| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 28th 06, 11:01 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message ups.com... [snip] Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using only their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name. It doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code. So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there is a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the experienced people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge. The beginners are too inexperienced to do so. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that. I happen to be a degreed engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied experience in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields). Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am perfectly capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra. You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#2
October 29th 06, 02:04 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [snip] Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using only their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name. I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA amateur radio operators... It doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code. So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything. Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there is a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the experienced people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge. The beginners are too inexperienced to do so. You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis something magical. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that. You do not have a Ham Husband? I happen to be a degreed engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied experience in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields). I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia. Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional engineer........ Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am perfectly capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra. You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough. |
|
#3
October 29th 06, 02:27 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [snip] Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using only their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name. I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA amateur radio operators... Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job (contesting) for which it is ill-suited. It doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code. So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything. Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet. So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed (the human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually keyed code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or just call it a night and go to bed. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there is a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the experienced people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge. The beginners are too inexperienced to do so. You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis something magical. Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there is NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have operating experience. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that. You do not have a Ham Husband? You are choosing to be obtuse. Yes I have a Ham Husband but no he does not take care of Ohm's law or Theory for me. I happen to be a degreed engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied experience in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields). I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia. Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that. Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional engineer........ Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory. Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am perfectly capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra. You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough. You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the area to which I referred. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#4
October 29th 06, 02:13 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [snip] Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using only their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name. I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA amateur radio operators... Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job (contesting) for which it is ill-suited. And you keep changing the parameters of the challenge. Are you saying that of those amateurs that learned the code, that they are all still highly proficient in it? I think most learned the code as a licensing hurdle, and never looked back. Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses... It doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code. So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything. Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet. So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed (the human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually keyed code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or just call it a night and go to bed. OK. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there is a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the experienced people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge. The beginners are too inexperienced to do so. You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis something magical. Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there is NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have operating experience. They don't even have a definition of what Morse Code is within the rules of the last service required to have a Morse Code exam. I think that tells the story. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that. You do not have a Ham Husband? You are choosing to be obtuse. I tell David Heil/K8MN that allatime. Yes I have a Ham Husband but no he does not take care of Ohm's law or Theory for me. OK. I happen to be a degreed engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied experience in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields). I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia. Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that. You're talking about the working world. Were you able to hire out your studies in college? Were you able to hire out your PE exams? Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional engineer........ Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory. OK. Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am perfectly capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra. You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough. You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the area to which I referred. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in amateur licensing? |
|
#5
October 29th 06, 04:48 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [snip] Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total the scores... I think you get the point. Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using only their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name. I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA amateur radio operators... Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job (contesting) for which it is ill-suited. And you keep changing the parameters of the challenge. That's because CWGet fails in almost all contest situations. It cannot handle the QRM caused by all the stations calling at once. Are you saying that of those amateurs that learned the code, that they are all still highly proficient in it? I think most learned the code as a licensing hurdle, and never looked back. No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient. I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the exchange. But it worked. If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's sad but that's their problem. Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses... While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low activity levels. When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that? They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on. It doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code. So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything. Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet. So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed (the human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually keyed code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or just call it a night and go to bed. OK. [snip] You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis something magical. Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there is NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have operating experience. They don't even have a definition of what Morse Code is within the rules of the last service required to have a Morse Code exam. I think that tells the story. The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse Code that is sufficient for the purpose. The FCC doesn't need to define it. They say we must pass the International Morse Code. It is sufficient that the dot/dash sequence is defined for the characters. The weighting, spacing, and speed can be varied to suit the conditions. For test purposes, the Council of VECs establishes the test standard and that is sufficient since all who go test have the opportunity to train using the exact parameters (tone, weighting, spacing, speed, etc) that will be used on the test. The variations that occur in the real world can be learned on the air. [snip] I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia. Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that. You're talking about the working world. Were you able to hire out your studies in college? Since we weren't required to take electrical engineering courses, it is not relevant. Would you require EEs to take basic mechanical engineering courses? That would chew up a couple of years. Were you able to hire out your PE exams? Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or registration or whatever they call it these days. Plus there are study guides specifically aimed at the content of the PE exam. Plus the exam for a structural engineer is different from the one for a mechanical engineer is different from the one for an electrical engineer, etc. Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional engineer........ Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory. OK. Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am perfectly capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra. You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough. You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the area to which I referred. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in amateur licensing? No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there. One needs to learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want to further explore various branches of amateur radio. Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33 years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic. The ironic part is that Fortran was a class I hated in college and struggled to get through (Basic was not in use at the time). Once I was out in the real world working on software to use in real situations, I found it to be quite easy and fun. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#6
October 30th 06, 12:26 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am
wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient. I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the exchange. But it worked. If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's sad but that's their problem. Never been a problem to me. I can't see any personal enjoyment in "contesting," using kilodollars worth of equipment just to accumulate the most radio contacts in a short period of time. But, if that's your Thing, go for it. I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my thing to hop all over some small band and making transitory contact with some individual one will probably never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan of "Wheel of Fortune." :-) The FCC has nothing on "contesting," doesn't require it of any licensee. Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses... While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low activity levels. You don't hear them so they don't exist?!? When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that? They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on. Tsk. VHF-UHF is LOS stuff regularly, sometimes "DX" when there are atmospheric inversion layers for ducting or other weird effects. Did it ever occur to you that OTHER people on ham bands are NOT really into 'contesting?" Maybe they LIKE to get to know the other party on a radio circuit? The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse Code that is sufficient for the purpose. It's a date-update of an old CCITT *TELEGRAM* standard. Would you like a copy? :-) IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WORD *RATE*! The FCC doesn't need to define it. They say we must pass the International Morse Code. The FCC *references* the CCITT-ITU document in Definitions. The FCC does NOT LEGALLY DEFINE word rate. Sunnuvagun. Now, if the FCC ever gets the 2004 "Omnibus" R&O published in the Federal Register, we will see if they bothered to update the old CCITT document to the current ITU document. :-) Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or registration or whatever they call it these days. 'Professional Engineer' is a STATE license thing. Requirements vary between states, but not a great deal. The state PE license is a nice LEGAL thing because the LEGAL system is set up to recognize it. Corporations and businesses who DO THE WORK are less interested in the number of diplomas and licenses one has...they want people who can DO THE WORK. If they can DO THE WORK, they are paid accordingly. Getting PAID for services rendered IS a legally-acceptible definition of 'professional' activity. Ergo, an engineer who does engineering work, has engineering responsibility, and CAN DO THE WORK is generally referred to as a professional. Really. So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in amateur licensing? No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there. But, but, but...an amateur MUST learn morse code?!? :-) Lots of amateurs tossed their code keys, had "key burial" ceremonies after getting their license, and continued to have fun as licensed amateurs. There's lots and lots of hypocrisy running around loose in there... :-( One needs to learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want to further explore various branches of amateur radio. In crowded, congested ham bands it would seem mo' bettah to LEARN how to maintain, repair, calibrate their radios. The FCC has lots technical requirements on radios which licensees are REQUIRED to obey. Not to worry. The ready-built designer-manufacturers of today's ham radios have done all the ADVANCED work for you. No need to sweat actually LEARNING some beyond-basic knowledge. Just plug it in and go. You can read the operating manual as you go along. You keep stressing the NEED to do radiotelegraphy. I don't see it. The rest of the world isn't stressing any of that "CW" need...they just gave up on morse code. Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33 years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic. Sunnuvagun! In 1973 I managed to access the RCA corporate mainframe to do my first FORTRAN coding. I got the basics from Dan McCracken's large softcover on Programming in FORTRAN IV. 33 years ago! Took me only about three months (of my own time) to get acquainted with FORTRAN...was much more difficult 'selling' the group bean counter to get access. By 1975 I had 6 programs in the RCA Central Software Library that I'd written and debugged. Wasn't all that hard. Oh, and Dartmouth BASIC was already in industry use 33 years ago. Visual Basic hasn't been out near that long. Power Basic for Windows 8 is the present package I have, sufficiently like FORTRAN to make an easy transition. Computer programming is NOT for everyone. Some haven't got the aptitude for it. Programming does NOT teach one how to MAKE a computer, just how to USE it in ONE kind of application. [like morse proficiency is "supposed to make one a good radio operator" but doesn't teach squat in how a radio works or how to fix one] What is much better for radio amateurs *OR* just radio and electronics hobbyists in regards to basic theory knowledge is using a SPICE program set. Linear Technology Corp. has made a modern SPICE program set absolutely FREE, just download it at www.linear.com. "LTSpice/SwitcherCAD." Use the Search box at the home page. The single download is an automatically- unpacking .EXE file, just run it and it installs by itself. It's got a fairly simple Schematic drawing feature that automatically generates Netlists. A fair selection of common active device models is supplied in its Library. Only for Windows OS up to XP as far as I know. SPICE program packages *ALL* take some time on the learning curve. The lovely part of them is that they do NOT require parts, NO workbench, NO test equipment. At first they are frustrating in a large amount of program commands and conventions that must be observed. Once over that hump, they can be marvelous instruction machines in allowing quick changes of a circuit to see the effect on Transient (time-domain) or Linear AC (frequency-domain) response. They can handle simple, medium, or large scale circuits...anything from just an R-C network to fancy oscillators to complex filters, passive or active. In working on a "SPICE bench" there is a subtle input to the mind. The pathways there are opened to first understand the interrelationships of components in a circuit...and what those components are made of, electrically. Once those pathways are opened, it becomes easier to understand the more complex theory behind the circuitry. All that can be done without lots of expensive (or cheap) parts, no danger of "burning out" something, no smoke and fire. :-) "All electronics works by smoke. If the smoke leaks out, it won't work." - anon. |
|
#7
October 30th 06, 12:57 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
" wrote in
oups.com: From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient. I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the exchange. But it worked. If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's sad but that's their problem. Never been a problem to me. I can't see any personal enjoyment in "contesting," using kilodollars worth of equipment just to accumulate the most radio contacts in a short period of time. But, if that's your Thing, go for it. I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my thing to hop all over some small band and making transitory contact with some individual one will probably never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan of "Wheel of Fortune." :-) The FCC has nothing on "contesting," doesn't require it of any licensee. Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses... While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low activity levels. You don't hear them so they don't exist?!? When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that? They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on. Tsk. VHF-UHF is LOS stuff regularly, sometimes "DX" when there are atmospheric inversion layers for ducting or other weird effects. Did it ever occur to you that OTHER people on ham bands are NOT really into 'contesting?" Maybe they LIKE to get to know the other party on a radio circuit? The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse Code that is sufficient for the purpose. It's a date-update of an old CCITT *TELEGRAM* standard. Would you like a copy? :-) IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WORD *RATE*! The FCC doesn't need to define it. They say we must pass the International Morse Code. The FCC *references* the CCITT-ITU document in Definitions. The FCC does NOT LEGALLY DEFINE word rate. Sunnuvagun. Now, if the FCC ever gets the 2004 "Omnibus" R&O published in the Federal Register, we will see if they bothered to update the old CCITT document to the current ITU document. :-) Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or registration or whatever they call it these days. 'Professional Engineer' is a STATE license thing. Requirements vary between states, but not a great deal. The state PE license is a nice LEGAL thing because the LEGAL system is set up to recognize it. Corporations and businesses who DO THE WORK are less interested in the number of diplomas and licenses one has...they want people who can DO THE WORK. If they can DO THE WORK, they are paid accordingly. Getting PAID for services rendered IS a legally-acceptible definition of 'professional' activity. Ergo, an engineer who does engineering work, has engineering responsibility, and CAN DO THE WORK is generally referred to as a professional. Really. So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in amateur licensing? No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there. But, but, but...an amateur MUST learn morse code?!? :-) Lots of amateurs tossed their code keys, had "key burial" ceremonies after getting their license, and continued to have fun as licensed amateurs. There's lots and lots of hypocrisy running around loose in there... :-( One needs to learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want to further explore various branches of amateur radio. In crowded, congested ham bands it would seem mo' bettah to LEARN how to maintain, repair, calibrate their radios. The FCC has lots technical requirements on radios which licensees are REQUIRED to obey. Not to worry. The ready-built designer-manufacturers of today's ham radios have done all the ADVANCED work for you. No need to sweat actually LEARNING some beyond-basic knowledge. Just plug it in and go. You can read the operating manual as you go along. You keep stressing the NEED to do radiotelegraphy. I don't see it. The rest of the world isn't stressing any of that "CW" need...they just gave up on morse code. Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33 years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic. Sunnuvagun! In 1973 I managed to access the RCA corporate mainframe to do my first FORTRAN coding. I got the basics from Dan McCracken's large softcover on Programming in FORTRAN IV. 33 years ago! Took me only about three months (of my own time) to get acquainted with FORTRAN...was much more difficult 'selling' the group bean counter to get access. By 1975 I had 6 programs in the RCA Central Software Library that I'd written and debugged. Wasn't all that hard. Oh, and Dartmouth BASIC was already in industry use 33 years ago. Visual Basic hasn't been out near that long. Power Basic for Windows 8 is the present package I have, sufficiently like FORTRAN to make an easy transition. Computer programming is NOT for everyone. Some haven't got the aptitude for it. Programming does NOT teach one how to MAKE a computer, just how to USE it in ONE kind of application. [like morse proficiency is "supposed to make one a good radio operator" but doesn't teach squat in how a radio works or how to fix one] What is much better for radio amateurs *OR* just radio and electronics hobbyists in regards to basic theory knowledge is using a SPICE program set. Linear Technology Corp. has made a modern SPICE program set absolutely FREE, just download it at www.linear.com. "LTSpice/SwitcherCAD." Use the Search box at the home page. The single download is an automatically- unpacking .EXE file, just run it and it installs by itself. It's got a fairly simple Schematic drawing feature that automatically generates Netlists. A fair selection of common active device models is supplied in its Library. Only for Windows OS up to XP as far as I know. SPICE program packages *ALL* take some time on the learning curve. The lovely part of them is that they do NOT require parts, NO workbench, NO test equipment. At first they are frustrating in a large amount of program commands and conventions that must be observed. Once over that hump, they can be marvelous instruction machines in allowing quick changes of a circuit to see the effect on Transient (time-domain) or Linear AC (frequency-domain) response. They can handle simple, medium, or large scale circuits...anything from just an R-C network to fancy oscillators to complex filters, passive or active. In working on a "SPICE bench" there is a subtle input to the mind. The pathways there are opened to first understand the interrelationships of components in a circuit...and what those components are made of, electrically. Once those pathways are opened, it becomes easier to understand the more complex theory behind the circuitry. All that can be done without lots of expensive (or cheap) parts, no danger of "burning out" something, no smoke and fire. :-) "All electronics works by smoke. If the smoke leaks out, it won't work." - anon. There's a product at the drug store you might want to try: Gas-X. It should be pretty close to the 'Depends' isle you're familiar with. SC |
|
#8
October 30th 06, 02:15 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
|
|
#9
October 29th 06, 10:12 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 10:27pm
wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message [snip] I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia. Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the electrical engineers. Really? That's NOT been my experience over the last half century in the Los Angeles Aerospace Industry. I've NEVER been hired by any mechanical engineers...the final interview before a hiring okay has ALWAYS been done by EEs. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since they have a significant impact for our field). Really? Rocketdyne (my last big corporate employer) makes the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine). A rocket motor (simple) might need a spark plug or other igniter to start it up (if not using hypergolic fuel). However, each SSME has a STRAP- ON COMPUTER, primarily to regulate the liquid oxygen flow. Can't use a conventional flowmeter...the LOX just eats them up (rapid oxidation from pure oxygen). Since the SSME is throttleable there's a wide range of variables involved, something that can only be solved in real time by a computer. Computer was designed and built by Minneapolis-Honeywell and is probably the MOST robust computer ever made. Perhaps you want to argue that Rocketdyne is "not" involved in aerospace engineering? [feel free, but you would be WRONG] If you go a bit north of Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, CA, you would reach Hughes Aircraft Missle Division. Nice place. I worked there when Ramo-Wooldridge occupied that facility. Stouffers ran both the RW and HAC cafeteria, good good food. Is the Phoenix air-air missle considered part of "aerospace?" I'd say so, and thousands of other engineers would say so. However, for a missle there is a STRONG interplay between the tin benders and solder slingers to get an optimum package with the most bang for its buck...and get it to the target RELIABLY. HAC has had an excellent record in air-air misslery, beginning with their first, the GAR-1 and GAR-2 (launched from F-102s, Shrub's NG plane). Air-air missles NEED little computers on board along with air data sensors and control acuators to do their task. A mechanical who specializes in aerodynamics is certainly needed but those would be out of a job without the electronics specialist working side-by-side. Would a satellite or space probe work without solar cells? [only for a short time] Solar cells are ELECTRICAL things, charging up the internal batteries (another electrical thing) to keep the payload (electronics) working. Feel free to go out to JPL and tell them "aerospace is all mechanical engineering." :-) I could expand on avionics...stuff that acquires and tracks targets (military) or guides aircraft (military and civilian) or does "fly-by-wire" (control surface acuation via electrical coupling from manual controls). Absolutely needed in the high-performance aircraft of today. But, you say that is due to "aerospace being all mechanical engineering?" No. Have you seen the "glass cockpit" of today's aircraft? Gone are the mechanical and aerodynamic gauges, replaced with flat-screen LCD and Plasma displays operated through microprocessors from sensors with no moving parts. Again we go hire the electrical engineers. Nonsense. Same with civil and structural engineers. More nonsense. "Civil engineers?" Building rigid airships? :-) On the other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that. I might have had some past jobs that made me a 'vassal' but at Rocketdyne I never had any responsibility for pressure VESSLES. That was for the smoke-and-fire guys to do. :-) By the way, the almost-catastrophy of the Apollo 13 mission was a LOX tank blowing up in the Service Module. Specifially it was failure of the LOX stirring thermostate within it, a design responsibility of mechanicals with thermodynamics specialty. :-) [one of three VESSLES holding LOX in the Service Module] Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional engineer........ Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not taught across the board. Tsk, tsk. Bad school. Sit in corner. :-) We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory. Really? "Beam theory" (cantilever and others) was a REQUISITE in southern California colleges; most instructors prolly couldn't hack the basic electrical stuff anyway. Ever look into a Texas Instruments 'DLP' IC? CANTILEVER BEAM MOVEMENT of the micromachined mirrors does every single lil' pixel in that IC. TI has a virtual monopoly on the DLP for very large screen DTV displays. One need not use 'cantilever beam theory' to design a horizontal ham antenna (such as a parasitic beam)...just go out and BUY one, ready-made, some-assembly-required, then watch it fall down in the next big windstorm. :-) --- As far as actual KNOWLEDGE gained, a 'degree' has LITTLE value except in the eyes of personnel departments and department managers (the ones who think they can run people but sure don't know how to run the equipment). I finally got one...LONG AFTER the fact of having quite a bit of design responsibility and a whole heaping gob of experience. Personally, I feel mine is a negative worth due to lots of LOST time attending 'requisite' classes...just so a few instructors could write down I passed their courses and a few others in a college (or university) could rubber-stamp a 'sheepskin.' The point is BEING ABLE TO DO THE JOB, not the number of diplomas (suitable for framing) on display, or the number of alphabetic characters one can put after a signature. Does anyone NEED a radio license to effectively run, repair, maintain, calibrate, test a radio transmitter? NO. The license is a LEGAL requirement. The TEST for any radio license, amateur or commercial, is ridiculously SIMPLE, and has NEVER been made complex or comprehensive by the FCC. It is an AUTHORIZATION by a government agency, NOT a "qualification". It might as well be a fancy hunting or fishing license. However, the FCC regulations for radio amateurs is strict on technical performance, a responsibility for EACH licensee. Can you do any sort of comprehensive test to insure compliance with the LAW? I can. I could long before any degree was received. |
|
#10
October 30th 06, 01:44 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
|
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| hey BB did steve do somethign specail toy uo laely? | Policy | |||
| More News of Radio Amateurs' Work in the Andamans | Shortwave | |||
| Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Broadcasting | |||
| Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
