|
What makes a real ham
That question was asked in another thread, sort of.. And I'd like to
submit an answer 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. For example.. After a whole lot of years doing the same thing.. I upgraded my license, and my radio, and then I discovered new modes. Soem may say it's making your own hardwere... Well, at one time I do admit if you wanted to get on the air,, You had to home brew, but today that is only an option (I do make SOME of my own stuff) Some say it's things like Morse code.. but in fact that makes a telegrapher, not a ham..And these days not even a telegrapher. Some say it's ________ (you fill in the blank) but the fact is that there is so much about ham radio that I can not put it in a post, or even a series of posts.. It would take most of a book to list all the things you can do with ham radio.. The name of that book: Well.. Usually we ARRL members just call it "The Handbook" but the formal name is a bit longer. |
What makes a real ham
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 |
What makes a real ham
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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) |
What makes a real ham
A real ham is an individual who has successfully become licensed under the
rules for amateur radio in his/her country. Nothing more, nothing less. 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a boy and his radio" -- Proud Member of: A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-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: --- |
What makes a real ham
Yes, the new ARRL website organization is a train wreck. Broken links
abound! -- wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:53:39 EDT, KØHB wrote: A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ Page not found! --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
What makes a real ham
"KØHB" wrote
Yes, the new ARRL website organization is a train wreck. Broken links abound! They do acknowledge that it's not complete, and offer help finding stuff. But then you have to wait for an answer.... Worse, it's just plain harder now (for me, anyway) to find things. For example, Product Reviews are under the Technology tab (I discovered that after finally entering "product reviews" in the site's search box, upper right), and then you are grateful that ARRL Laboratory is the first section, because only the first section is open, and in it you can (finally) see the text title "Product reviews and test results." If Product Reviews were elsewhere you'd never find it. Well, you'd find it eventually.... I'm not happy about the results of this reorganization. But no one asked me to participate in the "focus group." Howard N7SO |
What makes a real ham
KØHB wrote:
Yes, the new ARRL website organization is a train wreck. Broken links abound! That is fairly common when a new page debuts... Alas, one would wish that they would fully test it but as you know one of Murphy's laws is: It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because as soon as you do nature will invent a better fool Murphy, you know, was a woman.. Yes, a woman. Ask if you need proof |
What makes a real ham
On Apr 20, 1:53 am, KØHB wrote:
A real ham is an individual who has successfully become licensed under th e rules for amateur radio in his/her country. Nothing more, nothing less .. So much better a definition. I've always been uncomfortable at the "real" definition, or whatever is left for those who do not measure up. Which is why I'm a proud Second class operator, #891 as are you, #291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/ - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
What makes a real ham
Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:53 am, KØHB wrote: A real ham is an individual who has successfully become licensed under th e rules for amateur radio in his/her country. Nothing more, nothing les s .. So much better a definition. I've always been uncomfortable at the "real" definition, or whatever is left for those who do not measure up. Yes, this is by far the best definition I've seen so far. Without all the other "But they don't know how to..." stuff. Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi -- “Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.” Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com |
What makes a real ham
"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: --- |
What makes a real ham
-----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----- |
What makes a real ham
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: --- |
What makes a real ham
KØHB wrote:
"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. Better in that it's more advanced.. Several years ago (about 30) I was chatting with a ham who had just finished his hitch in the military, He commented on being ask to check out some equeptment since he was a certified electronics tech both in civilian life and military life. As he unzipped his jump suit so he could squat down easier the MP's with him noticed his HT-220.. At the time they were still using HT-200's (I do admit the 200 is more solid (durable) than the 220) I watched his dad bounce a 200 off the pavement. (He had the radio at his ear when he tripped and threw the radio down to help regain his balance.. The radio continued to work.. he is one of the very few people taller than 6'3"me) And you said you did not knwo any ham gear as GOOD as military hardware. True story: Some years ago a Ham "90 day wonder" LT was put in charge of a communications unit.. The SGT's figured they would have to teach him all about the stuff. Well. he noticed an order for a new piece of gear (Linier amp as I recall or Transmitter) and ask the Sgt if it had come in yet "Yes, but we did not get the manual" so.. he said "Let's take a look at it" He then demonstrated that he knew how to work the hardware, Even w/o the manual.. The Sgt though wanted the manual. So he called back to the states.... Direct to the President and founder of Henry Radio.. yes, the amplifier or transmistter was a common Ham unit with a new paint job and military style knobs. Several pieces of gear, Henry, Collins, Drake and more, came in civilian and military versions. The only difference was the olive drab paint and the military style knobs and an "A" for Army (or some other designator to indicate the cosmetic differences) As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military. Good Solid KWM-2's in fact. |
What makes a real ham
On 5/1/2010 1:43 PM, John from Detroit wrote:
As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military. Good Solid KWM-2's in fact. I used a KWM-2A and 30L-1 when I ran the Navy MARS station at Danang. We had a log-periodic at 40 feet, and I was able to reach the states nine nights out of ten. The KWM-2A wasn't a perfect radio: at the Air Force MARS station in Saigon, they had to pair each KWM-2A with a 51S-1 receiver, since the receiver in the KWM-2A couldn't handle the intermod from adjacent positions. However, it did combine rugged construction with relative ease-of-use, and the audio quality helped a lot with noisy phone lines. 73, Bill W1AC (Filter QRM for direct replies) |
What makes a real ham
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 |
What makes a real ham
On Apr 29, 6:01�pm, K�HB wrote:
MIL-STD 810 related to shock, vibration, salt spray, etc. It is unrelated to any "performance" criteria. IOW, it's an environmental specification, not a radio-performance one. I followed the links provided by K3FU and noticed that in each description the rigs were only said to meet the shock and vibration requirements of MIL-STD 810, not the entire specification. The description also didn't mention which version(s) were used. IMHO those are important points. Meeting the shock and vibration requirements is a matter of mechanical design. Meeting requirements such as salt spray, temperature and humidity extremes, high altitude, water immersion, etc., is a completely different game because each and every component must either meet the specification or be protected from the environment. Components that meet the spec are more expensive and fewer, while protecting from the environment is complex and often impractical for size/weight/cost reasons 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What makes a real ham
On May 1, 1:43�pm, John from Detroit wrote:
K�HB wrote: Better in what way? Better in that it's more advanced.. At the risk of echoing K0HB: More advanced in what way? Several years ago (about 30) I was chatting with a ham who had just finished his hitch in the military, He commented on being ask to check out some equeptment since he was a certified electronics tech both in civilian life and military life. At the time they were still using HT-200's (I do admit the 200 is more solid (durable) than the 220) Is an HT-220 really that much more advanced than an HT-200? I watched his dad bounce a 200 off the pavement. ..... The radio continued to work. In a lot of situations - and not just military ones - that it continued to work is a lot more important than how advanced the radio is. I think the main point is that how "good" or "advanced" a rig is depends in large part on the application, and judging military radio stuff by amateur standards - or the reverse - is an apples-and-oranges thing. For example, the R-390 and R-390A were designed way back in the early 1950s, and one of the requirements was a digital frequency readout. A lot of mechanical complexity went into producing a system where you could just look at one set of numbers and know exactly (well, within a couple of hundred Hz) where the receiver was tuned. No interpretation needed. Such a feature would not appear in manufactured ham rigs until the 1960s (National NCX-5) and wouldn't become common in ham rigs until the 1980s. Or consider the R-1051 receivers, which used a row of knobs to set each digit of the frequency, rather than a single large knob. That kind of frequency control became common in military HF sets but not in ham gear, because the operating environments are so different. The T2FD resistively-loaded antenna is another example. the amplifier or transmistter was a common Ham unit with a new paint job and military style knobs. Several pieces of gear, Henry, Collins, Drake and more, came in civilian and military versions. The only difference was the olive drab paint and the military style knobs and an "A" for Army (or some other designator to indicate the cosmetic differences) As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military. Good Solid KWM-2's in fact In some roles, yes. But not in all roles. I suspect that the use of ham gear in military applications came about only when nothing else was available at the time. Remember too that a lot of ham gear and components (such as the PTOs developed by Collins) were originally developed for military applications and then used for ham stuff. Plus US military involvement in Viet Nam ended at least 35 years ago. A lot has changed since then. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What makes a real ham
On May 1, 10:43�am, John from Detroit wrote:
K�HB wrote: "John from Detroit" wrote in message ... So he called back to the states.... �Direct to the President and founder of Henry Radio.. yes, the amplifier or transmistter was a common Ham unit with a new paint job and military style knobs. Several pieces of gear, Henry, Collins, Drake and more, came in civilian and military versions. The only difference was the olive drab paint and the military style knobs and an "A" for Army (or some other designator to indicate the cosmetic differences) As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military. � Good Solid KWM-2's in fact The Collins KWM-2 (all-frequency-band maritime version) was used for MARS under the AN/FRC-93 designation through the Vietnam War. No change in color or knobs or much of anything else. For reference, see TM 11-5820-554-12 for the "set-up-and-operate" TM. This is essentially the Collins document under DoD wrapper. Date of TM is June 1976. There have been a great number of civilian fixed station equipments that have been designated as "military" (by the addition of a sticker/label) as far back as 1953 without any special tests, physical or electronic, without any changes or additions in appearance. None of these were intended for field use up to about 1980 or so, therefore they would not have undergone full environmental testing. Consider them "COTS" (Commercial Off-The- Shelf) equipments as described by Hans. Those of us who have served in the USA military usually define "military" as those equipments which have gone through full environmental testing and are used in the field or afloat. MARS is not normally part of the standard tactical communications used by the military even though such equipment may have military or NSN (National Stock Number) designations for procurement purposes. 73, Len K6LHA |
What makes a real ham
From: N2EY
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 12:31:56 EDT Subject: What makes a real ham On Apr 29, 6:01 pm, K0HB wrote: MIL-STD 810 related to shock, vibration, salt spray, etc. It is unrelated to any "performance" criteria. IOW, it's an environmental specification, not a radio-performance one. I followed the links provided by K3FU and noticed that in each description the rigs were only said to meet the shock and vibration requirements of MIL-STD 810, not the entire specification. The description also didn't mention which version(s) were used. IMHO those are important points. TEMPERATURE, both ambient and internal is an important factor. We can't do the "wait a half hour" or "20 minutes" for the radio to warm up. Radios don't get to sit in "room temperature" environments during emergencies. [recall the 1928 "Amateur's Code" and the imperatives of being ready for "emergency communications"] Full water immersion for a specified period is a NEEDED specification for an HT to perform in an emergency such as flood or torrential rain. Operating mobile or pedestrian (with a manpack radio) has its own needs for shock and vibration. Mobile installations aren't always nice and plush with comfy seats for radios. Saying a pedestrian station remains cushioned by the wearer ignores the fact that the manpack wearer can fall down in rugged terrain. Meeting the shock and vibration requirements is a matter of mechanical design. At first. That's when the designer first begins to "lay lead." What comes next is the prototype which is (or should be) tried out in the field or afloat...and (probably) several iterations of trying a fix and seeing how that performs. Sometimes that is easy, sometimes it is difficult. Meeting requirements such as salt spray, temperature and humidity extremes, high altitude, water immersion, etc., is a completely different game because each and every component must either meet the specification or be protected from the environment. A generalized statement like that indicates no experience with adverse environments. One can "perform" like a champ at room temperature in a residence environment but try it below freezing or in a vehicle that has been in +118 degrees F all day (interior is MUCH hotter). I've been in both environments more than once and don't care to do it again, but if there IS a need to have a radio perform, then I've had some experience in making them do just that. Components that meet the spec are more expensive and fewer, while protecting from the environment is complex and often impractical for size/weight/cost reasons If so there wouldn't be an aircraft able to fly today, nor with the radios that enable comm and nav functions to tell pilots where they are. That's been done for over 65 years now. Read some ARINC specs and, especially, meetings minutes about their standards to get a fuller picture. Or, you do another thing I've done: work in an environmental test lab and DO the testing...plus sweeping up the pieces of those designs that failed testing. shrug 73, Len K6LHA |
What makes a real ham
In a discussion of MIL-STD 810
K6LHA wrote: A generalized statement like that indicates no experience with adverse environments. One can "perform" like a champ at room temperature in a residence environment but try it below freezing or in a vehicle that has been in +118 degrees F all day (interior is MUCH hotter). I've been in both environments more than once and don't care to do it again, but if there IS a need to have a radio perform, then I've had some experience in making them do just that. Well, I've been out and about when the temps read -40 (your choice of F or C) and I've been in cars where 118 (F) would have been "Cooling off" and in both cases my ham radio hardware was working just fine Though I do admit at -40 the car itself failed And I put the transciever INSIDE my coat)(At least one of them, I was "layered" that day since I was working parking lot detail) only the Plantronics mic voice pick up tube was fully exposed, the mice itself was under my hat |
What makes a real ham
N2EY wrote:
In a lot of situations - and not just military ones - that it continued to work is a lot more important than how advanced the radio is. I think the main point is that how "good" or "advanced" a rig is depends in large part on the application, and judging military radio stuff by amateur standards - or the reverse - is an apples-and-oranges thing. I think, here, we are starting to reach the same page, we may be viewing it differently but we are, at least, viewing the same page. I agree, Ruggedness (Continuing to work under adverse conditions) beats "Advanced" in many cases and generally in most all military cases. Fiction story: IN a Star Trek book some rick kid is putting down the comm gear on the Enterprise till Uhura explains why the older clunkier and easier to fix hardware beats the heck out of his little one chip hyper-intergrated circuit radio. (Of course she's fixing it at the time) Fact.. That is very true. something that can be "Field fixed" is better than a "Toss it in the trash and break out a new one" epically if you have a parts store but no complete new box For example, the R-390 and R-390A were designed way back in the early 1950s, and one of the requirements was a digital frequency readout. A lot of mechanical complexity went into producing a system where you could just look at one set of numbers and know exactly (well, within a couple of hundred Hz) where the receiver was tuned. No interpretation needed. Such a feature would not appear in manufactured ham rigs until the 1960s (National NCX-5) and wouldn't become common in ham rigs until the 1980s. I recall some digital readout hardware much earlier.. But then,,, When you think about it. after WWII many hams used government surplus hardware. So the Military stuff, BECAME the ham stuff.. Alas, modern military rules kind of make that hard to do since they "De-militarize" so much stuff. Or consider the R-1051 receivers, which used a row of knobs to set each digit of the frequency, rather than a single large knob. That kind of frequency control became common in military HF sets but not in ham gear, because the operating environments are so different. Gee... I have a 2-meter rig in my motor home (Currently set to 146.52) that is 30 years old and which you set the frequency by a row of dials (Knobs turned sideways) just like you describe. It's 100% ham. The Wilson WE-800 Revision 3 (3rd production run) and I might add, it had operated from -40 to well over 120 degrees. F |
What makes a real ham
In a discussion of MIL-STD 810:
I guess the real point here about various standards and with regards to anecdotal stories about "Well this did..." The bottom line on buying hardware for adverse conditions is whether or not the manufacture is willing to say that it "Absolutely and without fail will work under the following conditions." As opposed to specifying a narrow range and if works out side of that, well, fine. Also, remember, advertising is based on the perception by marketing as to who the potential buyer is. If there was a "MIL-STD-xxx" specifying that a piece of equipment should be shiny and have lots of buttons, they'd be pushing that too. Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi |
What makes a real ham
K6LHA wrote:
There have been a great number of civilian fixed station equipments that have been designated as "military" (by the addition of a sticker/label) as far back as 1953 without any special tests, physical or electronic, without any changes or additions in appearance. None of these were intended for field use up to about 1980 or so, therefore they would not have undergone full environmental testing. Consider them "COTS" (Commercial Off-The- Shelf) equipments as described by Hans. Let me put it this way. If you are going to design a product for the military, (And you must admit military contracts are the "800 pound gorillas" in the business). And by simply tweaking a tuning slug it will work as well on the ham bands.. and the device is not "Classified" in and of itself. Why not market to hams as well? Now, I do admit that the military has some classified stuff that I'll likely never set eyes on.. But then one of the reasons I know they were using KWM-2a's in Viet Nam is a ham who returned from there, tears in his eyes, telling of how a fairly large number of said radios were "De-Militarized" (Trust me folks, you don't want to know) Perfectly good ham radios were being totaly reduced to their atoms because they were part,, Mind you just part, of a classified communications system. Never mind that they were a part you could buy over the counter at Ham Radio Outlet.. they were still part of a classified system so they were blown up, drilled, shot, flamed, run over with tanks and otherwise redced to powder. A total waste of thousands of dollars worth of hardware that could have been sold, without danger of compromising the classified system at all since this was just a part. I mean.. I'm sure that somewhere in that system was a 5 amp AGC-3 size fuse... How would re-selling that part comprimise the entire system (it was, at the time, a common car part) |
What makes a real ham
On May 3, 7:52 am, K6LHA wrote:
some snippage Meeting requirements such as salt spray, temperature and humidity extremes, high altitude, water immersion, etc., is a completely different game because each and every component must either meet the specification or be protected from the environment. A generalized statement like that indicates no experience with adverse environments. One can "perform" like a champ at room temperature in a residence environment but try it below freezing or in a vehicle that has been in +118 degrees F all day (interior is MUCH hotter). I haven't been involved in Mil spec testing. I was involved in Cable Television testing, in which we cycled between extreme temps - don't remember the exact temps, so I just used "extreme". We did immersion tests in salt and fresh water. We did vibration testing. Neat device, it was a sort of mini-system, we sent signals through it, and tried to run to failure. Shake and Bake, we called it. After a month or so without a failure, we'd give up. Some equipment was used by the Navy, so the testing method must have meant something. note, we tested all the models this way. Personally, I wouldn't pay for a completely mil spec tested HT or other Ham equipment. Even for emergency use, I wouldn't. There could be some argument there, but we're Hams, and not soldiers in this context. I have a FT-50 that has passed vibration and water testing both model wise and by personal experience. It's gone in the drink a couple times, and been dropped several more. I'm embarrassed to admit that it spent a very wet weekend on the roof of my SUV, I only discovered that sad fact when it fell off and bounced a few times in my driveway. I picked it up, dried it off with a towel, and mashed the power button. Didn't miss a beat. So while mil-spec testing is great if the equipment needs it, I have no trouble at all with accepting - and paying for - equipment that is tested to a level of ruggedness more in line with Amateur needs. |
What makes a real ham
On May 3, 9:00�am, John from Detroit wrote:
N2EY wrote: I think the main point is that how "good" or "advanced" a rig is depends in large part on the application, and judging military radio stuff by amateur standards - or the reverse - is an apples-and-oranges thing. I think, here, we are starting to reach the same page, we may be viewing it differently but we are, at least, viewing the same page. I agree, Ruggedness (Continuing to work under adverse conditions) beats "Advanced" in many cases and generally in most all military cases. And not just military cases. Fiction story: IN a Star Trek book some rick kid is putting down the comm gear on the Enterprise till Uhura explains why the older clunkier and easier to fix hardware beats the heck out of his little one chip hyper-intergrated circuit radio. �(Of course she's fixing it at the time) As Scotty used to say, the more complicated you make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Fact.. That is very true. something that can be "Field fixed" is better than a "Toss it in the trash and break out a new one" epically if you have a parts store but no complete new box Yes and no. In some situations the time and resources it takes to fix something is more than the resource-cost to have a spare new box. Again, it all depends on the situation. And on what we consider "fixable" and "a component". For example, for about 10 years I've been assembling my own PCs from pieces of old ones. (The machine this was written on was built just that way). I've also fixed many PCs with hardware problems using parts from the boneyard. But in practically all repair and assembly situations involving PCs, the "components" are drives, motherboards, memory sticks, video cards, etc. Such components aren't usually repaired if they fail, they are simply replaced, because the replacements are available and inexpensive (often free). For example, the R-390 and R-390A were designed way back in the early 1950s, and one of the requirements was a digital frequency readout. A lot of mechanical complexity went into producing a system where you could just look at one set of numbers and know exactly (well, within a couple of hundred Hz) where the receiver was tuned. No interpretation needed. Such a feature would not appear in manufactured ham rigs until the 1960s (National NCX-5) and wouldn't become common in ham rigs until the 1980s. I recall some digital readout hardware much earlier.. Can you give some examples in radio equipment? But then,,, When you think about it. after WWII many hams used government surplus hardware. �So the Military stuff, �BECAME the ham stuff.. Alas, modern military rules kind of make that hard to do since they "De-militarize" so much stuff. I still have working WW2 surplus radio stuff. Like my $2 BC-342-N, built by Farnsworth Radio and Television... The reason hams used surplus stuff was that it was inexpensive. The reason it was inexpensive was the sudden end to WW2 in late summer 1945. Military hardware of all kinds was being manufactured and stockpiled in great quantities for the invasion of Japan. When the war ended suddenly, those stockpiles became surplus. Note that much of that surplus required modification to be useful to hams. Some of it was only really useful if torn down for the parts. Those mods don't mean the original design was faulty. They simply mean the application was different. For example, my BC-342-N had its sensitivity improved by changing the values of the cathode and screen resistors of the RF and IF stages. The original design used different values because they were more concerned with dynamic range than sensitivity. Or consider the R-1051 receivers, which used a row of knobs to set each digit of the frequency, rather than a single large knob. That kind of frequency control became common in military HF sets but not in ham gear, because the operating environments are so different. Gee... I have a 2-meter rig in my motor home (Currently set to 146.52) that is 30 years old and which you set the frequency by a row of dials (Knobs turned sideways) just like you describe. �It's 100% ham. And I have a 1977 vintage HW-2036 2 meter rig that is similar. But they are not HF rigs; they're 2 meter FM rigs. The R-1051 family are HF receivers, and date from the early 1960s. The point is that the military application required a receiver that could be set to a known frequency with great accuracy, not the ability to smoothly tune through the spectrum looking for signals. The Wilson WE-800 Revision 3 (3rd production run) and I might add, it had o perated from -40 to well over 120 degrees. F You've got me beat there! The coldest I've ever personally experienced was -36 degrees F. (Yes I was outside working in it). The hottest was about 110 degrees F 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What makes a real ham
N2EY wrote:
WA8YXM said: The Wilson WE-800 Revision 3 (3rd production run) and I might add, it had o perated from -40 to well over 120 degrees. F You've got me beat there! The coldest I've ever personally experienced was -36 degrees F. (Yes I was outside working in it). The hottest was about 110 degrees F 73 de Jim, N2EY Well, I clipped a lot: You ask for examples of earlier digital readout (pre-1980) stiff, and then agreed that many hams used Surplus Military hardware.. Likely the digital stuff I saw was ex-military. It has been like 40 years since I saw it so I can't recall much. Now,, the -40.. I had parking lot detail at a swap fest The 120+ was the temp recorded inside a car. facing NORTH, in Michigan, IN JANUARY of all months. Imagine what it hit in August? The only time the radio did not work properly was when the battery voltage went low. Then it would would not receive properly till the voltage came up a bit. |
What makes a real ham
From: John from Detroit
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:07:17 EDT K6LHA wrote: There have been a great number of civilian fixed station equipments that have been designated as "military" (by the addition of a sticker/label) as far back as 1953 without any special tests, physical or electronic, without any changes or additions in appearance. None of these were intended for field use up to about 1980 or so, therefore they would not have undergone full environmental testing. Consider them "COTS" (Commercial Off-The- Shelf) equipments as described by Hans. Let me put it this way. If you are going to design a product for the military, (And you must admit military contracts are the "800 pound gorillas" in the business). Since I've actually designed military equipment, last one being the AN/ASM-416, a test set, I just don't see that "gorilla" label. Specifications are sometimes tough to meet and nobody can talk their way out of it (as salesmen or executives do) to project overseers. You either meet specifications or you get fired. I always met spec. I don't think I could define military contract work because so many hams just haven't done it and they are all full of misconceptions. It is just WORK. If you like it you get paid for the fun. If you don't like it then you probably wouldn't have gotten high enough on the totem to be in a design position. And by simply tweaking a tuning slug it will work as well on the ham bands.. and the device is not "Classified" in and of itself. The MAJORITY of military contract work is NOT classified. Hasn't been for decades. The major 'classified' category is "company private" which is common, very common to all corporations, amounting to not jabbering company stuff to workers in other companies. Yes, I've been vetted by the FBI and a bunch of other alphabet soup agencies up to Secret with a background check (actual interviews in-person) for Top Secret. Missed a "Q" clearance completion because my work assignment change to another group. ['Q' was a classification involving nuclear things] Forget the Hollywood BS about security clearances, drama, and that phony baloney. I live near "Hollywood" and very, very few of those were actually involved in such national secrets. The only ACTUAL encounter close to me was the Lockheed "Skunk Works" at Burbank airport (now renamed "Bob Hope"), at Building 82 just off the Hollywood Way and Winona intersection in Burbank, CA. Drove past it for years and years without knowing it was THERE all the time since WWII days. A mile and a half from my house of 37 years, I had to find out its location from a book, a biography of Ben Rich, successor to legendary Kelly Johnson, read several years after Lockheed pulled out of Burbank. Why not market to hams as well? Ahem...Collins Radio tried that but it wasn't profitable. Hallicrafters went bust long ago. National Radio quit the ham market long ago. SGC in Washington state markets HF SSB transceivers mainly to private boat owners but isn't pushing for the ham market. Face it, HF radios are NOT in the market spotlight anywhere except to hams and the Big 3 in Japan have that tied up nice and tight. The market for NEW radios is at VHF - UHF - Microwave, strong emphasis being at 1 GHz for cellular telephony...both cell sites and mobliles. Its been that way for over two decades. Now, I do admit that the military has some classified stuff that I'll likely never set eyes on.. Not that much. When I was stationed in Japan my battalion had full run of everything but the Crypto room in the sub-basement of the Far East Command Hq building...and guys who manned that were battalion personnel. The reason so few see things is because it isn't publicized and it has no "action" by itself. To see a 1962 booklet produced by the Army on one big station: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...phabetSoup.pdf http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf Both are about 6 MB file size and the second one is my photo essay of a 3-year assignment at the same station 1953-1956. Good contrast between essentially WWII gear and better stuff working 15 years after WWII was over. [on KWM-2s] Perfectly good ham radios were being totaly reduced to their atoms because they were part,, Mind you just part, of a classified communications system. No, no, no...MARS wasn't used for "classified" comms in Vietnam. I can assemble a list of what was used - there's plenty of sources of history on that other than ARRL publications. BTW, the KWM-2 came in two flavors: Full-frequency range for maritime market, limited range for the ham market. AN/FRC-93 designation was for the maritime market KWM-2. Never mind that they were a part you could buy over the counter at Ham Radio Outlet.. they were still part of a classified system so they were blown up, drilled, shot, flamed, run over with tanks and otherwise redced to powder. Then visit Davis-Monthan AFB (?) to see square miles of "perfectly good aircraft" that haven't been recycled for their aluminum, outdated engines or outdated internal mechanical, hydraulic, electrical systems. A total waste of thousands of dollars worth of hardware that could have been sold, without danger of compromising the classified system at all since this was just a part. WAR by itself is a TOTAL waste of lives and property. What else is new? Regardless of the tales from over 35 years ago, MARS was NOT handling "classified" material into/out-of Vietnam. The classified material was encrypted by a small group of personnel and could be sent over very ordinary radio circuits using very ordinary radios. First operational in 1989, the AN/PRC-119 (manpack version SINCGARS) can be captured and reverse-engineered to try to find its built-in encryption system for decoding intercepts. Won't help anyone. The digital voice and data modulation uses a long long key and the carrier hops at a 10 frequencies per second rate over a 30 to 88 MHz span. "Hopsets" (colloquial) are generated at battalion Hq level for all that encryption-hopping key information. It is difficult as heck to INTERCEPT enough message data to attempt a decrypt attack on it. ITT Fort Wayne, IN, has manufactured over 300,000 SINCGARS radios since 1989 (ITT press release some years ago). What are you going to do with a VHF radio that doesn't even have a tuning knob on it? 73, Len K6LHA |
What makes a real ham
On May 3, 7:11�am, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote:
On May 3, 7:52 am, K6LHA wrote: some snippage A generalized statement like that indicates no experience with adverse environments. �One can "perform" like a champ at room temperatu re in a residence environment but try it below freezing or in a vehicle that has been in +118 degrees F all day (interior is MUCH hotter). Since this has become a "can you top this" sub-thread, I'd like to add that the WHERE I experienced +118 F temps was at Kern County Airport #7, Mojave, CA, the same old ex-USMC airfield where Scaled Composites is located (maker of Space Ship 1). A 1.6 GHz R&D radio was being flight- tested at the time with me sweating at the ground station as a reference point for the airborne avionics. It worked and we got data. It was the first generation of three and had lots of circuitry that surprised me by keeping on working. � I haven't been involved in Mil spec testing. I was involved in Cable Television testing, in which we cycled between extreme temps - don't remember the exact temps, so I just used "extreme". We did immersion tests in salt and fresh water. We did vibration testing. Neat device, it was a sort of mini-system, we sent signals through it, and tried to run to failure. Shake and Bake, we called it. After a month or so without a failure, we'd give up. Some equipment was used by the Navy, so the testing method must have meant something. note, we tested all the models this way. Sounds like the 'orphan' RCA Corp. division of the West coast over in Burbank, making CATV systems, mainly repeaters for cable TV systems. RCA bought the facility (and many people) from Collins Radio (their effort to expand but to little avail). Cable things had to sit outside 24/7 and endure all that nature could bestow on it. Sometimes the cable engineers would come over to EASD in Van Nuys to use the environmental test equipment there for bigger arrays. So while mil-spec testing is great if the equipment needs it, I have no trouble at all with accepting - and paying for - equipment that is tested to a level of ruggedness more in line with Amateur needs. I'll accept that. Anecdote: In 1964 I built a SW BC receiver for my father so he could listen to Radio Sweden on their HF BC transmissions and not disturb me in the workshop. He died in 1975 and I put the homebuilt on a top shelf in the workshop then. 'Standard' construction, aluminum chassis, no special techniques of its time. Come the January 1994 earthquake in nearby Northridge and it vibrated off the 6 1/2 foot shelf to fall on the concrete slab floor of the workshop. Fell on one corner and did lots of damage in bending but the six all-glass tubes all survived to test good. Tuning capacitor jammed shut, one IF can broken, two big tears in the speaker. Thin plywood cabinet useless to repair. One ceramic tube socket cracked. Since then I've taken pains to keep small things on high shelves secured and bookcases screwed to studding in this wood-frame residence. If small things are not fastenable, I've made a small "fence" around it to limit movement. Wood-frame buildings survive better in quakes than brick structures since they have a natural flexing under vibration. Another caution was to keep a "fall area" free such as books falling off cases. That's paid off in two subsequent small earthquakes, no damage. 73, Len K6LHA |
What makes a real ham
From: N2EY
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 12:32:32 EDT On May 1, 1:43 pm, John from Detroit wrote: K0HB wrote: Better in what way? Better in that it's more advanced.. For example, the R-390 and R-390A were designed way back in the early 1950s, and one of the requirements was a digital frequency readout. Not quite. The "digital frequency readout" was done for several reasons. Collins Radio was heavy into a LINEAR FREQUENCY tuning scheme using permeability tuning rather than variable capacitors. This is witnessed in the predecessors which used a combination of LF to HF receivers having straight-line scales in addition to the rotary dial around the main tuning knob. Linear frequency tuning was also adopted by the consumer radio manufacturers, particularly for auto radios having automatic seek systems that appeared in the very late 1940s and early 1950s. It was advantageous to the cheap servo systems used there. Such "signal seeking" tuning would disappear for quite a while until solid-state tuning systems (much cheaper) would appear in 30 years. The (LF) R-389 and (HF) R-390 series were required to tune a wider band of frequencies with relatively the SAME sensitivities across the whole span of tuning. That was unlike the older systems which had a large disparity of sensitivity due to ganged variable capacitor tuning in previous multi-band HF designs. The TUNING RATE was linear on all bands of the 390 series, advantageous to the R-391 "Autotune" version of the basic 390 series (Collins was big on "Autotuning" everything they could back in the 1950s and 1960s). Using the common mechanical turns-counter of machinery ('Veeder-Root'as an example of type) offered a great physical advantage in the 390 series since it did away with the space needed for a straight-line indicator. The gear-cam-geneva-wheel mechanical coupling could be fitted in easier than that long (sometimes rotating on axis) scale. All of the permeability-tuning L-C circuits could be adapted to track straight-line tuning easier than using (bulkier) variable capacitors. There was physical space to incorporate the "Autotune" servo system (R-391) without undue change of the R-390 physical structure. That the 390 series was "digital" is like saying a whole lot of metal-working equipment was "digital" in the 1930s because they used Veeder-Root counters having decimal digit indication. Main Source: Collins Radio "Final Engineering Report" 15 Sep 53, submitted to U.S.Army Signal Corps, contract W36-039-SC-44552, scanned by Al Turevold, WA0HQQ on 18 Apr 99. I suspect that the use of ham gear in military applications came about only when nothing else was available at the time. In the historical sense, the word "ham gear" should be replaced by "commercial users" especially in the period 1910 to 1970. Before the commsats, before the transcontinental microwave relay network, before the self-pumped fiber-optic-laser lines, the ONLY long- distance comm paths for commercial use was HF. SSB on HF was pioneered commercially from the early 1930s onward (Netherlands being the first to introduce voice and TTY service 24/7 to Netherlands Antilles). MARS was never an integral part of the worldwide military tactical communications of the USA. The AN/FRC-93 is a KWM-2 by virtue of its label, nothing else, was used by MARS stations for morale purposes...much like a Zenith "Trans-Oceanic" portable receiver procured for troops during WWII. A difference was that this Trans-Oceanic was actually painted olive drab. :-) Remember too that a lot of ham gear and components (such as the PTOs developed by Collins) were originally developed for military applications and then used for ham stuff. That seems anecdotal and subjective. Resistors, capacitors, inductors, fastening devices, blank chassis and cabinets, et al were all developed by INDUSTRY standards, not just military. Rack cabinets came from the telephone infrastructure. Teleprinter code format came from the computer industry. Collins "mechanical" ( magnetostrictive) filters were done first for the microwave radio relay frequency multiplexer market. Modern USA amateur radio design owes almost everything new to innovative Japanese communications equipment designers. The US Army went to VHF voice for short-range communications IN WWII and kept doing that until now. Long-haul communications of the US military and government is over the DSN (Digital Switched Network) which can use any comm path or relay method plus is compatible with the standard telephone infrastructure. USA submarines use ELF for Alerts and nuke subs don't have any OOK CW capabilities. Cellular telephony developed all by itself, by the telephone industry, owing nothing technological to the military. Roughly 100 million cell phones are now in the USA alone. Digital television owes nothing to any military yet the USA switched over entirely in TV broadcasting to DTV (the first and second NTSC systems did not come from military requirements). CB on 11m (roughly 5 million users) owes nothing to the military. FM stereo broadcasting owes nothing to the military. Medical electronics communications owes very, very little to the military in technology. All of those are RADIO applications. 73, Len K6LHA |
What makes a real ham
On May 4, 9:35�am, John from Detroit wrote:
You ask for examples of earlier digital readout (pre-1980) stiff, and then agreed that many hams used Surplus Military hardware.. The discussion was about amateur gear being "more advanced" than military radios. I gave the example of the mechanical digital dial on the R-390 and R-390A receivers, which were designed in the very early 1950s. (IIRC, the ARR-2 receiver was even older). Similar mechanical-digital dials didn't appear in manufactured amateur gear until the 1960s (the NCX-5) and didn't become common in amateur equipment until the late 1970s. The bigger point is that those who set the requirements decided, way back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, that the complexity and expense of a frequency readout such as used on the R-390 was justified for a military HF receiver. Likely the digital stuff I saw was ex-military. Of course - which proves what I was saying: that the applications are very different. It must be remembered that the resouirces available are very different as well. For example, cost isn't usually as big a factor in military radio equipment as it is in amateur radio equipment. A receiver like the R-390A, when new in the 1950s, cost the taxpayers a couple of thousand dollars (it varied with the contract). The most expensive amateur receiver of the time, the Collins 75A-4, cost about 20-25% of that. Not many hams could afford a new 75A-4 in its day; even fewer could afford an R-390. Was the 75A-4 "more advanced"? In some ways, yes - it has passband tuning, a product detector and notch filter, all of which the R-390 family lack. The mechanical filters in the 75A-4 are more suited to amateur operation as well. OTOH the 75A4 has an "analog" dial despite using a PTO, and is not general-coverage. Different job, different resources, different tool. Of course the radio amateurs of most countries have the option of homebrewing their own rigs, which can be a real cost-saver. (See my QRZ.com bio for a current example, and the K5BCQ HBR website for an earlier example.) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What makes a real ham (How you can tell if you are)
How can you tell if you are a real Ham
1. When you look at a full moon and wonder how much antenna gain you would need. 2. When a friend gets a ride from you and remarks that you have a lot of CBs in your vehicle, it turns in to an hour long rant on how ham radio is not CB radio. 3. When someone asks for directions, you pause, wondering if long or short path would be best. 4. When you can look at a globe and be able to point to your antipode (and you know what an antipode is). 5. Your cell phone ring tone is a Morse code message of some kind. 6. You have accidentally said your Amateur Radio call sign at the end of a telephone conversation. 7. Your favorite vacation spots are always on mountain tops. 8. You notice more antennas than road signs while driving your car. 9. You have driven onto the shoulder of the road while looking at an antenna. 10. Porcupines appear to be fascinated with your car. 11. If you ever tried to figure out the operating frequency of your microwave oven. 12. When you look around your bedroom of wall to wall ham gear and ask: Why am I still single? 13. The local city council doesn't like you. 14. You think towers look pretty. 15. Your family doesn't have a clue what to get you for Christmas, even after you tell them. 16. Your HF amplifier puts out more power than the local AM radio station. 17. The wife and kids are away and the first thing that goes through your head is that no one will bother you while you call "CQ DX" a few hundred times. 18. When you pull into a donut shop and the cops there on their coffee break ask if they can see your radio setup. 19. You refer to your children as your "Harmonics". 20. Your girlfriend or wife asks: "You're going to spend $XXXX on what? 21. You actually believe you got a good deal on eBay. 22. When you see a house with a metal roof, and your only thought is what a great ground plane that would be. 23. You have pictures of your radio equipment as wallpaper on your computer's desktop. 24. Every family vacation includes a stop at a Ham radio store. 25. The first question you ask the new car dealer is: "What is the alternator's current output"? 26. You buy a brand new car based on the radio mounting locations and antenna mounting possibilities. 27. You have tapped out Morse code on your car's horn. 28. A lightning storm takes out a new Laptop, Plasma TV, and DVD Recorder, but all you care about is if your radios are okay. 29. Your wife has had to ride in the back seat because you had radio equipment in the front seat. 30. Your wife was excited when you were talking about achieving that critical angle, but very disappointed when you finally did. 31. During a love making session with your wife, you stop to answer a call on the radio. 32. Your wife says "have a good time" when you tell her that you are going on a "fox" hunt. 33. Talking about male and female connectors makes you feel excited. 34. You dream of big, comfortable, knobs, but not on women. 35. You always park on the top floor of the parking ramp, just in case you might have to wait in the car later. 36. When house hunting, you look for the best room for a radio shack and scan the property for possible tower placement. 37. When house hunting, you give your realtor topographical maps showing local elevations. 38. The real estate agent scratches his head when you ask if the soil conductivity is high, medium, or low. 39. You have Ham radio magazines in the bathroom. 40. When your doorbell rings, you immediately shut down the amplifier. 41. Fermentation never enters your mind when "homebrew" is mentioned. 42. Instead of just saying no, you have said "negative". 43. You have used a person's name to indicate acknowledgement. 44. You become impatient waiting for the latest AES catalog to arrive. 45. You have found yourself whistling "CQ" using Morse code. 46. You always schedule the third weekend in May for vacation. 47. You walk carefully in your back yard to avoid being clothes lined. 48. You have deep anxiety or panic attacks during high winds or heavy ice. 49. You and the FedEx/UPS men are on a first name basis. 50. You really start to miss people that you've never seen. 51. Your exercise machine is a Morse code keyer. 52. You walk through the plumbing section at the hardware store and see antenna parts. 53. Your neighbors thought you were nuts when you ripped up your lawn to bury chicken wire. 54. Your next door neighbor thinks that your wife is a widow. 55. Your wife has delivered meals to your Ham shack. 56. If you sold all your Ham radio equipment, you could pay off your mortgage. -- 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: --- |
What makes a real ham (How you can tell if you are)
On 7/31/2010 11:49 AM, Radio KØHB wrote:
How can you tell if you are a real Ham 1. When you look at a full moon and wonder how much antenna gain you would need. Actually, I wonder if I'll ever figure out why the Hunter's moon isn't in hunting season. 2. When a friend gets a ride from you and remarks that you have a lot o f CBs in your vehicle, it turns in to an hour long rant on how ham radio is not CB radio. I never let it go for an hour; five minutes tops. I tell them that I work for the IRS and it's all classified equipment used to identify unregistered money, and definitely not CB gear. 3. When someone asks for directions, you pause, wondering if long or short path would be best. Depends on the person asking, doesn't it? How soon do you want to see them again? 4. When you can look at a globe and be able to point to your antipode (and you know what an antipode is). Ah, but do *you* know how it's pronounced? 5. Your cell phone ring tone is a Morse code message of some kind. I prefer the alert signal from "Our Man Flint". 6. You have accidentally said your Amateur Radio call sign at the end o f a telephone conversation. What can I say? The Sixties were very good to me! 7. Your favorite vacation spots are always on mountain tops. My favorite camping spots are on mountain tops. My favorite *vacation* spots come with DXCC call letters and a four-element beam up at 32 meters ! 8. You notice more antennas than road signs while driving your car. Actually, I notice more attractive women than road signs while driving. Hey, I can always get another antenna ... 9. You have driven onto the shoulder of the road while looking at an antenna. True, but it was the antenna on a State Police Cruiser and I was looking at it in my rear-view mirror ... 10. Porcupines appear to be fascinated with your car. I've never been able to tell: I won't get near enough to figure out which end the eyes are at. 11. If you ever tried to figure out the operating frequency of your microwave oven. I can't bring myself to learn that much math. Do you think the dried-out Mac 'n Cheese affects the SWR? 12. When you look around your bedroom of wall to wall ham gear and ask: Why am I still single? ..... or look around your cellar full of boxes, and wonder why none of it is in the bedroom anymore. 13. The local city council doesn't like you. Why sure they do! I'm the reason they got their last raise! 14. You think towers look pretty. Only if they sway in the wind. 15. Your family doesn't have a clue what to get you for Christmas, even after you tell them. Mine doesn't have a clue until I give them the bill for what I already bought! 16. Your HF amplifier puts out more power than the local AM radio stati on. If you're a real ham, you've already made a deal to use their towers after they go off the air at night! 17. The wife and kids are away and the first thing that goes through your head is that no one will bother you while you call "CQ DX" a few hundred times. ..... unless you still run AM and have neighbors with cheap stereos. 18. When you pull into a donut shop and the cops there on their coffee break ask if they can see your radio setup. In my town, they ask if I can fix their _computer_ setup. They already have plenty of spare radios. 19. You refer to your children as your "Harmonics". Of course I do. Am I missing something? 20. Your girlfriend or wife asks: "You're going to spend $XXXX on what? She did, but just once: I said "something that was here before you and will be here the rest of my life." (This can have unexpected repercussions. See #12, above.) 21. You actually believe you got a good deal on eBay. I did! Of course, that was about a week after Ebay started ... 22. When you see a house with a metal roof, and your only thought is what a great ground plane that would be. Not quite: I wonder if there's any danger of electrolytic action. 23. You have pictures of your radio equipment as wallpaper on your computer's desktop. I have pictures of the gear I _will_ have someday, not what I have _now_. Does that count? 24. Every family vacation includes a stop at a Ham radio store. ..... while the wife is supervising the kids on the rock wall at the nearby YMCA. You have to _plan_ _ahead_! 25. The first question you ask the new car dealer is: "What is the alternator's current output"? I always ask if the warranty covers unexplained and early death of the emission control computer. Don't ask me why. 26. You buy a brand new car based on the radio mounting locations and antenna mounting possibilities. Actually, I buy new cars based on whether they have computerized emission control systems. Don't ask me why. 27. You have tapped out Morse code on your car's horn. Only in front of my XYL's father's house. 28. A lightning storm takes out a new Laptop, Plasma TV, and DVD Recorder, but all you care about is if your radios are okay. Of course: radio are_IMPORTANT_! 29. Your wife has had to ride in the back seat because you had radio equipment in the front seat. No, she rides in the back seat so that I can't hand her the map. 39. You have Ham radio magazines in the bathroom. ..... In the same rack as my wife's romance novels. 40. When your doorbell rings, you immediately shut down the amplifier. Didn't they teach you anything at Ham school? It's not an amplifier: it's a medically necessary prescription diathermy instrument! 41. Fermentation never enters your mind when "homebrew" is mentioned. Sure it does! That's what homebrew work parties are all about! 42. Instead of just saying no, you have said "negative". ..... only with cold-calls from telemarketers. It throws them off their pa ce. 43. You have used a person's name to indicate acknowledgement. True. I prefer "Ralph". 53. Your neighbors thought you were nuts when you ripped up your lawn t o bury chicken wire. Yes, but they thought I was nuts anyway after I climbed the 52' Maple tree to tap in a pulley. 54. Your next door neighbor thinks that your wife is a widow. Not any mo I connected the back fence gate to my HV supply! 55. Your wife has delivered meals to your Ham shack. ..... and in return, she doesn't have to hear me say "Salt-salt-salt-please-please-please during a meteor-scatter opening! 56. If you sold all your Ham radio equipment, you could pay off your mortgage. I already did, but I didn't tell anyone, so now I have much better equipment, which I bought with the mortgage payments! Bill, W1AC |
What makes a real ham (How you can tell if you are)
On 7/31/2010 11:49 AM, Radio KØHB wrote:
5. Your cell phone ring tone is a Morse code message of some kind. Actually... Back when I had a cell phone that let me program my own ring tone.. IT was my call. Now that I think of it when I get all my computers back on line.. I can do a quick WAV of one of them sending my call in Code to another and UPLOAD it to my phone as a ring tone. -- Nothing adds Excitement like something that is none of your business. |
What makes a real ham (How you can tell if you are)
Radio KØHB wrote:
How can you tell if you are a real Ham I am a real ham based upon my responses to numbers 2, 4, 9, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 36, 37, 41, 48, 49, 50, 52 and 55. Regarding number 53: Chicken wire just doesn't last. I used roll after roll of #14 and #12 copper. 73, Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com