Reorg should include r.r.a.antennas
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
consider to be a signifigant subset of amateur discussion, namely
antennas. While I consider it signifigant, others may not.
Can someone with a longer expire time on his news spool estimate the
number of articles per month on antennas? I presume Ian or someone has
already done the calculations.
In my view, r.r.a.antennae (antennas?) ought to include discussion of all
kinds of antennas, both theory and construction, and also designs and
design programs for antennas. Reviewing the latest program to design your
own log-periodic, for example, ought to be covered.
Anyone else for r.r.a.antennas?
Robert Smits There is *no* idiotproof filter.
VE7EMD Idiots are proof against anything!
Ladysmith B.C. - Richard Chycoski, VE7CVS
e-mail: e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Dr. Joseph M Zawodny
>In the discussion to date, very little has been said about what I
>consider to be a signifigant subset of amateur discussion, namely
>antennas. While I consider it signifigant, others may not.
>
>Can someone with a longer expire time on his news spool estimate the
>number of articles per month on antennas? I presume Ian or someone has
>already done the calculations.
My guess is that there is a consistent flow of postings in this area.
I have not done the calculations but would guess antenna posts would
be at the double digit % level of total postings.
>
>In my view, r.r.a.antennae (antennas?) ought to include discussion of all
>kinds of antennas, both theory and construction, and also designs and
>design programs for antennas. Reviewing the latest program to design your
>own log-periodic, for example, ought to be covered.
>
>Anyone else for r.r.a.antennas?
>
>
>Robert Smits e-mail: e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
If we believe that cross posting is not a problem (as I do) then I support
subdividing things more than is currently being recommended in options I
or II. I too would like to see a r.r.a.antenna (no plural) group formed
as well as .education, .tcpip, .satellite, .homebrew, .cw, ... . I would
much rather weed out the articles on topics that I am not interested in
by having them appear in subgroups to which I do not subscribe. It would
be nice to have a large number of groups, most with a low level of activity,
that people can choose from to suit their own tastes. Perhaps this is not
plausible or economically sound (net-wise) to get implemented.
--
Joseph M. Zawodny (KO4LW) NASA Langley Research Center
Internet: zaw...@arbd0.larc.nasa.gov MS-475, Hampton VA, 23681-0001
Packet: ko...@wb0tax.va.usa
Ian Kluft
>In the discussion to date, very little has been said about what I
>consider to be a signifigant subset of amateur discussion, namely
>antennas. While I consider it signifigant, others may not.
You suggested it and it was on the 4/14 "evolving proposal" as a newsgroup
under discussion. So it's tentatively on the proposal (to become the CFV)
as long as there continues to be no serious opposition.
I noticed John Thompson expressed support for it but that may not have reached
you at the time you wrote that... (He's downstairs in the same building as me
so his articles don't have to go anywhere before I can read them.)
>Can someone with a longer expire time on his news spool estimate the
>number of articles per month on antennas? I presume Ian or someone has
>already done the calculations.
In the original analysis done on the rra-reorg mail list, antennas were the
#3 topic before being split between the #2 and #4 topics (products/equipment
and homebrew/contruction, respectively.) In our sample, antennas were included
in 10% of the traffic. I suspect that's why there's been no opposition.
The only reason it wasn't on the RFD was because we were trying to keep the
newsgroup count down. It was one that folded well into the other two topics.
I have a script that copies any articles in news.groups with radio in the
subject. (I also had to add a string search for "r.r.a" when this thread
appeared. :-) I'll do a new tally when I'm done with this pass through
news.groups.
>In my view, r.r.a.antennae (antennas?) ought to include discussion of all
antennae are for insects :-) radios have antennas. An "e" is typically
used like this in Biology and by a certain former US Vice President that
helped the media sell a lot of newspapers.
>kinds of antennas, both theory and construction, and also designs and
>design programs for antennas. Reviewing the latest program to design your
>own log-periodic, for example, ought to be covered.
>Anyone else for r.r.a.antennas?
Like I mentioned, I saw more articles about it. If it's as I remember that
there is a handful of supporting articles and no opposition, then it will
become part of the proposal with tonight's tally. (It probably took the
recent few articles to elevate it to that category, though.) More details
when I'm done counting.
--
Ian Kluft KD6EUI PP-ASEL Amdahl Corporation, Open Systems Development
ikl...@uts.amdahl.com Santa Clara, CA
[disclaimer: any opinions expressed are mine only... not those of my employer]
Jack GF Hill
> e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> antennae are for insects :-) radios have antennas. An "e" is typically
> used like this in Biology and by a certain former US Vice President that
> helped the media sell a lot of newspapers.
> >kinds of antennas, both theory and construction, and also designs and
> >design programs for antennas. Reviewing the latest program to design your
> >own log-periodic, for example, ought to be covered.
> >Anyone else for r.r.a.antennas?
> Like I mentioned, I saw more articles about it. If it's as I remember that
> there is a handful of supporting articles and no opposition, then it will
> become part of the proposal with tonight's tally.
Well, it is Sunday night, 4/18 and I'd sure like to see antennas as a
separate newsgroup...I may be able to wade through all the muck and
see what I want when this is over! ;^)
BTW, the arguments for and against the tech/instruction/beginner
groupings have some interesting points.
I would be upset if newcomers were "exiled" to an area where only
newcomers would go. That is NOT how to help elmer these folks into
Amateur Radio, and elmering is a fact of life and a means of our
survival, not just some nice tradition from long ago. In today's
environment, when a newcomer can gain an extra class (remember when you
had to be licensed for two years at Tech or higher before even sitting
for the exam? (not so long ago, either) well, today people need more
guidance because there is less hands on and building of "stuff") in a
few months and need know nothing of the traditions and actually
workings of rigs and equipment, the need for guidance and help is
nearly perpetual. If the creation of a newsgroup for newbies would
mean their exile, I will vote against it since flames aside, they'd be
better served in r.r.a.m
The Instruction group has merit, particularly for question pool
discussions, teaching methodologies, and the like and I'd like to see
that aspect with some focus (and hopefully no regular outbreaks of the
on-going code/no-code flamewars -- of which I am a too often willing
participant... :-{
And too many people have already said this, but most of the
discussions have some tech component, so let the specifics, like
antennas have a group and let the rest go until the next RFD for
r.r.a.tech.
Last, I support Gary and his thoughts on how discontinuous dxing and
repeaters are, and how one could probably use a group (dx) and no
slight intended, but the traffic about repeaters since 1/1/93 has been
focused pretty heavily on who should own a repeaters and whether the
repeater then owns the frequency...hardly good reason for a separate
group.
> when I'm done counting.
Well, Ian, TALLY this one HO! ;^)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jack GF Hill |Voice: (615) 459-2636 - Bicycling and SCUBA Diving |
| P. O. Box 1685 |Modem: (615) 377-5980 - Compu$erve 76427,31 |
| Brentwood, TN 37024|jack...@jackatak.raider.net - Ham Call: W4PPT |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+