| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 19, 11:47�pm, AF6AY wrote:
xxx wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:41:27 EDT: Due to time limitations, this post will comment on just one of Len's claims: * *1. *"Discovery of 'shortwaves' enabling worldwide communications: * * * Already known by non-hobbyist technologists. Which ones? And why weren't they *using* those shortwaves before amateurs led the way? *Radio amateurs * * * were forced upwards in frequency use by politics, not * * * pioneering. *It was fortuitous for amateurs, yes, but not * * * necessarily of their own and objected-to at the time by * * * amateurs. The conventional wisdom of the early professionals in radio was that the longer the wave, the farther it would go along the earth's surface. The shorter waves were considered useless, or at least unreliable, for long-distance communication, because ionospheric propagation was not known at the time. Long-distance non-amateur radio used waves thousands or tens of thousands of meters long for communications across oceans and beyond. This required enormous antennas and high power levels, all of which were developed for the purpose. The Alexanderson-alternator station SAQ, now a museum that operates a few times per year, is a prime example of the professional state of the art at the time. SAQ operates at 17.2 kHz After 1912, amateurs were required to use waves no longer than 200 meters. They were further restricted to 1000 watts input, which was very low power by professional long-distance-radio standards. Most anateurs stayed right at that wavelength, following the professionals' statements that shorter waves were less effective. Some amateurs and non-amateurs conducted experiments at shorter wavelengths but the results were not promising. The radio developments of World War 1 did not materially change the situation. In those days the "gold standard" of communication was whether the Atlantic Ocean could be crossed. Marconi's claim of transatlantic reception of the single letter "S" was considered a major accomplishment at the time. In December of 1921, the ARRL sent Paul Godley to the UK to listen for American amateurs on 200 meters. He heard several, and not just coastal stations. But two-way transatlantic communication eluded amateurs on 200 meters. In November of 1923, documented two-way transatlantic radio communication was achieved on approximately 110 meters by two American and one French amateur, using less than 1000 watts input. This success led to others, with transpacific and antipodal shortwave amateur communications following in short order. If the effectiveness of shortwave radio was known by nonamateurs, why didn't they use it until after amateurs pointed the way and proved it by their pioneering success? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
|
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
"xxx" wrote:
Once upon a time, ham radio was a great source of innovation. I remember hearing about how this or that essential device that we now take for granted was invented / improved upon / perfected / etc. by hams who did that sort of thing as part of their hobby. It has been a very long time since I last heard that said. Ham radio ceased to be forward looking and innovative and has devolved into something more akin to stamp collecting - interesting to practitioners, useless to the world at large. Yes, well, the world was a very different place 50 years ago. Neither of my parents were required to sign an employment contract which contains a clause to the effect of "anything you invent, even if its on your own time, we own". Yet, such clauses are routine these days in virtually every employment contract I've signed, or seen. Perhaps we have the lawyerification of America to partially blame? I'm not really sure. Maybe people are less altruistic today than they were 30+ years ago. Folks today seem to be less likely to invent something and give it away. Instead, they want to invent it, package it, sell it, and make a living/fortune. Can't say there's anything wrong with that, really, most people today would (I think) do the same thing. Perhaps the popularity of ham radio is declining not because of anything to do with ham radio itself, but instead simply a matter of the changing society in the world as a whole. 73 kh6hz |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
Michael Coslo wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:39:39 EDT
wrote: On Apr 19, 11:47?pm, AF6AY wrote: ? ?1. ?"Discovery of 'shortwaves' enabling worldwide communications: ? ? ? Already known by non-hobbyist technologists. Which ones? And why weren't they *using* those shortwaves before amateurs led the way? I think you two are both correct. 8^) Regardless of the question marks added into my quotation (which I never wrote with leading question marks), I will cite two references which are obtainable: 1. Thomas H. White's early radio history web pages which include many references and references with direct links. [try Searching since Mr. White's website has had different names although his content remains intact and expanded] 2. Hugh G. J. Aitken, "The Continuous Wave, Technology and American Radio, 1900-1932," 1985, Princeton University Press. My soft-cover copy is courtesy of Al Walston, W6MJN. In particular Chapter 5. [University libraries might have this] There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi- weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980, a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp) which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980. From those three I've come to the conclusion that the forcing of radio amateurs in the USA to "below 200 meters" (above 1.5 MHz) was purely and simply politics of the day. It should be no surprise to know that radio use insofar as frequencies was little more than chaotic before 1920, little more than that during the entirety of the 1920s decade. Broadcasters wanted what we now know as the "AM broadcast band" for their exclusive use. Actually, that was a legitimate desire since broadcasters would serve millions of citizens, not just a few thousands of radio amateurs at the time. Politics of the times did not stop with broadcasters versus amateurs. For almost two decades the United States Navy wanted to have regulatory control over all radio use! Marconi desired a monopoly on worldwide radio use, including inroads to control of all United States radio production and services. The latter led a circuitous route to the establishment of the Radio Corporation of America, originally as a sort of "patent controller" or "quasi-repository" about radio in the USA. It was a chaotic decade those 1920s, including many patent fights in courts, and not much standardization in theory, components, use, or services to citizens. See the proposal of President Franklin Roosevelt to Congress to establish the Federal Communications Commission to consolidate radio and telegram regulations of 1933 and 1934, found on the FCC website. It looks like a difference of basic versus applied knowledge. That the shortwaves and much much higher frequencies were known is not in doubt. Scientists were doing research in GHz range frequencies surprisingly early on. Heinrich Hertz did his basic research on radio waves using what now appears to be VHF and UHF. He had no equipment to measure such frequencies to any great precision. Lee de Forest did some early work on transmission lines in an attempt to get "a handle on" the behavior of higher radio waves on them. James Clerk Maxwell postulated some physical laws and equations which are applicable to all radio frequencies today, but he had almost NO "test equipment" other than very simple experimental kluges and brilliantly-applied logic to his "Laws." The first radar experiments and first working radars worked on VHF-UHF. It took a coordinated, consolidated group, forced by needs of winning WWII at the "Radiation Laboratory" to really get into the GHz frequency region. Amateurs were forced to use frequencies that unknown to them or the best minds of the time (could be both at once) discovered a lot of unexpected characteristics of those higher frequencies. As I originally wrote, it was fortuitous for radio amateurs to be forced upward in frequency beyond 1.5 MHz. Those documented demonstrations "got the ball rolling" for academicians and researchers to study the ionosphere in detail. With scientific proof, the commercial and government users took to HF in great numbers by the 1930s. I think that we'll find that time and again, restrictions lead to innovation. That's too broad a statement. Innovation and invention comes from those individuals who dare to "push the [performance] envelope" of most anything. The Wright Brothers weren't exactly "restricted" in anything but laws of physics concerning aerodynamics...so they built their own "wind tunnel" and got basic information for themselves. But, could anyone have thought ahead 50 years past their first heavier-than-air flight in a wood-wire-fabric biplane, to trans-sonic speed metal aircraft carrying more than two people? In comparing "radio sets" of various times, examine the size, weight, function, and features of today's amateur radio transceivers with those of 1957. Or antennas, or test equipment for measuring both. The advancement on both technology and use is hand-in-hand and driven by market forces more than anything. It is all interconnected and one innovation can lead to others. James Burke's "Connections" PBS-TV series is an excellent showing of the interconnection of innovation and invention that can lead to surprising improvement in improbably-related activies. If the effectiveness of shortwave radio was known by nonamateurs, why didn't they use it until after amateurs pointed the way and proved it by their pioneering success? A combination of ignorance (thinking that the higher frequencies were of no use) and simply "betting on the wrong horse". is the answer AFAIAC. The following is a quote from "Single Sideband, Principles and Circuits" by Pappenfus, Bruene, Shoenike (Collins Radio), McGraw- Hill 1964, paragraph 1-4, page 10: "Since 1923 when the first r-f transatlantic SSB link was established to England, there has been widespread use of pilot- carrier and suppressed-carrier SSB by communications companies. The severe static that prevailed at low frequency limited the usefulness of the early radio links; but until the installation of a v-f cable, no other communication circuit to Europe approached the day-to-day reliability of the 55-kc ground-wave signal. The frequency range below 500 kc because of its freedom from propagation variation and signal "blackout," has a consistency of received signal desireable in maintaining telephone communication. However a number of disadvantages are present that offset the signal reliability of the l-f range. Disadvantage include high power, and need for large, expensive antennas. The problems of vlf communications links and l-f bands forced the expansion into and the development of radio-communication links in the so-called short-wave bands above the [AM] broadcast band." Page 234 of the "Collins SSB Book" state that one of the first applications of SSB to the HF bands was by the Netherlands Telegraph Administration in 1934. This was the Netherlands to the Netherlands Antilles (off the coast of South America). [diagram of receiver on page 235] Note: Commercial and government SSB is basically on the USA telephony model C "carrier" frequency-multiplexed four-voice-bandwidth system using 12 KHz bandspace. Single-channel, 3 KHz bandspace SSB did not see great numbers until the USAF SAC requirements were made after WWII's end. "Pilot carrier" is in reference to a between channel tone frequency deliberately sent as an early AFC. Commercial and government communications users generally plan for long service life, such service having reliability and with known characteristics. While those may appear conservative, those major players in communications aren't in there for fun or experimentation. They are there for the "long haul," both in distance and in time. Such long- lived expectancy must be based on known information supporting its development. The Amateurs were confined to that area, and the experimentally inclined did their experiments, and viola, a lot of discoveries and advancements were made. It is a great story, and Hams should be proud of that part of their history. It is fine to be proud. However, history is the past. As a more mature technology today, I wouldn't expect many more earth shaking discoveries from Hams. I disagree. The state of the art of all communications is continually advancing. Radio development didn't stop prior to WWII nor at any time up to now. For example, look at PSK31 by G3PLX, D-Star by the JARL with support of Japanese industry, APRS utilizing GPS downlink, all examples of post- 1980 innovation in amateur radio, done by radio amateurs for radio amateurs. The first reference I have to "repeaters" in radio (other than specific radio relay sets) is in the TM for the military AN/PRC-6 HT (includes a special cable set for that purpose) printed about 1952. The U.S. military has not used "repeatering" of that kind afterwards but look at the large installation of ham repeaters in the USA of today! Adoption and innovation of existing schemes and technology in other radio services is no crime nor moral flaw. I think that should be rewarded and praised equally well; some of those adoptions/innovations are more complex and intellectual (at least to me) than most of the early radio "pioneering" of pre-WWII times. With today's evidence of explosive growth in all electronics there is a blurring between "who uses what in where" as to both technology and use of radio. Both seem to circulate in most radio services without regard to who was "first" but rather can "I" [in a radio service] use it? Better yet, can "I" adapt it for "my" radio service? Maybe, maybe not. It might be worth a try. Falling back on "tried-and-true" methods and holding fast to those seems counterproductive... 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
AF6AY wrote:
xxx wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:41:27 EDT: Once upon a time, ham radio was a great source of innovation. I remember hearing about how this or that essential device that we now take for granted was invented / improved upon / perfected / etc. by hams who did that sort of thing as part of their hobby. It has been a very long time since I last heard that said. "Once upon a time" is approximately the time period prior to World War II...the first 44 years of "radio" as a communications medium. I would have extended that time frame into the 1960's or even the 1970's when moonbounce experiments still made the news. Trying to judge progress in a technology area involving hobbyists solely by the information contained in hobbyist publications is inaccurate, if not outright braggadocio by hobbyists. I'm not sure how you got the idea that I had done that. "Radio" as a communications medium is now 111 years old. The innovation, invention, and quantum-jumps in increases of the communications (and radio) arts of the last 67 years have totally eclipsed those early pioneering days done by everyone involved with any RF emission activity. Some of the highlights: [... deleted in the interest of brevity] Your point is not clear. Are you claiming that since those technologies originated with other radio services that the contribution by hams was small or are you claiming that since hams developed and popularized those technologies that hams' contribution was large? [...] Ham radio ceased to be forward looking and innovative and has devolved into something more akin to stamp collecting - interesting to practitioners, useless to the world at large. "Xxx," to paraphrase Hans Brakob, I would "throw that out with great force." The activity of amateur radio is basically a hobby, an activity done primarily for personal enjoyment...worldwide, I might add. It is a fascinating one, a technically-challenging one, one of use in communicating with like-minded enthusiasts, local to worldwide. Hobbies are FUN for their participants. There is nothing at all "wrong" with having FUN doing anything, whether stamp collecting, rebuilding classic cars, flying model aircraft by radio control, or being advisors for Scouts. Radio amateurs, by and large, are not into amateur radio for the sake of being inventors, scientific researchers, manufacturers of radio-electronics devices, or being emergency and disaster volunteers. They CAN, of course, as can any citizen without an amateur radio license. If you look at the foundational documents of ham radio (FCC Part 97, current test question pools), it is made quite clear that ham radio exists for the primary purpose of having trained radio operators available in case of emergency. Contributing to the advancement of the radio art comes next. Having an enjoyable hobby is not even mentioned. [...] Ham radio will not grow until and unless it is seen to provide value to the larger community. Once, it was considered to be a source of competitive advantage to the economy by contributing to the technological base (a post-Sputnik point of view). Please feel free to document all those "advantages to the economy." I see very few such cases of the last 111 years of "radio." What I have seen are a number of claims for same that very conveniently "sin by omission" [of incorrect attribution to the overall world of radio and electronics]... something that marketeers know by the simple acronym of "PR." My guess is that the FCC was willing to ignore the complaints of the ARRL and the old Morse code cultists because they (the FCC) see it that way, as well. I must disagree with that as well. Since the FCC must regulate ALL United States civil radio RF emissions, they are chartered to be aware and informed of almost everything in regards to "radio." They DO that on a technical level, including having an Office of Engineering and Technology for their own advisement. The FCC is aware of nearly ALL radio use, not only in the USA but worldwide (we are globally interconnected in many communications ways). The FCC also asks for advice on use and technology and, as chartered by law, input from ALL citizens. Such "input" is made available to the public at large, freely. Anyone can fault the FCC for some alleged political bias. That is frequent and also many-sided. Such is normal in politics, but it is not per se some "truth." The ARRL ("my" club) is no more a paragon of truth than any membership organization and the FCC is not bound to 'obey' the ARRL 'advice' than any other special-interest group. Nevertheless, they have 'outsourced' most of the administrative overhead of ham radio to the ARRL. If you want to talk about the political aspects of the subject, I recently wondered, after looking at some VE testing schedules, what the presidential candidates would say about a situation where the work of a federal agency is performed by a group of volunteers who work out of church basements. The separation of church and state issue alone would provide a basis for a great deal of debate. The FCC made a decision on a contentious subject in amateur radio license examinations. The FCC has the final say on who is licensed and who is not. The public comment period was long and over 3,700 citizens commented. The FCC took about a year to reach a decision on the matter, then made it law by legal means. Let us accept that and go forward. Your comments don't follow from mine. I stated that the FCC, in effect, 'overruled' the ARRL and the old hams when it eliminated the code test. The key question is 'WHY did the FCC do that.' I am convinced that the FCC perceived the code requirement as being at the root of ham radio's failure to innovate or provide training to subsequent generations. The FCC killed it in order to end ham radio's decades-long stagnation. |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
AF6AY wrote in news:1177108945.448470.193430
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi- weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980, a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp) which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980. Keep a sharp eye out on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.technical for these kinds of books, mostly in pdf format. It is an amazing source of ebooks on all kinds of neat subjects. (PS - Best not read the nuclear stuff and reports posted there if you're "in range". I didn't know there were so MANY Little Chernobyls!) Larry -- We're all "in range", you know.... .. |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 20, 6:46�pm, Larry wrote:
AF6AY wrote in news:1177108945.448470.193430 @o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of * *electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi- * *weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980, * *a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp) * *which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from * *before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980. Keep a sharp eye out on newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book.technical for these kinds of books, mostly in pdf format. *It is an amazing source of ebooks on all kinds of neat subjects. Thanks for the tip. As a paid subscriber to McGraw-Hill's Electronics, I have my own copy. I've seen it in a couple of technical libraries but do not expect anyone to do an Acrobat trick of scanning all those pages. I mentioned it as an overview of the entire electronics field and think it did its job very well. I neglected to mention Aitkins previous history, "The Syntony of Spark." While it was good, it neglected to cover as much of the politics of the 1920s in regards to radio in general...in my opinion, at least. 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 20, 6:56�pm, AF6AY wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:39:39 EDT wrote: On Apr 19, 11:47?pm, AF6AY wrote: 1. "Discovery of 'shortwaves' enabling worldwide communications: Already known by non-hobbyist technologists. Which ones? And why weren't they *using* those shortwaves before amateurs led the way? * * * *I think you two are both correct. 8^) * *Regardless of the question marks added into my quotation (which * *I never wrote with leading question marks), The question marks are an artifact of posting through Google Groups. I did not add them. Sometimes Google Groups adds them, sometimes not. They have appeared on some other postings to you by others. I will cite two * *references which are obtainable: * *1. *Thomas H. White's early radio history web pages which include * *many references and references with direct links. *[try Searching * *since Mr. White's website has had different names although his * *content remains intact and expanded] * *2. *Hugh G. J. Aitken, "The Continuous Wave, Technology and * *American Radio, 1900-1932," 1985, Princeton University Press. * *My soft-cover copy is courtesy of Al Walston, W6MJN. *In * *particular Chapter 5. *[University libraries might have this] * *There is a lesser-known, harder-to-find overall history of * *electronics (includes radio) published by McGraw-Hill's bi- * *weekly subscription periodical Electronics, 17 April 1980, * *a commemorative Fiftieth Anniversary edition (over 900 pp) * *which takes an all-inclusive overview of all electronics from * *before the first demonstration of radio in 1896 up to 1980. If the worldwide communications capabilities of 'shortwaves' was "Already known by non-hobbyist technologists", as you claimed, why weren't those "non-hobbyist technologists" actually *using* those wavelengths? Is there any record of non-amateur transatlantic one-way communication on wavelengths of 200 meters or shorter with less than 1000 watts before December of 1921? Any record of two-way transatlantic communication on wavelengths of 200 meters or shorter before November 27, 1923? That's when amateurs achieved those distances. And they weren't isolated one-time results, either. The Atlantic and Pacific were spanned by amateurs in those years. For example, in the Transatlantic Tests of 1922, over 300 American amateur stations from every US radio district were heard in Europe. In the fall of 1923, over 100 American amateur stations were heard in Australia and/ or New Zealand. All on 200 meters or shorter, all with power less than 1000 watts. Where were the "non-hobbyist technologists" when all this was going on? * *From those three I've come to the conclusion that the forcing * *of radio amateurs in the USA to "below 200 meters" (above 1.5 * *MHz) was purely and simply politics of the day. Yes, it was politics. Or rather, regulation. In fact, about 1920 there was a proposal to expand the amateur limit *downward* to 275 meters, but early broadcasting put an end to that. Amateurs were limited to "200 Meters And Down" because the professionals thought those frequencies to be useless for long distance communications. The driving force was to eliminate interference (real or imagined) to commercial operations. That was also the reason for the 1000 watt power limit. *It should be * *no surprise to know that radio use insofar as frequencies was * *little more than chaotic before 1920, little more than that * *during the entirety of the 1920s decade. How "chaotic" was it, really? The radio laws of 1912 pushed amateurs to the supposedly-useless short waves. The commercial users were not excluded from those short waves, however. *Broadcasters wanted * *what we now know as the "AM broadcast band" for their exclusive * *use. *Actually, that was a legitimate desire since broadcasters * *would serve millions of citizens, not just a few thousands of * *radio amateurs at the time. Broadcasting did not really get going until about 1920. Amateurs had been relegated to "200 Meters and Down" in 1912, eight years and a World War earlier. * *Politics of the times did not stop with broadcasters versus * *amateurs. It was not the broadcasters who pushed amateurs off the longer waves in 1912. *For almost two decades the United States Navy * *wanted to have regulatory control over all radio use! *Marconi * *desired a monopoly on worldwide radio use, including inroads * *to control of all United States radio production and services. * *The latter led a circuitous route to the establishment of the * *Radio Corporation of America, originally as a sort of "patent * *controller" or "quasi-repository" about radio in the USA. *It * *was a chaotic decade those 1920s, including many patent fights * *in courts, and not much standardization in theory, components, * *use, or services to citizens. *See the proposal of President * *Franklin Roosevelt to Congress to establish the Federal * *Communications Commission to consolidate radio and telegram * *regulations of 1933 and 1934, found on the FCC website. That's all very interesting, but it has little to do with the fact that it was amateurs who pioneered the "shortwaves", not "non-hobbyist technologists". It looks like a difference of basic versus applied knowledge. That the shortwaves and much much higher frequencies were known is not in doubt. Scientists were doing research in GHz range frequencies surprisingly early on. * *Heinrich Hertz did his basic research on radio waves using * *what now appears to be VHF and UHF. *He had no equipment to * *measure such frequencies to any great precision. *Lee de Forest * *did some early work on transmission lines in an attempt to get * *"a handle on" the behavior of higher radio waves on them. *James * *Clerk Maxwell postulated some physical laws and equations which * *are applicable to all radio frequencies today, but he had almost * *NO "test equipment" other than very simple experimental kluges * *and brilliantly-applied logic to his "Laws." But in terms of pioneering the use of those waves for communication, amateurs were the leading edge. * *The first radar experiments and first working radars worked on * *VHF-UHF. *It took a coordinated, consolidated group, forced by * *needs of winning WWII at the "Radiation Laboratory" to really * *get into the GHz frequency region. Long *after* the 1920s. Amateurs were forced to use frequencies that unknown to them or the best minds of the time (could be both at once) discovered a lot of unexpected characteristics of those higher frequencies. * *As I originally wrote, it was fortuitous for radio amateurs to * *be forced upward in frequency beyond 1.5 MHz. *Those documented * *demonstrations "got the ball rolling" for academicians and * *researchers to study the ionosphere in detail. *With scientific * *proof, the commercial and government users took to HF in great * *numbers by the 1930s. Amateur use was more than mere demonstrations. * *In comparing "radio sets" of various times, examine the size, * *weight, function, and features of today's amateur radio * *transceivers with those of 1957. *Or antennas, or test * *equipment for measuring both. * The basics of many of them are the same in some cases and very different in others. The advancement on both * *technology and use is hand-in-hand and driven by market * *forces more than anything. *It is all interconnected and * *one innovation can lead to others. *James Burke's "Connections" * *PBS-TV series is an excellent showing of the interconnection * *of innovation and invention that can lead to surprising * *improvement in improbably-related activies. Agreed. The transistor, for example, was invented/discovered by Bell Labs researchers looking to build a switch, not an amplifier. If the effectiveness of shortwave radio was known by nonamateurs, why didn't they use it until after amateurs pointed the way and proved it by their pioneering success? * * * *A combination of ignorance (thinking that the higher frequencies were of no use) and simply "betting on the wrong horse". is the answer AFAIAC. * *The following is a quote from "Single Sideband, Principles and * *Circuits" by Pappenfus, Bruene, Shoenike (Collins Radio), McGraw- * *Hill 1964, paragraph 1-4, page 10: The first two of those were well-known amateurs, too. * *"Since 1923 when the first r-f transatlantic SSB link was * *established to England, there has been widespread use of pilot- * *carrier and suppressed-carrier SSB by communications companies. * *The severe static that prevailed at low frequency limited the * *usefulness of the early radio links; but until the installation * *of a v-f cable, no other communication circuit to Europe * *approached the day-to-day reliability of the 55-kc ground-wave * *signal. *The frequency range below 500 kc because of its * *freedom from propagation variation and signal "blackout," has * *a consistency of received signal desireable in maintaining * *telephone communication. *However a number of disadvantages * *are present that offset the signal reliability of the l-f * *range. *Disadvantage include high power, and need for large, * *expensive antennas. *The problems of vlf communications links * *and l-f bands forced the expansion into and the development of * *radio-communication links in the so-called short-wave bands * *above the [AM] broadcast band." * *Page 234 of the "Collins SSB Book" state that one of the * *first applications of SSB to the HF bands was by the * *Netherlands Telegraph Administration in 1934. * That's 11 years after amateurs showed the usefulness of HF for long distance communications. There were amateurs using SSB voice in 1934, too. Ray Moore, W6DEI, and a handful of others were on the amateur bands with SSB then. This was * *the Netherlands to the Netherlands Antilles (off the coast * *of South America). *[diagram of receiver on page 235] * *Note: *Commercial and government SSB is basically on the * *USA telephony model C "carrier" frequency-multiplexed * *four-voice-bandwidth system using 12 KHz bandspace. * *Single-channel, 3 KHz bandspace SSB did not see great * *numbers until the USAF SAC requirements were made after * *WWII's end. *"Pilot carrier" is in reference to a between * *channel tone frequency deliberately sent as an early AFC. * *Commercial and government communications users generally * *plan for long service life, such service having reliability * *and with known characteristics. *While those may appear * *conservative, those major players in communications aren't * *in there for fun or experimentation. *They are there for * *the "long haul," both in distance and in time. *Such long- * *lived expectancy must be based on known information * *supporting its development. So it took amateurs to discover the usefulness of the shortwaves. That usefulness wasn't "already known to non-hobbyist technologists". The Amateurs were confined to that area, and the experimentally inclined did their experiments, and viola, a lot of discoveries and advancements were made. It is a great story, and Hams should be proud of that part of their history. * *It is fine to be proud. *However, history is the past. It's important to be accurate about the history, though. *As a more mature technology today, I wouldn't expect many more earth shaking discoveries from Hams. * *I disagree. *The state of the art of all communications is * *continually advancing. *Radio development didn't stop prior * *to WWII nor at any time up to now. *For example, look at * *PSK31 by G3PLX, D-Star by the JARL with support of Japanese * *industry, APRS utilizing GPS downlink, all examples of post- * *1980 innovation in amateur radio, done by radio amateurs for * *radio amateurs. So amateurs continue to innovate and discover, even today. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
xxx wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:45:26 EDT
AF6AY wrote: xxx wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:41:27 EDT: "Once upon a time" is approximately the time period prior to World War II...the first 44 years of "radio" as a communications medium. I would have extended that time frame into the 1960's or even the 1970's when moonbounce experiments still made the news. The first-ever successful moonbounce was done by the U.S. Army Signal Corps in the forties right after end of WWII. The Army dubbed that experiment "Project Diana." That was two decades prior to the 1960s. My choice of the first 44 years versus the last 67 years may seem arbitrary but the Second World War was a decided changeover time in technology of all electronics, including that small subset of it called radio. Your point is not clear. Are you claiming that since those technologies originated with other radio services that the contribution by hams was small or are you claiming that since hams developed and popularized those technologies that hams' contribution was large? I do not claim anything. I summarized the major points of technology untilized in amateur radio during the last 67 years of radio's existance. In the first 44 years of radio, radio itself was considered the high-tech application of electronics. The vacuum tube had some applications in audio amplification and specialized instruments but "radio" for one-way or two-way communications was favored. Radio then was noted by the public as primarily for broadcasting but the public were also aware of the "ham radio operator" in this high-tech-of-its-day field. After WWII, based on the necessities of expanding the technology needs of war, electronics began spreading far and wide, using circuits and systems rare or unheard-of by the public prior to WWII: Television, "high-Fi" music systems, magnetic tape recording (in the home as well as in entertainment industry), FM broadcasting as an adjunct to home music systems, electronic flash units for photo- graphy, photoelectric systems for security and warning, intercom systems, dictating machines. That was prior to the invention of the transistor and the true start of the solid-state era in electronics. The transistor, various junction diode types, the integrated circuit, then the large-scale-integrated circuit semiconductor structures' availability can be likened to a megaton explosion of applications and increases in electronics use in our daily lives, from medicine and health, to accounting and automatic control, to all manner of consumer electronics not practically possible prior to WWII. "Radio" per se took a back seat in applications in the whole of the electronics industry's design and development efforts. That's neither good nor bad, simply that the possible number of applications for all electronics taking advantage of solid-state components has been almost overwhelming in quantity and scope. That continues today. That radio communications equipment design has adopted many techniques and components used in other areas of electronics should not be a detriment. Some non-radio applications "borrowed" from radio design and one even preceded radio use: Frequency-multiplexed multi-channel carrier systems for long-distance wired telephony, also known as Single Sideband. :-) A microprocessor or microcontroller is entirely digital in operation, yet is applied to analog radio now almost universally. That was not possible prior to 1970, yet amateur radio designs from off-the-shelf today nearly all use them for a large variety of functions, everything from HTs to top-of-the-line HF DX machines down to test equipment. It ENABLES many functions not available prior to WWII designs and its substitutes for old design funcions are superior in operation. Electronics (including radio) does considerable "cross- pollination" of circuits and subsystems from one specialty area to another. That is good rather than bad. "Radio" has lost its specific nature of exclusivity in structure of all-analog circuits. The vacuum tube is almost obsolete for new radios, surviving only in high- power RF amplifiers for amateur, commercial, and broad- casting use. Even those are getting competition from high-frequency power transistor modular architectures. The cathode-ray tube is going that way, replaced with solid-state LCD, TFT, Plasma flat display screens, not just in television but also in oscillography and small instrumentation plus consumer applications like gas ranges, microwaves, and lawn sprinkler controllers. About the only area of vacuum tubes not quite (yet) replaced by solid-state are high-sensitivity photo- multipliers and night observation devices. Even those are seeing competition now. Innovation and invention today depends more on the adaptation of existing components and subsystems and putting them together than outright invention-from- scratch. Even the U.S. Patent Office is aware of that. My single patent grant in 1974 was #3,848,191. GAP Antenna Products got one in 1997 as #5,592,183 (reading from a GAP pamphlet). Nearly 2 million Patents granted in only about 25 years. :-) Radio per se is not much involved in just trying to get a handle on how the whole thing works. That was needed in its first four decades. Messrs Hartley, Colpitts, and Pierce gave us basic oscillators necessary to start generating RF but later came Butler and others with variations using 3rd, 5th, even 7th overtone crystal controlled oscillators, plus the Varian brothers' Klystron and the original Magnetron (from the UK). Would we have a microwave oven in nearly every kitchen today if the magnetron had not been invented? :-) BTW, the most-used oscillator circuit of today is based on the CMOS inverter with feedback through a quartz crystal or other resonator. No name associated with it. Every microprocessor has such a clock oscillator, active devices usually built-in. If you look at the foundational documents of ham radio (FCC Part 97, current test question pools), it is made quite clear that ham radio exists for the primary purpose of having trained radio operators available in case of emergency. Contributing to the advancement of the radio art comes next. Having an enjoyable hobby is not even mentioned. I have a 1997 complete 5-volume set of Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations and the current copy of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Nowhere is the word "hobby" written in those regulations. That is de jure. De facto is that amateur radio is, by and large, a hobby radio activity, done for personal reasons and not for monetary compensation. The FCC is aware of that, the ARRL is aware of that, the IARU is aware of that, hundreds of different nation's administrations are aware of that. I also have a complete set of the current NCVEC Question Pools, obtained from www.ncvec.org directly; such are not found in Part 97...but should be available through any of the many VECs. It was not clear to me that my amateur radio test taken and passed on 25 February 2007 was for an Amateur Emergency Radio Operator. I was already a General Radiotelephone Operator (Commercial) since taking and passing my First Class Radio- telephone (Commercial) operator license in 1956. Prior to that the United States Army had trained me to operate and maintain radio communications equipment on HF, VHF, UHF, and microwave bands. I've already used my First 'Phone/GROL in other radio services. In various Parts of Title 47 C.F.R., the FCC specifically states that any emergency situation involving safety of life, no license is required to use a radio to seek help. Why would I have gotten an Amateur Radio license to be an emergency operator? I could have joined the Los Angeles Auxilliary Communications Service directly or even the California (state) Auxilliary Communications Service (they don't require any license at all). The test session was in an L.A. ACS station building, formerly a small fire house for the LAFD. I got my Amateur Radio Operator license for use in a personal hobby. That isn't against the law or even unpatriotic. Your comments don't follow from mine. I stated that the FCC, in effect, 'overruled' the ARRL and the old hams when it eliminated the code test. The key question is 'WHY did the FCC do that.' I am convinced that the FCC perceived the code requirement as being at the root of ham radio's failure to innovate or provide training to subsequent generations. The FCC killed it in order to end ham radio's decades-long stagnation. You are welcome to your opinion. Seventeen years ago the FCC answered a public request when it issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the creation of the no-code-test Technician class license. It said then that the Commission did not feel a test for Morse Code skill/comprehension was necessary in its regulatory position of determining whether or not an applicant was worthy of being granted an amateur radio license. A copy is available at www.nocode.org as FCC 90-53. Nine years later in Report and Order 99-412 ('Restructuring') the Commission stated nearly the same when it dropped all Morse Code test rates to 5 words per minute equivalent. By far, the largest and fastest growing U.S. Amateur Radio Service license class has been the no-code-test Technician class. The peak in number of amateur licenses granted occurred in 2003. I see all of that as public demand, not to "support" amateur radio. From the Communications Act of 1934 to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (both Laws of Congress) the FCC is obliged to regulate civil communications services of the United States. It is not obliged to support any one radio service over and above any other. 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
KH6HZ wrote:
Yes, well, the world was a very different place 50 years ago. Neither of my parents were required to sign an employment contract which contains a clause to the effect of "anything you invent, even if its on your own time, we own". Yet, such clauses are routine these days in virtually every employment contract I've signed, or seen. Perhaps we have the lawyerification of America to partially blame? I signed one of those at my first technical job clear back in 1972, and one for every employer since then. As far as I can tell, all of the forms are valid forever, and if I invent something profitable enough, all of my previous employers are going to go after it. I don't think that we have become more greedy or self serving over the years. I'm more inclined to think a nostalgia effect is at work. I'm not really sure. Maybe people are less altruistic today than they were 30+ years ago. In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I think how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook. Perhaps the popularity of ham radio is declining not because of anything to do with ham radio itself, but instead simply a matter of the changing society in the world as a whole. What do you base the thesis of declining popularity on? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
"Michael Coslo" wrote:
I don't think that we have become more greedy or self serving over the years. I'm more inclined to think a nostalgia effect is at work. Perhaps. However, as a youth I can recall numerous stories of how Joe Smith was a chemical engineer at some company, and invented Substance X in his garage while piddling around at home. It is often said that the best job you can have is one that is also a hobby. If ham radio is your hobby, and you work as an electrical engineer by day, can you really "invent" something for ham radio that your employer wouldn't have some type of claim against? In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I think how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook. What real altruism exists in software short of Linux-based products? Granted, there is a large amount of 'shareware' out there, but a sizeable percentage of it is simply crippleware designed to get you to upgrade to the 'commercial' version. What do you base the thesis of declining popularity on? Licensed amateurs as a whole in the US has been declining for 3+ years now. The rate of growth in Japanese amateurs has been anemic, under 1%, for the past 5+ years. UK licenses remain fairly consistent with their peak numbers 12 years ago, although short-term trends do see an increase. Australian licensees have been a 10+% dropoff over the past decade. All of these observations support a generic claim that interest in ham radio is lessening. |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 23, 10:41?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote: In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I think how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook. What real altruism exists in software short of Linux-based products? Granted, there is a large amount of 'shareware' out there, but a sizeable percentage of it is simply crippleware designed to get you to upgrade to the 'commercial' version. Go to Linear Technology (the semiconductor company). They will let anyone download LTSpice, a fully functional, operating SPICE suite, complete with component library and schematic drawing function that will automatically create a SPICE netlist. The manual for it is a separate download, also free to anyone. Not shareware, not some "crippleware designed to make one upgrade." A fully working SPICE program, for nothing. Ideal for amateur radio homebrew projects to check out any circuit before building it in hardware. LTSpice has been out for about a year, already has some hobby groups talking about it, using it, with tips on how to use it for unusual circuits and applications. Licensed amateurs as a whole in the US has been declining for 3+ years now. Not really any big decline. Newcomers (never before licensed) are filling in the gaps left by expirations. Check it out on www.hamdata.com, right on the home page. All of these observations support a generic claim that interest in ham radio is lessening. The drop of Ham Radio, 73 magazines happened in between 1990 and about 2003 due to lack of advertising space sales, particularly among the "Big3" (Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood). Folks tend to ignore those same Big3 are also engaged in making radios for businesses and governments. They probably make more money in that market than in the amateur radio field. However, in the periodicals that survive there continue to be new ham radio models being made and advertised, certain models promoted with extras (such as Icom). Antenna makers are still "up" and so are the hundreds of smaller businesses selling peripheral equipment and add-ons. I'd say that the interest in amateur radio is increasing, not the opposite. There might even be a trend towards more newcomers entering than ever before, some hints of that already shown in numbers on www.hamdata.com. 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
AF6AY wrote:
On Apr 23, 10:41?am, "KH6HZ" wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote: In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I think how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook. What real altruism exists in software short of Linux-based products? Granted, there is a large amount of 'shareware' out there, but a sizeable percentage of it is simply crippleware designed to get you to upgrade to the 'commercial' version. Go to Linear Technology (the semiconductor company). They will let anyone download LTSpice, a fully functional, operating SPICE suite, complete with component library and schematic drawing function that will automatically create a SPICE netlist. The manual for it is a separate download, also free to anyone. Not shareware, not some "crippleware designed to make one upgrade." A fully working SPICE program, for nothing. Ideal for amateur radio homebrew projects to check out any circuit before building it in hardware. LTSpice has been out for about a year, already has some hobby groups talking about it, using it, with tips on how to use it for unusual circuits and applications. On my computers, I use the OpenOffice Suite (mostly WP and their spreadsheet) I use Digipan and a whole host of other Ham radio software. Let's not forget N1MM contest logger. A number of people produce software for the PAQSO party. All these things share one thing in common. They are free for the download. Even programs such as EZNEC, while charging for the full version, have a perfectly functional demo version with the biggest limitation being the number of "elements" you can use in it. If that isn't enough, then 4NEC2 is free. Altruism does indeed exist. Licensed amateurs as a whole in the US has been declining for 3+ years now. Not really any big decline. Newcomers (never before licensed) are filling in the gaps left by expirations. Check it out on www.hamdata.com, right on the home page. The "big drop-off" is largely being replaced. While we can discuss the reason that it happened - it did happen. I suspect that we will get to that earlier level at some point. Perhaps the old Tech license was a bit of a dead end? All of these observations support a generic claim that interest in ham radio is lessening. The drop of Ham Radio, 73 magazines happened in between 1990 and about 2003 due to lack of advertising space sales, particularly among the "Big3" (Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood). Folks tend to ignore those same Big3 are also engaged in making radios for businesses and governments. They probably make more money in that market than in the amateur radio field. However, in the periodicals that survive there continue to be new ham radio models being made and advertised, certain models promoted with extras (such as Icom). Antenna makers are still "up" and so are the hundreds of smaller businesses selling peripheral equipment and add-ons. I'd say that the interest in amateur radio is increasing, not the opposite. Agreed. Certainly it is in my area. There are some who would dispute the success we are having in our area (we are running at a 2+ percent increase after factoring in attrition for well over a year now) as a fluke. I might respectfully suggest a new approach. 8^) There might even be a trend towards more newcomers entering than ever before, some hints of that already shown in numbers on www.hamdata.com. The new hams in our area are good people, and are becoming active and well mannered hams. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 10, 2:22 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
Changes in requirements don't have any effect when the potential recruits have no idea that the hobby even exists. I may have to concede that point, Dee. Here is a recent quote ( http://tinyurl.com/29e856 ) by the CEO of Radio Shack. He said: "Even the name 'RadioShack'-can you imagine two less appealing words placed next to one another?" Day said. "What is that, some kind of World War II terminology? Are ham radio operators still around, even? Aren't we in the digital age?" Yes, from the CEO of Radio Shack! Oh, well! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 25, 9:35�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
AF6AY wrote: On Apr 23, 10:41?am, "KH6HZ" wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote: In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I t hink how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook. What real altruism exists in software short of Linux-based products? Granted, there is a large amount of 'shareware' out there, but a sizea ble percentage of it is simply crippleware designed to get you to upgrade to the 'commercial' version. Go to Linear Technology (the semiconductor company). They will let anyone download LTSpice, a fully functional, operating SPICE suite, complete with component library and schematic drawing function that will automatically create a SPICE netlist. The manual for it is a separate download, also free to anyone. Not shareware, not some "crippleware designed to make one upgrade." A fully working SPICE program, for nothing. Ideal for amateur radio homebrew projects to check out any circuit before building it in hardware. LTSpice has been out for about a year, already has some hobby groups talking about it, using it, with tips on how to use it for unusual circuits and applications. On my computers, I use the OpenOffice Suite (mostly WP an d their spreadsheet) I use Digipan and a whole host of other Ham radio softwar e. Let's not forget N1MM contest logger. A number of people produce software for the PAQSO party. Reg Edwards' (G4FGQ) whole selection of design software G4FON's Morse Code learning software, to name just one of many Older versions of Spectrogram, an audio spectrum analyzer software with many uses in the ham shack. Several free online Amateur Radio practice test websites All these things share one thing in common. They are free for the download. Even programs such as EZNEC, while charging for the full version, have a perfectly functional demo version with the biggest limitation being the number of "elements" you can use in it. If that isn't enough, then 4NEC2 is free. Altruism does indeed exist. Licensed amateurs as a whole in the US has been declining for 3+ years now. Not really any big decline. Newcomers (never before licensed) are filling in the gaps left by expirations. Check it out on www.hamdata.com, right on the home page. The "big drop-off" is largely being replaced. While we ca n discuss the reason that it happened - it did happen. I suspect that we will get to that earlier level at some point. One factor I have not seem mentioned recently is the effect of rules changes other than license test requirements on the number of hams. For example, in the USA, the license term was doubled from 5 to 10 years back in 1984, and the 'grace period' doubled from one to two years. One effect of these changes was that there were no expirations at all from 1989 to 1994. Another was that the number of totally- inactive-and-not-coming-back hams still shown on the database was increased. Another rules change that effects expirations is the vanity callsign program. Unlike address changes, upgrades, etc., getting a vanity call also generates a renewal. This may profoundly affect the distribution of license expiration dates. With the license term at ten years and the grace period at two years, it can take a pretty long time for the actual loss of amateurs to show up in the totals. It is also important to know the details of what is included in the numbers being cited. The raw numbers of licenses listed by hamdata.com, for example, include both current licenses and those in the grace period, while other sources do not include grace period licensees. Perhaps the old Tech license was a bit of a dead end? Perhaps. However, if so, it should be noted that only a small percentage of them have upgraded in the past 60 days. There is also a fairly large variation in the license totals over fairly short periods of time. For example, the total number of current FCC-issued amateur licenses held by individuals was: 654,680 on Feb 22, 2007 (just before rules changed) 654,265 on Mar 5, 2007 654,160 on Mar 13, 2007 654,816 on Mar 14, 2007 655,025 on Mar 16, 2007 654,094 on Mar 19, 2007 655,136 on Apr 6, 2007 655,233 on Apr 12, 2007 654,649 on Apr 16, 2007 654,540 on Apr 24, 2007 Depending on which dates are compared, all sorts of short-term trends could appear to be happening. For example, from March 13 to April 12 the total grew by 1073 - more than 3 per day! But from April 12 to April 24, they declined by 693 - more than 5 per day. Of course on a longer baseline things will even out; the point is that there are large short-term variations. All of these observations support a generic claim that interest in ham radio is lessening. The drop of Ham Radio, 73 magazines happened in between 1990 and about 2003 due to lack of advertising space sales, particularly among the "Big3" (Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood). Folks tend to ignore those same Big3 are also engaged in making radios for businesses and governments. They probably make more money in that market than in the amateur radio field. However, in the periodicals that survive there continue to be new ham radio models being made and advertised, certain models promoted with extras (such as Icom). Antenna makers are still "up" and so are the hundreds of smaller businesses selling peripheral equipment and add-ons. I'd say that the interest in amateur radio is increasing, not the opposite. Agreed. Certainly it is in my area. There are some who wo uld dispute the success we are having in our area (we are running at a 2+ percent increase after factoring in attrition for well over a year now) as a fluke. I might respectfully suggest a new approach. 8^) "If it happens, it must be possible" There might even be a trend towards more newcomers entering than ever before, some hints of that already shown in numbers onwww.hamdata.com. The new hams in our area are good people, and are becomin g active and well mannered hams. IMHO, that's more important than how many. Looking back over the past decade or so, I see the following trends: - The number of US hams grew in the early 1990s but began a slow decline in the late 1990s. - The number of US hams grew in the early 2000s (2000-2003, after the rules changes that went into effect in April 2000) but the growth was not sustained and began a slow decline in the mid-2003 - The recent changes (Feb 2007) appear to have stopped the decline in the short term. - Both the 2000 and 2007 rules changes had the effect of a far greater number of existing hams upgrading than new hams joining. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 26, 4:35 am, wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:22 am, "Dee Flint" wrote: Changes in requirements don't have any effect when the potential recruits have no idea that the hobby even exists. I may have to concede that point, Dee. Uhhhhh, well, no, I guess I don't concede the point (GULP)! We may be the unwitting butt of the Onion joke, but at least even THEY know about us! We're famous! Sunnuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
Michael Coslo wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:35:43 EDT
AF6AY wrote: On Apr 23, 10:41?am, "KH6HZ" wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote: In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I think how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook. What real altruism exists in software short of Linux-based products? Granted, there is a large amount of 'shareware' out there, but a sizeable percentage of it is simply crippleware designed to get you to upgrade to the 'commercial' version. Go to Linear Technology (the semiconductor company). They will let anyone download LTSpice, a fully functional, operating SPICE suite, complete with component library and schematic drawing function that will automatically create a SPICE netlist. The manual for it is a separate download, also free to anyone. Not shareware, not some "crippleware designed to make one upgrade." A fully working SPICE program, for nothing. Ideal for amateur radio homebrew projects to check out any circuit before building it in hardware. LTSpice has been out for about a year, already has some hobby groups talking about it, using it, with tips on how to use it for unusual circuits and applications. On my computers, I use the OpenOffice Suite (mostly WP and their spreadsheet) I was unaware that WordPerfect had any "reader" or equivalent. :-) My upgrade from WP 3.1 to WP 8 came about, I think, from some bean-counter's mistake at a Fry's Electronics sale. For a mere $85 I got the "8" Upgrade plus "Dragon Naturally Speaking" (with nice little single-earphone and boom mike headset). One has to keep eyes and ears and mind open for legitimate bargains...they don't happen often. I use Digipan and a whole host of other Ham radio software. Let's not forget N1MM contest logger. A number of people produce software for the PAQSO party. All these things share one thing in common. They are free for the download. Yes! And there's no need to change/include other Operating Systems on a PC! Linear Technology Corporation isn't all that involved with altruism. Their LTSpice was originally configured to simulate their switching power supply ICs in order to boost their sales of same. Its first name was "SwitcherCAD." However, they did change their SPICE "envelope" to allow drawing-listing-analyzing-simulating any kind of discrete- component circuit. Their schematic-drawing and auto-netlist creation is not one of intrinsic beauty but it works just as good as those pay-for-everything SPICE packages. It can be used as an ARRL Radio Designer replacement or equivalent. At no cost. Licensed amateurs as a whole in the US has been declining for 3+ years now. Not really any big decline. Newcomers (never before licensed) are filling in the gaps left by expirations. Check it out on www.hamdata.com, right on the home page. The "big drop-off" is largely being replaced. While we can discuss the reason that it happened - it did happen. I suspect that we will get to that earlier level at some point. Perhaps the old Tech license was a bit of a dead end? I don't think so. The "old" Technician class which became "Technician Plus" in 1991 did serve its purpose in 1990 and before. Of course the Tech Plus was no longer issued as of 2000, but then neither were Advanced and Novice. The Novice class license was conceived, lobbied-for by those who thought U.S. Amateur Radio would always have morse code as it epitome of skills and all should "do their time" in the "apprenticeship" of old-style operating as if amateur radio was a union, guild or special craft occupation. Of course it wasn't, despite all the urging and PR to "begin at the beginning and work, work, work your way up" by some. :-( The "old" Tech and the new Tech were specifically banished from HF until July of 2003 and the changes to S25 (nearly entire re-write) at WRC-03. They served their original purpose well enough, I think, which was to open a class of license for true experimenters. What really happened was that the Techs (both kinds) found they could be IN amateur radio and it wasn't burdened by all the old morse code requirements (de jure and de facto). Even with the antipathy of old-timers ("shack on a belt" type of remarks, etc.) the Techs did their own thing on VHF-UHF and found it as much or more fun than what they "were supposed to do" on HF. It should be fairly obvious that Techs (both kinds) made up very, very close to half of all licensees in U.S. amateur radio prior to 23 February 2007. It was the "entry" class for so many and many enjoyed that so much they didn't all switch to other classes. All that while the original "entry" class of Novice licensees were dwindling. However, in the periodicals that survive there continue to be new ham radio models being made and advertised, certain models promoted with extras (such as Icom). Antenna makers are still "up" and so are the hundreds of smaller businesses selling peripheral equipment and add-ons. I'd say that the interest in amateur radio is increasing, not the opposite. Agreed. Certainly it is in my area. There are some who would dispute the success we are having in our area (we are running at a 2+ percent increase after factoring in attrition for well over a year now) as a fluke. I might respectfully suggest a new approach. 8^) In the last week I've received new catalogs from AES, HRO, Texas Towers, MFJ in the mail. It's either a grand conspiracy of marketing or just a lot of ham goodies being made and sold. :-) There might even be a trend towards more newcomers entering than ever before, some hints of that already shown in numbers on www.hamdata.com. The new hams in our area are good people, and are becoming active and well mannered hams. I didn't know that new folks were "ill-mannerred." I've heard a lot of old folks say they were but, as one of the 'old folk' I have yet to see that for myself. :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 26, 11:27�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote grou ps.com: Reg Edwards' (G4FGQ) whole selection of design software Yoiks! I can't believe that I forgot Reg (at least his software) Thanks for that addition, Jim He's just one example that came to mind. There are lots more. G4FON's Morse Code learning software, to name just one of many Older versions of Spectrogram, an audio spectrum analyzer software with many uses in the ham shack. Several free online Amateur Radio practice test websites All good additions, Jim Thanks. And they're just a drop in the bucket. The "big drop-off" is largely being replaced. While we ca n discuss the reason that it happened - it did happen. I suspect that we will get to that earlier level at some point. One factor I have not seem mentioned recently is the effect of rules changes other than license test requirements on the number of hams. For example, in the USA, the license term was doubled from 5 to 10 years back in 1984, and the 'grace period' doubled from one to two years. This is truly not an exact science! The licencing qualifi cations and expiry conditions have been quite dynamic. Exactly. Another rules change that effects expirations is the vanity callsign program. Unlike address changes, upgrades, etc., getting a vanity call also generates a renewal. This may profoundly affect the distribution of license expiration dates. With the license term at ten years and the grace period at two years, it can take a pretty long time for the actual loss of amateurs to show up in the totals. Indeed. While I would presonally like my license to remai n in effect forever without renewal,(hehe) a shorter renewal cycle would be of great utility in keeping track of how we are doing in retention of Hams. There was a time when you could get a renewal almost any time in the license term if some other change was happening, like an upgrade or an address change. From 1967 to 1983, even though the license term was 5 years, I only renewed once, because of all the upgrades and address changes I made in that time. It is also important to know the details of what is included in the numbers being cited. It is a problem with all statistics/numbers. Yes, but too often those making a statement can neglect to note what is included in their totals. What I have noticed in my area is that the upgrades from Tech to General has been mostly been by recently licensed Techs. That says (to me) that a lot of newer folks are more interestd in upgrading. I would venture that there is not much use in trying to pick up anything from our numbers except from long term statistics (in spite of my yapping about the success we are having in my area). on a weekly basis, nothing real can be determined. The success in your area is simply one data point you have observed. You're not saying it's a widespread trend, just that it's what you have observed. The day-to-day variations are so large that it will clearly be some time before a long term trend is clear. IMHO, what we're really seeing is a whole bunch of trends overlapping each other. The new hams in our area are good people, and are becoming active and well mannered hams. IMHO, that's more important than how many. When it all boils down, that is what is important. Despite all the concerns voiced by various segemnts of the Amateur community, what we need are good, active people. Agreed. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On Apr 26, 5:49?am, wrote:
Looking back over the past decade or so, I see the following trends: - The number of US hams grew in the early 1990s but began a slow decline in the late 1990s. - The number of US hams grew in the early 2000s (2000-2003, after the rules changes that went into effect in April 2000) but the growth was not sustained and began a slow decline in the mid-2003 - The recent changes (Feb 2007) appear to have stopped the decline in the short term. - Both the 2000 and 2007 rules changes had the effect of a far greater number of existing hams upgrading than new hams joining. Was there really any expectation to the contrary, Jim? There's not been ten cents worth of promotion of the new licenure requirements in the non-Amateur press, ie: Pop Science, Pop Mechanics, etc etc etc... WE know all albout the changes...No one else does, and even if the ARRL, CQ, W5YI, etc started the full court press I seriously doubt we'd see more than that same brief surge as you noteed above....Oh, to be sure there's going to be a handful of the 11 meter DX crowd that decides to "go legal", but that's still a very samll percentage. Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will. I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need "big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On May 2, 9:52�pm, wrote:
On Apr 26, 5:49?am, wrote: Looking back over the past decade or so, I see the following trends: - The number of US hams grew in the early 1990s but began a slow decline in the late 1990s. - The number of US hams grew in the early 2000s (2000-2003, after the rules changes that went into effect in April 2000) but the growth was not sustained and began a slow decline in the mid-2003 - The recent changes (Feb 2007) appear to have stopped the decline in the short term. - Both the 2000 and 2007 rules changes had the effect of a far greater number of existing hams upgrading than new hams joining. Was there really any expectation to the contrary, Jim? One of the reasons given by those proposing the changes was to insure the growth and survival of amateur radio in the 21st century. There's not been ten cents worth of promotion of the new licenure requirements in the non-Amateur press, ie: Pop Science, Pop Mechanics, etc etc etc... Do those mags even exist anymore? What's their circulation? WE know all albout the changes...No one else does, and even if the ARRL, CQ, W5YI, etc started the full court press I seriously doubt we'd see more than that same brief surge as you noteed above....Oh, to be sure there's going to be a handful of the 11 meter DX crowd that decides to "go legal", but that's still a very samll percentage. So how do we get the word out? Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will. I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need "big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees.. Why can't we have both? That means solid skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today. I'm not sure what you mean by "non-compromised". If it means a secret test, forget it. The only way we'd ever get secret tests again would be for FCC to take over the process, and they're just not going to do that. And even if FCC could somehow be convinced to take over the whole test preparation and administration process, somebody could just repeat Dick Bash's tricks of 30+ years ago, and the tests wouldn't stay secret. The one thing that *can* be done is to make the pools so big that it's easier to learn the material than to learn the test. Anyone can submit questions to the QPC. 73 de Jim, N2EY. |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
wrote on Wed, 2 May 2007 23:36:41 EDT
On May 2, 9:52?pm, wrote: On Apr 26, 5:49?am, wrote: There's not been ten cents worth of promotion of the new licenure requirements in the non-Amateur press, ie: Pop Science, Pop Mechanics, etc etc etc... Do those mags even exist anymore? What's their circulation? Popular Science and Popular Mechanics are both newsstand periodicals and my barber and my dentist include those in their waiting area. :-) By scan of their contents, both seem to cover whatever high-tech is "in" regarding all of science and technology. At one time in the 1940s and 1950s, Popular Science did have a few hobby projects concerning radio and home music systems (of their day), none of them more complicated than using one to three vacuum tubes. The largest such article that I recall was a multi-part construction article of a (then) wideband (10 MHz or so) oscilloscope authored by John Wood Campbell, then Editor in Chief of Astounding Science Fiction magazine (later "Analog"). Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will. I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need "big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees.. Why can't we have both? What defines "quality?" That is a popular descriptor yet is not defined fully by any of its users. All who are licensed in a particular radio service should obey the applicable laws concerning that radio service. As to what they do within that radio service should be up to the individual. The FCC gives all licensed U.S. radio amateurs quite a bit of freedom to do what the individual wants to do. As such, the "quality" aspect would seem largely subjective on the part of whoever uses that word. And even if FCC could somehow be convinced to take over the whole test preparation and administration process, somebody could just repeat Dick Bash's tricks of 30+ years ago, and the tests wouldn't stay secret. That's a presumption that Mr. Bash was the only one to do "tricks." It belies the hard-cover "Q and A" books that were available as far back as the 1950s. Those "Q and A" books were available on all current classes of FCC tests and a number of state licensing tests for various state licenses. Point of personal history: I tried to get one for the FCC Commercial license test in 1956, but local bookstores did not have them available. I borrowed the (then format) FCC Regulations loose-leaf binder and memorized as much as possible of the entire set as applied to all. There were fewer radio services then than 51 years later. The one thing that *can* be done is to make the pools so big that it's easier to learn the material than to learn the test. A popular presumption is that all "just memorize the questions and answers" prior to a test. That is difficult to prove since each applicant's efforts are unique to the individual. Certainly certain regulations must be memorized. However the questions regarding theory and operation depend on the experience and previous knowledge of each individual. As to the actual number of questions-answers in the pools, the following are hand counts of all three current question pools from a print-out of them made prior to my 25 February 2007 exam: Technician: 35 questions, Minimum required in pool 350, Actual number in pool 392. Ratio of pool to test questions = 11.20:1 General: 35 questions, Minimum required in pool 350, Actual number in pool 485. Ratio of pool to test questions = 13.86:1 Extra: 50 questions, Minimum required in pool 500, Actual number in pool 802. Ratio of pool to test questions = 16.04:1 All three classes: 120 questions total, Minimum required (total) 1200, Actual number in pool 1679. Ratio of pools to test questions 13.99:1 average. Note: The above is not a scientific study and the actual count may be off by a few questions. As it is now (General will change in mid-2007), the actual pool question quantity is over the minimum regulatory number of ten pool choices per required test question, all classes. I have been suggesting elsewhere (for several years) that a "cure" for the presumption that all "just memorize the pool to pass" is to increase the QP size. Very few commented on that elsewhere. I don't personally believe in that presumption yet it is frequently stated by others elsewhere. To some degree the increase in QP size that has already been done by the NCVEC Question Pool Committee. Having had a recent exposure to all three class pools in a test environment, I would judge that the NCVEC QPC has done a good job overall for the current QPs. In review, post-test, I would say that the NCVEC QPC has introduced enough 'distractor' questions to make an applicant pay closer attention to both questions and choice of answers. Considering the present-day scope of possible activity by licensed radio amateurs in the U.S., the type and kind of questions in a NCVEC QP can have a large variety. Part 97 Title 47 CFR gives licensees that variety. The choice of which questions to include can be difficult under such a situation...especially so when there is random choice of which questions to include within a specific type and kind on any exam. Anyone can submit questions to the QPC. Their website is at www.ncvec.org 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
wrote:
Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will. The decline in licensing continues unabated. With the exception of a minor uptick in October '06, the number of licensed amateurs has been in decline since '03 .. Feb 07: 655,477. Mar 07: 655,048 Apr 07: 654,940 Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just waiting for the code requirement to disappear"? I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need "big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today. Exactly. History has proven time and time again that quality, not quantity, is the solution to most problems. 73 kh6hz |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
wrote:
Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will. The decline in licensing continues unabated. With the exception of a minor uptick in October '06, the number of licensed amateurs has been in decline since '03 . Feb 07: 655,477. Mar 07: 655,048 Apr 07: 654,940 I disagree with the above. Based just on the www.hamdata.com info (as opposed to ARRL "active-only" listings), the number of new licensees is now above the number of expirations. As of 3 May 07 the New v. Expiration numbers for USA licensees a Last 30 days (total): New = 2,742 Expirations = 2,658 Last 60 days (total): New = 6, 417 Expirations = 5.494 Last 90 days (total): New = 8,972 Expirations = 7,767 Compared to the total number of licensees of 2 years prior (total of 733,147) there are 10,957 fewer licensees as of 3 May 07. The drop in total licensees is about 1.5% in two years. By my observation, the trend of newcomers surpassing the number of expirations in the USA appears to have begun. Yes, it may be "a statistical anamoly" in numbers but the only way to prove such a refutation is to jump ahead to 2008 and produce numbers from then, something not yet within scientific grasp. :-) Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just waiting for the code requirement to disappear"? I'm not sure that was anything but some convenient scapegoat phrase (i.e., 'urban myth') used by those desiring the continuation of the status quo as of the early 1990s. The hordes of "technically-savvy people" are busily engaged in a number of very technical avocations in areas like: Personal computing (both hardware and software), Robotics (of more tangible appeal to youngsters), Automotive electronics, Amateur Scientific experimentation, Radio-control, Music Systems from guitar amplifiers to high-end sound systems, Home Security Systems, just to name a few. Add to those Blog maintenance and web-surfing and non-electronic-but- technically-complex hobbies like genealogy and computer graphics construction (of photos as well as original art) and all of the above is just a tip of the iceberg of interesting and challenging personal activities available to all in the last two decades. Personal radio communication without the available infra- structure of other personal communications means has been faced with a great deal of competition for everyone's free time. Amateur radio - in and of itself in the old paradigms - hasn't come up with enough attraction to be competitive in the hobby area. Having always been older than the FCC, I can recall that amateur radio was an attractive hobby in the 1950s and 1960s. That was the 'baby boomer' era where youngsters were made aware of "radio" and the ability to talk around the world. But, that high-technology of its time was 50 to 40 years ago and technology of communications has made several quantum jumps in abilities of all to communicate since then. The Internet went public in 1991, just 16 years ago, has now become part and parcel of USA society today. "Technically-savvy people' are generally engaged in work on savvy technology for a living. They are creating the savvy technology that others will enjoy next year or a few years later. That these "technically-savvy people" want to pursue free-time hobbies on other things than communicating by their own personal radios is not their fault. They have so many possible choices to occupy their free time that few will fall back on half-century-old 'technological' hobbies such as 'radio sport' contesting and/or collecting QSOs. Given all the actual new technology made available for all to use in hobbies of the last two decades, those alleged "hordes of technically-savvy people" no doubt have taken up other technically-savvy hobbies and discarded the idea of emulating what the old pioneers of radio did long ago. I submit that many just got tired of waiting for the code test to be eliminated from testing and went on to other things. 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On May 4, 3:22?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote: snip I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need "big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today. Exactly. History has proven time and time again that quality, not quantity, is the solution to most problems. The word "quality" is both subjective and ambiguous used above. Amateur radio is not an occupation. It can be an enjoyable avocation for many in a "technically-savvy" activity...without the requirement of years of formal education or the necessity of enduring certain levels of accomplishment as in a guild, union, or craft trade. In most administrations of the world, the only requirement is that all in amateur radio operate according to their regulations. Disobeying regulations will result in 'firing' an amateur (loss of license, fines, etc., depending on an administration's laws). Otherwise, every licensed amateur retains their license for whatever term an administration lawfully specifies. Their quality of operating is up to the individual and whatever peer pressure might ensue within a country. In the USA I think that "quantity" is important to the health and welfare of future amateur radio here. Primarily for the "presence" of so many licensees having an effect on law- makers' future decisions. Secondarily on the market presence to insure that equipment and components will be available in the future. As to "history proving anything" for "solutions," I submit the Roman Empire as an example. Roman engineering of its day was the epitome then, resulting in roads over most of known Europe, water supply and waste disposal, ships and trade over all the long reaches of its empire. Historians have written that the Roman Empire failed from within, not from the quality of its civil engineering and other innovations for civilization of its time. "Radio" as a communications means is only 111 years old. The radio of now is vastly different from early radio, not just in technology but also in that elusive word "quality." To attempt pinning some specific era as the baseline for such "quality" is tantamount to trying to nail jelly to a tree... :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
On May 4, 7:22�am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote: Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will. The decline in licensing continues unabated. Well, maybe. But according to the numbers I've seen and posted in recent months, the number of current, unexpired FCC-issued amateur licenses held by individuals seems to have leveled off at around 655,000. With the exception of a minor uptick in October '06, the number of licens ed amateurs has been in decline since '03 . Feb 07: 655,477. Mar 07: 655,048 Apr 07: 654,940 The number I have for May 1, 2007 is 655,069. However, it should be noted that the total number can vary up and down a couple of hundred in just a few days. Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just waiting for the code requirement to disappear"? There are three possibilities: 1) They don't know the rules changed back in February. 2) They're busy studying for the written test, finding a VE session, etc. 3) They don't exist. --- There's also the idea that one of the purposes of amateur radio is to *create* technically-savvy people. That's one reason for the emphasis on young people. Like a kid who got his first license years before high school, and the Extra years before college. I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need "big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today. Exactly. History has proven time and time again that quality, not quantit y, is the solution to most problems. Why can't we have both quality and big numbers? And just what are "big numbers", anyway? Back in the late 1940s, all through the 1950s and into the early 1960s, the number of US hams grew from about 60,000 just after VJ-Day to about 250,000 in 1964, even though all hams back then had to pass Morse Code exams and "secret" written tests. Yet ham radio was far less popular back then than it is today, because the ratio of hams to total US population was much lower then than today. The 1970s and early 1980s were another period of fast growth, even though the license test requirements had been considerably increased by the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968 and 1969. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
"KH6HZ" wrote:
[...] Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just waiting for the code requirement to disappear"? Answer: They know nothing whatever about any of this. When the Internet opened to the public in the early 1990's, there was a level of media interest that was almost indescribable. Have you made any attempt to draw the media into this? |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
wrote on Sat, 5 May 2007 08:20:29 EDT
On May 4, 7:22?am, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will. The decline in licensing continues unabated. Well, maybe. But according to the numbers I've seen and posted in recent months, the number of current, unexpired FCC-issued amateur licenses held by individuals seems to have leveled off at around 655,000. One of the reasons I used the www.hamdata.com figures is that there is no differentiation between "active" and "inactive" in quoting the New (never before licensed) versus the Expired (very definitely out of their grace period). That dynamic shows - directly - the 'replacement' of attrited licensees by newcomers. ... However, it should be noted that the total number can vary up and down a couple of hundred in just a few days. Examining totals over a 30-day or longer period has an averaging effect of minimizing the statistical anamolies occurring over just a few days. "Smoothing the curve," so to speak. Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just waiting for the code requirement to disappear"? There are three possibilities: 1) They don't know the rules changed back in February. That seems unlikely considering the FCC announced their decision on 15 December 2006 and that news was then carried by the ARRL in all their periodicals, in CQ magazine, in Popular Communications, on www.qrz.com, on www.eham.net, on newsgroups oriented towards amateur radio (and including SWL and CB enthusiasts), in major electronics trade periodicals (EDN and Electronic Design, even Microwaves & RF, the IEEE Spectrum membership magazine), even in a few large newspapers. While the 'waiting period' was only slightly longer than two months before legal activation, there had been an NPRM and Comment period on it begun nearly a year and a half prior in Docket 05-235 announced 19 July 2005. That NPRM and Comments were also publicized by the major amateur radio news providers in print and on the Internet. Anyone who is at all concerned or interested in or about amateur radio in the USA is bound to have found out about it ahead of time. 2) They're busy studying for the written test, finding a VE session, etc. While the more remote areas of the USA would still be difficult to access a VEC examination location, those would also represent the least populous areas. VEC exams exist in the urban centers and are publicized by the dozen-plus VECs to those interested. In the Greater Los Angeles area (population roughly 8 million) about half of the exams scheduled were "walk-in," no advance notice necessary. In close observation of all the Question Pools issued by the NCVEC, there were very few questions directly concerning morse code use that would be affected by FCC 06-178 so there would be minimal studying any changes wrought by that R&O. 3) They don't exist. Or, more likely, the phrase did not exist in the alleged wide use claimed by some. :-) A more likely possibility is that there are 'hoards' [sic] of technically- savvy people who simply gave up on the old requirements of ham radio testing and went on to other, newer technology-related hobbies that were more interesting to them. They just were not interested in spending their own time on learning a skill they would never use after passing an amateur radio examination. 73, Len AF6AY |
Before and After Cessation of Code Testing
wrote on Sat, 5 May 2007 08:20:29 EDT:
On May 4, 7:22?am, "KH6HZ" wrote: And just what are "big numbers", anyway? Back in the late 1940s, all through the 1950s and into the early 1960s, the number of US hams grew from about 60,000 just after VJ-Day to about 250,000 in 1964, even though all hams back then had to pass Morse Code exams and "secret" written tests. Yes, there was certainly a growth, but a number of factors were not mentioned. Firstly, all amateur radio operation was forbidden during the duration of World War II. Secondly, the wide use of radio for communications by the military during that war was certainly one of exposure to many military members that might have been mildly interested in radio in general at the time. Third, the large numbers of "war surplus" radio equipment suitable for HF operation was a boon for all interested at the time to become radio active at low cost. I've witnessed all of that first-hand. Yet ham radio was far less popular back then than it is today, because the ratio of hams to total US population was much lower then than today. I have to disagree with that for several reasons. Independent amateur radio publications CQ and 73 began a many-decades publishing existance in that period. Several other radio-interest publications began and some pre-WWII publishers restarted in the late 1940s. Publishing of electronics subjects in all areas began in earnest during the late 1940s and into the 1950s and those have increased up to today. Electronics in many applications flourished after WWII, even before the invention of the transistor and first appearance of low-priced production devices almost a decade later. With that increase in general electronics production, not to mention the avalanche of TV receivers being made, came an increase in the availability of electronic components through distributors and dealers, most being suitable for "radio" applications. Thousands of small start-up businesses and proto-corporations involved in electronics began during that period; few were directly involved with amateur radio per se since all of the electronics industry was undergoing a rapid expansion...something that hasn't stopped. The immediate post-WWII period saw little change in amateur radio technology or operation, the vast majority concerned with HF bands as they were then, that mostly using radiotelegraphy mode. Voice on HF ham bands required double-sideband AM techniques which didn't begin to be replaced by new-fangled SSB until the late 1950s. Data (actually RTTY then) was rare and confined to those who could get surplus teleprinter terminals. Only a few knowledgeable amateur experimenters were engaged in radio above 30 MHz, a part of the spectrum considered almost "other-worldly" by so many HF hams and inhabited only by TV, FM, and radars. :-) The first significant change in worldwide amateur radio came about (in my observation) at WARC-79 and the creation of new HF bands for amateurs. In the USA there was little advancement in amateur radio regulations to keep pace with the growing influence of electronics in all consumer applications and radio for other purposes than broadcast or ham use. CB on the former 11m ham band slice of HF had a notable growth among U.S. radio producers after 1958. All of the bigger radio makers were involved plus several start-up companies. Less than a decade later came the off-shore produced CB sets at lower prices and the explosion in CB set use on highways began. While there are no easily-obtainable statistics now, estimates of CB set use today outnumbers amateur radio licensees by at least 7:1. With the off-shore production of CB transceivers came the off-shore produced amateur radios having competitive quality and cost. The 1970s and early 1980s were another period of fast growth, even though the license test requirements had been considerably increased by the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968 and 1969. Not having taken any "incentive licensing era" tests for amateur radio, I can't comment on "requirements being considerably increased." I do note that the time period was one in which the [Japanese] "Big3" of amateur radio designers-producers got started and firmly established their position in the ham market. Hallicrafters of Chicago dissolved their business, National Radio went to all- government contract work and morphed into other things, Collins Radio dropped out of the amateur market though it is still heavy into commercial and military radios as a division of Rockwell Intl. Heath Company of Benton Harbor, MI, quit most of its fabled kit business and changed owners. Yaesu, Kenwood, Icom rule in the HF-VHF-UHF ham radios off the shelf today. All three plus the smaller off-shore makers offer quality in production and design at competitive prices. I would think that such would have a direct bearing on whether any newcomers would be attracted to amateur radio of today or of the 1980s and 1990s. However, with such "fast growth" ('fast' being subjective) came the increased demand to eliminate the code test for amateur radio license exams. Several countries had established "T-hams" who did not test for morse code skill but were restricted to VHF and up. The USA lagged behind those other countries in finally establishing the Technician class (no-code-test) license in 1991. The rest of the radio world was giving up using any morse code modes...if it had ever established it from a radio service's beginning. In 1970 there was little competition for free time from the Internet (made public 1991), Bulletin Board Systems (as yet a decade away), personal computers (four years away for a beginning, a decade away for the "IBM PC"), less than half of all homes had color TV and most had screens smaller than 23 inches, nothing like the 100 channels for model radio control at 72-74 MHz, few amateur radios on the market for VHF and higher, cellular telephone service just starting (at lower frequencies than L-band), no standardization on Compact Disc recordings (magnetic recordings had begun to compete with vinyl discs), no standard magnetic tape recording system for television recordings, "Pong" was just taking hold as a novelty electronic game in restaurants and lounges (all-digital, first models did not use a microprocessor), TTL digital devices were becoming a market- demand leader for digital electronics, some specialty analog ICs were new and available although most would be out of production in three decades, "auto electronics" consisted of an in-dash AM/FM radio and an ignition system little changed from 1940 designs. Personal radio was limited to 11m CB that was undergoing an explosive growth from inexpensive foreign production and becoming popular with truckers. Electronic music augmentation was just beginning and the first music synthesizers had appeared. Three decades later there is considerable competition for free time and personal entertainment. One out of three Americans has a cell phone subscription. One out of five American house- holds has some form of Internet access. CDs have replaced all previous formats of music recording and DVDs have replaced former means television recordings. Retail dealers and renters of both have been created. We are in the transition phase of conversion to HDTV which has already shown a superior video and audio service. Most U.S. households have multi-channel television-music service by cable or satellite relay. We've had direct-dial telephone service for two decades to any other same-service telephone in the world. The Internet is firmly established as part of U.S. social fabric and is found on all continents of the world. We have license-free FRS HTs over the counter as pairs for under $100. 11m CB is still with us and still used on highways by the millions. Remote control of models by radio in the 100 channels of license-free bands at 72 and 74 MHz is the standard for modelers, wireless local area network equipment is off-the-shelf for businesses and residences. Cell phone service is available on all major U.S. highways, even in remote areas (excluding parts of Alaska). We have cordless telephones that operate at 5.6 MHz, using secure digital modulation as well as older 2.4 MHz units with the same features, both a practical impossibility in 1970. I've not included such things as voice-over-Internet protocol, the ability of modern PCs to typeset a printed page as good as any compositor plus include imagery as part of a finished document. I've not included the (literally) thousands of different games available for PCs. I've not even mentioned that the average under-$1500 over-the-counter PC suite of today having more processing power than any IBM-360 or RCA Spectra 70 mainframe computer of 1970. I've not mentioned that digital electronics and photosensing have changed personal photography from film to electronic form, capable of being "developed" at any PC or added-function stand-alone printer. I've not included the (license-free) radios that open car doors, open garage doors, sound various music when wireless door bells are pushed, activate electrical devices remotely, carry security TV camera signals, or identify products by RF, all using relatively-secure digital codings. The preceding has been just a summary of the kinds of things which can compete for free time for all Americans, whether they are licensed in the amateur radio service or not. It is that kind of competition that future amateur radio in the USA has to work amongst to attract newcomers. Amateur radio must attract newcomers or it won't survive as a radio service. Amateur radio must change with the times or just disappear as human attrition takes its toll on those who refuse to adapt. 73, Len AF6AY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:08 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com