Is ours the most technical hobby in the world?
 

Hi guys,

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!

Paul
--

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

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

Your KIDDING RIGHT, what Technical knowledge?

If anyone can think of
something more complex, let's hear it!

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

Yes it is, but such a characteristic seems to be totally lost
on most newcomers who are no better than CBers who buy
their complete station off-the-shelf and even send it back to the
dealer for repairs.

Sadly they are misled by the Mongolian hordes of
CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams who have corrupted
Ham Radio in recent years. (And you don't have to have ever
held a CB licence to qualify for membership of that class
of failures - merely having a station of entirely off-the-shelf
consumer-type purchases puts you fairly and squarely
in that group!)

"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!

Actually Mongolian culture is very advanced. You can even golf there.

Jack

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
Yes it is, but such a characteristic seems to be totally lost
on most newcomers who are no better than CBers who buy
their complete station off-the-shelf and even send it back to the
dealer for repairs.

Sadly they are misled by the Mongolian hordes of
CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams who have corrupted
Ham Radio in recent years. (And you don't have to have ever
held a CB licence to qualify for membership of that class
of failures - merely having a station of entirely off-the-shelf
consumer-type purchases puts you fairly and squarely
in that group!)

"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!

How about amateur robotics and spacecraft ?

Minion

Paul wrote:

Hi guys,

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!

Paul
--

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

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

Your KIDDING RIGHT, what Technical knowledge?

If anyone can think of
something more complex, let's hear it!

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

Erm, I assume you didn't realise I was speaking parochially of
strictly the *homebrew* side of it; in particular those of us who not
only build our own stuff, but *design* it as well???
--

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

I was speaking parochially of
strictly the *homebrew* side of it; in particular those of us who not
only build our own stuff, but *design* it as well???

Well Im affraid that is Very Very Very small minority anymore. Most of the new
guys have a hard time figure out where to plug in the MIC.

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




--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

On 7 Sep 2004 18:39:59 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

[snip]
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..).

I'm sure you're right. But AFAIC, I prefer doing things from the
ground up. That way, you learn a hell of a lot more. I'll stick with
my discretes and continue to make 'em work at RF., for all hassle,
they make life infuriating but *so* much more challenging. Perhaps I
should get a better psychiatrist. :-)
--

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

"Paul Burridge" wrote in message
...
Hi guys,

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.

And what is your definition of 'succeeding at'?

73, Peter VK3YE

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.

Airy R. Bean wrote:
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

In addition to being a technical pursuit, Ham Radio also provides
some self-delusional people the opportunity to make precious
distinctions between themselves and others in order to provide
those self delusionists with a sense of smug superiority. It's just
another of the psychological benefits of participating in the hobby.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Behold, Bob Monaghan signalled from keyed 4-1000A filament:

snip

my $.02 ;-)

bobm

Very well put Bob!

Ah, yes. Growing up to Forrest Mims books was the cat's meow of DIY of
the time :-)

--
Gregg t3h g33k
"Ratings are for transistors....tubes have guidelines"
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca

There are some of us "CBer's" who enjoy the equipment as much as or more
than the use of it. I definitely won't argue that CB radio is corrupt beyond
salvaging. That's why many CBer's turn to ham. I have known many hams who dx
on ham bands but use CB to talk to locals. That's how I learned alot of what
I know and got interested in amateur radio. I don't have my license yet but
I have the resources to study. I just hope that not too many CBer's who want
to convert are met by hams who shun them. In one of my other hobbies, R/C
aircraft, there are always people willing to spend their evenings and
weekends teaching the newbies. The market there is also dominated by
ready-made equipment now but if not for the dedicated builders who help
others, no one would build there own anymore. One thing is common to both
hobbies. The more you do it yourself, the more you learn. For now, it's back
to studying.

Chris

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
| Yes it is, but such a characteristic seems to be totally lost
| on most newcomers who are no better than CBers who buy
| their complete station off-the-shelf and even send it back to the
| dealer for repairs.
|
| Sadly they are misled by the Mongolian hordes of
| CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams who have corrupted
| Ham Radio in recent years. (And you don't have to have ever
| held a CB licence to qualify for membership of that class
| of failures - merely having a station of entirely off-the-shelf
| consumer-type purchases puts you fairly and squarely
| in that group!)
|
| "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!
|
|

actually, I would suggest that ham radio is the MOST visible technical
hobby, esp. lately, at least here in the USA. The recent spate of
hurricanes in florida has highlighted the role of amateur radio during
such communications down events. The Sept. 11th (9/11) terrorist attack
video programs are playing now on PBS, and the crucial role of amateur
radio during the loss of communications seems to get cited a lot too. The
recent video on the web (cited in radionews latest issue IIRC) is another
example drawing amateur radio to the attention of millions.

Amateur radio's profile on our campus took a big jump after 9/11 too, as
we are now increasingly an integral part of our new campus emergency
communications program, with a new emergency powered UHF repeater project
underway as I write this for this semester.

Now astronomy, for that we head out to dark skies as far away from other
people and lights as possible - now that's a nearly invisible technical
hobby ;-) Only a relative handful of people build their own planes, vs.
650,000 hams in the USA alone. About the closest group to beating us in
public visibility is probably those guys and gals with the battling robots
with buzz saws on PBS robot wars, right? ;-) ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

I think that you are confusing my wish to preserve Ham
Radio as a technical pursuit with your own mental processes
which you project so well below.

Perhaps it is that you are an unwitting CBer-Masquerading-
As-A-Radio-Ham who is annoyed at being "outed" and which
annoyance results in you revealing the innermost workings
of your psyche as below?

It is a very exciting and inspiring thing to continue to
educate yourself in all matters of technology - try it and
you'll find that there is more to Ham Radio than your
own CBisation of it!

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
. com...
Airy R. Bean wrote:
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
In addition to being a technical pursuit, Ham Radio also provides
some self-delusional people the opportunity to make precious
distinctions between themselves and others in order to provide
those self delusionists with a sense of smug superiority. It's just
another of the psychological benefits of participating in the hobby.

About the closest group to beating us in
public visibility is probably those guys and gals with the battling robots
with buzz saws on PBS robot wars, right? ;-) ;-)

But technically, those machines are NOT robots. If they were true robots, they
would devise their own strategy. They are simply radio controlled devices.

Yes Chris, you're correct, similar situation for myself and some of the kids
on the block years ago.

Just show up at the 'airstrip' and one of the old timers would be more then
happy to take up your new plane for the maiden voyage, give it a going over
and then hand the r/c box over to you and let you learn by doing. Soon we all
were flying on our own and teaching the new kids.

Our neighbor was retired engineer with Grumman, noticed we had in interest in
model rockets and r/c planes, he could not build himself anymore due to
arthritis
but he taught all of us everything he could in the short time he had left.

That was a long time ago but all of us young pups ended up working for
Boeing and Northrup. Otherwise we would have ended up in trouble !

jeff


Chris wrote:

There are some of us "CBer's" who enjoy the equipment as much as or more
than the use of it. I definitely won't argue that CB radio is corrupt beyond
salvaging. That's why many CBer's turn to ham. I have known many hams who dx
on ham bands but use CB to talk to locals. That's how I learned alot of what
I know and got interested in amateur radio. I don't have my license yet but
I have the resources to study. I just hope that not too many CBer's who want
to convert are met by hams who shun them. In one of my other hobbies, R/C
aircraft, there are always people willing to spend their evenings and
weekends teaching the newbies. The market there is also dominated by
ready-made equipment now but if not for the dedicated builders who help
others, no one would build there own anymore. One thing is common to both
hobbies. The more you do it yourself, the more you learn. For now, it's back
to studying.

Chris

"Airy R. Bean" wrote in message
...
| Yes it is, but such a characteristic seems to be totally lost
| on most newcomers who are no better than CBers who buy
| their complete station off-the-shelf and even send it back to the
| dealer for repairs.
|
| Sadly they are misled by the Mongolian hordes of
| CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams who have corrupted
| Ham Radio in recent years. (And you don't have to have ever
| held a CB licence to qualify for membership of that class
| of failures - merely having a station of entirely off-the-shelf
| consumer-type purchases puts you fairly and squarely
| in that group!)
|
| "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!
|
|

On 09 Sep 2004 11:42:56 GMT, (Troglodite) wrote:

About the closest group to beating us in
public visibility is probably those guys and gals with the battling robots
with buzz saws on PBS robot wars, right? ;-) ;-)

But technically, those machines are NOT robots. If they were true robots, they
would devise their own strategy. They are simply radio controlled devices.

Yes, as yet. But given time, no doubt there'll be a category for
autonymous fighting robots. A few of us have attempted it, but only
scratched the surface of the possibilities.

--

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

Airy R. Bean wrote:
I think that you are confusing my wish to preserve Ham
Radio as a technical pursuit with your own mental processes
which you project so well below.

Perhaps it is that you are an unwitting CBer-Masquerading-
As-A-Radio-Ham who is annoyed at being "outed" and which
annoyance results in you revealing the innermost workings
of your psyche as below?

It is a very exciting and inspiring thing to continue to
educate yourself in all matters of technology - try it and
you'll find that there is more to Ham Radio than your
own CBisation of it!

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
. com...

Airy R. Bean wrote:

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

In addition to being a technical pursuit, Ham Radio also provides
some self-delusional people the opportunity to make precious
distinctions between themselves and others in order to provide
those self delusionists with a sense of smug superiority. It's just
another of the psychological benefits of participating in the hobby.




If you're trying to "preserve Ham Radio as a technical pursuit,"
you won't do it by belittling other's contributions to the hobby.
You will however reinforce other's belief that you're just another
grouchy, old, British crackpot who is constantly getting exercised
over what other people consider trivial matters. On the antenna
newsgroup, there's another Briton like yourself who thinks it's of
the utmost importance that hams change the name of their SWR meters
to "transmitter loading indicators." I expect some day to hear of
some Englishman who wants to change the name "spoon" to "pie-hole
insertion device."
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

In article , says...
I shun CBers who wish to remain as CBers.

They are the death of Ham Radio (A good example
of which is the gangrenous degeneration that is the
M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme in Britland)

I encourage all comers who wish to develop their
technical skills and become _REAL_ Radio Hams.


Does this also include your fellow Land Rover drivers, with whom you chat
on the CB?

Or the M3 friend of yours, whom you are instructing in the fine art of
ballsing up an aerial?

I haven't belittled anybody's contribution to anything.

Ham Radio is a technical pursuit.

CB Radio is a hobby.

CBers and CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams contribute
to the hobby of CB and not to the technical pursuit that is Ham Radio.

Those who are not technically motivated nor technically qualified
are unsuitable as Ham Radio licensees.

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
om...
Airy R. Bean wrote:
I think that you are confusing my wish to preserve Ham
Radio as a technical pursuit with your own mental processes
which you project so well below.
Perhaps it is that you are an unwitting CBer-Masquerading-
As-A-Radio-Ham who is annoyed at being "outed" and which
annoyance results in you revealing the innermost workings
of your psyche as below?
It is a very exciting and inspiring thing to continue to
educate yourself in all matters of technology - try it and
you'll find that there is more to Ham Radio than your
own CBisation of it!

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
. com...
If you're trying to "preserve Ham Radio as a technical pursuit,"
you won't do it by belittling other's contributions to the hobby.

Your resorting to rather silly and childish broadcasting (CB)
in your infantile outbursts below would seem to confirm that
you are a CBer.

Ham Radio has traditions of international gentlemanly conduct
which seem to be lost on you.

Sic transit gloria Mundi.

This is a "homebrew" NG for _REAL_ Radio Hams. I fear that
you and your rants are somewhat out of place herein.

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
om...
You will however reinforce other's belief that you're just another
grouchy, old, British crackpot who is constantly getting exercised
over what other people consider trivial matters.

Airy R. Bean wrote:
Your resorting to rather silly and childish broadcasting (CB)
in your infantile outbursts below would seem to confirm that
you are a CBer.

Ham Radio has traditions of international gentlemanly conduct
which seem to be lost on you

Sic transit gloria Mundi.

This is a "homebrew" NG for _REAL_ Radio Hams. I fear that
you and your rants are somewhat out of place herein.

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
om...

You will however reinforce other's belief that you're just another
grouchy, old, British crackpot who is constantly getting exercised
over what other people consider trivial matters.




Well, I'm glad to hear that you're a real Smithfield, Airy, and can
look down on those of us non-technicians who don't share your narrow
view of Ham Radio. Every hobby needs its share of tin-pot deities to
provide comic relief to its other practitioners. Carry on, m'boy.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

snip
Only a relative handful of people build their own planes, vs.
650,000 hams in the USA alone. About the closest group to beating us in
public visibility is probably those guys and gals with the battling robots
with buzz saws on PBS robot wars, right? ;-) ;-)
==========================
How many of the above 650,000 hams have really built something in connection
with amateur radio ?

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

quoting:
CBers and CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams contribute
to the hobby of CB and not to the technical pursuit that is Ham Radio.

Those who are not technically motivated nor technically qualified
are unsuitable as Ham Radio licensees.
unquote:

you may be right - in Germany (per your path)?

But here in the USA, the justification for amateur radio spectrum and
existence is called PICON - public interest, convenience, or necessity.
The goal is communications at the most basic level. Technical pursuits or
qualifications are not a core concern of the licensing body (FCC).

You also have to be careful about such issues as "technically qualified",
since it requires someone to define who is qualified, what they need to be
qualified in, and why ;-)

The USA's licensing body (FCC) has defined a rather basic set of core
technical competencies for the entry level licenses, and most advanced
countries seem to have similar modest technical standards (the old Soviet
system may be an exception etc. where you had to build your own radio
station?).

Now flip thru an RSGB or ARRL handbook, and ask yourself how many of the
various modes and bands and projects have _you_ done? ;-) I am still doing
new stuff (VLF beacons, modulated lasers for field day's 3 modes credit
etc.), which means I am certainly not technically qualified in all the
areas of ham radio yet ;-) Plus they keep inventing new ones all the time.

in short, if you feel you are "technically competent" in (all of) ham
radio, you may not be paying enough attention to all that's going on. ;-)

Finally, when the chips are down and ham radio has to prove its value thru
emergency communications or whatever, there are lots of very technically
competent folks who aren't setup or interested or trained in providing
such communications. So the laurels often go to those who some might
deride as "appliance operators" who are able to provide such
communications. Many of those folks are just as elite and capable in
their own areas of ham radio as those with a more technical bent might be
in ours...

grins bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

answer: roughly half, since that's the USA proportion who have gotten on
the air with their own station, which usually involves system tradeoff
studies and system integration issues, if nothing else, antenna building
and location, and so on. Not the answer you expected? ;-)

I keep meaning to write an article for QST on A.R.S.E. - amateur radio
system engineers (grins), following up on Forest Mims III observation in
Nuts and VOlts that electronic hobbyists no longer work much at the
component level (thanks largely to microcontrollers and integrated chips
(PLAs...). Most of us work at subsystem level in projects (at least in
terms of decades past).

On the other hand, the amateur radio systems many of us have are far more
complex, with lots more interactions (e.g., software issues, antenna
interactions for multi-bands and modes, satellite orbit predictions, and
more modes and bands of operation than the 3 or 5 band AM/CW or SSB/CW
rigs of the 1950s and 1970s. We have five different types of antenna coax
connectors on our dual band ATV system, between two transmitters, beam
antennas, preamps, downconverters, and all the rest.

And yeah, I have EE and CSE graduate degrees as well as a systems
engineering grad degree; but the reason they pay systems engineers more on
average is that making things work together well (hardware, software..) is
often far harder than designing or building the components. Read
comp.risks digest to see something of what I mean ;-)

And fyi, practically all the designs now are done on computer (from boeing
777 down), and lots of graduating engineers have minimal exposure to
building anything either (usually just a simple senior design project,
maybe a few kits on the side). There is very little of the cut and try
approach often illustrated here ;-)

On the other hand, they may have designed microprocessor cores and tested
them in software, which would have been far beyond some of the heroic and
epic hardware designs of just 30 years ago (see my serial #186 example of
the world's first microcomputer (Intel 4004 from 1972) at
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/4004.html ).

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=robot

A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of
performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being
programmed in advance.

A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.
endquote:

Depends on your definition and viewpoint; sad to say, virtually all the
world's working robots in factories bear little resemblance to humans
(other than the demo walking robot from Japan, I guess? ;-0)

We had an IEEE sponsored contest to build software for battlefield robots
some years ago (late 1980s IIRC?). End up looking like a video game, which
is what the students wanted to build anyway. ;-)

I'm recording a 2 hour PBS program on videogame revolution tonight, so I
suspect it will be deja vu. However, Tom Clancy, the noted author of Red
October etc., made a point when on campus last year that the military is
using videogames corp. for training, and that the years of hand-eye
coordination training from gaming was a big plus in preparing young men
and women to utilize incredibly complex systems with videogame style
interfaces.

Personally, I wouldn't _want_ an autonomous battlefield robot without
using some human interaction in the loop. No sense making the term "killer
software bugs" come true ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

On 9 Sep 2004 21:46:11 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

Finally, when the chips are down and ham radio has to prove its value thru
emergency communications or whatever, there are lots of very technically
competent folks who aren't setup or interested or trained in providing
such communications. So the laurels often go to those who some might
deride as "appliance operators" who are able to provide such
communications. Many of those folks are just as elite and capable in
their own areas of ham radio as those with a more technical bent might be
in ours...

I don't see what's so elite about buying a black box off a shelf,
connecting it up and shouting into it, as most of them do, when the
other station is distant - regardless of quality of reception. Sure,
black box operators may save the day in the event of an emergency, but
the degree of study, experimentation and practice they have to undergo
to pull it off is minimal at best and demands zero respect, IMV.
--

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

I am afraid that you are mistaken, and once again it
is your own personality defects that shine through.
I do not look down upon anybody.

CBers and CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams
are merely following a different pursuit to that which I follow,
as, indeed, are fishermen, needleworkers, football
players and supports, and RC model exponents.

They are merely fellow humans who do not share my interests
and so I do not associate with them.

That you once again resort to rather silly and childish forms
of self-expression below reinforces the perception that
you are a CBer and not a Radio Ham.

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
. com...
Well, I'm glad to hear that you're a real Smithfield, Airy, and can
look down on those of us non-technicians who don't share your narrow
view of Ham Radio. Every hobby needs its share of tin-pot deities to
provide comic relief to its other practitioners. Carry on, m'boy.

Ham Radio is what Hams do, and not what the regulatory
powers seek to restrict.

Radio Hams are technical people. Those who buy radios
off-the-shelf, notwithstanding that they may have qualified
as Hams are behaving as CBers and are viewed as such.

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...
quoting:
CBers and CBers-Masquerading-As-Radio-Hams contribute
to the hobby of CB and not to the technical pursuit that is Ham Radio.

Those who are not technically motivated nor technically qualified
are unsuitable as Ham Radio licensees.
unquote:

you may be right - in Germany (per your path)?

But here in the USA, the justification for amateur radio spectrum and
existence is called PICON - public interest, convenience, or necessity.
The goal is communications at the most basic level. Technical pursuits or
qualifications are not a core concern of the licensing body (FCC).

You also have to be careful about such issues as "technically qualified",
since it requires someone to define who is qualified, what they need to be
qualified in, and why ;-)

The USA's licensing body (FCC) has defined a rather basic set of core
technical competencies for the entry level licenses, and most advanced
countries seem to have similar modest technical standards (the old Soviet
system may be an exception etc. where you had to build your own radio
station?).

Now flip thru an RSGB or ARRL handbook, and ask yourself how many of the
various modes and bands and projects have _you_ done? ;-) I am still doing
new stuff (VLF beacons, modulated lasers for field day's 3 modes credit
etc.), which means I am certainly not technically qualified in all the
areas of ham radio yet ;-) Plus they keep inventing new ones all the time.

in short, if you feel you are "technically competent" in (all of) ham
radio, you may not be paying enough attention to all that's going on. ;-)

Finally, when the chips are down and ham radio has to prove its value thru
emergency communications or whatever, there are lots of very technically
competent folks who aren't setup or interested or trained in providing
such communications. So the laurels often go to those who some might
deride as "appliance operators" who are able to provide such
communications. Many of those folks are just as elite and capable in
their own areas of ham radio as those with a more technical bent might be
in ours...

grins bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************