A shame this won't be in QST where it belongs.

[k4kyv]

From current issue of ARRL LETTER.


==> WHAT'S COMING UP IN THE MARCH/APRIL ISSUE OF QEX

Jack Smith, K8ZOA, provides an interesting look at carbon composition
resistor aging as well as inductive and capacitive effects of other
resistor construction types in "Carbon Composition, Carbon Film and
Metal Oxide Film Resistors."

[W1UJR]

I saw that as well Don, and had the same thought. 

I do recall that QST did host a similar article not too long ago, about almost the same topic.
See --> http://www.arrl.org/members-only/qqnsearch.html?search=1&words=resistor&name=&call=&year=&month=&selpub%5B%5D=QST&selpub%5B%5D=QEX&selpub%5B%5D=Ham+Radio


QEX, like the AWA Review, tends to favor greater in-depth articles, which might not be of interest to general readership.
I am, however, grateful for the forum in which to read such, and despite my desire to see it in QST, understand that it may be of limited interest to today's ham at large. Most of the gear bought today is really beyond the means of the average ham to service.
It is only those of us afflicted/blessed with the love of old gear to whom this really matters.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Doing a search on the ARRL/QEX/Ham Radio magazine article index, 113 different articles pop up on resistor articles, using FBTO article search, 6 more appear in 73 mag. I didn't check the Electric Radio article index because it's hosted by QSL.net and it is down. A number of these articles talk about carbon composition resistors.

[k4kyv]

...despite my desire to see it in QST, (I) understand that it may be of limited interest to today's ham at large. Most of the gear bought today is really beyond the means of the average ham to service.

A tacit admission by the League that amateur radio has strayed far from its original goals and purpose, and from those advocated by the League under the original incentive licensing exploration in the early 60's.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

A tacit admission by the League that amateur radio has strayed far from its original goals and purpose, and from those advocated by the League under the original incentive licensing exploration in the early 60's.

The ARRL stated years ago that the goals that they thought were achievable with incentive licensing did not materialize. The original goals are dead, and have been dead for years; let it go. We're in the 21st century; the "60's" are gone. "SMT" is here to stay

[k4kyv]

The ARRL stated years ago that the goals that they thought were achievable with incentive licensing did not materialize. The original goals are dead, and have been dead for years; let it go. We're in the 21st century; the "60's" are gone. "SMT" is here to stay

When, where and who at ARRL said that?  Is it documented in QST?

SMT=?

If those goals are dead, then what's the point of having the bands still divided into Extra, Advanced and General class subbands?  Why haven't we returned to the pre-incentive licensing structure, allowing Generals full privileges and leaving Extra class once again a certificate of accomplishment that grants nothing additional except a few strokes of the ego?

With the phone band expansion, the licence class subbands are not the problem this used to be for AM operation, but it still makes for very inefficient use of the cw portions.  For example, on 80m, cw operates about 3500-3580; the rest of the "cw" band is filled with data type emissions.  But of that remaining 80 kHz, the bottom 25 is sparsely occupied compared to 3525-3580.

With the foreign phone and data that operates throughout the cw band, the same situation exists even more so on 40.  Usually, cw extends up no higher than about 7050 or 7060, with other modes mixed in.  The area near 7030-40 is dominated by the QRP'ers.  With the bottom 25 kHz restricted to Extra class only and primarily used for DX, there is very little space left for "normal" 40m cw operation by generals and advanced.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Yep. The ARRL screwed up with incentive licensing. Now they are saying, trust us, we know what we're doing. Regulation by bandwidth is a good thing. Same tired old non-thinking by the same tired old crew. The 60's may be over, but the ARRL stupidity it not.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The ARRL stated years ago that the goals that they thought were achievable with incentive licensing did not materialize. The original goals are dead, and have been dead for years; let it go. We're in the 21st century; the "60's" are gone. "SMT" is here to stay

When, where and who at ARRL said that?  Is it documented in QST?

SMT=?

If those goals are dead, then what's the point of having the bands still divided into Extra, Advanced and General class subbands?  Why haven't we returned to the pre-incentive licensing structure, allowing Generals full privileges and leaving Extra class once again a certificate of accomplishment that grants nothing additional except a few strokes of the ego?

With the phone band expansion, the licence class subbands are not the problem this used to be for AM operation, but it still makes for very inefficient use of the cw portions.  For example, on 80m, cw operates about 3500-3580; the rest of the "cw" band is filled with data type emissions.  But of that remaining 80 kHz, the bottom 25 is sparsely occupied compared to 3525-3580.

With the foreign phone and data that operates throughout the cw band, the same situation exists even more so on 40.  Usually, cw extends up no higher than about 7050 or 7060, with other modes mixed in.  The area near 7030-40 is dominated by the QRP'ers.  With the bottom 25 kHz restricted to Extra class only and primarily used for DX, there is very little space left for "normal" 40m cw operation by generals and advanced.

We had a similar discussion back in June 2007. See http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=11410.0
fourth or fifth post I indicated seeing it in a QST editorial (most likely, it was the monthly, "It seems to us" column.

If you have an issue with subbands, you should write a proposal for a change in rule making and submit it to the FCC. You've brought this issue (or at least a perceived issue) up numerous times over many years but you haven't followed through with any action. It should seem clear that the ARRL has no immediate plans to submit a petition to rid us of subbands. I seem to remember a phrase in some correspondence originated by them, "it's part of our amateur tradition" (or something to that effect). However, if "regulation by bandwidth", ever becomes a reality, the continued implementation of subbands probably would become a FCC nightmare to police.

SMT - Surface-Mount Technology

[k4kyv]

The subband problem for AM was pretty much resolved with last year's band expansion. I did bring up the issue of subbands in comments submitted in response to several recent restructuring proposals, and IIRC, the FCC even quoted parts my comments in the band expansion R&O. It's not enough of an issue with me now to make it worthwhile to submit a petition.

The petition submitted by some members of this board to delete subbands by mode was withdrawn for essentially the same reason.

This was a real problem when over 100 kHz of 80m was lying idle because of our old subband structure, while the phone bands were regularly congested beyond usability, and the League had petitioned for a minuscule 25 kHz of phone band expansion as part of "refarming" the novice band.

But with the code test gone, and even the League admitting that incentive licensing was a failure in terms of its originally stated purpose, the only reason I can see that the incentive subbands continue to exist is that neither the League nor the FCC are willing to admit that they made a mistake.

I have Extra class, so it doesn't affect my own operation.  However, I now think that reserving the bottom 100 kHz for cw and digital is not such a bad idea, since the size of the "cw band" is more reasonably based on actual usage.  This is especially true, given the behaviour of certain slopbucketeers in the expanded portion, per the discussion on the other thread.