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.

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

"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: ---

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.