When I first became involved in electronics, slide rules were the one
absolutely necessary calculation tool owned by every engineer and
technician. They were simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some
period of rather tedious practice), and delightfully low tech. They
were the calculation tool-of-choice for over three centuries.

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight the $9.95
pocket calculator killed the slide rule. Despite it's ubiquity and
utter simplicity the mighty slide rule went extinct in less than a
decade! Perhaps somewhere, in a backward company in a backward country
without sand from which to make silicon chips, a group of stalwart
engineers still treasure their Pickett or K+E slipsticks, and still
require a practical examination, down to the third significant digit,
of an engineers proficiency, and whether they actually could explain
the difference between the CIF and DIF scales.

Perhaps some amateur mathematicians still are proficient on slide rules
(after all, they haven't been outlawed!). I bet they even hold speed and
accuracy contests at a nostalgic "Slippers" convention each spring in
Akron, Ohio. Led by the scratchy but firm voices of their oldest club
members, Vince Bentupcursor and Larry Elscale, they close each
convention by quoting the 1940's fight song of that bastion of
wood-assisted math, Cal Tech:

"E-to-the-x du dx, E-to-the-x dx,
Cotan secant tangent sine,
three point one four one five nine.
Square root, cube root, QED
Slipstick, slide rule, Hooray! CT!"

The next SLIPS newsletter duly reports the resolution of the IEEE BoD to
gain legislation to include slide-rule competency testing as a requisite
to all engineering degrees, except those seeking 2-year Stickless
Technician degrees. Regular Technicians will require 5CPM (Calculation
Per Minute) exams, BSEE will require 13CPM, and MSEE will require a
20CPM exam.

On another front, when I first became involved in amateur radio, Morse
code was the one absolutely necessary communications mode used by every
ham. It was simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some period of
rather tedious practice) and delightfully low tech. It was the amateur
communication mode-of-choice for over three generations.

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight..........

73, de Hans, K0HB

The way we sung it was:

Tangent cosine secant sine
3.14159
E to the x, Y to the rho
Beer in the end zone, go team go.

Jim




convention by quoting the 1940's fight song of that bastion of
wood-assisted math, Cal Tech:

"E-to-the-x du dx, E-to-the-x dx,
Cotan secant tangent sine,
three point one four one five nine.
Square root, cube root, QED
Slipstick, slide rule, Hooray! CT!"

K=D8HB wrote:
When I first became involved in electronics, slide rules were the one
absolutely necessary calculation tool owned by every engineer and
technician. They were simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some
period of rather tedious practice), and delightfully low tech. They
were the calculation tool-of-choice for over three centuries.

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight the $9.95
pocket calculator killed the slide rule. Despite it's ubiquity and
utter simplicity the mighty slide rule went extinct in less than a
decade! Perhaps somewhere, in a backward company in a backward country
without sand from which to make silicon chips, a group of stalwart
engineers still treasure their Pickett or K+E slipsticks, and still
require a practical examination, down to the third significant digit,
of an engineers proficiency, and whether they actually could explain
the difference between the CIF and DIF scales.

Perhaps some amateur mathematicians still are proficient on slide rules
(after all, they haven't been outlawed!). I bet they even hold speed and
accuracy contests at a nostalgic "Slippers" convention each spring in
Akron, Ohio. Led by the scratchy but firm voices of their oldest club
members, Vince Bentupcursor and Larry Elscale, they close each
convention by quoting the 1940's fight song of that bastion of
wood-assisted math, Cal Tech:

"E-to-the-x du dx, E-to-the-x dx,
Cotan secant tangent sine,
three point one four one five nine.
Square root, cube root, QED
Slipstick, slide rule, Hooray! CT!"

The next SLIPS newsletter duly reports the resolution of the IEEE BoD to
gain legislation to include slide-rule competency testing as a requisite
to all engineering degrees, except those seeking 2-year Stickless
Technician degrees. Regular Technicians will require 5CPM (Calculation
Per Minute) exams, BSEE will require 13CPM, and MSEE will require a
20CPM exam.

On another front, when I first became involved in amateur radio, Morse
code was the one absolutely necessary communications mode used by every
ham. It was simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some period of
rather tedious practice) and delightfully low tech. It was the amateur
communication mode-of-choice for over three generations.

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight..........

Good show Hans, great piece!

( . . even though I disagree with your conclusion. Strenuously.)
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

Guess it's time to toss this out again....


Maybe the way out of the mess is for a Smith Chart test to replace
the code test.


Understanding the Smith Chart and being able to use one actually
demonstrates several areas of knowledge and skill. Smith Chart tests
could consist of interpreting a solved problem on one chart, (the
"understanding" test) then solving a different problem on a blank
chart (the "solution" test).


At first, most hams and wouldbe hams
would would simply study the Smith Chart and pass the tests.

But then the trouble would start...


Some hams who had not passed the Smith Chart test might say that those
who had passed the test were being "elitist" about their Smith chart
skill and knowledge. The term "chartless Extra" would be considered
an insult by some, a badge of honor by others.


Some would grumble that since they have no desire to design
antenna/transmission line systems, they should not be required
to pass a Smith Chart test. They would point out that other services
do not have Smith chart testing, and so neither should hams.


Defenders of the tests ("Smithys" or "chartists") would claim that the
Smith chart was a "uniquely practical, efficient, and universal" tool
for antenna/transmission line work. They would claim to have been
"smartened up" by the Chart test requirement. Stories would be
recalled about how lives had been saved by hams able to quickly design
matching sections to permit using an antenna on a frequency it was not
designed for, and would predict dire consequences in the event of
widespread disaster.


Those opposed to the test ("Smithless" or "nochartists") would argue
that newer, more accurate, less error prone software systems had left
the Smith chart in the dust. "We don't want to use OLD design
methods" and "The Chart is too slow and error prone" would be their
rallying cries. Other would ask "do you have to show slide-rule
proficiency before using a calculator?"


There would be testimonials by hams who had worked 300 DXCC countries
using QRP and a dipole without any reference to a Smith Chart, and
claims of others who "had rote-memorized the Chart and promptly forgot
it all as soon as the test was over". Some would tell stories of new
Extras who held Chart-burying ceremonies at the base of their antenna
systems (designed without Smith Charts, of course).


Many would claim that young people, used to solving even minor
addition problems on computers, had no interest in learning
old-fashioned
"buggy whip" graphical methods. Some would say that the emphasis on
such a timeworn, old fashioned, crude graphical method of solving
problems made ham radio look backward and nonprogressive, and was
downright embarrassing. Ph.D's in EE would claim that they had
designed entire radio communication systems without use of the Smith
Chart, yet were kept out of ham radio because of the test.


The arguments would become more heated and insulting over time.
Nochartists would point out that the Chart test was discriminatory.
For example, blind people could not fulfill the letter of the law in
passing the test. Some would claim to be "chart impaired" and unable to
pass
the test due to inability to do geometry. The question of "chart
waivers"
would be raised, and much angry invective spewed over "chart fraud" and

"open chart pools". There would be a demand that the use of graphical
calculators be allowed in the tests.


Chartists would claim that accomodations such as Braille Smith charts
met the intent of the law. Old timers ("quillpenners") would recall a
time when all charting was done by hand, in ink, on chart paper costing
the
modern equivalent of several dollars a sheet. (They used ink because
they
were so confident of doing it right the first time).


The use, or nonuse, of the Chart by military and commercial services
would be hotly debated. Some nochartists would claim that the military
stopped using the Chart during WW2, while some chartists would claim
that the Smith chart plays a crucial role in the modern military.


A popular summer blockbuster movie starring Jodie Foster, Will Smith,
Jeff Goldblum and Bill Paxton would have a plot in which alien
invaders were detected, then repelled by means of a hastily reactivated
surplus
Russian over-the-horizon "woodpecker" radar system. The critical plot
element would be the heroine's use of the Smith Chart to match the
"woodpecker" transmitter to the Arecibo dish. (How the Russian radar
wound up in
Puerto Rico would be left unexplained).


The ARRL, Gordon West, and W5YI would be caught in the middle of the
debate. From the first, they and others would have marketed a whole
line of Smith chart training aids, including books, videotapes, and
software. W1AW would transmit SSTV programs explaining chart use, and
MFJ would
market "portable personal chart trainers". Claims of monetary interest
in the production of Chart materials would be made and denied. Poorly
worded surveys would show a variety of opinions on the issue, but no
consensus.


Nochartists would claim that the chartists were just "old f***s" who
were supporting the status quo due to "chart chauvinism", and did not
understand the realities of the modern age. A few chartists would
claim that the nochartists were just "whiners who were too lazy to even

learn how to hold a compass correctly". The need for "high speed chart
tests" would be debated hotly, many claiming that no time limit should
be
placed on the chart test. "One Chart per week satisfies the law" would
be
their claim, while skilled chartists would speak of doing 30, 40, even
50
charts per hour, and being able to "see the solution without even
making a mark on the chart".


Eventually the nochartists would organize a group to fight the chart
test.

The founders of No Charts International would claim that they had no
problem with anyone USING the Chart, just the mandatory test
requirement. "It's not the CHART, it's the TEST" would be a common
rallying cry.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote


Maybe the way out of the mess is for a Smith Chart test to replace
the code test.


That's a particularly nonsinsical idea, Jim. I'm sure you can do better.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Come sit by the fire and warm your bones. Let's enjoy a warm bracing drink and a
few tales.

"The wind was picking up, clouds were rolling in, my hands were numb, nose was
running, I had to pee, and I was thinking of heading for the dock when..."

You do understand that when you quote a lot of text only to add a couple of
lines of comment that a lot of us won't read your comments, don't you?

Jim


wrote in message
oups.com...

KØHB wrote:
When I first

RST Engineering wrote:
You do understand that when you quote a lot of text only to add a couple =
of
lines of comment that a lot of us won't read your comments, don't you?

Jim

Hi flyguy, it's been awhile.

I'm using Google to get in here and Google usually compacts volumious
original posts in replys unless I break 'em up so all I see in my reply
to Hans is his original post bundled down to -show quaoted text- and
nothing more. So my reply comes up onscreen here simply as:

- - - -

- Show quoted text - (Hans' entire post)

Good show Hans, great piece!

( . . even though I disagree with your conclusion. Strenuously.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

- - - -

Which is eminently readable. *Here*. I do get your point and I'll do
more zapping, tnx for the critique.

w3rv



wrote in message
oups.com...
=20
K=D8HB wrote:
When I first

K=D8HB wrote:
When I first became involved in electronics, slide rules were
the one
absolutely necessary calculation tool owned by every engineer
and
technician. They were simple, uncomplicated, easy to use
(after some
period of rather tedious practice), and delightfully low tech.

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight the
$9.95
pocket calculator killed the slide rule. Despite it's ubiquity and
utter simplicity the mighty slide rule went extinct in
less than a decade!

Yup. Saw it happen.


On another front, when I first became involved in
amateur radio, Morse
code was the one absolutely necessary communications mode
used by every ham.

When was that, Hans? Hams have been using 'phone since
the 1920s if not earlier. By the early 1930s there were
a handful of hams on SSB.

There *was* a time when license renewal required a certain
amount of time on the air using Morse. But that was gone
by about 1950 or so.

Before 1991, every US ham had to "use Morse Code" at least
once - to get a license.


It was simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some period of
rather tedious practice) and delightfully low tech.

Still is!

It was the amateur
communication mode-of-choice for over three generations.

Which three?

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs,
overnight..........

Not much happened.

Your analogy falls apart in a couple of places, Hans.

First off, the introduction of calculators did indeed pretty
much wipe out the use of slide rules. But the introduction of
other modes to ham radio has not wiped out the use of Morse
Code.

Second, very few people do calculation as an end in itself.
They're almost always doing it to reach a goal - as a means
to an end, whether it be how many turns go on the toroid to
how many studs are needed in a wall 29' 8" long if they're
on 16" centers.

But ham radio is largely about radio for its own sake.

The introduction of outboard motors did not kill off rowboats
and sailboats. The invention of the bicycle and roller skates
did not eliminate walking and running. Etc.


I became a ham in 1967, back when a lot of hams were giving up
their separate HF transmitters and receivers for transceivers.
That trend had started almost 10 years earlier and by the time
I came along the selection of transceivers was greater than the
selection of separates.

Yet none of the amateur HF transceivers on the market back then was
very good for Morse Code. Almost all lacked sharp filters, RIT, and AGC
OFF. Some didn't even cover the whole band! They
were SSB transceivers first and Morse Code capability was
tacked on. Even the expensive Collins KWM-2 was pretty awful
on Morse Code.

I remember hams back then telling me that the use of Morse Code
by hams was obviously on the way out, because the big manufacturers
were focused on making SSB rigs. Some of them
laughed at my efforts to set up a good Morse Code ham rig on
a slim budget, saying there would be nobody left to talk to
with that mode soon, and that all the 'modern' hams were buying
HF SSB transceivers.

It wasn't until the mid 1970s that amateur HF transceivers with
decent Morse Code performance showed up on the market. Most of
them were made in Japan, or by an upstart company called Ten Tec.
Even then things like a sharp filter were extra-cost options.

Yet the use of Morse Code by hams continued, and does so today,
40 years after I was told the mode was all but dead.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
When I first became involved in electronics, //blah, blah, blah//
//snipped//



Have you told that one down at the Legion Hall yet Hans?
or are they as bored to tears as we are?


73,

Lloyd

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
When I first became involved in electronics, slide rules were
the one
absolutely necessary calculation tool owned by every engineer
and
technician. They were simple, uncomplicated, easy to use
(after some
period of rather tedious practice), and delightfully low tech.

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight the
$9.95
pocket calculator killed the slide rule. Despite it's ubiquity and
utter simplicity the mighty slide rule went extinct in
less than a decade!

Yup. Saw it happen.


On another front, when I first became involved in
amateur radio, Morse
code was the one absolutely necessary communications mode
used by every ham.

When was that, Hans? Hams have been using 'phone since
the 1920s if not earlier. By the early 1930s there were
a handful of hams on SSB.

There *was* a time when license renewal required a certain
amount of time on the air using Morse. But that was gone
by about 1950 or so.

Before 1991, every US ham had to "use Morse Code" at least
once - to get a license.


It was simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some period of
rather tedious practice) and delightfully low tech.

Still is!

It was the amateur
communication mode-of-choice for over three generations.

Which three?

Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs,
overnight..........

Not much happened.

Your analogy falls apart in a couple of places, Hans.

First off, the introduction of calculators did indeed pretty
much wipe out the use of slide rules. But the introduction of
other modes to ham radio has not wiped out the use of Morse
Code.

Second, very few people do calculation as an end in itself.
They're almost always doing it to reach a goal - as a means
to an end, whether it be how many turns go on the toroid to
how many studs are needed in a wall 29' 8" long if they're
on 16" centers.

But ham radio is largely about radio for its own sake.

The introduction of outboard motors did not kill off rowboats
and sailboats. The invention of the bicycle and roller skates
did not eliminate walking and running. Etc.


I became a ham in 1967, back when a lot of hams were giving up
their separate HF transmitters and receivers for transceivers.
That trend had started almost 10 years earlier and by the time
I came along the selection of transceivers was greater than the
selection of separates.

Yet none of the amateur HF transceivers on the market back then was
very good for Morse Code. Almost all lacked sharp filters, RIT, and AGC
OFF. Some didn't even cover the whole band! They
were SSB transceivers first and Morse Code capability was
tacked on. Even the expensive Collins KWM-2 was pretty awful
on Morse Code.

I remember hams back then telling me that the use of Morse Code
by hams was obviously on the way out, because the big manufacturers
were focused on making SSB rigs. Some of them
laughed at my efforts to set up a good Morse Code ham rig on
a slim budget, saying there would be nobody left to talk to
with that mode soon, and that all the 'modern' hams were buying
HF SSB transceivers.

It wasn't until the mid 1970s that amateur HF transceivers with
decent Morse Code performance showed up on the market. Most of
them were made in Japan, or by an upstart company called Ten Tec.
Even then things like a sharp filter were extra-cost options.

Yet the use of Morse Code by hams continued, and does so today,
40 years after I was told the mode was all but dead.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

There was always the Q-multiplier for us money challenged folks

Heathkit Q-1, was it? I had one and it did a decent job with that lousy
Halliscratcher S-20R.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA