| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
News from France
The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign
the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. |
Alun wrote:
The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in
: Alun wrote: The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - What sort of numbers? All their no-coders are licenced for HF, and we could probably find out how many there are, but is that what you meant? Violations of rules by no-coders? We have that number - it's zero. |
Alun wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in : Alun wrote: The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - What sort of numbers? All their no-coders are licenced for HF, and we could probably find out how many there are, but is that what you meant? Violations of rules by no-coders? We have that number - it's zero. Hmm, I though it would be obvious. How many new hams are licensed in the countries that have eliminated the Morse code requirement NOw that they are rid of the evil of Morse testing, one would think that many new hams are coming into the fold, so to speak. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in
: Alun wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in : Alun wrote: The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - What sort of numbers? All their no-coders are licenced for HF, and we could probably find out how many there are, but is that what you meant? Violations of rules by no-coders? We have that number - it's zero. Hmm, I though it would be obvious. How many new hams are licensed in the countries that have eliminated the Morse code requirement NOw that they are rid of the evil of Morse testing, one would think that many new hams are coming into the fold, so to speak. - Mike KB3EIA - All these countries had no-code licences. So now they can use modes other than CW on HF without having to learn CW, which is finally as it should be. Most of the true radio enthusiasts will get whatever licence they can, even if it doesn't allow them to do what they really want. I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. |
Alun wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in : Alun wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in : Alun wrote: The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - What sort of numbers? All their no-coders are licenced for HF, and we could probably find out how many there are, but is that what you meant? Violations of rules by no-coders? We have that number - it's zero. Hmm, I though it would be obvious. How many new hams are licensed in the countries that have eliminated the Morse code requirement NOw that they are rid of the evil of Morse testing, one would think that many new hams are coming into the fold, so to speak. - Mike KB3EIA - All these countries had no-code licences. So now they can use modes other than CW on HF without having to learn CW, which is finally as it should be. Most of the true radio enthusiasts will get whatever licence they can, even if it doesn't allow them to do what they really want. I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. 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". 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. 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. 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..... 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. 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. 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? 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. It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: News from France
From: Mike Coslo Date: 5/9/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Alun wrote: I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! If it weren't the Code test, it would be the written....If it's not the tests themselves, it's the perception that you have to have to have enough equipment to rival VOA 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". In hang gliding we call them "wuffos"... As in "Wuffo you wanna do that..???" You oughtta see the faces at speedgliding events! 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. 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..... Sure...and why go to all that effort when you can see Jupiter a lot easier with a bit of creative websurfing! 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. I guess "fair amount" is realtive. You can put up an effective HF/VHF/UHF station for under $350/400 if you do a bit of shopping and don't want all the latest bells and whistles. Then there are they guys with TOO MUCH "discretionary income" and have stations who look like the aforementioned VOA outlets! 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. This is where "Elmering" could come in and these youngsters get introduced to where/how to look for those used rigs. 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? I dunno, Mike...How much IS needed...?!?! =O =) 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. It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. Yep...like I said...Amateur Radio (for those who participate regularly) has almost always appealed to a very narrow segment of society and always will. All we need to do is keep it out there in front of those "potentials" and wait for them to decide for themselves. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: News from France
From: Alun Date: 5/9/2004 9:13 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in : WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! Nope, we needed to give them HF while they were still interested. And once we "gave" it to them, Alun, what do you think they would have done with it? This is where "Elmering" could come in and these youngsters get introduced to where/how to look for those used rigs. Absolutely I forgot to add "what" to look for. No use letting them look if they don't knw what to get! =) 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Alun wrote in message .. .
Mike Coslo wrote in : Alun wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in : Alun wrote: The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - What sort of numbers? 1) Numbers of new hams who got licenses since the code test was removed, compared to the number who got licenses for a similar time period before it was removed. 2) Numbers of new hams who got HF licenses since the code test was removed, compared to the number who got HF licenses for a similar time period before it was removed. 3) Numbers of existing hams who upgraded to HF licenses since the code test was removed, compared to the number who upgraded for a similar time period before it was removed. 4) Numbers of new hams who actually get on the air, by band and mode, since the code test was removed, compared to the number who did so for a similar time period before it was removed. All their no-coders are licenced for HF, and we could probably find out how many there are, but is that what you meant? See above. Violations of rules by no-coders? We have that number - it's zero. Do we really have that number, or is it just "we haven't heard of any"? Sounds a lot like the BPL folks who say "we haven't gotten any interference complaints". Hmm, I though it would be obvious. How many new hams are licensed in the countries that have eliminated the Morse code requirement NOw that they are rid of the evil of Morse testing, one would think that many new hams are coming into the fold, so to speak. See above. All these countries had no-code licences. So now they can use modes other than CW on HF without having to learn CW, which is finally as it should be. Most of the true radio enthusiasts will get whatever licence they can, even if it doesn't allow them to do what they really want. I'm not sure at all what you mean. I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. Me too. I've also met people who told me they would get a license but for the *written* test. Or the high cost (to them) of equipment. Or the size of the antennas. Or the time/money/space/work required to set up an antenna. I've also met people who told me they would get a license but for their job, spouse, kids, extended family, living situation, school situation, other commitments, etc., etc., etc. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. The Technician lost its code test more than 13 years ago. It's been possible to get full HF privileges in the USA since 1990 with just a 5 wpm code test (medical waivers, then restructuring). Most of all, code testing could not have been fully eliminated 20 years ago because of S25.5. Nor even 20 months ago. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. Sure they are - otherwise the number of hams would be dropping like a stone. Let's do some math: There are about 682,000 US hams right now. That's currently licensed individuals, not clubs or folks in the grace period. Suppose the *average* ham career lasts 40years. Yes we all know plenty of folks who have been licensed longer, but there are also folks who will have to reach their 100th birthday to do that. If the average ham career lasts 40years, it works out that 2.5% of the ham population drops out per year. 2.5% of 682,000 is 17,050, so we must get 17,050 new hams per year just to keep up with the losses. You can work out the numbers for any given "ham career" time. Now of course it's not enough just to stay even. But still more important is the number of *active* hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: News from France From: Alun Date: 5/9/2004 9:13 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in : WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! Nope, we needed to give them HF while they were still interested. And once we "gave" it to them, Alun, what do you think they would have done with it? Likely the same thing that you've done with it. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. - Mike KB3EIA - Absolutely correct Mike, another arguement for quality and not quanity. Dan/W4NTI |
"Alun" wrote in message ... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in : Subject: News from France From: Mike Coslo Date: 5/9/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Alun wrote: I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! Nope, we needed to give them HF while they were still interested. Why is that Alun? Do you think that getting out a decent signal on HF is a piece of cake? Daily I hear the newguys trying to contact someone. Getting sorry pathetic signal reports and going away in frustration. Wonder how many new HFers we lose like that? You know the ones that believe its soooooo easy to get up on HF? Probably hundreds per week. I do the best I can when I hear someone like that. But it gets really old when you trying to have a conversation with a bud, to talk to all the S2 signals. Perhaps 'giving' out HF is NOT the answer as you think. Dan/W4NTI |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Alun wrote: The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - More likely you will see a lot of existing hams upgrading, like what happened after Restructuring in the USA. Do all French no-coders get access to all of HF? Or just some small subbands? Likely they will still need to take and pass some written tests to get access to all of HF. |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. - Mike KB3EIA - Absolutely correct Mike, another arguement for quality and not quanity. And yet that is lost on so many people! Let's say we get a huge influx of new hams. Where the heck are they all going to go? What will they do? Here it is 10:30 p.m. heading toward the bottom of the present sunspot cycle, and I'm looking at 20 signals on my PSK31 setup in a 3 kHz segment. I can tune the bands on ssb and cw and by Gaw, they are busy! As much as I like contesting, I don't want the bands to sound like contest weekends all the time. I want new hams, I want more to come along to balance out the SK's and those that lose interest. But I want good hams, not simply people that are here to provide a statistic. Anything else will be BAD for Ham radio. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Alun" wrote in message ... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in : Subject: News from France From: Mike Coslo Date: 5/9/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Alun wrote: I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! Nope, we needed to give them HF while they were still interested. Why is that Alun? Do you think that getting out a decent signal on HF is a piece of cake? Daily I hear the newguys trying to contact someone. Getting sorry pathetic signal reports and going away in frustration. Wonder how many new HFers we lose like that? You know the ones that believe its soooooo easy to get up on HF? Probably hundreds per week. Darn near lost me! Thank goodness I found a good Elmer. I was pulling me hair out trying to put a station together. No, Putting an adequate station together is not easy. I do the best I can when I hear someone like that. But it gets really old when you trying to have a conversation with a bud, to talk to all the S2 signals. Perhaps 'giving' out HF is NOT the answer as you think. Nope. Just imagine all the "why should I have to learn anything people trying to do this. Perhaps they will sue the older hams for the information to get a decent station going? ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: News from France From: Mike Coslo Date: 5/9/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Alun wrote: I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! If it weren't the Code test, it would be the written....If it's not the tests themselves, it's the perception that you have to have to have enough equipment to rival VOA 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". In hang gliding we call them "wuffos"... As in "Wuffo you wanna do that..???" You oughtta see the faces at speedgliding events! 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. 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..... Sure...and why go to all that effort when you can see Jupiter a lot easier with a bit of creative websurfing! 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. I guess "fair amount" is realtive. You can put up an effective HF/VHF/UHF station for under $350/400 if you do a bit of shopping and don't want all the latest bells and whistles. Then there are they guys with TOO MUCH "discretionary income" and have stations who look like the aforementioned VOA outlets! True. I put together my station for $250.00 for the rig (got real lucky there) 14 dollars for antenna wire, 20 dollars for twinlead, 140 dollars for antenna tuner. Already had a computer so I don't count that. So I was right around that 350 dollar mark. If a young'un could spend the time and effort (remembering that the parents have to spend that time and effort too) they could get something pretty inexpensive. I suspect most wouldn't though. 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. This is where "Elmering" could come in and these youngsters get introduced to where/how to look for those used rigs. Yaknow, I think clubs might think about getting a member that works with the kids. This would be a person willing to go through the background checks for working with young'uns and is good with kids. 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? I dunno, Mike...How much IS needed...?!?! =O =) I remember years ago one of the guy's on Fidonet had a tagline that stated he was looking for a good one handed GIF viewer!! 8^P 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. It is a hobby for the dedicated and relative few. Yep...like I said...Amateur Radio (for those who participate regularly) has almost always appealed to a very narrow segment of society and always will. All we need to do is keep it out there in front of those "potentials" and wait for them to decide for themselves. Yup, viva le geeky kids! (as a former geeky kid, I can say that) Steve, were you going to Dayton this year? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in : Subject: News from France From: Mike Coslo Date: 5/9/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Alun wrote: I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! Nope, we needed to give them HF while they were still interested. Why is that Alun? Do you think that getting out a decent signal on HF is a piece of cake? Daily I hear the newguys trying to contact someone. Getting sorry pathetic signal reports and going away in frustration. Wonder how many new HFers we lose like that? You know the ones that believe its soooooo easy to get up on HF? Probably hundreds per week. I do the best I can when I hear someone like that. But it gets really old when you trying to have a conversation with a bud, to talk to all the S2 signals. Perhaps 'giving' out HF is NOT the answer as you think. Dan/W4NTI And knowing CW is going to enhance their knowledge of how to set up and HF station? I think not. |
Robert Casey wrote in
: Mike Coslo wrote: Alun wrote: The French have been waitng for some time for a government minister to sign the rule change abolishing their code test. It was signed on the 4th, and will take effect when published in the official journal, probably either on the 14th or 21st of May, 2004. Have any numbers on the impact of this Morse code abolition? The earliest countries to dump Morse should have some numbers that reflect the change one way or the other. - Mike KB3EIA - More likely you will see a lot of existing hams upgrading, like what happened after Restructuring in the USA. Do all French no-coders get access to all of HF? Or just some small subbands? Likely they will still need to take and pass some written tests to get access to all of HF. They will all get the whole thing. Unlike here, they took the same theory. This is the most common scenario in Europe. Most of the hams in Europe are now licenced for all the HF bands. |
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! 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... 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. 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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Alun" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in .net: "Alun" wrote in message ... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in : Subject: News from France From: Mike Coslo Date: 5/9/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Alun wrote: I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! Nope, we needed to give them HF while they were still interested. Why is that Alun? Do you think that getting out a decent signal on HF is a piece of cake? Daily I hear the newguys trying to contact someone. Getting sorry pathetic signal reports and going away in frustration. Wonder how many new HFers we lose like that? You know the ones that believe its soooooo easy to get up on HF? Probably hundreds per week. I do the best I can when I hear someone like that. But it gets really old when you trying to have a conversation with a bud, to talk to all the S2 signals. Perhaps 'giving' out HF is NOT the answer as you think. Dan/W4NTI And knowing CW is going to enhance their knowledge of how to set up and HF station? I think not. That response does not surprise me a bit Alun. Based on the fact that you do not know CW. How could you be expected to understand how much easier it is to operate a simple CW station, that it is a phone one. Dan/W4NTI |
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"? 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! 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! 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.... 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. 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......;^) 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! Yes the images provided by Hubble are stunning. (I'll never forgive NASA if they just let it die up there) 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. 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! 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. 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. 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.. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
k.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in .net: "Alun" wrote in message ... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in : Subject: News from France From: Mike Coslo Date: 5/9/2004 8:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Alun wrote: I always used to meet people who told me they would get a licence but for the code test. I think we could have had them in the hobby if we had abolished code testing 20 years ago, but I think it is too late and we have blown it. Nobody is clamouring to becme a ham anymore. WE haven't "blown" anything..."They" have had the opportunity to get a code-free license for what...12-13 years now..?!?! Nope, we needed to give them HF while they were still interested. Why is that Alun? Do you think that getting out a decent signal on HF is a piece of cake? Daily I hear the newguys trying to contact someone. Getting sorry pathetic signal reports and going away in frustration. Wonder how many new HFers we lose like that? You know the ones that believe its soooooo easy to get up on HF? Probably hundreds per week. I do the best I can when I hear someone like that. But it gets really old when you trying to have a conversation with a bud, to talk to all the S2 signals. Perhaps 'giving' out HF is NOT the answer as you think. Dan/W4NTI And knowing CW is going to enhance their knowledge of how to set up and HF station? I think not. That response does not surprise me a bit Alun. Based on the fact that you do not know CW. How could you be expected to understand how much easier it is to operate a simple CW station, that it is a phone one. Dan/W4NTI Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued |
"Alun" wrote in message ... Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Dan/W4NTI |
On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:09:29 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote: "Alun" wrote in message .. . Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Let me help out with that....it's in many of Alun's posts: N3KIP - Extra class. Issued March 10, 2004. (is that the original date, or a renewal?) Or G0VUK, in the UK. Dan/W4NTI 73, Leo |
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! Excellent Mike ...I made a 4 inch reflector yrs ago ....this fellow had slabs of glass he got for free ...we made up a cutting saw out of brass and with patience ...a drill press and some slag ....we were able to cut out blanks. Grinding and polishing were fun ...but I gave the scope away years ago. About 4 yrs ago I bought a 6 inch reflector which I have a ball with ...... when I have the time ... We are worried about BPL qrm ...funny that the same hold true re light pollution for the astronomy set. 73 God Bless KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa. |
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 |
garigue wrote: 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! Excellent Mike ...I made a 4 inch reflector yrs ago ....this fellow had slabs of glass he got for free ...we made up a cutting saw out of brass and with patience ...a drill press and some slag ....we were able to cut out blanks. Grinding and polishing were fun ...but I gave the scope away years ago. About 4 yrs ago I bought a 6 inch reflector which I have a ball with ..... when I have the time ... We are worried about BPL qrm ...funny that the same hold true re light pollution for the astronomy set. The longer I am on the web, the more Amateurs I find that are amateur astronomers. Amazing! Making your own refractor is way cool! I want to do this someday. And yes, Light pollution is a real problem, and is a bit analogous to BPL. By the way, a bit of trivia if you're interested. I'm the pappy of the Black Forest Star Party, and chaired the first two versions of the party. Beautiful dark site, and especially the first year, a pitch black night. I was being interviewed by reporters after dinner, prior to taking them on a tour of the grounds to see different telescopes set up there. The interview took quite a while, and by the time we stepped out of the pavilion and under the night sky it was completely dark. When we walked out from under the pines at the edge of the field, the impact of seeing the Milky way MOVED these jaded reporters -and at least one of them - to tears. Ya wanna lose THAT? - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 - |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
nk.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Dan/W4NTI I've posted my call from time to time. It's N3KIP. I was issued a no-code UK licence in 1980 (callsign G8VUK, and you will find I've posted that too), a US one in 1992, and then an Advanced and an Extra by 1993, which was multiple guess 20wpm. I suppose it depends what you mean by knowing CW? Certainly I don't know it at 35wpm and neither do I have any practical experience of it, but the entire point is that I didn't _want_ to learn it or use it. |
Leo wrote in
: On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:09:29 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: "Alun" wrote in message . .. Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Let me help out with that....it's in many of Alun's posts: N3KIP - Extra class. Issued March 10, 2004. (is that the original date, or a renewal?) Or G0VUK, in the UK. Dan/W4NTI 73, Leo Renewal, following an address correction in 1994. |
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 |
"Leo" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:09:29 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: "Alun" wrote in message .. . Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Let me help out with that....it's in many of Alun's posts: N3KIP - Extra class. Issued March 10, 2004. (is that the original date, or a renewal?) Or G0VUK, in the UK. Dan/W4NTI 73, Leo Thanks Leo.... My comments stand. He knows nothing about CW operation. If anyone doubts that, go to his QRZ biography and read the following ; "100 percent phone operator". And with a N call 1x3 that means he got his ''Extra" the easy way. Recently no doubt. Guess even a hundred percent phone operator is capable of passing the multiple guess 5wpm test for Extra...what a joke. I rest my case. Dan/W4NTI |
"Alun" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in nk.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Dan/W4NTI I've posted my call from time to time. It's N3KIP. I was issued a no-code UK licence in 1980 (callsign G8VUK, and you will find I've posted that too), a US one in 1992, and then an Advanced and an Extra by 1993, which was multiple guess 20wpm. I suppose it depends what you mean by knowing CW? Certainly I don't know it at 35wpm and neither do I have any practical experience of it, but the entire point is that I didn't _want_ to learn it or use it. Sorry Alun....hadn't gotten this far down the list before I sent my latest to you. I'll correct things a bit. You didn't earn a extra with that test either. It was just a bit less of a give away then the 5wpm joke now. You still know nothing about cw. Why do you continue to argue the point? It is obvious I am right. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
ink.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in nk.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Dan/W4NTI I've posted my call from time to time. It's N3KIP. I was issued a no-code UK licence in 1980 (callsign G8VUK, and you will find I've posted that too), a US one in 1992, and then an Advanced and an Extra by 1993, which was multiple guess 20wpm. I suppose it depends what you mean by knowing CW? Certainly I don't know it at 35wpm and neither do I have any practical experience of it, but the entire point is that I didn't _want_ to learn it or use it. Sorry Alun....hadn't gotten this far down the list before I sent my latest to you. I'll correct things a bit. You didn't earn a extra with that test either. It was just a bit less of a give away then the 5wpm joke now. You still know nothing about cw. Why do you continue to argue the point? It is obvious I am right. Dan/W4NTI The point is that I don't need to know anything about CW to respond to the statement "phone operators are lids". What does that have to do with CW? You introduced the question of whether I know anything about CW, and I answered it, but it proves nothing. |
"Alun" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in ink.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in nk.net: "Alun" wrote in message ... Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Dan/W4NTI I've posted my call from time to time. It's N3KIP. I was issued a no-code UK licence in 1980 (callsign G8VUK, and you will find I've posted that too), a US one in 1992, and then an Advanced and an Extra by 1993, which was multiple guess 20wpm. I suppose it depends what you mean by knowing CW? Certainly I don't know it at 35wpm and neither do I have any practical experience of it, but the entire point is that I didn't _want_ to learn it or use it. Sorry Alun....hadn't gotten this far down the list before I sent my latest to you. I'll correct things a bit. You didn't earn a extra with that test either. It was just a bit less of a give away then the 5wpm joke now. You still know nothing about cw. Why do you continue to argue the point? It is obvious I am right. Dan/W4NTI The point is that I don't need to know anything about CW to respond to the statement "phone operators are lids". What does that have to do with CW? You introduced the question of whether I know anything about CW, and I answered it, but it proves nothing. It has nothing to do with it. I just get tired of people that put on like they know something and don't. So lets just agree to disagree. What dif does it make anyway? Dan/W4NTI |
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 - |
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 |
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 - |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message ink.net... "Leo" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:09:29 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: "Alun" wrote in message .. . Look up what class of licence I have and when it was issued And how am I to do that Alun? You have not seen fit to provide a callsign. And I am not going to play detective. Let me help out with that....it's in many of Alun's posts: N3KIP - Extra class. Issued March 10, 2004. (is that the original date, or a renewal?) Or G0VUK, in the UK. Dan/W4NTI 73, Leo Thanks Leo.... My comments stand. He knows nothing about CW operation. If anyone doubts that, go to his QRZ biography and read the following ; "100 percent phone operator". And with a N call 1x3 that means he got his ''Extra" the easy way. Recently no doubt. Guess even a hundred percent phone operator is capable of passing the multiple guess 5wpm test for Extra...what a joke. I rest my case. Dan/W4NTI No an N call 1x3 does not mean that he is necessarily a recent Extra. I pass my Tech with code in May of 1992 and received my original call sign (N8UZE) at that time, which I have kept. In late 1992, I passed my Extra, including 20wpm, and received my Extra class license in early 1993. The sequentially assigned 1x3 calls beginning with N ran out in the early to mid 1990s, the exact date being dependent on the call area. One cannot leap to conclusions based on call sign. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com