Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What makes a real ham
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What makes a real ham
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What makes a real ham
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What makes a real ham
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) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A real attempt at a real 9/11 report. | Shortwave | |||
What makes a person become a Ham? | Moderated | |||
England makes me really,really, MAD! | Policy | |||
Makes you wonder... | CB | |||
What makes a real ham? | Policy |