|Joined:||Sat, Apr 4th 1998, 00:00||Roles:||N/A||Moderates:||N/A|
|Forums demoted?||Aug 18th 2013, 18:36||10||795||on 28/8/13|
|Why isn't there more action on ARRL forum?||Sep 13th 2012, 00:48||11||3,162||on 29/1/13|
|Forum avatars?||Aug 17th 2011, 16:45||5||1,540||on 21/8/11|
|Operating Furniture||Aug 17th 2011, 01:52||10||3,269||on 27/12/12|
|Radiolocation News||Jul 27th 2011, 01:52||3||1,707||on 28/7/11|
|General Comments||Jul 24th 2011, 21:46||22||7,266||on 29/7/11|
|Browsing QST prior to 2012||AC8SA||4 days, 4 hours ago|
|The original ARRL CDROMs used poor (by modern standards) scans and they were packaged with ancient Windows software - 16 bit, I think. So it's rather difficult to use them with modern computers, and it would not make sense to distribute them today. They need to be redone with high quality scans, OCR, and a good archival format like PDF -- IMHO.
73 Martin AA6E
|Contest QSOs: Valid for LoTW entry?||NE8K||4 days, 17 hours ago|
| It's a good thing to put your QSOs into LoTW, but it doesn't have anything to do with contesting AFAIK. It's so that you and your contacts can get award credits for WAS, DXCC, etc. Your QSO information has to match with the other guy's - callsigns, band, mode, and (very important) date and time. If the UTCs are off by more than 30 minutes plus or minus, LoTW does not get a match. There's no problem with a very short QSO. Names and other info don't count for a match. See https://lotw.arrl.org/lotw-help/key-concepts#confirmation .
As you're finding out, it's hard to keep track of the required logging info by hand unless you're well organized. Most people will be using computer logging programs. If they're interfaced with the rig, they can record time, band, mode, and frequency info automatically. You mostly just have to enter the callsign and required info exchange. They can plug in an automatic "59" report, too. I don't know if honest signal reports are expected by anybody! What matters for LoTW is that the other guy has a matching entry for yours, but the RST report is not important.
(Take this with a grain of salt. I don't do many contests, but I do use LoTW!)
73 Martin AA6E
|Browsing QST prior to 2012||AC8SA||5 days, 4 hours ago|
|Permit me to differ! Uniques should not be a problem -- if you have the full text to work with. Here is Google's output for W1AW. This is searching their book corpus. If you search my callsign or yours, we get zilch because we're not in any of their books, I suppose!|
|Browsing QST prior to 2012||AC8SA||1 week ago|
|An excellent question! This is one of my concerns, too.
The ARRL Store lists publications CD/DVDs back only to 2011. That's where you can get full PDF copies of all the periodicals -- good for browsing, reviewing ads, etc. (What has happened to the earlier years? Are they completely unavailable?)
The trouble is that the disks sell for $25, which is almost doubling the basic membership cost. Why, you might ask, should members be asked to pay full freight for a disk whose content they have already purchased?
Then, if you follow the industry you know that CD/DVD distribution is on the way out. Most content will be distributed online. There is no technical reason why periodical back issues (pdfs) can't be provided online and at virtually no out-of-pocket cost to the League. (Rescanning the older non-pdf issues is a bigger project that is also needed, not to mention providing for full text search across all the archives.)
There would be some organizational problems -- managing intellectual property, loss of DVD sales revenue (minor, I expect), setting up member access methods, etc. These could be overcome rather easily IMO, if we made it a priority to make the archives as available and useful as possible. One idea would be to add access to the annual pdf files to the basic membership for, say, an additional $5. (Or - to gore another ox - raise the dues, as sorely needed IMO, and throw in the digital archives as a new benefit.)
There is a lot of value to Amateur Radio gathering dust in those archives. (And it's not just a QST problem.)
73 Martin AA6E
|Twin Lead and metal mast?||KO0Y||3 weeks, 1 day ago|
|It can run parallel to the mast, but you need to hold it several inches away using standoffs. (My estimate is at least 10 X the twinlead conductor spacing.) If it's too close, the mast will affect the impedance of the twinlead and possibly cause current imbalance.
73 Martin AA6E