use is for logging. And we'll go cheap and assume that each of the 5 computers you have used only cost $750 each. Five percent of $750 is $37.50, multiplied by five time is $187.50. That doesn't include the cost of logging software, if you bought that instead of using shareware. Log books and log sheets from the ARRL cost between $4.00 and $5.00. A logbook should be able to fit at least 2,000 QSO's (83 pages, 24 QSO's per page). To fit 15K QSO's, you would need about 8 logbooks, for a cost of about $40. Your logging cost (irrespective of the time it takes to log) is about 1.25 cent per QSO, my logging cost is less than 3/10ths of a cent. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
You have 15K QSO's in 13 years? That is an average of more than 3 per day. Do ever actually talk to these people? I suspect not. I would be hard pressed to find the time to make 3 contacts a day, every day. Or, even 22 contacts during a weekend. Give my typical QSO length, that would take a good hour and a half or two hours every day, or 11 hours EVERY weekend. I just don't have that kind of time.
I also print my QSL cards out on my printer. But I hand write the information in them. Why? When I get a QSL card with all the information automatically printed, I tend to treat it like a form letter. It is impersonal. Which I suppose is OK if you are chasing paper. After all, you don't really care about the person on the other end, just where he is so that you can confirm a QSO with Outer Freedonia. A QSL card with handwritten information is like getting a postcard from a friend.
I would also point out that it is entirely possible to remove the person from the loop, at least for digital modes like CW, RTTY, and PSK31. The computer could handle everything from making the QSO, to logging it, to printing the QSL card. Heck, I am almost surprised someone hasn't written it already. The pieces are already there, they just need to be integrated. But that wouldn't be ham radio to me.
Relying on QRZ for an ops QTH can be misleading. I FINALLY got the FCC to change my address after 3 attempts in the last 5 years (by the way, a relative lives at the old address, so I could still get my mail there). I had to disappoint several people looking for Washington county, when in fact I was in Warren county. This despite the fact that I TOLD them my actual QTH during the QSO. I suspect that they, like you, were depending on a CDROM callbook, or perhaps QRZ.com.
Which brings me to a point I have had to make more than once in my career as a programmer/analyst. Computers are marvelous tools. But they are also sensitive devices that should not be counted upon for long term storage of critical information. Yes, a CDROM well cared for will theoretically outlast the owner. So will a book. Except that if you tear a page out of a book, the rest of the information is still intact. What if you scratch a CD?
My main point still stands. If you are trying to earn some kind of award, or operating in a contest, logging by computer is the best thing since sliced bread (But notice, they don't send you an electronic award, it is on paper). But a paper logbook WILL outlast a computerized log. There is an excellent book, written by an astronomer, computer geek, and ham radio operator called "Silicon Snake Oil". Cliff Stoll is the name of the author. Find a copy and read it. No one would accuse Cliff of being afraid of technology, he revels in it. But he also has some sage words of advice about depending too much on technology.
Top Ten reasons paper logs are better than computer logs:
10. No need to clean mouse balls.
9. "Windows has detected an error..."
8. Paper made from trees, computers made with
foreign petroleum products.
7. Paper logbooks don't stop working because they
are too hot/cold/humid.
6. "The pen is mightier than the Sword or Gun",
The computer is only mightier than the television.
5. Paper logbooks don't spew RF, making it a chore to
track down the interference.
4. Paper logbooks don't triple post responses.
3. Computer logs are worthless during a blackout.
2. Paper logs contribute less to the amount of
entropy in the Universe than computer logs.
And the number one reason is:
1. Paper logs taste great, and are less filling....
(my apologies to Dave Letterman)
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by VE2DC on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Give me a computer log anyday...
Somebody suggested paper logging is more accurate!!!
Nonsense... the computer fills the date/time/band/mode automatically, and never makes a mistake... I can't say the same for myself. Since switching to computer logs 15 years ago, my logging accuracy has increased considerably. (I was a pretty sloppy logger)
Electronic logs are less durable!!!
Nonsense... I lost a lot of my old logs to mildew and water. I've never lost an electronic QSO record. I don't archive old contacts on media that may go stale, the log I use daily goes all the way back to 1988. I have current copies on other machines, other disks, and every couple of weeks, I send a copy to work by e-mail where I back it up onto a server that is continously and safely backed up. (It better be... my job depends on it.)
And it's much faster, more accurate, instantly updates award progress... and it's great fun to remind someone that it's been 8 years since you last contact! In addition, it gives me access to spotting networks, instant propagation forcasts, and integrated access to many digital modes.
Nope.. I'm not going back to paper!
Cheers...
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2KMF, my comments on your response are marked by >>> below
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Yes, printing out an OCR version of your log will actually fulfill two requirements, one that you have a paper record, and second (provided of course that you have a scanner) that you will be able to convert your logs. And as I have pointed out, if you are making contacts to earn awards, or to win a contest, using a computer to log your contacts makes sense.
>>>If chasing DXCC or Honor Roll counts as earning awards, then we completely agree.
Me, I just want to have fun. And it doesn't take me 20 seconds to write down a time, freq, QTH, callsign, signal reports, and a name. Maybe ten seconds, at the outside. And I write them down as they are given to me, so there is no practical way you can enter them faster than I can. The only exception is for CW QSO's, when I transcribe (with pen and paper up to 15 or 16 wpm, and in a text editor for faster speeds)everything sent, and log the contact afterwards. Since my QSO's tend to be more than just the standard exchange of calls, reports, names, and QTH's, speed of logging isn't an issue.
>>>If you didn't type significantly faster than you write, you wouldn't be using a text editor during CW QSOs. You could just as easily be typing the information into fields of a logging application, avoiding the need to hand copy it later.
As for what is extra work, once I log a contact, I have it. No extra work to convert it is necessary. I log during the contact, which lasts more than the 10 seconds needed to log it. I would do the same with a computer, but since I am already in the QSO it isn't really "extra work". It doesn't take away from operating, and since I am operating it doesn't take away from me doing other things. Copying and/or converting IS extra work. And a potential place for things to go wrong.
And if we are talking about time, we should also talk about cost. How much does a computer cost, compared to a logbook? Obviously, one doesn't buy a computer strictly for logging, as they are a versatile tool. We'll assume (since you have at least 15K contacts) that 5% of your computer use is for logging. And we'll go cheap and assume that each of the 5 computers you have used only cost $750 each. Five percent of $750 is $37.50, multiplied by five time is $187.50. That doesn't include the cost of logging software, if you bought that instead of using shareware. Log books and log sheets from the ARRL cost between $4.00 and $5.00. A logbook should be able to fit at least 2,000 QSO's (83 pages, 24 QSO's per page). To fit 15K QSO's, you would need about 8 logbooks, for a cost of about $40. Your logging cost (irrespective of the time it takes to log) is about 1.25 cent per QSO, my logging cost is less than 3/10ths of a cent. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
>>>The logging software I use is entirely free. Yes, computers cost money. My radios weren't free either, nor is the QSL postage. There is no free lunch.
You have 15K QSO's in 13 years? That is an average of more than 3 per day. Do ever actually talk to these people? I suspect not.
>>>As a matter of fact, I do. Some of those QSOs went on for hours. On the other hand, many were quite short; in my early days as a DXer, I participated in contests as a way of rapidly working new countries on the various bands and modes. Furthermore, I sometimes practice contest-style operation on the low-end of 15m or 20m to improve my effectiveness with the pileups when operating from DX locations. Is that ok with you?
I would be hard pressed to find the time to make 3 contacts a day, every day. Or, even 22 contacts during a weekend. Give my typical QSO length, that would take a good hour and a half or two hours every day, or 11 hours EVERY weekend. I just don't have that kind of time.
I also print my QSL cards out on my printer. But I hand write the information in them. Why? When I get a QSL card with all the information automatically printed, I tend to treat it like a form letter. It is impersonal.
>>>One can always jot down personal notes on a computer generated QSL card.
Which I suppose is OK if you are chasing paper. After all, you don't really care about the person on the other end, just where he is so that you can confirm a QSO with Outer Freedonia.
>>>You might want to think carefully about jumping to conclusions so frequently; that's the second one in this post alone. (The first was "Do ever actually talk to these people? I suspect not.")
A QSL card with handwritten information is like getting a postcard from a friend.
>>>What kind of QSOs to make and how much time to spend making them is a personal decision, as is the means by which such QSOs are logged. You make few QSOs, and like the idea of logging and QSLing them by hand. Fine. I like making lots of QSOs -- some long, some short -- and appreciate the logging and QSLing automation that software can provide.
I would also point out that it is entirely possible to remove the person from the loop, at least for digital modes like CW, RTTY, and PSK31. The computer could handle everything from making the QSO, to logging it, to printing the QSL card. Heck, I am almost surprised someone hasn't written it already. The pieces are already there, they just need to be integrated. But that wouldn't be ham radio to me.
>>>It wouldn't be fun for me either. It's been technically possible to do this for 20 years, yet no one has bothered. What's the point of bringing this up?
Relying on QRZ for an ops QTH can be misleading. I FINALLY got the FCC to change my address after 3 attempts in the last 5 years (by the way, a relative lives at the old address, so I could still get my mail there). I had to disappoint several people looking for Washington county, when in fact I was in Warren county. This despite the fact that I TOLD them my actual QTH during the QSO. I suspect that they, like you, were depending on a CDROM callbook, or perhaps QRZ.com.
>>>My logging software first checks previous QSOs for such information, but ops do move so that's not guaranteed to be accurate. Callbooks aren't completely accurate either, as you point out. But they are accurate often enough to save a great deal of data entry.
Which brings me to a point I have had to make more than once in my career as a programmer/analyst. Computers are marvelous tools. But they are also sensitive devices that should not be counted upon for long term storage of critical information. Yes, a CDROM well cared for will theoretically outlast the owner. So will a book. Except that if you tear a page out of a book, the rest of the information is still intact. What if you scratch a CD?
>>>If you are familiar with modern software techology, then you know that there are many approaches to long-term storage. What I don't understand is why you keep raising this point, after acknowledging that a computer's ability to print the log on paper using OCR fonts provides at least the equal of paper's archival storage properties.
My main point still stands. If you are trying to earn some kind of award, or operating in a contest, logging by computer is the best thing since sliced bread (But notice, they don't send you an electronic award, it is on paper).
>>>There are now electronically-conveyed awards.
But a paper logbook WILL outlast a computerized log.
>>>A paper logbook will not outlast a computerized log printed on paper, as you've already acknowledged.
There is an excellent book, written by an astronomer, computer geek, and ham radio operator called "Silicon Snake Oil". Cliff Stoll is the name of the author. Find a copy and read it. No one would accuse Cliff of being afraid of technology, he revels in it. But he also has some sage words of advice about depending too much on technology.
>>>The point is that one should only depend on technology that one understands and has mastered. Do you let your 6-year old drive your car? Of course not, you wait till he or she is of sufficient maturity and has undergone the appropriate training and testing. Do we think that 16-year olds would be capable of driving without training if only car manufacturers would build more reliable, intuitively-driveable cars with better documentation; not even Raph Nader takes that position. If you're going to use a tool, then you'd best learn and understand it. Computers and software are no exception. If you don't know to verify a backup disk before performing an upgrade, then sooner or later you will lose data.
Top Ten reasons paper logs are better than computer logs:
10. No need to clean mouse balls.
>>>Consider an optical mouse. No balls to clean.
9. "Windows has detected an error..."
>>>You might try Windows 2000; mine runs 24x7 and hasn't crashed in over 2 years
8. Paper made from trees, computers made with
foreign petroleum products.
>>>Are you trading your car for a horse, or is this just posturing?
7. Paper logbooks don't stop working because they
are too hot/cold/humid.
>>>Don't let the sweat drip on your logbook, the ink might run.
6. "The pen is mightier than the Sword or Gun",
The computer is only mightier than the television.
>>>Few serious writers use pens these days. The printing press has long been mightier than the pen, and the internet is mightier than the printing press.
5. Paper logbooks don't spew RF, making it a chore to
track down the interference.
>>>So you've banished computers from your house? Are you posting on eham.net from your local library?
4. Paper logbooks don't triple post responses.
>>>Next time, post your article on a reliable site. This one's software is full of defects.
3. Computer logs are worthless during a blackout.
>>>What a surprise, you again "forgotten" that computer logs can be printed on paper.
2. Paper logs contribute less to the amount of
entropy in the Universe than computer logs.
>>>What color is the sky on your planet?
And the number one reason is:
1. Paper logs taste great, and are less filling....
>>>For someone who must frequently eat his words, I guess that's important.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>What kind of QSOs to make and how much time to >spend making them is a personal decision, as is the >means by which such QSOs are logged. You make few >QSOs, and like the idea of logging and QSLing them by >hand. Fine. I like making lots of QSOs -- some long, >some short -- and appreciate the logging and QSLing >automation that software can provide.
Hey, great. Have at it. But paper logbooks are more stable than ANY electronic format. Hey, you like the convience of automated logging. Me? I want something I *KNOW* will be readable decades from now. We both have our reasons. Good day to you Sir...
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I couldn't let this one go...
>>>There are now electronically-conveyed awards.
And they are worth the paper they are printed on.
73...
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I'm sure you know, its far easier to forge a paper document than a digitally-signed bit-stream.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VE2DC:
The point I was making was that paper logs, by their very static nature (ie., language doesn't change much) are more likely to be read decades later. You have computer logs going back to 1988. Without any extra effort, will you be able to read them in 2028?
And computers don't assure accuracy as far as date and time goes. Ever have a BIOS battery go bad, causing the date and time to get screwed up? I have. And computer clocks tend to drift if you don't update them.
And just to clarify, this wasn't an anti-computer article. I use one in my shack for satellite tracking, APRS, propagation forecasting, and numerous other tasks. I actually find it indispensible for quite a few things. All I was saying is this: The odds of your logs being readable decades down the road is higher when using a paper logbook, as opposed to logging software (which does have its place).
73.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"All I was saying is this: The odds of your logs being readable decades down the road is higher when using a paper logbook, as opposed to logging software (which does have its place)."
You've subsequently acknowledged that paper logs printed from logging software in an OCR font will be just as readable decades down the road as a paper logbook.
Can you not concede that your original premise is incorrect?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by VE2DC on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>But paper logbooks are more stable than ANY electronic format.
Well if my house burned down tomorrow, my logbooks would be gone... but fortunately I have up to date copies of my electronic logs in an alternate secure location. No effort required on my part... they are e-mailed weekly automatically.
And, as for logging during a blackout... What's the radio running on? Methane?
Are you writing your logs on acid free paper and keeping them in a controlled environment? If not... they are NOT safe. During the life of a Ham... an electronic log is MORE secure providing you have half a clue on how to ensure it's safety.
It is true... once you stop taking care to back up your log... it's days are numbered. However, logbooks aren't some important historical document or rare work of art that future generations may wish to examine. It's a radio log, for Heaven's sake. As long as it's safe while I'm still around to make use of it... that's all I care about...
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by VE2DC on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>And computers don't assure accuracy as far as date >and time goes. Ever have a BIOS battery go bad, >causing the date and time to get screwed up? I have. >And computer clocks tend to drift if you don't update >them.
I'm really surprised you would also make this statement... this has been true in the past... but today, most of us have our computers time synced using NTP. So they are bang on, all the time. You are running satellite tracking software and you are NOT doing this? Possible, I suppose, if you don't have easy access to Internet.
If my computer dies for any reason... I have a paper log at the ready... but I can't believe that anyone honestly believes this is a better way to log! I think you are just trying to stir up a little discussion and conversation ;-)
Cheers...
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N8XMS on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I use an electronic log for it's speed and power but once a month I print a hard copy report of all the QSO's. This printed copy then goes into a binder along with a lot of other ham radio stuff. I wrote an article about my system and it was published on eHam a few months ago. (Or maybe it was a year or so ago with the way that time flies!)
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AB9DF on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not sure what the problem is really. I use an electronic log system and it works great. I do regular backups and periodically print out a hard copy. Using a computer program to log qso's is the future for sure. However, one must be responsible and do the things necessary to be sure to not lose anything. I am not knocking the manual logging process at all. For some it is the best way. But horse and buggies were the main transportation at one time and now it is not. One cant argue that the buggy was not capable of getting the job done, it only was less efficient. We live in a new era. Adapting to that new era is not required but highly recommended. If you play by the rules, i.e. backups and hard copies, you will not have the problems described in the orginal comment. We put a man on the moon 34 years ago. Its time to move on
Nice discussion, 73
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K1MKF on September 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are some advantages to a hardcopy paper log. Searching the database for anything is not one of them. If a hardcopy is important to you then every so often print out your log and put it in a binder.
MarkF
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N0TONE on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You guys talk as if it's automatic that there's a PC in the shack.
Our family has a PC. We use it for the budget, kids' homework, web searches and email. NONE of that is ham radio related. Nobody in the family except me really wants to be in the shack. So....I'd need a dedicated shack PC.
Last time I looked, the entry price for a PC that could be operated by a non-geek user (by this I mean it must run some flavor of Windows) is around $400 including a monitor large enough for my aging eyes to see. That doesn't include MS Office (yes, we have MS Office on the home PC, but I don't believe in stealing, so if it's going to be on two PCs, there's going to be a second copy purchased legitimately - just like the OS).
Brother, that is $400 I would much rather put into purchasing on-air gear.
AM
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VE2DC wrote:
>I'm really surprised you would also make this >statement... this has been true in the past... but >today, most of us have our computers time synced >using NTP. So they are bang on, all the time. You are >running satellite tracking software and you are NOT >doing this? Possible, I suppose, if you don't have >easy access to Internet.
Yes, I realize you can time-sync your computer to the NIST clock. Since I don't need split-second accuracy, I generally set it using WWV. Since my satellite operating is somewhat sporadic, I generally get my 2 line elements and set my clock on an irregular schedule. And technically, using a computer to predict satellite passes ahead of time doesn't require an accurate clock. It just requires current Keplerian elements.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think some people realize that there is some nuance to my position on this subject. It isn't simply "Paper good, Computer bad". There are some obvious benefits to logging with a computer (assuming, like one person pointed out, that you have one in the shack). This is especially true if you have to "manage" your contacts. I don't need to do that. And I know from LONG experience (20+ years) that electronic media is not a long term storage solution. If you love your electronic logging programs, have at it. And that suggestion to print out the logs on paper is a darn good idea if you keep your logs on a computer, 'cause you may just need it in the future. A "belt and braces" approach never hurt. But then, keeping a printout is essentially argeeing with my thesis, that paper is more stable than any electronic medium.
Me? I prefer to log on paper to begin with. Personal preference of a computer geek.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I should know better!!! Lost a year's worth of loggings to a virus. Even the log file I recovered off the hard drive was corrupt!!!
Never again. Its paper from now on baby.
P
|
| |
|
Code / No-Code Taken Ill
|
|
|
by AB0OX on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess the mere existance of this forum signals the impending end for our dear friend, the "Code / No-Code" debate.
Please send postings to the forum of your choice.
|
| |
|
My Log is Bigger than Your Log (humor warning)
|
|
|
by AB0OX on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are two things you can do with your logs. You can keep them for posterity, or you can allow them to wander off.
If you allow them to wander off, perhaps they'll send a card when they get to wherever they're going. If you keep them, you'll always be able to record that QSL card that arrived 26 years too late because of a postal oversight.
You can choose one of two primary log entry methods. You can make your primary entry by hand on paper, or on a computer.
If you transcribe by hand, you can (if you like) later enter these into your computer (should you have one). If you enter your records directly into your computer, you can print them off (before or after converting to Excel).
There are two things you can do with your log data. You can keep it for yourself, or share it.
If you want to keep it for yourself, paper is a good choice if you're not in the habit of losing things. Certainly, it's harder to hack your bookshelf than your computer.
If you want to share your log -- for instance on EQSL or the ARRL Logbook of the World, then you will find a computer (at some stage) to be an advantage.
If you are a contester, sharing your log will help your scores :)
If you use a computer, here are some tips:
1) If you log by contest, combine the contest logs into one master log.
2) Upload your contest logs to the sharing sites listed above. This means more people have to lose your log before it really disappears.
3) Back up to another hard drive or computer. CDs are also good for long term storage. Tapes and floppies are not good choices.
4) Upgrade your logging program regularly and use it to re-read and re-save your old master log file. This will keep the format from going out of date. This will happen automatically if you keep and maintain a master log file.
5) A log converted to Excel should be considered "full" at around 60,000 entries. Much more than that will overload the spreadsheet. Consider yourself fortunate to have multiple logs for this reason.
6) Customize the fields in your log to allow for comments or non-scoring data.
7) Print your log if it makes you happy. That way, if the QSL you needed never comes, you can hang your log on the wall of the shack :)
Remember always! Keep two photocopies (or reliable electronic media copies in .ADIF format) of your logs in your safe deposit box, as most homeowners' policies will not cover QSL cards without verifiable documentation.
I hope that clears things up,
Jack
|
| |
|
3 Q's a day is NOT a lot!
|
|
|
by K3FT on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The poster who noted that he was skeptical of the guy making an average of 3Q's a day (referencing his 15,000 Q total since 1990) might want to stop and think about it for just a second.
Consider this..
If you are a SERIOUS active contester and participate in JUST the six major contests each calendar year for an appreciable amount of time available in the 48 hours per contest period (CQ WW DX SSB/CW, ARRL DX CW/SSB, CQ WPX CW/SSB) it is exceedingly and most probably likely that you will work about 1,000-2,000 Q's per contest.
That's (conservatively speaking) 6,000-12,000 Q's in just ONE year. Do that for 5 years and you have 30,000 -60,000 Q's total. Toss in FD, a few State QSO parties, Sweepstakes and the ARRL 10M contest along with a few others and it is QUITE likely that the total per year will be even higher.
Of course, your totals will vary based on participation, number of contests, and station capabilities. BUT.. even if you halve that 1,000-2,000 Q number to 500-1,000 Q/contest you will STILL exceed the 15,000 QSO number in a 13 year period.
Heck.. I've only been SERIOUSLY contesting since 1995 and operate just 2 contests a year under my call (rest are with Multi-multi (M/M) stations under a different callsign) and in the 7.5 years elapsed time I've accumulated over 10,000 Q's.
If I count the M/M Q totals along with mine it would be well above 100,000 Q's total.
So, 15,000 QSO's since 1990 is not only QUITE feasible to accomplish.
73
Chuck K3FT
|
| |
|
RE: 3 Q's a day is NOT a lot!
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have always had my logs on paper. I have a complete logbook at my old QTH from that location and I was wondering what to do about the new. I am planning on creating logs in excel or access and entering all my old Q's from old QTH and new Q's from present QTH into them. I will then printout everything and keep them in a binder. This way, everything is neat and presentable (My old logbook had hand drawn columns, some written poorly, etc). I can even take my log with me... I can place it on one of those USB drives that fits on a keychain - great if you're taking the laptop along on your travels or have access to a PC during portable ops. That's the overall plan...
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0TONE:
The gist of the original article was, to quote its author's later summary, "The odds of your logs being readable decades down the road is higher when using a paper logbook, as opposed to logging software (which does have its place)".
Rebuttals have asserted that
1. by frequently printing one's computer log using OCR fonts, long-term readability is at least as good as paper logs
2. the benefits of computer logging are more valueable and broadly applicable then implied in the original post
No one has argued that computer logging is for everyone, or that its a better use of money than upgrading one's rig or antenna system.
I did take the position that using a computer without first learning the basics of modern computing would likely result in loss of data and/or operational capability of some magnitude.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: 3 Q's a day is NOT a lot!
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB2FCV
Before you head off to build your own logger using Excel or Access, take a look at DXKeeper. Its built using the Jet database engine, which means that you can view and manipulate its database files in Access or Excel should you wish to do so. It provides full logging functionality with a bias towards support for DXing, with realtime award tracking and QSL card/label generation. There is modest support for contesting (including Cabrillo export) but no scoring.
DXKeeper is free, and available via http://www.qsl.net/dxlab .
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA4KOE:
You lost a year of loggings to a virus?
That must mean you went for a year without taking a valid backup, or somehow misplaced the valid backups you did take.
Your decision is akin to refusing to drive a car because you don't check the fuel gauge and once ran out of gas.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
RE: 3 Q's a day is NOT a lot!
|
|
|
by K3FT on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Postscript.. Even when I was NOT a contester... just ragchewed and general operating.. VERY casual. After just 6 years I had 10,000 QSO's AND I wasn't really trying to make a lot of QSO's. They 'just happened' as I operated. So 15,000 Q's in the period of time he speaks of is NOT hard to do, at all.
Logs - I have original ARRL logbooks back to beginning of my ham career - Dec 1968. Paper has held up perfectly and without deteriorating due to acid content. Of course, they are kept in a binder and out of the sun and the environment. They are, as I noted, also in EXCEL format.
Each method has its strong points and weak points. But for EASE of use, ease of usage, and ability to be useful even if ZERO technology is present - paper logs win hands down.
For ADMINISTRATIVE work such as sorting, searching, extracting, etc.. NOTHING beats an electronically stored and available log.
But for having it there when the technology fails or is unavailable.. paper is it.
The arguments about losing logs to fire, sweat, acid damage, etc. are valid. HOWEVER< they can be mitigated quite easily. Fire? Store them in a box that is fire-resistant. Sweat/spills/smears/streaks? Store the log pages in clear plastic page protectors. Acid damage? Buy and use acid-free paper. THOSE fixes are easy. Losing them? Make a copy and put the copy somewhere safe. If you are REALLY paranoid.. make a copy on acid-free paper, put the pages in plastic page protectors and store it in the bank safe deposit box. :-)
K3FT
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by VE2DC on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing that has cropped up is... although it shouldn't happen... logs have been lost. It's probably not surprising... there are still more than a few people out there who use computers, but really don't know how to protect their data.
One very simple and effective suggestion I would make is to e-mail a copy of your log to a friend... he can do likewise with his log to you. That way, if you ever do have a hardware incident, and your usual backup fails... you have a fallback.
Very effective, and you don't need any special hardware.
Beware of a few insecure procedures...
Back-up to a floppy. Good, if you rotate the floppies, and don't leave the most current one in the drive. Check them from time to time... they frequently deteriorate as time goes by. Also, some logs don't fit without spanning floppies...
Backup to tape/CD/Zip. Good... but have more than one generation... and *verify* the files have been written correctly. I've seen more than a few commercial disasters where this wasn't done... and I've had problems with CDRW and tape drives often... they are actually pretty flakey!
Back-up to another directory... fine, if the disk doesn't crash... and it will eventually. Not recommended except in conjunction with another method.
Back-up to a second hard disk drive... better, but a virus can clobber both drives. I helped a college professor recover 2 years of research data he very nearly lost this way.
Backup up to a network drive... even better, but depending on the virus... same weakness as previous...
I copy my log overnight to a second drive... and once per week I send it by email... also right after a contest...
Cheers...
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by WO5I on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Forgive me if this point has been made already, as I haven't read every reply in full.
Paper logs and computer logs are NOT mutually exclusive!
Virtually ALL the commercial and freeware logging programs have a canned report printing facility. All you have to do is print a copy of your log every so often. How often you do it is up to you.
Personally, I print out my log weekly. I keep my paper log in a notebook, listed chronologically just like it would be if I were using a #2 pencil to enter the data. Makes for easy referencing and browsing for nostalgia's sake.
I also religiously back-up my soft copy onto a floppy. When the floppy gets too full to hold anymore entries, I transfer it to a CD-ROM. I don't know what the shelf life of a CD-ROM is, but I'd be willing to bet it will be readable much longer than I'll be physically able to read it! Hi Hi
A computer is a tool, just like a soldering iron or a pencil. How you use it depends on your preferences and skills.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by WO5I on September 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Forgive me if this point has been made already, as I haven't read every reply in full.
Paper logs and computer logs are NOT mutually exclusive!
Virtually ALL the commercial and freeware logging programs have a canned report printing facility. All you have to do is print a copy of your log every so often. How often you do it is up to you.
Personally, I print out my log weekly. I keep my paper log in a notebook, listed chronologically just like it would be if I were using a #2 pencil to enter the data. Makes for easy referencing and browsing for nostalgia's sake.
I also religiously back-up my soft copy onto a floppy. When the floppy gets too full to hold anymore entries, I transfer it to a CD-ROM. I don't know what the shelf life of a CD-ROM is, but I'd be willing to bet it will be readable much longer than I'll be physically able to read it! Hi Hi
A computer is a tool, just like a soldering iron or a pencil. How you use it depends on your preferences and skills.
|
| |
|
RE: 3 Q's a day is NOT a lot!
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3FT:
You wrote:
The poster who noted that he was skeptical of the guy making an average of 3Q's a day (referencing his 15,000 Q total since 1990) might want to stop and think about it for just a second.
I wish to point out that I wasn't skeptical, it is entirely possible to even double that. But not at the rate that I personally make QSO's. Last night I had two chatty CW QSO's. Took me about an hour, not including the time I took calling CQ, changing bands (one was on 20m, the other on 40m), and generally fiddling around.
The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't leave you much time to do more than exchange calls and signal reports. Now, I have operated during a contest or two (and may just do some during the upcoming VHF contest, using CW just to be different), but I find that it is not for me, mostly. Your mileage may vary.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WO5I:
Just be sure you buy good quality CD's, some of the lower price ones have a limited useful lifetime. Has something to do with the dyes breaking down. I don't know all the details offhand, but I am sure you can find out on the web.
|
| |
|
Sage advice on CD-R's used for archiving purposes
|
|
|
by N2KMF on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I found this link:
http://www.k-ar.com/downloads/techinfo/Archiving20With%20CD-R%20discs%20V5.pdf
Good advice on how to archive stuff on CD-R's. But I'm still gonna log on paper... ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Sage advice on CD-R's used for archiving purpo
|
|
|
by WO5I on September 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, I buy quality CD-R's. But I still go for the "belt and suspenders" approach of printing my logs weekly as a fault-free back-up. My only vulnerability is a fire which would destroy all paper and computer media. For that reason I'm going to back up my log file on my work computer as well as my home one.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by AE6AT on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Enjoyed your article, it does strike a cord with me. I have tried using computer logging software for both contests and DX and find I do need the computer for contests like you say. For DX I find that writing in the Log is just more fun and personal for me, my handwriting can be more expressive and my state of mind is more evident and it just makes me feel good to add a call. When I go back and look over my log it brings back the feeling I had when I wrote it.
Respectfully from one operator to another,
Don AE6AT
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by W3DCG on September 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah...I'm thinking backup external hard-drive combined with the most obvious ultimate backup:
Periodic printing of the computer based log book.
|
| |
|
Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by WB4TJH on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree that a paper log is much simpler and more fun, anyway. I can see computer logging for contests, but since I LOATHE, HATE and DESPISE worthless contests (as far as I am concerned ALL contests are silly and pointless), I will continue to log with a paper logbook.In my 30 plus years on HF I still love rag chewing and especially QRP cw and ssb ragchewing. A traditional log book has served me well and will continue to serve me, and it doesn't fade away.By the way, if you enjoy contesting that's fine...I have no argument with you.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by WD8LQB on September 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I keep a computer log and a printed copy. I currently operate 100% mobile, so I am either writing contact info into a logbook or using a tape recorder. I later enter the information into the logging software that I use. I make daily backups using a Zip drive ( with two identical backup zip disks), and also make regular backups using my CD-RW drive. I make neat printed copies from the software also. Between the handwritten log, multiple software backups and printed copy, I am pretty well covered.
|
| |
|
RE: Computer Logging vs. the Paper Logbook
|
|
|
by K1YA on September 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have decided to start having my log entries tattooed to my body. I figure if they are small enough, my existing 10k contacts will maybe go waist high. So that will leave me with maybe another 20k to go. And if I start running out of room, I can gain weight and eke out a bit more space around the belly.
And it's a great locker room conversation piece to boot !!
|
| |
|
I use both.
|
|
|
by WB4M on February 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Backing up a computer log only takes a few minutes at the most. Only an idiot does not back up important data.
I enjoy using computer logging programs, but keep paper logs in the filing cabinet, just in case.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
A computer in your radio
Is Your PC Vintage? Maybe it Should Be.
The Blessing of Echolink
Hams and Computers
eQSL Versus LOTW Versus Paper QSL Cards
Other General Articles
eHam.net - server performance issues
USS Indianapolis CA-35 Radio Room
Lecher Wire Follow-Up
eHam Hiccup
Icom HM 98 or HM 133 Hand Mic Project
|
