Now THIS is the kind of answer I like to see on questions like this.
VERY well put Bob, thanks for sharing.

Paul
kl0an



Bob Monaghan wrote:
I suspect we old-timers are wrong in believing that more radios were
designed or made in the past than today, probably by factors of 500% or
more. The main reason is QRP radios using modern ICs for the receivers and
MOSFET transmitters, coupled with a revival of nostalgia tube simple
transmitters.

Our campus radio club W5YF is building several pixie-2 cw transceivers
($10 kits from HSC) as a project for newcomers. As part of an IEEE
construction and kit building event tonight, they are offering free SWL
radio kits, free robotic kits to students to encourage them to build
electronics skills, learn to solder, etc. We are also building a cross
band repeater (for ballooning), an emergency power system, a VLF beacon
transmitter (of our own design), and various other antenna projects.

There are lots more people in amateur radio today than in the past too.

Many of the projects built in the past were slavish copies from articles
in QST or the Handbooks (ARRL, RSGB..), since relatively few could design
Pi networks etc. Today, software makes it easy to customize a design to
parts available cheaply, making many designs "originals" ;-)

The cost of constructed electronics, esp. with SMC, has dropped (along
with low cost labor etc.) such that kits like heathkit are more costly to
build than to buy, due to need to write instructions manuals etc. ;-(

Lots more information is available online too, making it possible to do
things with surplus "junque" that we couldn't before due to lack of specs
or pinouts etc. Similarly, lots more projects are being built from online
articles of other folks successful projects.

EBay has made huge amounts of surplus test equipment available, moving it
from inactive users to those having a need for such items, and reducing
the cost of electronics construction. At our local sidewalk sale last
weekend (http://people.smu.edu/arc/sidewalk.html), I picked up a large
working VTVM that also did RMS volts and resistance and even capacitance
from pfs to 2,000 uF, as well as 4,000 volt scale volts - for $5, 8 digit
counter and display with reset for $1, and a computer UPS with 12v SLA for
$3. I can't build an SLA battery charger for that, or a capacitance meter,
so one reason some folks aren't building is that buying used or online is
much more cost effective, plus provides extra features (e.g., a VTVM+, a
300 watt sine wave inverter etc.).

One interesting argument put forth by Forest Mims III (pop tronics author,
in Nuts and VOlts magazine recently) is that we are no longer component
level builders, but rather system level designers. So I'm designing a
cross band repeater with CW-IDer, beacon DF transmitter, and possibly ATV
transmitter for our club's 75th anniversary high altitude balloon project.
The CW-IDER (from K1EL) is a single chip microcontroller which not only
does the whole morse code ID message generation, including sidetones (for
7 messages ;-), but also does the 10 minute (0 to 600 second delay) timer
for the repeater - for $8, preprogrammed, including mailing. What would
have been a major project (CW-IDer for VLF beacon and balloon project) is
now a single component and ten minute ordering form away. ;-) Sure, I
could build one from an EPROM and logic and timers - but not for $8.
Should I feel bad I'm not doing discrete logic work again, or be happy I
can focus on creating other functionality in the system? Hmmm? ;-)

Similarly, many radios are rather complete today, unlike in the past. You
needed to have an outboard audio filter with some rigs, today, DSPs are
built in. You needed a VHF SWR meter, now some rigs have these built-in,
along with lots of other functions. So the need to design and build has
been decreased as the complexity of equipment has increased. The cost of a
used 2m handheld radio (often $50 even for an older synthesized rig) is so
low that you can hardly build such a complex item except to say you did
so.

On the other hand, I think there is a lot more interest and construction
where it does count, e.g., building antennas, as the rec.radio.antennas
group suggests.

So I think we should be happy that modern technology has eliminated the
need to build needed "accessories" to our main radios, which now include
such needed features (and many others ;-). We also don't have to build
from the ground up, since used gear offers a lower cost starting point to
building a station. On the other hand, many ham stations today are much
more complex than in the past. Most of us run HF and VHF/UHF, many do
multiple modes, including digital modes, and work specialty areas (like
ATV or satellites). Our focus is not on building a single radio
transmitter, rather we are focusing on expanding our radio station
capabilities in modes and bands and facilities (including emergency
power..).

my $.02 ;-)

bobm

Well do you think it is? I personally can't think of any other
passtime accessible to the individual which requires such a high
degree of technical knowledge to succeed at. If anyone can think of
something more complex, let's hear it!
==============================
What about completely homebrewing a telescope ?


Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:58:17 +1000, "Peter Parker"
wrote:

This is a pointless question.

In that case, please accept my humble apologies for having the
audacity to ask it.

Any hobby can be made as technical or non-technical as its adherant wants.
None is necessarily superior to any other if that's what you were getting
at.

Thanks. My views on flower-arranging have gone up stratospherically.

And what is your definition of 'succeeding at'?

To be able to design and build a receiver, transmitter, amp; whatever
and get it working to expectations.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:32:22 GMT, "Highland Ham"
wrote:

==============================
What about completely homebrewing a telescope ?

Are you serious? We have kids in junior school who do that; grind and
polish their own mirrors - the whole process. Maybe not up to Zeiss
standards, but completely HB from start to finish nevertheless!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

To be able to design and build a receiver, transmitter, amp; whatever
and get it working to expectations.
--

Well that will never happen with the New so called Hams, most have a hard time
hooking Mike.

On 07 Sep 2004 16:21:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:


Basket Weaving 101, probably has more Technical knowlege then HAM RADIO has
today.

So you are also doing 47GHz moonbounce then?

Not conclusive - golf is for the brain-dead, as are off-the-shelf
rigs.

"John Walton" wrote in message
...
Actually Mongolian culture is very advanced. You can even golf there.
"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Sadly they are misled by the Mongolian hordes of
CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams who have corrupted
Ham Radio in recent years.

No, the question is not pointless. Ham Radio is a technical pursuit.

If it's not technical for you, then you may be an
unwitting CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham

"Peter Parker" wrote in message
...
"Paul Burridge" wrote in message
...
Well do you think it is? I personally can't think of any other
passtime accessible to the individual which requires such a high
degree of technical knowledge to succeed at. If anyone can think of
something more complex, let's hear it!
This is a pointless question.
Any hobby can be made as technical or non-technical as its adherant wants.
None is necessarily superior to any other if that's what you were getting
at.

Bill Turner ) writes:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:51:04 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:

Well do you think it is? I personally can't think of any other
passtime accessible to the individual which requires such a high
degree of technical knowledge to succeed at. If anyone can think of
something more complex, let's hear it!

__________________________________________________ _______

Homebuilt aircraft, especially if home designed.


Bill W6WRT


There have always been technical hobbies, astronomy, amateur radio, rocketry,
home machine shop, and even aircraft building. I'm not sure that it
matters so much which is most technical, but I suspect many of those
hobbies share the problems of amateur radio. We don't think of those
other hobbies because they aren't all that visible beyond their circles,
which of course is the case for amateur radio, likely even more so in the case
fo ham radio as a technical hobby.

Michael VE2BVW

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:00:48 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:51:04 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:

Well do you think it is? I personally can't think of any other
passtime accessible to the individual which requires such a high
degree of technical knowledge to succeed at. If anyone can think of
something more complex, let's hear it!

_________________________________________________ ________

Homebuilt aircraft, especially if home designed.

No, that's just more _dangerous_. Unless you're into big toob linears,
of course. :-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.