Posted: 11/23/2013 9:14:44 AM EDT
|
I was thinking back to all the struggles and mistakes I made as a new ham (and even some as a old ham)
There can be a lot of snags and some things that people make a big deal over things that really don't matter. So hopefully we can all throw out a few things to hep them (and us) along. Antennas: As one who gets a little wrapped up in it being just right I had a friend recently say Just stick Anything up. I was so wrapped up in getting it right that I wasted a lot of operating time I could have had if I just would have thrown a wire up into a tree and used that while I was working out the details on a permanent antenna. Please Post your Tips |
|
When putting a circuit together, and it doesn't work, remember this:
80% of the time it's a cold solder joint 15% of the time it's the wrong part in the holes 4% of the time there's too much solder there, causing a short 1% of the time it's a bad part. Or something like that. |
|
Just sit down and play with the radio. If you get frustrated with a feature, read the manual again. There's a lot to be learned from older equipment. It also helps you understand the newer features. Talk to other hams about what you are trying/planning to do...they love talking about this stuff...and may just save you a ton of effort. |
|
Quoted:
Before dumping all that $$$ into an amplifier, put up a decent antenna first! No matter how much power you're putting out, you can't work 'em if you can't hear 'em. very good one ask questions......... bounce ideas off other hams.... most of all - get on the damn radio and talk. You won't learn by just owning the hardware. |
|
Upgrade before you waste all your money on vhf. Hf is more expensive and more better.
Most important...don't worry about not having the best antenna in the world..just do the best you can and work with it. Just because it is to low or shouldn't work doesn't mean it wont work. Get on the air. |
|
"You don't need a tuner... just a resonant antenna."
Yes, but you can either use the tuner, get on the air, or spend too much time adjusting the antennas down to the last inch, and then find out it makes very little difference. If your antenna is in the ballpark, the losses from using a tuner are very minor, probably not noticeable. Higher is better... well, not always. If you are trying to communicate within your state, perhaps to a station a few counties away, or closer, lower is better. And 40 meters is often the band to use for this, in daylight, and 80/75 meters at night. No single antenna does it all. Having a few to chose from sometimes is just what the doctor ordered. There is no "best" anything. If _____ is the best, and you just can't afford it without winning the lottery, or something you just otherwise can't do, then something less than "best" might fill the bill. Do what you can, and go play radio. Pretty good, best you can afford, best bang for the buck, and gets the job done are all more important than "best". Don't sweat the little stuff. It's all little stuff. |
|
My recommendation is for folks with/going for just Tech license.
Get your General. I'm more a guy that enjoys to get in and get out kinda guy (that's what she said). I like having the capabilities to talk local, but I enjoy seeing how far my signal will reach. It's one thing to talk 50 miles via repeater, but to talk to another 7,000 miles via atmospheric bounce is another. I got burnt out on UHF/VUF when I first got my ticket back in 2001 and dropped the hobby. 12 years later (thanks to this board) I went and got my General and hate I hadn't done it sooner. |
|
Quoted:
My recommendation is for folks with/going for just Tech license. Get your General. I'm more a guy that enjoys to get in and get out kinda guy (that's what she said). I like having the capabilities to talk local, but I enjoy seeing how far my signal will reach. It's one thing to talk 50 miles via repeater, but to talk to another 7,000 miles via atmospheric bounce is another. I got burnt out on UHF/VUF when I first got my ticket back in 2001 and dropped the hobby. 12 years later (thanks to this board) I went and got my General and hate I hadn't done it sooner. In addition to all that, there's a lot of common material between Tech and General. I was advised to study for my General till I was getting 80% of the practice tests right, then study Tech. I quit studying for my Tech at that point and never went back. Passed them both easily the other day. There is NO reason not to get your General if you are going for Tech. None. |
|
don't be afraid to 'talk' on the radio; it's why you got your ticket in the first place!
try your local club, some suck-but some are a Great Resource of Older Nerds who want to teach you (younger nerd) all about radio! remember Green is the Official Color of the Cool ARFHams 
|
|
Join the ARRL. I don't think anyone agrees 100% with what they do (just like with the NRA), but they do fight for ham radio. We do have allocations that many would love to strip away from us for various reasons. They also have excellent resources, including an archive of QST magazines that goes all the way back to 1915.
To put equipment into perspective, back when I got my license in the mid-'50s, most of us made our own transmitters, and many their own receivers, often from parts salvaged from old radio and TV sets. Naturally, antennas were home-made. The typical Novice transmitter put out between 5 and 25 Watts, and the receivers were a far cry from even the lowest of the entry-level transceivers of today. Antennas were most often dipoles fed with TV twin-lead or open wire feeders because coax was extremely expensive. We didn't have SWR bridges, although the output network of the transmitters would match a wide range of impedances. Today we use either external tuners or internal tuners which have limited matching range. We cut an antenna to the calculated length, threw it up in a tree, and naively worked the world. The same still applies today. A simple dipole, a wide range antenna tuner, and an entry level transceiver put you on the air and the world at your fingertips. This is the receiver many of us started with, the ARC-5 "Command" set. It was built for use in WW2 B-17 and B-24 bombers (heads up, Hitler and Tojo!), sold as surplus for less than $10, and was easily converted for use on 80 or 40 Meters. The selectivity was so broad you could drive a team of Clydesdales through it, so we learned to separate the clutter of signals in our head. 
Our transmitters looked something like this, one or two tubes and and a minimum of parts. 
|
|
Quoted:
Also, see if you can find an ARRL handbook from the '50s or '60s. To me, the theory sections are much more to the point. I was going to say that the older ones were actually Better in some ways. Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks the older ones were a bit clearer. |