Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: Today at 10:07:26 AM 
Started by HAMSTUDY - Last post by HAMSTUDY
Your impressions as well as what you read about research and statistics.....

Actually the relevant phrase for "impressions" and "research and statistics" is "garbage in; garbage out."

Disregarding any scientific, or more precisely, statistical pretension, I can offer my impressions.

Giving a numerical value to impressions is completely lacking in scientific meaning. It's a commonly-used device to provide an illusion of scientific value. The shining example of this essential falsity is the grade-point average calculated to the hundredth of a grade point. Grades are usually A=excellent, B=above average, C= average and so on. The scientist/statistician asks "what is the meaning of one one-hundredth of a grade point average somewhere between above average and average?"

My impressions:

Conditions of propagation back then were absolutely terrific and conditions now, relatively speaking, are kinda stinky. Radio still works, definitely.

Back then man made noise was when a car drove by--you could hear the ignition. But there were much fewer cars. If you had fluorescent lamps in your house (we did but they were uncommon) you could hear them start up.  Manmade noise was not a big deal.

Degradation of conditions from then to now depends on what bands you are talking about, propagation specifics, etc. There's not always a direct relationship between solar cycle and man-made noise except on certain bands and in certain kinds of locations.

Gear is much better now in so very many ways. The world of high end commercial antennas especially.

That's what I think, more or less. Tomorrow I might feel differently. Averaging my "data" would be meaningless.  Grin

Yeah, I get science vs. impressions.  That's why I used the word "impressions" - but thanks for the lectures on garbage in garbage out, numerical values, and everything else.

I left out the discussion of the improvements in technology - no doubt radio and related signal processing technologies are much stronger in many respects in 2016 than they were in 1958.

Altogether though, it appears that even with much more man made noise and much better technology, the solar cycle seems to have the much larger impact on radio communications, I think.  I can't prove it (even though I believe in science) and I wasn't doing any ham operating in 1958 so I don't have any impressions to share.  

So, I was just looking for opinions based on whatever anyone wants to base their opinions on.

 92 
 on: Today at 10:03:16 AM 
Started by KZ7ZUL - Last post by KD0REQ
(updating an old joke) got a spaceship?

getting away from noise is like folks getting away from allergens and moving to Arizona in the 1920s... they brought their allergens with them (plants, pets, linty furniture and clothing), and today it's no major change.  beyond the atmospherics, almost any electronic gizmo in this solid-state age throws noise.  even your gollywog fancy new lightbulbs.  if you have two radios on in the shack, you could even get interferences from them.

so if you were lucky enough to make no noise and no prospect of neighbors coming along in a couple dozen years the high point in your property search... there is still powerline breakdown noise.  still noise from the HVAC, appliances, possibly some switcher pips from the power supply.  computers and TVs and LEDs, oh my.

clean up what you can locally, play with antennas, maybe get an antenna noise bridge ahead of the radio.  I'm working on the latter two this spring/summer.

 93 
 on: Today at 09:56:47 AM 
Started by WB8PFZ - Last post by N4ATS
Active Low

 94 
 on: Today at 09:52:44 AM 
Started by KD8MJR - Last post by K7JQ
First, let me say that I have no bone to pick with the 7300 or any aspect of its operation.  I'm sure it's a fine radio.
What I do find a bit laughable is the idea that these YouTube videos somehow show that it's just as good as radios costing 3 or 4 times as much.  Don't we all want that to be true?  As one poster said - the higher priced radios just have more bells and whistles - no real performance improvements.  Wouldn't that be nice?

It's a shame all this is being done during a sunspot lull.  During the last real peak (Circa 2001 - not the atrocious cycle we just went through), I routinely had JA's and VK's at 20 - 30 over S9 here on the east coast.  20m was open 24 hours a day - 15m sometimes 20 hours a day.  The signals on 10m were huge and crowding was common on 20m.  Noise levels here on 20m - 10m were S1 to S2 worst case.  Truly copying a weak signal (like Greenland) with multiple strong signals close by was a real challenge.  At one point I was using an IC-706 - not a bad radio, not a great radio.  The BDR or lack of it made any weak signal work almost impossible.  An IC-746 offered some improvement.  A TS-2000 was a complete waste under those conditions.  The FT-1000 Mark V fully loaded with crystal filters did the trick.  And it had some bells and whistles too.

Comparing these radios on a noisy 40m signal hardly tells the story in any realistic fashion.  It might be a good test of the NB or the typically crappy sounding DSP noise reduction.

As one poster pointed out - take all of this with a grain of salt.  It's all just personal opinion - as are my comments.  Add in the fact that for some the 7300 is their first radio and they have no real frame of reference for comparison and it's easy to come away thinking that an FT-5000 or K3S offers no value for the additional cost.

I'm not trying to rain on the 7300 parade - I think it's great to see such enthusiasm and delight by those that have purchased one.  Enjoy it and have a little fun. And by the way - I don't own an FT-5000 or K3S, but I would if I could.


Quite valid observations. Yes, propagation during this solar cycle downturn has been crappy....tough to see how the 7300 would fare under crowded band, big-signal scenarios with its' selectivity and rejection capabilities, compared to the more expensive radios. It's only been in the USA for one month...no big contests yet to experience any crowded band activity. But, are the performance and convenience features of radios costing thousands more merely marginal in a real-world scenario for the majority of hams...in other words, how much real value added for the additional cost? As you say, a matter of personal opinion and choice, where no one is right or wrong.

With the 7300, the craze of SDR in one box is now very appealing to the ham community, especially at its' price point and previously expensive feature pack options (spectrum scope, waterfall, audio scope, touch screen, SDR architecture, etc). And Icom bills it as an entry-level radio! It's probably setting records for early adoption sales. While some reviewers complain of omitted features (what do they expect for its' price?), I haven't seen reports of any real "bugs" so far. Let's see how it plays out, and sets the stage for the future.


 95 
 on: Today at 09:44:48 AM 
Started by KJ6ZOL - Last post by KJ6ZOL
Some of you may remember the time last year when my G5RV Lite was ruined in a storm. Well, yesterday my QTH had 45 mph wind gusts, and today the wreckage of my G5RV Jr. (the replacement antenna) is lying on the ground. I think that it's time to splurge on a vertical antenna. I'm looking at the Hustler 4BTV. The eucalyptus trees I used for the G5RV mount seem to be really brittle and have lost a lot of limbs. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I think it's time to move past wire antennas.  Roll Eyes Shocked Angry

 96 
 on: Today at 09:43:11 AM 
Started by N9AVY - Last post by KB6NU
I teach one-day Tech classes here, and I have to say that they've been very successful, not only in getting folks licensed, but getting people on the air. My philosophy is to get folks their license as quickly as possible and then let them learn by doing, not by sitting in a class falling asleep.

Someone said above that one-day Tech classes shortchange the students. I disagree. Even 21 hours of instruction just barely scratch the surface of what ham radio is all about. The only way you can learn to be an amateur radio operator is by doing things, not sitting in a class.

In addition, I consider myself to be Elmer of each and every one of my students, and I tell them so. Those that are truly interested in amateur radio will avail themselves of that and I give them the help that they need to get on the air and have fun with ham radio.

The proof of the pudding is that you can't check into a net or go to an amateur radio event around here and not meet one of my students. These are people that are doing all kinds of fun ham radio stuff. I'm proud of that.

 97 
 on: Today at 09:39:18 AM 
Started by W5JON - Last post by KK4YDR
I just get tired of people thinking that the FCC makes law. They do not. The congress does. But even the FCC thinks they make law.

 98 
 on: Today at 09:32:07 AM 
Started by HAMSTUDY - Last post by KE6EE
Your impressions as well as what you read about research and statistics.....

Actually the relevant phrase for "impressions" and "research and statistics" is "garbage in; garbage out."

Disregarding any scientific, or more precisely, statistical pretension, I can offer my impressions.

Giving a numerical value to impressions is completely lacking in scientific meaning. It's a commonly-used device to provide an illusion of scientific value. The shining example of this essential falsity is the grade-point average calculated to the hundredth of a grade point. Grades are usually A=excellent, B=above average, C= average and so on. The scientist/statistician asks "what is the meaning of one one-hundredth of a grade point average somewhere between above average and average?"

My impressions:

Conditions of propagation back then were absolutely terrific and conditions now, relatively speaking, are kinda stinky. Radio still works, definitely.

Back then man made noise was when a car drove by--you could hear the ignition. But there were much fewer cars. If you had fluorescent lamps in your house (we did but they were uncommon) you could hear them start up.  Manmade noise was not a big deal.

Degradation of conditions from then to now depends on what bands you are talking about, propagation specifics, etc. There's not always a direct relationship between solar cycle and man-made noise except on certain bands and in certain kinds of locations.

Gear is much better now in so very many ways. The world of high end commercial antennas especially.

That's what I think, more or less. Tomorrow I might feel differently. Averaging my "data" would be meaningless.  Grin

 99 
 on: Today at 09:11:19 AM 
Started by K5ACL - Last post by W5WSS
Hello It is true that one can opt to use an analyzer located at the antenna terminals but that assumes that the coaxial antenna feed line is not going to alter your tuning at the station end. Have you measured the match on all the bands with the analyzer located at the station end of your antenna coaxial feed line?

I have a ground mounted 9 band vertical I use a DX Engineering radial Plate, 62 DX Engineering radials, I have bonded the Radial plate to the antenna NEG binding post using a 5" short length X 3" wide tinned copper strip. I have the antenna feed line shield connected to the radial plate UHF barrel connector via the PL-259 connector screwed on while I have an 8ft ground rod adjacent to and connected to the radial plate using a #4 solid copper wire for lightning mostly.

An 1:1 current Balun such as a DXE BAL05-H05-A is optional as is a VFCM Choke if you plan on using these located at the antenna feed point then have them installed prior to your tuning up the system.

Once all this was installed THEN I commenced with tune up of the antenna and did so at the station end of the antenna coaxial feed line. This coaxial feed line is DXE 400 Max 100FT and very low loss so I was not concerned about advantages VS disadvantages relative to tuning the antenna AT the antenna feed point VS tuning at the station end but wanted to avoid issues such as close bodily proximity De-tuning best avoided from inside the shack at the equipment end of the antenna feed line.

I can not comment on exactly what is happening but looks like you are on the path to good performance.

73

 100 
 on: Today at 09:00:26 AM 
Started by HAMSTUDY - Last post by HAMSTUDY

Thinking back to 1958 and considering your experience and your impressions as well as what you read about research and statistics.....

If the solar cycle in 1958 on a scale of 1-10 was a 10, what number would you give the current solar cycle as of 2016?

If the man made noise in 1958 on a scale of 1-10 was a 1, what is the current level of man made noise (wireless devices, other electronics, etc)? 

Of the two today (the lesser propagation benefit from the current solar cycle and more man made noise currently) what percent of the degradation (2016 vs 1958) is due to the lesser solar cycle and what percent is due to more noise? 

As a possible example, maybe the current solar cycle in 2016 is a 3 and the man made noise is now a 9 and as a combined result maybe the lesser solar cycle contributes 90% and the higher noise contributes 10% to today's less favorable radio conditions?  (This is just a guess/example).  What do you think?

Pages: Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!