On Apr 14, 4:03 pm, John from Detroit wrote:

What makes a real ham, as opposed to something else, is a willingness to
study and learn about the hobby, and to try new and different things.

That's certainly part of it.

I think the "real ham" is distinguished by a set of attitudes and
actions that include what you wrote and a lot more.

For example, there's:

- friendliness to and support of other hams

- high standards of conduct, on and off the air

- setting a good example for both hams and non-hams

- technical and operational know-how

- fairness and true competitive spirit

- being a good neighbor and a good citizen

- respect for Amateur Radio traditions, history, and the contributions
of the past, yet being open to real progress in the present and facing
the challenges of the future.

I think the combination of all those things are what makes "a real
ham".

A person can have lots of willingness to study and learn about the
hobby, and to try new and different things, but if they lack those
other things, I don't think they're "a real ham".

IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:03 pm, John from Detroit wrote:

What makes a real ham, as opposed to something else, is a willingness to
study and learn about the hobby, and to try new and different things.

That's certainly part of it.

I think the "real ham" is distinguished by a set of attitudes and
actions that include what you wrote and a lot more.

For example, there's:

- friendliness to and support of other hams

- high standards of conduct, on and off the air

- setting a good example for both hams and non-hams

- technical and operational know-how

- fairness and true competitive spirit

- being a good neighbor and a good citizen

- respect for Amateur Radio traditions, history, and the contributions
of the past, yet being open to real progress in the present and facing
the challenges of the future.

I think the combination of all those things are what makes "a real
ham".

A person can have lots of willingness to study and learn about the
hobby, and to try new and different things, but if they lack those
other things, I don't think they're "a real ham".

IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY


Normally I do not do full back quotes but what you typed bears repeating.

I agree,, I kind of lumped a lot of that into the "Willingness to study"
but in another field I have often said that those truly blessed with the
ability have a need to "Pass it on" (Willingness to help)

The technicial ability is a result of the willingness to study

Respect.... Well.. We could discuss that some but yes, that should be
part of it too.

As to being open to real progress.. For many decades we have pushed the
progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better hardware than the
military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it, not military
engineers.

Though in fairness... Many of those military engineers are Hams.

My daughter's new beau works (or rather worked) for the Air Force.. In a
manner of speaking he was a pilot.. He flew R/C planes.

On Apr 15, 7:20�pm, John from Detroit wrote:

Normally I do not do full back quotes but
what you typed bears repeating.

Thanks but one repeat is enough...

I agree,, I kind of lumped a lot of that into
the "Willingness to study"
but in another field I have often
said that those truly blessed with the
ability have a need to "Pass it on" �(Willingness to help)

Agreed. But there's more to it than studying, A lot of things require
practice in order to do well.

The technicial ability is a result of the willingness to study

Partly - but it also is a result of doing. "Book learning" is great
but it must be matched by practical know-how to do a radio amateur any
good.

Respect.... Well.. We could discuss that
some but yes, that should be
part of it too.

Might as well discuss it.

As to being open to real progress.. For many decades
we have pushed the
progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better
hardware than the
military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it,
not military engineers.

I think that depends on how you define "better hardware".

Military stuff has to be as rugged and dependable as possible, in all
sorts of environments including hot, cold, humid, vibration, shock,
high altitude, EMP, etc. Most ham gear doesn't have to be able to
withstand anything like the environment the military demands.

Military stuff also has to be capable of things a lot of ham gear
doesn't, such as encryption, operation from 24-28 volts DC, remote
control, ALE, spread spectrum, interconnection with other military
systems, automatic operation, etc. Often the "radio" is simply part of
a much larger system.

There's also the military requirements of documentation, training,
domestic sourcing, etc.

The one place where ham gear is probably "better" is in price. But
that's to be expected because the requirements are so different.

---

Many hams know that the WW2 BC-610 transmitter was really a repackaged
Hallicrafters HT-4 amateur transmitter. Ham gear went to war!

But what's sometimes not emphasized is that they didn't just change
the label on the HT-4 and make it the BC-610. What really happened is
that the transmitter went through a considerable amount of testing and
rework before it could meet military specifications. For example,
things like vibration and shock were big issues; the original HT-4
final plate tuning capacitor simply fell apart in field tests.

And those were WW2-era requirements - modern military specifications
are even tougher!

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:20�pm, John from Detroit wro
te:


Agreed. But there's more to it than studying, A lot of things require
practice in order to do well.

That is what I get for being a Science Major.. I consider "Doing" (LAB)
to be part of the "Studying" (Lecture hall) process. (IN short agreed)


The technicial ability is a result of the willingness to study

Partly - but it also is a result of doing. "Book learning" is great
but it must be matched by practical know-how to do a radio amateur any
good.

There is a story... And you are looking at the end result of it as you
read this.

The story is a Professor had a bright idea.. How to make analog devices
(Vacuum tubes) work in a DIGITAL fashion (Could this be the first
computer circuit... Yes, it was.. I told you you were looking at the end
result)

Well, he put his A+ Lab assistants on the job and they quickly hit a wall

Then his A, A-, B+, B, B-

Well to make a long story short he got down to a "C" student.. Now this
student knew the book forward, backward, and sideways, but he also knew
what worked (A fiction note follows) and thus he tended to answer test
questions with what worked, rather than what the book wanted.

You see. He was a Ham Radio Operator and he had tested the theory.

He also had a working digital gate within six months.


The fiction note

In the world of Star Trek there is a book, If I don't mangle the title
too much It is Kobashi Maru (The "No win" test at the academy) And I
believe it's written by the lovely and talented Julia Ecklar (Yes, I
know her)

If you can snag a copy read Scotty's chapter where he talks about his
time in command school.. Normally engineers do not go to command school
but... Scotty .... Is different.

On Apr 16, 10:22 am, John from Detroit wrote:
N2EY wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:20 pm, John from Detroit wro

That is what I get for being a Science Major.. I consider "Doing" (LAB)
to be part of the "Studying" (Lecture hall) process. (IN short agreed)

Ham radio is a lot closer to engineering than science, however.

The technicial ability is a result of the willingness to study

Partly - but it also is a result of doing. "Book learning" is great
but it must be matched by practical know-how to do a radio amateur any
good.

There is a story... And you are looking at the end result of it as you
read this.

The story is a Professor had a bright idea.. How to make analog devices
(Vacuum tubes) work in a DIGITAL fashion (Could this be the first
computer circuit... Yes, it was.. I told you you were looking at the end
result)

Who was the Professor and where was he?

(here follows a digression)

The reason I ask is that I've seen and put my paws on parts of ENIAC -
the world's first fully operational high speed, general purpose,
Turing-complete, electronic digital computer. All modern computers are
descended from ENIAC.

Yes, there were other machines that try to claim the title. But they
all lack one or more of the characteristics of ENIAC.

For example, some early machines were part mechanical and part
electronic. Some were never fully operational, or only became fully
operational long after ENIAC. Many were special-purpose machines,
built to do one thing rather than being general-purpose programmable
systems that were Turing-complete. Many were not high-speed, using
line frequency for the clock.

About the only serious competition ENIAC has is the British Colossus
machine. But because of extreme secrecy, Colossus did not have any
direct descendants, while ENIAC did, leading to the first UNIVAC. I'm
not sure if Colossus was Turing-complete, either.

You see. He was a Ham Radio Operator and he had tested the theory.

Another story:

Some years back there was a documentary about the development of the
proximity fuze during WW2. The challenge was to build a small radar
set - with tubes, antenna, battery, etc. - into an artillery shell.
The problems involved were immense, considering that the fuze would
have to survive the shock of being fired, the spinning of the flight,
and still work when it got to the target. It would also have to not
detonate falsely, and work without maintenance after months or years
of storage and transport.

One of the managers of the project said that what worked best in the
development was to pair a theoretical scientist, usually a physicist,
with a ham. The physicist would do the theoretical; the ham would do
the practical. The proximity fuze was developed and manufactured in
the millions during the war.

I will look for the book. Kobiashi Maru IIRC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

The story is a Professor had a bright idea.. How to make analog devices
(Vacuum tubes) work in a DIGITAL fashion (Could this be the first
computer circuit... Yes, it was.. I told you you were looking at the end
result)

Who was the Professor and where was he?

I have no idea,, In fact it's been long enough I can't even tell you
where I read the story (May have been QST, may have been another Radio mag)

I do know it's been a long time since I read the story.

Speaking of QST, and Thread drift,, Did you see the article in the April
QST on Digital Antennas.

At least they were UP Front about it.

(If anyone wonders about that article... IT's the April edition)

"John from Detroit" wrote in message
...


As to being open to real progress.. For many decades we have pushed the
progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better hardware than the
military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it, not military
engineers.


Better in what way?

I don't know of any amateur equipment, including the latest $10K stuff from
the JA engineers, which is as capable or durable as the most basic military
communications equipment.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy
--
"Just a boy and his radio"
--
Proud Member of:
A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op
MWA - http://www.W0AA.org
TCDXA - http://www.tcdxa.org
CADXA - http://www.cadxa.org
LVDXA - http://www.lvdxa.org
CWOps - http://www.cwops.org
SOC - http://www.qsl.net/soc
TCFMC - http://tcfmc.org
--
Sea stories here --- http://k0hb.spaces.live.com/
Request QSL at --- http://www.clublog.org/logsearch/K0HB
All valid QSL requests honored with old fashioned paper QSL!
LoTW participant



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In =?iso-8859-1?B?S9hIQg==?= writes:

"John from Detroit" wrote in message
...


As to being open to real progress.. For many decades we have pushed the
progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better hardware than the
military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it, not military
engineers.


Better in what way?

I don't know of any amateur equipment, including the latest $10K stuff from
the JA engineers, which is as capable or durable as the most basic military
communications equipment.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy
--

Hans,

What's your take on the "MIL-STD 810" compliance of some Yaesu gear?

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-810

For example:

VX-5R 50/144/430 Triple-Band Heavy Duty FM Transceiver:

http://www.yaesu.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd...A08D8CCC25 17

FT-2600M Heavy-Duty VHF FM Transceiver:

http://www.yaesu.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd...5&isArchived=1

FT-600 Compact High Performance HF Transceiver:

http://www.yaesu.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd...5&isArchived=1

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFL2dDS6Pj0az779o4RAuKhAKC3q0au9wJmeynkMPwhzO vxHcWn5wCg0yb+
8dZ8VaQ2nfgkyz8RF89pa+0=
=mmkf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hans,

What's your take on the "MIL-STD 810" compliance of some Yaesu gear?



Good marketing. MIL-STD 810 related to shock, vibration, salt spray, etc.
It is unrelated to any "performance" criteria.

The HT's involved probably have their design roots in a military contract
which required that level of durability, so crediting the testing into their
COTS product offering is good marketing practice.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"
--
Proud Member of:
A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op
MWA - http://www.W0AA.org
TCDXA - http://www.tcdxa.org
CADXA - http://www.cadxa.org
LVDXA - http://www.lvdxa.org
CWOps - http://www.cwops.org
SOC - http://www.qsl.net/soc
TCFMC - http://tcfmc.org
--
Sea stories here --- http://k0hb.spaces.live.com/
Request QSL at --- http://www.clublog.org/logsearch/K0HB
All valid QSL requests honored with old fashioned paper QSL!
LoTW participant



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Apr 29, 3:01�pm, K�HB wrote:
Hans,

What's your take on the "MIL-STD 810" compliance of some Yaesu gear?

Good marketing. �MIL-STD 810 related to shock, vibration, salt sp
ray, etc.
It is unrelated to any "performance" criteria.

The HT's involved probably have their design roots in a military contract
which required that level of durability, so crediting the testing into th
eir
COTS product offering is good marketing practice.

Good answer, Hans. Having worked 3 years in environmental testing at
Hughes Aircraft (El Segundo Division) in 1956 to 1958, I've got a fair
amount of experience in that. Essentially, consumer grade
electronics(and some industrial grade) will simply fall apart when
subjected to thefull brunt of MIL-STD-810.

With newer electronics becoming more compact there is less mass to be
affected by shock and vibration, will survive better than big clunkyold
electronics. Designers don't go full bore on temperature testing of
circuits for lower-grade environment products so those can fail there.
Salt spraywon't affect plastic cases much but there are seldom any good
seals betweencase and controls in amateur radio equipment. Just some
general examples.

I'm not saying that "all" amateur equipment will fail, only most of it
if stuck with the full brunt of MIL-STD-810 testing.

Handheld transceivers see most sales to professional users so it
isnormal to do a releatively-simple (nowadays) frequency modification
to run themon amateur frequencies. Few HTs sold to pro users get
full-on 810 testing (810 has more variations now than a half century
ago) so the marketing come-on phrasing of "compliance" isn't always
accurate to indicate "toughness."

So few here have had any experience in testing equipment under military
environmental conditions that they can't talk about it with accuracy.
I've seen some pros with experience survive such testing rather
crestfallen with "I should have anticipated that condition" after they
fished out the components that had vibrated loose at low-frequency
shaking.

Was I a victim of that same "should have anticipated" grouping?
Yes.Back in the days of slide-rules, no calculators, I slipped a
decimal point for a zener temperature compensation circuit for a
voltage reference. Found it during a temperature cycling test. Went
back into the log book, found the error, fixed it with an Engineering
Change Request and in hardware and published it in one night's extra
work (not paid for) at RCA. A few weeks later my HP-35 arrived and I
double-checked my correction. :-)

73, Len K6LHA