Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... My life's experience has been that for every hobby or avocation, there is a large group of people that "would do it except for....". What they are actually tell you when they say this is " I have a passing interest in this. But I'm not so interested that I will become a participant". BANG! Drove that nail with a single blow, Mike! What was it they used to say - "indisputable truth"? Yet some will dispute it anyway. Whether it is the Morse code requirement, or the cost of a rig or effort of putting up an antenna, or the cost of a telescope or the need to travel to remote areas that are dark enough or the fact that you have to stay up all night to observe, etc, etc. This is true of *any* activity. Heck, when I was training for the marathon 20 years ago, I met plenty of folks who said they wanted to run a marathon - if only it wasn't 26.22 miles long... Some comedian needs to pick that one up. It is truly, classically funny! For some folks it's not a joke, though. They really don't see why the distance has to be 26.22 miles - after all, we'd have more marathoners if it were shorter. Or if people were allowed to use rollerblades, scooters, or bicycles to cover the distance. After all, running is truly *ancient* transportation technology. As a communications technology, (the marathon is based on ancient Greek runners, who were primarily messengers, not athletes) running has been replaced by methods that are faster, more error-free, less expensive... People in amateur astronomy also obsess about the graying of the hobby and how do we get the kids involved? Fact is, a scope that can actually be used for any kind of passable observation costs a fair amount of money. Is it really so much money, Mike? I've heard that there are some folks who make their own 'scopes, down to the grinding of lenses and mirrors and such. And of course there are used telescopes. But the telescope itself is probably the least of the issues. I've made two telescopes so far. The only thing I bought was eyepieces and the eyepiece holder. While it is true that you can make one for very little money - especially when you get really lucky, like I did, and find 3 12.5 inch blanks for 15 dollars each. For most people it will cost some serious dough to get quality. Of course there is the definition of quality and serious dough! BTW, 15 dollar 12.5 inch Pyrex blanks are the rough equivalent of finding an almost new, mint FT-1000 MV Field, loaded, for 100 dollars, so there is your luck! I would imagine that one can have tremendous fun in astronomy with less-than-state-of-the-art equipment. Just like amateur radio. But that kind of deal took patience and of course much luck. A commercial version of the larger scope I made would set you back around 3.5 to 4K dollars. And it probably wouldn't have as good a mirror. Basic rule of thumb is department store scopes are truly junk. The inexpensive Dobsonians (a type of alt-az mount, usually with a reflector mirror) often have passable optics, but usually need mechanical work to perform well. You can get some 6 inch variety for around 300 dollars. So if you are willing to put in the time.... There ya go. Also requires skill and effort. (The glass doesn't grind itself) Most refractors have a phenomenon called "color", in which not all wavelengths of light are focused to the same point. Drives me crazy. The better ones have what is called an APO lens, in which rare earth glasses are used to focus the light all at the same place. And yup, they cost money. I've looked through a number of 12K scopes. Lovely planet images, but not all that much light gathering power. Various rig designs have different good and bad features. For example, the wonderful K2 has really good dynamic range and very low phase noise but its display accuracy is *only* about 20-30 Hz even if the reference oscillator is set dead-on. This is a result of how the PLL works. Most owners don't care but there are some hams who are not satisfied with 20 Hz error. And ohhh geee, the dufusses that wanted to get the little kids interested in observing seem to have forgotten that Mommy and Daddy don't want little Buffy or Jody (and by extension, Mommy or Daddy) to be staying up all night and traveling to remote sites..... Here's another issue: If someone wants to look at the moon, planets and stars, the libraries and bookstores are full of books with pictures that no amateur could hope to equal. The 'net is an even more amazing resource. Look at the pictures of Saturn coming from Cassini - this is gonna be one heck of a summer for planetary science! And no staying up late, no special equipment, no disappointments due to clouds or rain or cold. No real knowledge of things like where to point the 'scope or how to interpret what is seen, either. simmer, simmer, simmer......;^) Is it not true? If all someone wants is images, no telescope is needed. In fact, I would say the best images available *for free* on the net are probably better than can be obtained by 99% of amateurs. And I think you'd agree. But that's not the point, is it? Of course looking at pictures taken by others is not the same thing as seeing something directly. But for most people, it's 'close enough'. I'm glad I saw that sentence! It's the same in amateur radio. Yet the point of *direct experience* is simply something many people simply "don't get". Yes the images provided by Hubble are stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there) It's simply a matter of $$. Or lack thereof. But some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, observing with a few good friends, sharing our views of the skies. Even alone, the experience is no comparison. Of course. And some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, working CW/Morse on a wide open amateur band, sharing QSOs with fellow hams all over the country. Or world. There is no comparison to the experience. Here's another point: Seeking the direct experience is also unpredictable in that the seeker is usually at the mercy of Nature. You can have the best 'scope imaginable, and an excellent site, but if the weather doesn't cooperate you're out of luck. Also, the stars and planets don't move to a human schedule - you may have to wait months or years to see even some of the more common objects. (Want to see Saturn on a moonless night when it is closest to Earth? Don't hold yer breath!) And most professional astronomers rarely if ever actually look through a telescope. At most they do so for calibration. Actual observations are almost all done by various sensors and instruments. Indeed, if my information is correct, direct observation in visible light is pretty "old fashioned" - that stuff was all done 100+ years ago, wasn't it? Of course, every so often an amateur will make a real discovery, such as finding a new comet or some such. Just like amateur radio. In ham radio, a person not only has to have the interest, they have to be willing and able to spend a fair amount of discretionary income on a rig, put up an antenna, (if they are even allowed to) and all the other things we have to do to get on the air. The biggest investments aren't monetary. It's the time and effort. There is that! Which is why some recruiting efforts are misdirected. Any wonder why lots of the new guys are the shack on the belt types? For kids, usually dependent upon M&D for their money, M&D are often happy to spend 100-200 dollars on a HT. They might not look so happily upon laying out $800-3000 for an hf rig, and putting up that antenna. All the young hams in my area are repeater people, save for Field day. 37 years ago I was one of those young hams, and got no help from the parental units. Today's kids are no different. The big difference today is that for too many folks the antenna is a really big deal. Heck, look how many *adult* hams can't figure out how to put up an effective HF antenna these days... Finally, the comparison of ham radio to the internet is amusing at best. There is almost not technical comparison between the two. Beyond the technogeeks such as myself, that spend a fair amount of time keeping other peoples computers on the stinkin' Internet, the technical acumen level is mighty darn low. How much ability is needed to surf porn? Since the advent of GUIs the whole point of personal computing has been to make it easier for *everyone* to use them. That's what has driven the industry for 20+ years. Yup, Troubleshooting has become figuring out which software switch to turn *off* for the "helpful" GUI. To most of us the 'puter is a tool - a means to an end, not the end in itself. Funny - I spend a lot of time getting peoples PC's running, but my main computer at work is a G5, Dual Processor MAC. Oh so sweet! My points are that blaming the lack of growth (which is an arguable thing in the first place) on the Morse code test is kind of like saying that a frog with no legs that can't jump when you tell it to jump, is deaf. I wish I knew where that one came from! It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. Here's a datapoint for ya: In 1972 I graduated from a suburban Catholic boys' high school. This was in a solidly middle-class area, at a school that stressed math and science (AP courses available in those days were calculus, physics, chemistry, and history). My graduating class was over 600. IIRC exactly three of us graduates were hams. Of those three, only I am still licensed. The girls' high school next door (literally) was slightly larger - and had no hams at all. Out of maybe 5000 kids in grades 9 through 12 there were perhaps 9 or 10 licensed hams. The reasons for the scarcity were many. For example, many extracurricular activities competed for our time and energy. (Like this blonde 11th grader who - no, wait, wrong newsgroup...). There was no organized school activity until we kids started a radio club of our own, which rose and fell on the efforts of us kids. More than a few kids back then though amateur radio was "square" - its conservative political nature (K7UGA) and military ties made more than a few look askance. Most of all, those were the boom times for cb. For less than the cost of a half-decent used receiver like a Drake 2B, one could head over to Lafayette Radio or one of its competitors and bring home a complete setup - 23 channel transceiver, groundplane antenna, coax, mounting hardware, etc. All brand new, ready to go. And if you had a car, a few more dollars bought a mobile mount and 102" whip antenna. License? Just fill out a form - but in fact many did not bother to do even that much. No tuneup, no fancy adjustments - just pick a channel, push the button and talk. Ahhh, memories! Station KBM-8780 had a Lafayette HE-20C. 8 crystal controlled channels and a tuner for the channels you didn't have crystals for. A colinear on the roof, and having fun. Lafayette was a big deal around here. All gone now. I don't know how many kids in my school had cbs or access to them, but they outnumbered us hams back then. Some of them became hams, most lost interest when the cb boom ended. Things haven't changed all that much, except now it's the 'net that's a prime competitor. I still don't think it is much of a competitor, but maybe to the participants, they think they are being hi-tech.. All depends who does the defining. For some folks, following the directions and unpacking/setting up/getting their computer to work is high tech. For others, assembling a custom one from boards/case/drives and loading the software isn't. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... My life's experience has been that for every hobby or avocation, there is a large group of people that "would do it except for....". What they are actually tell you when they say this is " I have a passing interest in this. But I'm not so interested that I will become a participant". BANG! Drove that nail with a single blow, Mike! What was it they used to say - "indisputable truth"? Yet some will dispute it anyway. Whether it is the Morse code requirement, or the cost of a rig or effort of putting up an antenna, or the cost of a telescope or the need to travel to remote areas that are dark enough or the fact that you have to stay up all night to observe, etc, etc. This is true of *any* activity. Heck, when I was training for the marathon 20 years ago, I met plenty of folks who said they wanted to run a marathon - if only it wasn't 26.22 miles long... Some comedian needs to pick that one up. It is truly, classically funny! For some folks it's not a joke, though. They really don't see why the distance has to be 26.22 miles - after all, we'd have more marathoners if it were shorter. Or if people were allowed to use rollerblades, scooters, or bicycles to cover the distance. After all, running is truly *ancient* transportation technology. As a communications technology, (the marathon is based on ancient Greek runners, who were primarily messengers, not athletes) running has been replaced by methods that are faster, more error-free, less expensive... Funny how analogies pop up in th estrangest places! 8^) People in amateur astronomy also obsess about the graying of the hobby and how do we get the kids involved? Fact is, a scope that can actually be used for any kind of passable observation costs a fair amount of money. Is it really so much money, Mike? I've heard that there are some folks who make their own 'scopes, down to the grinding of lenses and mirrors and such. And of course there are used telescopes. But the telescope itself is probably the least of the issues. I've made two telescopes so far. The only thing I bought was eyepieces and the eyepiece holder. While it is true that you can make one for very little money - especially when you get really lucky, like I did, and find 3 12.5 inch blanks for 15 dollars each. For most people it will cost some serious dough to get quality. Of course there is the definition of quality and serious dough! BTW, 15 dollar 12.5 inch Pyrex blanks are the rough equivalent of finding an almost new, mint FT-1000 MV Field, loaded, for 100 dollars, so there is your luck! I would imagine that one can have tremendous fun in astronomy with less-than-state-of-the-art equipment. Just like amateur radio. Yes. a lot depends on the situation. While I have my 12.5 inch scope, I also have a 6 inch that I made, and a small catadioptric scope that is quite modest. But I can put the littel scope on the front seat of the car or set up on a picnic table somewhere. And binoculars are a great way to observe. But that kind of deal took patience and of course much luck. A commercial version of the larger scope I made would set you back around 3.5 to 4K dollars. And it probably wouldn't have as good a mirror. Basic rule of thumb is department store scopes are truly junk. The inexpensive Dobsonians (a type of alt-az mount, usually with a reflector mirror) often have passable optics, but usually need mechanical work to perform well. You can get some 6 inch variety for around 300 dollars. So if you are willing to put in the time.... There ya go. Also requires skill and effort. (The glass doesn't grind itself) I spent a lot of happy hours getting that mirror to perform well. Most refractors have a phenomenon called "color", in which not all wavelengths of light are focused to the same point. Drives me crazy. The better ones have what is called an APO lens, in which rare earth glasses are used to focus the light all at the same place. And yup, they cost money. I've looked through a number of 12K scopes. Lovely planet images, but not all that much light gathering power. Various rig designs have different good and bad features. For example, the wonderful K2 has really good dynamic range and very low phase noise but its display accuracy is *only* about 20-30 Hz even if the reference oscillator is set dead-on. This is a result of how the PLL works. Most owners don't care but there are some hams who are not satisfied with 20 Hz error. Hmm. could be we are putting together the reasons that a lot of Hams are also amateur astronomers! And ohhh geee, the dufusses that wanted to get the little kids interested in observing seem to have forgotten that Mommy and Daddy don't want little Buffy or Jody (and by extension, Mommy or Daddy) to be staying up all night and traveling to remote sites..... Here's another issue: If someone wants to look at the moon, planets and stars, the libraries and bookstores are full of books with pictures that no amateur could hope to equal. The 'net is an even more amazing resource. Look at the pictures of Saturn coming from Cassini - this is gonna be one heck of a summer for planetary science! And no staying up late, no special equipment, no disappointments due to clouds or rain or cold. No real knowledge of things like where to point the 'scope or how to interpret what is seen, either. simmer, simmer, simmer......;^) Is it not true? If all someone wants is images, no telescope is needed. In fact, I would say the best images available *for free* on the net are probably better than can be obtained by 99% of amateurs. And I think you'd agree. But that's not the point, is it? Right! See my response to Tom (garigue) on the repoters that were interviewing me at a star party. Ohhh, do they understand! Of course looking at pictures taken by others is not the same thing as seeing something directly. But for most people, it's 'close enough'. I'm glad I saw that sentence! It's the same in amateur radio. Yet the point of *direct experience* is simply something many people simply "don't get". I'm an experience junkie. As long as it's legal and ethical, I'm in! Yes the images provided by Hubble are stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there) It's simply a matter of $$. Or lack thereof. What I don't like is that they are citing safety concerns. I'll go on record that I would ride the shuttle to the thing right now to work on it. In a heartbeat. The world doesn't belong to those that are safe. But some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, observing with a few good friends, sharing our views of the skies. Even alone, the experience is no comparison. Of course. And some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, working CW/Morse on a wide open amateur band, sharing QSOs with fellow hams all over the country. Or world. There is no comparison to the experience. Oh yeah! Here's another point: Seeking the direct experience is also unpredictable in that the seeker is usually at the mercy of Nature. You can have the best 'scope imaginable, and an excellent site, but if the weather doesn't cooperate you're out of luck. Also, the stars and planets don't move to a human schedule - you may have to wait months or years to see even some of the more common objects. (Want to see Saturn on a moonless night when it is closest to Earth? Don't hold yer breath!) And it all makes the successful experience all the sweeter! And most professional astronomers rarely if ever actually look through a telescope. At most they do so for calibration. Actual observations are almost all done by various sensors and instruments. Indeed, if my information is correct, direct observation in visible light is pretty "old fashioned" - that stuff was all done 100+ years ago, wasn't it? One evening we had a professional astronomer with us for an evening of observing. It was a lot of fun. We amateurs were locating various stars and stellar objects, and he was telling us all about them in great detail. A magic evening for both him and the rest of us, although I'm afraid I scared him half to death. I was telling everyone about the encounter I had with a huge black bear on the way to the site, with the bear crossing the dirt road in front of me, and I stopped to watch the bear, and the big guy stood up to watch me, maybe ten feet from my open passenger window. It was awsome, and everyone else was used to my quirky dealings with wild animals, but I heard him say in a quavery voice "th-th-that bear, it it wan't r-r-really anywhere n-n-near here was it? We never could get him to come out with us again. 8^( Of course, every so often an amateur will make a real discovery, such as finding a new comet or some such. Just like amateur radio. In ham radio, a person not only has to have the interest, they have to be willing and able to spend a fair amount of discretionary income on a rig, put up an antenna, (if they are even allowed to) and all the other things we have to do to get on the air. The biggest investments aren't monetary. It's the time and effort. There is that! Which is why some recruiting efforts are misdirected. big time. Any wonder why lots of the new guys are the shack on the belt types? For kids, usually dependent upon M&D for their money, M&D are often happy to spend 100-200 dollars on a HT. They might not look so happily upon laying out $800-3000 for an hf rig, and putting up that antenna. All the young hams in my area are repeater people, save for Field day. 37 years ago I was one of those young hams, and got no help from the parental units. Today's kids are no different. The big difference today is that for too many folks the antenna is a really big deal. Heck, look how many *adult* hams can't figure out how to put up an effective HF antenna these days... Finally, the comparison of ham radio to the internet is amusing at best. There is almost not technical comparison between the two. Beyond the technogeeks such as myself, that spend a fair amount of time keeping other peoples computers on the stinkin' Internet, the technical acumen level is mighty darn low. How much ability is needed to surf porn? Since the advent of GUIs the whole point of personal computing has been to make it easier for *everyone* to use them. That's what has driven the industry for 20+ years. Yup, Troubleshooting has become figuring out which software switch to turn *off* for the "helpful" GUI. To most of us the 'puter is a tool - a means to an end, not the end in itself. Funny - I spend a lot of time getting peoples PC's running, but my main computer at work is a G5, Dual Processor MAC. Oh so sweet! My points are that blaming the lack of growth (which is an arguable thing in the first place) on the Morse code test is kind of like saying that a frog with no legs that can't jump when you tell it to jump, is deaf. I wish I knew where that one came from! It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. Here's a datapoint for ya: In 1972 I graduated from a suburban Catholic boys' high school. This was in a solidly middle-class area, at a school that stressed math and science (AP courses available in those days were calculus, physics, chemistry, and history). My graduating class was over 600. IIRC exactly three of us graduates were hams. Of those three, only I am still licensed. The girls' high school next door (literally) was slightly larger - and had no hams at all. Out of maybe 5000 kids in grades 9 through 12 there were perhaps 9 or 10 licensed hams. The reasons for the scarcity were many. For example, many extracurricular activities competed for our time and energy. (Like this blonde 11th grader who - no, wait, wrong newsgroup...). There was no organized school activity until we kids started a radio club of our own, which rose and fell on the efforts of us kids. More than a few kids back then though amateur radio was "square" - its conservative political nature (K7UGA) and military ties made more than a few look askance. Most of all, those were the boom times for cb. For less than the cost of a half-decent used receiver like a Drake 2B, one could head over to Lafayette Radio or one of its competitors and bring home a complete setup - 23 channel transceiver, groundplane antenna, coax, mounting hardware, etc. All brand new, ready to go. And if you had a car, a few more dollars bought a mobile mount and 102" whip antenna. License? Just fill out a form - but in fact many did not bother to do even that much. No tuneup, no fancy adjustments - just pick a channel, push the button and talk. Ahhh, memories! Station KBM-8780 had a Lafayette HE-20C. 8 crystal controlled channels and a tuner for the channels you didn't have crystals for. A colinear on the roof, and having fun. Lafayette was a big deal around here. All gone now. I don't know how many kids in my school had cbs or access to them, but they outnumbered us hams back then. Some of them became hams, most lost interest when the cb boom ended. Things haven't changed all that much, except now it's the 'net that's a prime competitor. I still don't think it is much of a competitor, but maybe to the participants, they think they are being hi-tech.. All depends who does the defining. For some folks, following the directions and unpacking/setting up/getting their computer to work is high tech. For others, assembling a custom one from boards/case/drives and loading the software isn't. Yeah, pretty well put. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... This is true of *any* activity. Heck, when I was training for the marathon 20 years ago, I met plenty of folks who said they wanted to run a marathon - if only it wasn't 26.22 miles long... Some comedian needs to pick that one up. It is truly, classically funny! For some folks it's not a joke, though. They really don't see why the distance has to be 26.22 miles - after all, we'd have more marathoners if it were shorter. Or if people were allowed to use rollerblades, scooters, or bicycles to cover the distance. After all, running is truly *ancient* transportation technology. As a communications technology, (the marathon is based on ancient Greek runners, who were primarily messengers, not athletes) running has been replaced by methods that are faster, more error-free, less expensive... Funny how analogies pop up in th estrangest places! 8^) The fact is that almost anyone in decent health who is willing to do the training can finish a marathon. But you gotta do the training, which 99% of people in decent health won't do. I would imagine that one can have tremendous fun in astronomy with less-than-state-of-the-art equipment. Just like amateur radio. Yes. a lot depends on the situation. While I have my 12.5 inch scope, I also have a 6 inch that I made, and a small catadioptric scope that is quite modest. But I can put the littel scope on the front seat of the car or set up on a picnic table somewhere. And binoculars are a great way to observe. Exactly. Just like there are plenty of good simple rigs out there, waiting to be bought or built. But that kind of deal took patience and of course much luck. A commercial version of the larger scope I made would set you back around 3.5 to 4K dollars. And it probably wouldn't have as good a mirror. Basic rule of thumb is department store scopes are truly junk. The inexpensive Dobsonians (a type of alt-az mount, usually with a reflector mirror) often have passable optics, but usually need mechanical work to perform well. You can get some 6 inch variety for around 300 dollars. So if you are willing to put in the time.... There ya go. Also requires skill and effort. (The glass doesn't grind itself) I spent a lot of happy hours getting that mirror to perform well. No experience quite like working 'em with a rig ya built from scratch... Most refractors have a phenomenon called "color", in which not all wavelengths of light are focused to the same point. Drives me crazy. The better ones have what is called an APO lens, in which rare earth glasses are used to focus the light all at the same place. And yup, they cost money. I've looked through a number of 12K scopes. Lovely planet images, but not all that much light gathering power. Various rig designs have different good and bad features. For example, the wonderful K2 has really good dynamic range and very low phase noise but its display accuracy is *only* about 20-30 Hz even if the reference oscillator is set dead-on. This is a result of how the PLL works. Most owners don't care but there are some hams who are not satisfied with 20 Hz error. Hmm. could be we are putting together the reasons that a lot of Hams are also amateur astronomers! Lots of similarities. And ohhh geee, the dufusses that wanted to get the little kids interested in observing seem to have forgotten that Mommy and Daddy don't want little Buffy or Jody (and by extension, Mommy or Daddy) to be staying up all night and traveling to remote sites..... Here's another issue: If someone wants to look at the moon, planets and stars, the libraries and bookstores are full of books with pictures that no amateur could hope to equal. The 'net is an even more amazing resource. Look at the pictures of Saturn coming from Cassini - this is gonna be one heck of a summer for planetary science! And no staying up late, no special equipment, no disappointments due to clouds or rain or cold. No real knowledge of things like where to point the 'scope or how to interpret what is seen, either. simmer, simmer, simmer......;^) Is it not true? If all someone wants is images, no telescope is needed. In fact, I would say the best images available *for free* on the net are probably better than can be obtained by 99% of amateurs. And I think you'd agree. But that's not the point, is it? Right! See my response to Tom (garigue) on the repoters that were interviewing me at a star party. Ohhh, do they understand! They were awed because it was a *new* experience for most of them. I bet. Of course looking at pictures taken by others is not the same thing as seeing something directly. But for most people, it's 'close enough'. I'm glad I saw that sentence! It's the same in amateur radio. Yet the point of *direct experience* is simply something many people simply "don't get". I'm an experience junkie. As long as it's legal and ethical, I'm in! We are a small part of the population, and getting smaller (percentagewise). Yes the images provided by Hubble are stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there) It's simply a matter of $$. Or lack thereof. What I don't like is that they are citing safety concerns. It's still all about $$. How much you think the shuttle disasters cost in $$? And the truth is that even with all the upgrades they're an old design that costs big money to keep alive. One of the promises made about the shuttle was that it would save money and be 'easily' reused. Neither has come true - it's cheaper to launch satellites on an Ariane and the shuttles are extensively rebuilt between flights. I'll go on record that I would ride the shuttle to the thing right now to work on it. In a heartbeat. The next flight will probably be the safest because you *know* they went over the thing with a fine tooth comb... The world doesn't belong to those that are safe. Sure it does! The trick is understanding what safety is really all about. Risk cannot be avoided but there's no point in being foolish. But some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, observing with a few good friends, sharing our views of the skies. Even alone, the experience is no comparison. Of course. And some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, working CW/Morse on a wide open amateur band, sharing QSOs with fellow hams all over the country. Or world. There is no comparison to the experience. Oh yeah! There are some who call me all sorts of unflattering names because of those experiences... Here's another point: Seeking the direct experience is also unpredictable in that the seeker is usually at the mercy of Nature. You can have the best 'scope imaginable, and an excellent site, but if the weather doesn't cooperate you're out of luck. Also, the stars and planets don't move to a human schedule - you may have to wait months or years to see even some of the more common objects. (Want to see Saturn on a moonless night when it is closest to Earth? Don't hold yer breath!) And it all makes the successful experience all the sweeter! If you could take your 'scope out at almost any time and place and get clear images of most of the sky, it wouldn't be a special experience. And most professional astronomers rarely if ever actually look through a telescope. At most they do so for calibration. Actual observations are almost all done by various sensors and instruments. Indeed, if my information is correct, direct observation in visible light is pretty "old fashioned" - that stuff was all done 100+ years ago, wasn't it? One evening we had a professional astronomer with us for an evening of observing. It was a lot of fun. We amateurs were locating various stars and stellar objects, and he was telling us all about them in great detail. Sure. He knew the facts but I bet he hadn't seen most of them directly in years, if at all. A magic evening for both him and the rest of us, although I'm afraid I scared him half to death. I was telling everyone about the encounter I had with a huge black bear on the way to the site, with the bear crossing the dirt road in front of me, and I stopped to watch the bear, and the big guy stood up to watch me, maybe ten feet from my open passenger window. It was awsome, and everyone else was used to my quirky dealings with wild animals, but I heard him say in a quavery voice "th-th-that bear, it it wan't r-r-really anywhere n-n-near here was it? We never could get him to come out with us again. 8^( bwaahaahaa... Of course, every so often an amateur will make a real discovery, such as finding a new comet or some such. Just like amateur radio. In ham radio, a person not only has to have the interest, they have to be willing and able to spend a fair amount of discretionary income on a rig, put up an antenna, (if they are even allowed to) and all the other things we have to do to get on the air. The biggest investments aren't monetary. It's the time and effort. There is that! Which is why some recruiting efforts are misdirected. big time. Any wonder why lots of the new guys are the shack on the belt types? For kids, usually dependent upon M&D for their money, M&D are often happy to spend 100-200 dollars on a HT. They might not look so happily upon laying out $800-3000 for an hf rig, and putting up that antenna. All the young hams in my area are repeater people, save for Field day. 37 years ago I was one of those young hams, and got no help from the parental units. Today's kids are no different. The big difference today is that for too many folks the antenna is a really big deal. Heck, look how many *adult* hams can't figure out how to put up an effective HF antenna these days... Finally, the comparison of ham radio to the internet is amusing at best. There is almost not technical comparison between the two. Beyond the technogeeks such as myself, that spend a fair amount of time keeping other peoples computers on the stinkin' Internet, the technical acumen level is mighty darn low. How much ability is needed to surf porn? Since the advent of GUIs the whole point of personal computing has been to make it easier for *everyone* to use them. That's what has driven the industry for 20+ years. Yup, Troubleshooting has become figuring out which software switch to turn *off* for the "helpful" GUI. To most of us the 'puter is a tool - a means to an end, not the end in itself. Funny - I spend a lot of time getting peoples PC's running, but my main computer at work is a G5, Dual Processor MAC. Oh so sweet! My points are that blaming the lack of growth (which is an arguable thing in the first place) on the Morse code test is kind of like saying that a frog with no legs that can't jump when you tell it to jump, is deaf. I wish I knew where that one came from! It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. Here's a datapoint for ya: In 1972 I graduated from a suburban Catholic boys' high school. This was in a solidly middle-class area, at a school that stressed math and science (AP courses available in those days were calculus, physics, chemistry, and history). My graduating class was over 600. IIRC exactly three of us graduates were hams. Of those three, only I am still licensed. The girls' high school next door (literally) was slightly larger - and had no hams at all. Out of maybe 5000 kids in grades 9 through 12 there were perhaps 9 or 10 licensed hams. The reasons for the scarcity were many. For example, many extracurricular activities competed for our time and energy. (Like this blonde 11th grader who - no, wait, wrong newsgroup...). There was no organized school activity until we kids started a radio club of our own, which rose and fell on the efforts of us kids. More than a few kids back then though amateur radio was "square" - its conservative political nature (K7UGA) and military ties made more than a few look askance. Most of all, those were the boom times for cb. For less than the cost of a half-decent used receiver like a Drake 2B, one could head over to Lafayette Radio or one of its competitors and bring home a complete setup - 23 channel transceiver, groundplane antenna, coax, mounting hardware, etc. All brand new, ready to go. And if you had a car, a few more dollars bought a mobile mount and 102" whip antenna. License? Just fill out a form - but in fact many did not bother to do even that much. No tuneup, no fancy adjustments - just pick a channel, push the button and talk. Ahhh, memories! Station KBM-8780 had a Lafayette HE-20C. 8 crystal controlled channels and a tuner for the channels you didn't have crystals for. A colinear on the roof, and having fun. Lafayette was a big deal around here. All gone now. I don't know how many kids in my school had cbs or access to them, but they outnumbered us hams back then. Some of them became hams, most lost interest when the cb boom ended. Things haven't changed all that much, except now it's the 'net that's a prime competitor. I still don't think it is much of a competitor, but maybe to the participants, they think they are being hi-tech.. All depends who does the defining. For some folks, following the directions and unpacking/setting up/getting their computer to work is high tech. For others, assembling a custom one from boards/case/drives and loading the software isn't. Yeah, pretty well put. Thanks 73 de Jim,N2EY |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... This is true of *any* activity. Heck, when I was training for the marathon 20 years ago, I met plenty of folks who said they wanted to run a marathon - if only it wasn't 26.22 miles long... Some comedian needs to pick that one up. It is truly, classically funny! For some folks it's not a joke, though. They really don't see why the distance has to be 26.22 miles - after all, we'd have more marathoners if it were shorter. Or if people were allowed to use rollerblades, scooters, or bicycles to cover the distance. After all, running is truly *ancient* transportation technology. As a communications technology, (the marathon is based on ancient Greek runners, who were primarily messengers, not athletes) running has been replaced by methods that are faster, more error-free, less expensive... Funny how analogies pop up in th estrangest places! 8^) The fact is that almost anyone in decent health who is willing to do the training can finish a marathon. But you gotta do the training, which 99% of people in decent health won't do. True enough. I don't have any interest in marathons, a combination of my physique and the abuse I've put upon my legs over the years. I'm built better for the 100 yard dash! Side note: I had to give up Hockey temporarily to nurse a torn meniscus. At Christmas I couldn't walk down stairs, and long drives in a car were murder upon getting out. 6 weeks of rest, then followed by a daily weight lifting regimen, and it's a freakin' miracle. Pain is just gone! I can hardly wait to lay a good check on someone! 8^) I would imagine that one can have tremendous fun in astronomy with less-than-state-of-the-art equipment. Just like amateur radio. Yes. a lot depends on the situation. While I have my 12.5 inch scope, I also have a 6 inch that I made, and a small catadioptric scope that is quite modest. But I can put the littel scope on the front seat of the car or set up on a picnic table somewhere. And binoculars are a great way to observe. Exactly. Just like there are plenty of good simple rigs out there, waiting to be bought or built. But that kind of deal took patience and of course much luck. A commercial version of the larger scope I made would set you back around 3.5 to 4K dollars. And it probably wouldn't have as good a mirror. Basic rule of thumb is department store scopes are truly junk. The inexpensive Dobsonians (a type of alt-az mount, usually with a reflector mirror) often have passable optics, but usually need mechanical work to perform well. You can get some 6 inch variety for around 300 dollars. So if you are willing to put in the time.... There ya go. Also requires skill and effort. (The glass doesn't grind itself) I spent a lot of happy hours getting that mirror to perform well. No experience quite like working 'em with a rig ya built from scratch... hehe, you are right there, Jim. I am PROUD of that thing. Won a some prizes with it too. I unseated the perennial champ at the MAson Dixon star party. Most refractors have a phenomenon called "color", in which not all wavelengths of light are focused to the same point. Drives me crazy. The better ones have what is called an APO lens, in which rare earth glasses are used to focus the light all at the same place. And yup, they cost money. I've looked through a number of 12K scopes. Lovely planet images, but not all that much light gathering power. Various rig designs have different good and bad features. For example, the wonderful K2 has really good dynamic range and very low phase noise but its display accuracy is *only* about 20-30 Hz even if the reference oscillator is set dead-on. This is a result of how the PLL works. Most owners don't care but there are some hams who are not satisfied with 20 Hz error. Hmm. could be we are putting together the reasons that a lot of Hams are also amateur astronomers! Lots of similarities. And ohhh geee, the dufusses that wanted to get the little kids interested in observing seem to have forgotten that Mommy and Daddy don't want little Buffy or Jody (and by extension, Mommy or Daddy) to be staying up all night and traveling to remote sites..... Here's another issue: If someone wants to look at the moon, planets and stars, the libraries and bookstores are full of books with pictures that no amateur could hope to equal. The 'net is an even more amazing resource. Look at the pictures of Saturn coming from Cassini - this is gonna be one heck of a summer for planetary science! And no staying up late, no special equipment, no disappointments due to clouds or rain or cold. No real knowledge of things like where to point the 'scope or how to interpret what is seen, either. simmer, simmer, simmer......;^) Is it not true? If all someone wants is images, no telescope is needed. In fact, I would say the best images available *for free* on the net are probably better than can be obtained by 99% of amateurs. And I think you'd agree. But that's not the point, is it? Right! See my response to Tom (garigue) on the repoters that were interviewing me at a star party. Ohhh, do they understand! They were awed because it was a *new* experience for most of them. I bet. Yup. I am always impressed by a good night sky, but these folks couldn't normally see much in the sky at all. I also primed them with my interview, and wham! I don' know if you've ever seen pristine sky, but like the guy in 2001 says - "My God, its FULL of stars!" Of course looking at pictures taken by others is not the same thing as seeing something directly. But for most people, it's 'close enough'. I'm glad I saw that sentence! It's the same in amateur radio. Yet the point of *direct experience* is simply something many people simply "don't get". I'm an experience junkie. As long as it's legal and ethical, I'm in! We are a small part of the population, and getting smaller (percentagewise). Yes the images provided by Hubble are stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there) It's simply a matter of $$. Or lack thereof. What I don't like is that they are citing safety concerns. It's still all about $$. How much you think the shuttle disasters cost in $$? And the truth is that even with all the upgrades they're an old design that costs big money to keep alive. One of the promises made about the shuttle was that it would save money and be 'easily' reused. Neither has come true - it's cheaper to launch satellites on an Ariane and the shuttles are extensively rebuilt between flights. I'm betting on Bert Rutan to take us that next step. He's getting close, BTW. I'll go on record that I would ride the shuttle to the thing right now to work on it. In a heartbeat. The next flight will probably be the safest because you *know* they went over the thing with a fine tooth comb... The world doesn't belong to those that are safe. Sure it does! The trick is understanding what safety is really all about. Risk cannot be avoided but there's no point in being foolish. I dunno, Alan Shepard skirted the foolishness edge, and most people I know wouldn't dream of a trip on the shuttle. But some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, observing with a few good friends, sharing our views of the skies. Even alone, the experience is no comparison. Of course. And some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, working CW/Morse on a wide open amateur band, sharing QSOs with fellow hams all over the country. Or world. There is no comparison to the experience. Oh yeah! There are some who call me all sorts of unflattering names because of those experiences... Here's another point: Seeking the direct experience is also unpredictable in that the seeker is usually at the mercy of Nature. You can have the best 'scope imaginable, and an excellent site, but if the weather doesn't cooperate you're out of luck. Also, the stars and planets don't move to a human schedule - you may have to wait months or years to see even some of the more common objects. (Want to see Saturn on a moonless night when it is closest to Earth? Don't hold yer breath!) And it all makes the successful experience all the sweeter! If you could take your 'scope out at almost any time and place and get clear images of most of the sky, it wouldn't be a special experience. Although in Pennsylvania, the wx takes it to extremes! 8^) AS a matter of fact, on of the big reasons I got into the ARS was because the skies in PA were so often cloudy, I needed another hobby to give me something to do in my spare spare time. the rest snipped - Mike KB3EIA - |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Side note: I had to give up Hockey temporarily to nurse a torn meniscus. At Christmas I couldn't walk down stairs, and long drives in a car were murder upon getting out. 6 weeks of rest, then followed by a daily weight lifting regimen, and it's a freakin' miracle. Pain is just gone! I can hardly wait to lay a good check on someone! 8^) Glad to hear you're back in one piece and pain-free. I'll never win any races but I've been able to run for 23 years without serious injury. There ya go. Also requires skill and effort. (The glass doesn't grind itself) I spent a lot of happy hours getting that mirror to perform well. No experience quite like working 'em with a rig ya built from scratch... hehe, you are right there, Jim. I am PROUD of that thing. But, Mike, it's not "state-of-the-art", is it? Do "professionals" use such a telescope? ;-) Won a some prizes with it too. I unseated the perennial champ at the MAson Dixon star party. bwaahaahaa You'd make a good barracuda... Here's another issue: If someone wants to look at the moon, planets and stars, the libraries and bookstores are full of books with pictures that no amateur could hope to equal. The 'net is an even more amazing resource. Look at the pictures of Saturn coming from Cassini - this is gonna be one heck of a summer for planetary science! And no staying up late, no special equipment, no disappointments due to clouds or rain or cold. No real knowledge of things like where to point the 'scope or how to interpret what is seen, either. simmer, simmer, simmer......;^) Is it not true? If all someone wants is images, no telescope is needed. In fact, I would say the best images available *for free* on the net are probably better than can be obtained by 99% of amateurs. And I think you'd agree. But that's not the point, is it? Right! See my response to Tom (garigue) on the repoters that were interviewing me at a star party. Ohhh, do they understand! They were awed because it was a *new* experience for most of them. I bet. Yup. I am always impressed by a good night sky, but these folks couldn't normally see much in the sky at all. Most people can't. Some weeks ago I was in Manhattan, among the canyons of the tall buildings. All anyone could see of the sky was a few patches almost directly overhead. Horizon? Folks in "the city" don't know what that means. I also primed them with my interview, and wham! I don' know if you've ever seen pristine sky, but like the guy in 2001 says - "My God, its FULL of stars!" David Bowman. Full quote is "It's hollow - it goes on forever - and oh, my God, it's full of stars!" And yes, I have seen the pristine sky. One memorable time was some years back in upstate New York, near the Montezuma Wildlife preserve. Waaaaay out in the country, no human lights for a mile or so. Wide open area, no buildings nearby, not even any big trees. Was out on a trouble call for [name of employer deleted] about 2 AM. Got out of the car and turned off the headlights to save the battery. (It was midwinter and about 15-20 below). Clear moonless night, which is unusual for that area. Fixed the trouble and by then my eyes were very dark-adapted. You can imagine what the sky looked like, from horizon to horizon, 360 degrees all around. Yes the images provided by Hubble are stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there) It's simply a matter of $$. Or lack thereof. What I don't like is that they are citing safety concerns. It's still all about $$. How much you think the shuttle disasters cost in $$? And the truth is that even with all the upgrades they're an old design that costs big money to keep alive. One of the promises made about the shuttle was that it would save money and be 'easily' reused. Neither has come true - it's cheaper to launch satellites on an Ariane and the shuttles are extensively rebuilt between flights. I'm betting on Bert Rutan to take us that next step. He's getting close, BTW. I hope so. I'll go on record that I would ride the shuttle to the thing right now to work on it. In a heartbeat. The next flight will probably be the safest because you *know* they went over the thing with a fine tooth comb... The world doesn't belong to those that are safe. Sure it does! The trick is understanding what safety is really all about. Risk cannot be avoided but there's no point in being foolish. I dunno, Alan Shepard skirted the foolishness edge, and most people I know wouldn't dream of a trip on the shuttle. When did he skirt the edge? Remember, until the Challenger disaster, the US had never lost anyone on an actual spaceflight. The loss of astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and White in the Apollo 1 fire was a tremendous shock because up to that time we had never lost an astronaut. What most people don't realize is that most if not all of the astronauts up to the end of the Apollo program had been test pilots, where the losses and near-losses were far higher than in the space program. But some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, observing with a few good friends, sharing our views of the skies. Even alone, the experience is no comparison. Of course. And some of the best times I've had on this planet are staying up all night, working CW/Morse on a wide open amateur band, sharing QSOs with fellow hams all over the country. Or world. There is no comparison to the experience. Oh yeah! There are some who call me all sorts of unflattering names because of those experiences... Here's another point: Seeking the direct experience is also unpredictable in that the seeker is usually at the mercy of Nature. You can have the best 'scope imaginable, and an excellent site, but if the weather doesn't cooperate you're out of luck. Also, the stars and planets don't move to a human schedule - you may have to wait months or years to see even some of the more common objects. (Want to see Saturn on a moonless night when it is closest to Earth? Don't hold yer breath!) And it all makes the successful experience all the sweeter! If you could take your 'scope out at almost any time and place and get clear images of most of the sky, it wouldn't be a special experience. Although in Pennsylvania, the wx takes it to extremes! 8^) AS a matter of fact, on of the big reasons I got into the ARS was because the skies in PA were so often cloudy, I needed another hobby to give me something to do in my spare spare time. You should try western New York. It's not unusual to have a month of overcast. One winter we had 43 continuous days when the temperature never went above freezing and the overcast never broke. When the sun finally burned through on the 44th day, we weren't sure if it was safe to be out in it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Side note: I had to give up Hockey temporarily to nurse a torn meniscus. At Christmas I couldn't walk down stairs, and long drives in a car were murder upon getting out. 6 weeks of rest, then followed by a daily weight lifting regimen, and it's a freakin' miracle. Pain is just gone! I can hardly wait to lay a good check on someone! 8^) Glad to hear you're back in one piece and pain-free. I'll never win any races but I've been able to run for 23 years without serious injury. There ya go. Also requires skill and effort. (The glass doesn't grind itself) I spent a lot of happy hours getting that mirror to perform well. No experience quite like working 'em with a rig ya built from scratch... hehe, you are right there, Jim. I am PROUD of that thing. But, Mike, it's not "state-of-the-art", is it? Do "professionals" use such a telescope? ;-) Nahh. But this scope IS art! It is an art-deco sort of thing. Imagine a 6 foot faux granite tube in a bluish sort of color. The scope tube is attached to the bottom "rocker box" with wooden tubes that encircle the tube. The box is the traditional square shape with cutouts for the large circular 14 inch altitude bearings to sit in. Instead of the heavy rocker box that most tubes sit in, the box is lightweight, with tapering buttresses for strength. All wood parts are cherry finish. It has a combination of looking like something modern, crossed with 30's sci-fi. Won a some prizes with it too. I unseated the perennial champ at the MAson Dixon star party. bwaahaahaa You'd make a good barracuda... he thought so! ;^) Here's another issue: If someone wants to look at the moon, planets and stars, the libraries and bookstores are full of books with pictures that no amateur could hope to equal. The 'net is an even more amazing resource. Look at the pictures of Saturn coming from Cassini - this is gonna be one heck of a summer for planetary science! And no staying up late, no special equipment, no disappointments due to clouds or rain or cold. No real knowledge of things like where to point the 'scope or how to interpret what is seen, either. simmer, simmer, simmer......;^) Is it not true? If all someone wants is images, no telescope is needed. In fact, I would say the best images available *for free* on the net are probably better than can be obtained by 99% of amateurs. And I think you'd agree. But that's not the point, is it? Right! See my response to Tom (garigue) on the repoters that were interviewing me at a star party. Ohhh, do they understand! They were awed because it was a *new* experience for most of them. I bet. Yup. I am always impressed by a good night sky, but these folks couldn't normally see much in the sky at all. Most people can't. Some weeks ago I was in Manhattan, among the canyons of the tall buildings. All anyone could see of the sky was a few patches almost directly overhead. Horizon? Folks in "the city" don't know what that means. I also primed them with my interview, and wham! I don' know if you've ever seen pristine sky, but like the guy in 2001 says - "My God, its FULL of stars!" David Bowman. Full quote is "It's hollow - it goes on forever - and oh, my God, it's full of stars!" And yes, I have seen the pristine sky. One memorable time was some years back in upstate New York, near the Montezuma Wildlife preserve. Waaaaay out in the country, no human lights for a mile or so. Wide open area, no buildings nearby, not even any big trees. Was out on a trouble call for [name of employer deleted] about 2 AM. Got out of the car and turned off the headlights to save the battery. (It was midwinter and about 15-20 below). Clear moonless night, which is unusual for that area. Fixed the trouble and by then my eyes were very dark-adapted. You can imagine what the sky looked like, from horizon to horizon, 360 degrees all around. Yes the images provided by Hubble are stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there) It's simply a matter of $$. Or lack thereof. What I don't like is that they are citing safety concerns. It's still all about $$. How much you think the shuttle disasters cost in $$? And the truth is that even with all the upgrades they're an old design that costs big money to keep alive. One of the promises made about the shuttle was that it would save money and be 'easily' reused. Neither has come true - it's cheaper to launch satellites on an Ariane and the shuttles are extensively rebuilt between flights. I'm betting on Bert Rutan to take us that next step. He's getting close, BTW. I hope so. I'll go on record that I would ride the shuttle to the thing right now to work on it. In a heartbeat. The next flight will probably be the safest because you *know* they went over the thing with a fine tooth comb... The world doesn't belong to those that are safe. Sure it does! The trick is understanding what safety is really all about. Risk cannot be avoided but there's no point in being foolish. I dunno, Alan Shepard skirted the foolishness edge, and most people I know wouldn't dream of a trip on the shuttle. When did he skirt the edge? Sitting on top of that little Redstone ought ot do it! Those ealy astronauts had the nickname "Spam in a Can". My point is that if there aren't people willing to take the risk, it won't happen Remember, until the Challenger disaster, the US had never lost anyone on an actual spaceflight. The loss of astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and White in the Apollo 1 fire was a tremendous shock because up to that time we had never lost an astronaut. What most people don't realize is that most if not all of the astronauts up to the end of the Apollo program had been test pilots, where the losses and near-losses were far higher than in the space program. Sure. Most peole don't think anything of driving towards each other at combined speeds of 160 mph while carring many gallons of almost explosive fuel either. But they won't take what they consider a risk either. Go figure! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Auto News Group Poster | General | |||
France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. | Policy | |||
France, keeping in mind its recent history | General | |||
France, keeping in mind its recent history | General | |||
Auto News Group Poster | General |