Tod Olson, K0TO, recently sent the following. I thoroughly subscribe to the
stated sentiment.



73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"
--

A real ham is someone who follows the rules is nice to other operators.
and doesn't brake any homeowner complex rules
and a real ham is also a ham sandwich


--
AL'S COMPUTERS
"Radio K0HB" wrote in message
news:F4CB4B1A56A342D4B12DE54005DAA7C6@HANSPC...
Tod Olson, K0TO, recently sent the following. I thoroughly subscribe to
the
stated sentiment.

Quote:

Some years [actually decades] ago in an ARRL Directors' discussion there was a 'debate' about what should be the definition of "A Real Ham". Skipping over the several thousand words of Director opinion to the final consensus decision. " A 'Real Ham' is someone who thinks that they are. " The point was that a "Real Ham" would find that their personal identity was such that when they thought of themselves and their characteristics, the fact that they were an radio amateur would always be a significant part of the total.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"
--

On Jun 9, 8:14 am, "Andy" wrote:
A real ham is someone who follows the rules is nice to other operators.
and doesn't brake any homeowner complex rules
and a real ham is also a ham sandwich

Since I have been a Ham, and apparently long before, so many Amateur
radio licensees have been seriously concerned with "What makes a real
Ham?" In my other avocations, I don't hear people discussing who is
real or not. We don't have real versus unreal amateur astronomers, or
real Hockey players versus the non real version. And while I have my
own thoughts on the matter, which are more in line with what I
consider good traits, like manners, discretion, high activity level
and technical acumen, I don't worry a whole lot when one or another
feature goes missing, though I have been known to take action on some
who have problems in the first two areas.

All of this is to ask, Why are so many amateurs so concerned about
this?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On 6/9/2010 8:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
All of this is to ask, Why are so many amateurs so concerned
about this?

Real or not, it may be a stigma attached to the word "amateur."

So there's always this constant posturing to put up some kind
of artificial level to be obtained. Hence the "real ham" status.

Jeff

On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:14 am, wrote:
A real ham is someone who follows the rules is nice to other operators.
and doesn't brake any homeowner complex rules
and a real ham is also a ham sandwich

Since I have been a Ham, and apparently long before, so many Amateur
radio licensees have been seriously concerned with "What makes a real
Ham?" In my other avocations, I don't hear people discussing who is
real or not. We don't have real versus unreal amateur astronomers, or
real Hockey players versus the non real version. And while I have my
own thoughts on the matter, which are more in line with what I
consider good traits, like manners, discretion, high activity level
and technical acumen, I don't worry a whole lot when one or another
feature goes missing, though I have been known to take action on some
who have problems in the first two areas.

All of this is to ask, Why are so many amateurs so concerned about
this?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


Well, I have to agree with the person who basically said "Attitude"

There is so much to Ham Radio that I'd have to write a book (The ARRL
Radio Operator's Handbook?) to describe it all, And it matters not if
you are into CW, or SSB or FM or Emergency Communications or voulenteer
work or SSTV or Digital or EME or repeaters or satellite or expermenting
and developing or.... Well, pick a chapter of said book.

A real ham: Has a license, uses it, and thinks of himself (or herself)
as a ham radio operator. (Assuming we are talking radio ham)

IF (s)he is sitting on their license and never touches a radio (Save for
the AM/FM/FM in the dash of their car) then they are not a real ham.

But so long as they are doing something with their license, They are.



Side note: I like the folks who cry about how new hams do not have to
know Morse code (Alas, I had to learn it when I got my first license,
but today....) Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. But you do
need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra

On Jun 10, 8:47�am, John Davis wrote
:
On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. �But you do
need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra.

As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for
any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canada
has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top
level whether or not they exercise their option.

Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra
test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one
question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer
rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1
engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is
NOT.

73, Len K6LHA

On Jun 12, 12:24 pm, K6LHA wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:47 am, John Davis wrote
:

On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. But you do
need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra.

As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for
any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canad
a
has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top
level whether or not they exercise their option.

Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra
test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one
question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer
rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1
engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is
NOT.

No, Amateur Radio is not rocket science. Most of us refer to that as
something that is difficult, rather than literal. I've always thought
that rocket science in itself is not terribly complicated anyhow.
Mainly technical applications and challenges of directing a lot of
energy. Orbital mechanics, now that's a little more interesting and
involved. 8^)

Anyhow, I've always thought that many of us who have been in
electronics for many years some times tend to think that "it's easy".
Actually once you get beyond Technician level, which is designed to
not be that difficult, it is a bit of a problem for some. Not for you
or me, but a person who becomes interested in radio, but not
experienced at all in the electronics art, very well might have
problems with the Extra license.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On 6/12/2010 12:24 PM, K6LHA wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:47�am, John w
rote
:
On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. �But you do
need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra.

As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for
any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canada
has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top
level whether or not they exercise their option.

Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra
test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one
question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer
rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1
engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is
NOT.

73, Len K6LHA


One of the more or less bad things about Americqn English is that many
words have multiple meanings.. YOu read MAY wrong.

I was not implying "May or May not" I was saying that it is no longer
required..

A completly different May.

By the way, it has yet another meaning, Right after April.

On 6/12/2010 8:25 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Jun 12, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:47 am, John wrote
:

On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. But you do
need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra.

As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for
any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canad
a
has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top
level whether or not they exercise their option.

Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra
test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one
question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer
rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1
engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is
NOT.

No, Amateur Radio is not rocket science. Most of us refer to that as
something that is difficult, rather than literal. I've always thought
that rocket science in itself is not terribly complicated anyhow.
Mainly technical applications and challenges of directing a lot of
energy. Orbital mechanics, now that's a little more interesting and
involved. 8^)

Anyhow, I've always thought that many of us who have been in
electronics for many years some times tend to think that "it's easy".
Actually once you get beyond Technician level, which is designed to
not be that difficult, it is a bit of a problem for some. Not for you
or me, but a person who becomes interested in radio, but not
experienced at all in the electronics art, very well might have
problems with the Extra license.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


I am aware that Rocket Science, like hte word May, has multiple meanings

In this case I meant orbital mechanics, Apogee, Perogee, Period and that
kind of thing, All of which are indeed on the Extra class exam pool.

On Jun 14, 6:00�am, John Davis wrote
:
In this case I meant orbital mechanics, Apogee,
Perogee, Period and that
kind of thing, All of which are indeed
on the Extra class exam pool.

Yes, they are - as are many other subjects.

But the orbital mechanics questions make up only a small part of the
question pool. Even if some of them are in a prospective Extra's test,
s/he could get them all wrong and still pass. They represent but a
small part of the question pool.

----

It is my understanding that the term "rocket science" came into
popularity during the early days of NASA, when people like Von Braun
were well-known figures in the "space race", as the USA tried to catch
up to the Soviets.

It is also my understanding that Von Braun did not like the term at
all, and described himself and the others as engineers, not
scientists.

73 de Jim, N2EY