When I was in North Carolina I talked to a number of guys on 75 who had started playing with that SDR
technology and there's RF coming out of those boxes that's radio and technological exploration no matter
how you slice it.
Ray T. Mahorney
WA4WGA
UK call sign M0WGA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 17:24
Subject: Re: Is echolink Anti-radio?
Colin,
Very well said, but you didn't mention software defined radios.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:31
Subject: Re: Is echolink Anti-radio?
> it's easy to say echolink is anti radio when you have lots of space to put
> up decent HF antennas and decent VHF/UHF antennas.
> It's not a question of laziness at all. Some folks either don't have the
> know how, or physically cannot put up antennas that will work well enough
> to
> make HF or VHF/UHF a reasonable thing to do. Sticking wire up inside your
> apartment or rented room doesn't work well in conditions like we are
> experiencing. Sometimes, for the elderly, echolink and IRLP are the only
> way to go if they wish to speak to other hams. Lots of places don't have
> club stations set up, and lots of older people wouldn't be mobile enough
> to
> get to those club stations anyway. Often good club stations are setup
> well
> off the beaten path and out of range of bus routes and on the edges or
> outside the major population areas. Basically, unless you can drive or
> get
> a ride, you can't get to most of them.
> I'm sure when SSB came out, and FM, many hams were saying it was anti
> radio
> too because it altered the way in which one communicated. Technically, I
> would agree that echolink is not necesarily always radio bassed, but it
> often is at some point in the communications chain. PC to PC is
> definitely
> not radio, but echolink is not "anti radio" its just not fully and
> completely RF bassed.
> Can you say that modern transceivers are anti radio too because they use
> micro processers and computers to control their various parts? Is a true
> radio something built out of original standard electronics parts? I see
> it
> the same way. One would not hesitate to use all the modern features
> offered
> by digital radios, so then how different is that from using a computer to
> communicate with a radio system over the internet?
> Is DStar anti radio too because it's different and uses alternative forms
> of
> communication?
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Senk, Mark J. (CDC/NIOSH/NPPTL)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:01 AM
> Subject: Is echolink Anti-radio?
>
>
>>
>> My opinion is that using echolink is no more anti-radio than using this =
>> email list to communicate.
>>
>> I was surprised when people used the PA QSO party list to report where =
>> the W3OK bonus station was operating and to ask about certain counties.
>> =
>> Even before the Internet there were printed newsletters and DX spotting
>> =
>> nets. I suppose these have been replaced by e-mail and DX clusters.
>>
>> Notice that I fixed the message Subject and appreciate when people =
>> include e-mail, phone numbers, or echolink numbers.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> Mark J. Senk | 412-386-6513 | [log in to unmask]
>> <img =
>> src=3D"http://212.179.113.209/QRCode/img.php?d=3DBEGIN%3AVCARD%0AN%3AMark=
>> %20J.%20Senk%0ATEL%3A412-386-6513%0AEMAIL%3Azia7%40cdc.gov%0AEND%3AVCARD&=
>> c=3DContact%20Mark%20Senk&s=3D4"
>> alt=3D"QR4Senk" />=A0
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: For blind ham radio operators =
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Dresser
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:30 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Introduction
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I think it's a bit of an over-reaction to say that Echo Link is "anti =
>> radio." On most Sunday mornings, a group of us in the Boston area have =
>> a schedule with a friend of ours in New York city. We use a local =
>> repeater, but our friend connects to the repeater through Echo Link. =
>> Since he doesn't have room for an HF station in his apartment, and =
>> several others in the group are in similar situations, I think it's =
>> perfectly reasonable for us to use Echo Link to maintain our schedule. =
>> The only alternative is using the telephone, which would mean that none =
>> of us used our radios. To me, that's a lot more anti radio than using =
>> Echo Link.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:50
>> Subject: Re: Introduction
>>
>>
>> > As I see it, it's not radio, it's anti radio, and is absolutely =
>> murdering
>> > ham radio. I'll either be actually on the air, or doing something else
>> > =
>> but=20
>> > I
>> > didn't work so hard to get my license to use the computer to make my
>> > contacts for me because I'm too lazy to setup a station and work for =
>> the
>> > contacts. I had a simplex link up for a while but it was a couple=20
>> > statements
>> > I heard on it that made me wake up and realize just how bad echolink =
>> is
>> > hurting things and it was then that I pulled it down for good. I =
>> suppose=20
>> > if
>> > a sponsoring group wants it on 1 of my repeaters, I may consider it =
>> but I
>> > won't be using it and probably won't put it on at all.
>> > ----- Original Message -----=20
>> > From: "Buddy Brannan" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:59 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Introduction
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, John Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> My CW is very slow, I much prefer phone, and would be absolutely
>> >>> ashamed to
>> >>> be on echolink
>> >>
>> >> Well....there's one great way to improve that cw speed :) And as for
>> >> Echolink, why not use it? I mean--you *are* allowed to connect radios
>> >> to it, y'know, so it really *is* radio, except when it isn't.
>> >=20
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date:
>> 10/27/2008
> 7:57 AM
>>
>>
>
|
