Rambo wrote:
On 19 Aug 2019 18:05:34 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"mm0fmf" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Peter
Able writes
On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this group
but here we go.
Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 159.3m
too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 160m
QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the
band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after you've
been active for 60 years or so?

I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we were
nurtured.,,. Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs

AaaaaH!

You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war
surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. The
fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at
around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!

Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like that
was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.

I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of
top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion
transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to
get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few valves
appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.

Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into the
typical UK postage stamp garden.

I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.


no no...after you chebs ....

something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up on
DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......


I don’t know why you don’t just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and ****ting your poor wife’s drawers. Have
some consideration, mate, for ****’s sake. Thanks, Jim.


You on them funny fags ...again?

Jims poor wifes drawers are no laughing matter, Rich. Especially not
after Jims peeled them off his taint.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur