KØHB wrote:
Yes, the new ARRL website organization is a train wreck. Broken links
abound!

That is fairly common when a new page debuts... Alas, one would wish
that they would fully test it but as you know one of Murphy's laws is:

It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because as soon as you do
nature will invent a better fool

Murphy, you know, was a woman.. Yes, a woman. Ask if you need proof

On Apr 20, 1:53 am, KØHB wrote:

A real ham is an individual who has successfully become licensed under th
e
rules for amateur radio in his/her country. Nothing more, nothing less
..

So much better a definition.

I've always been uncomfortable at the "real" definition, or whatever
is left for those who do not measure up.

Which is why I'm a proud Second class operator, #891 as are you, #291

http://www.qsl.net/soc/

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:53 am, KØHB wrote:

A real ham is an individual who has successfully become licensed under
th
e
rules for amateur radio in his/her country. Nothing more, nothing les
s
..

So much better a definition.

I've always been uncomfortable at the "real" definition, or whatever
is left for those who do not measure up.

Yes, this is by far the best definition I've seen so far.
Without all the other "But they don't know how to..." stuff.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi


--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

"John from Detroit" wrote in message
...


As to being open to real progress.. For many decades we have pushed the
progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better hardware than the
military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it, not military
engineers.


Better in what way?

I don't know of any amateur equipment, including the latest $10K stuff from
the JA engineers, which is as capable or durable as the most basic military
communications equipment.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy
--
"Just a boy and his radio"
--
Proud Member of:
A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op
MWA - http://www.W0AA.org
TCDXA - http://www.tcdxa.org
CADXA - http://www.cadxa.org
LVDXA - http://www.lvdxa.org
CWOps - http://www.cwops.org
SOC - http://www.qsl.net/soc
TCFMC - http://tcfmc.org
--
Sea stories here --- http://k0hb.spaces.live.com/
Request QSL at --- http://www.clublog.org/logsearch/K0HB
All valid QSL requests honored with old fashioned paper QSL!
LoTW participant



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In =?iso-8859-1?B?S9hIQg==?= writes:

"John from Detroit" wrote in message
...


As to being open to real progress.. For many decades we have pushed the
progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better hardware than the
military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it, not military
engineers.


Better in what way?

I don't know of any amateur equipment, including the latest $10K stuff from
the JA engineers, which is as capable or durable as the most basic military
communications equipment.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy
--

Hans,

What's your take on the "MIL-STD 810" compliance of some Yaesu gear?

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-810

For example:

VX-5R 50/144/430 Triple-Band Heavy Duty FM Transceiver:

http://www.yaesu.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd...A08D8CCC25 17

FT-2600M Heavy-Duty VHF FM Transceiver:

http://www.yaesu.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd...5&isArchived=1

FT-600 Compact High Performance HF Transceiver:

http://www.yaesu.com/indexVS.cfm?cmd...5&isArchived=1

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFL2dDS6Pj0az779o4RAuKhAKC3q0au9wJmeynkMPwhzO vxHcWn5wCg0yb+
8dZ8VaQ2nfgkyz8RF89pa+0=
=mmkf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hans,

What's your take on the "MIL-STD 810" compliance of some Yaesu gear?



Good marketing. MIL-STD 810 related to shock, vibration, salt spray, etc.
It is unrelated to any "performance" criteria.

The HT's involved probably have their design roots in a military contract
which required that level of durability, so crediting the testing into their
COTS product offering is good marketing practice.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"
--
Proud Member of:
A1 Operators - http://www.arrl.org/a-1-op
MWA - http://www.W0AA.org
TCDXA - http://www.tcdxa.org
CADXA - http://www.cadxa.org
LVDXA - http://www.lvdxa.org
CWOps - http://www.cwops.org
SOC - http://www.qsl.net/soc
TCFMC - http://tcfmc.org
--
Sea stories here --- http://k0hb.spaces.live.com/
Request QSL at --- http://www.clublog.org/logsearch/K0HB
All valid QSL requests honored with old fashioned paper QSL!
LoTW participant



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

KØHB wrote:
"John from Detroit" wrote in message
...


As to being open to real progress.. For many decades we have pushed
the progress forward.. to this day Hams still use better hardware than

the military in many cases... Why.. Because hams designed it, not
military engineers.


Better in what way?

I don't know of any amateur equipment, including the latest $10K stuff
from the JA engineers, which is as capable or durable as the most basic

military communications equipment.


Better in that it's more advanced.. Several years ago (about 30) I was
chatting with a ham who had just finished his hitch in the military, He
commented on being ask to check out some equeptment since he was a
certified electronics tech both in civilian life and military life.

As he unzipped his jump suit so he could squat down easier the MP's with
him noticed his HT-220.. At the time they were still using HT-200's (I
do admit the 200 is more solid (durable) than the 220)

I watched his dad bounce a 200 off the pavement. (He had the radio at
his ear when he tripped and threw the radio down to help regain his
balance.. The radio continued to work.. he is one of the very few people
taller than 6'3"me)

And you said you did not knwo any ham gear as GOOD as military
hardware. True story:

Some years ago a Ham "90 day wonder" LT was put in charge of a
communications unit.. The SGT's figured they would have to teach him all
about the stuff.

Well. he noticed an order for a new piece of gear (Linier amp as I
recall or Transmitter) and ask the Sgt if it had come in yet "Yes, but
we did not get the manual" so.. he said "Let's take a look at it"

He then demonstrated that he knew how to work the hardware, Even w/o the
manual.. The Sgt though wanted the manual.

So he called back to the states.... Direct to the President and founder
of Henry Radio.. yes, the amplifier or transmistter was a common Ham
unit with a new paint job and military style knobs.

Several pieces of gear, Henry, Collins, Drake and more, came in civilian
and military versions. The only difference was the olive drab paint and
the military style knobs and an "A" for Army (or some other designator
to indicate the cosmetic differences)

As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military.
Good Solid KWM-2's in fact.

On 5/1/2010 1:43 PM, John from Detroit wrote:

As recently as Viet Nam they were still using ham gear in the Military.
Good Solid KWM-2's in fact.

I used a KWM-2A and 30L-1 when I ran the Navy MARS station at Danang.

We had a log-periodic at 40 feet, and I was able to reach the states
nine nights out of ten.

The KWM-2A wasn't a perfect radio: at the Air Force MARS station in
Saigon, they had to pair each KWM-2A with a 51S-1 receiver, since the
receiver in the KWM-2A couldn't handle the intermod from adjacent
positions. However, it did combine rugged construction with relative
ease-of-use, and the audio quality helped a lot with noisy phone lines.

73,

Bill W1AC

(Filter QRM for direct replies)

On Apr 29, 3:01�pm, K�HB wrote:
Hans,

What's your take on the "MIL-STD 810" compliance of some Yaesu gear?

Good marketing. �MIL-STD 810 related to shock, vibration, salt sp
ray, etc.
It is unrelated to any "performance" criteria.

The HT's involved probably have their design roots in a military contract
which required that level of durability, so crediting the testing into th
eir
COTS product offering is good marketing practice.

Good answer, Hans. Having worked 3 years in environmental testing at
Hughes Aircraft (El Segundo Division) in 1956 to 1958, I've got a fair
amount of experience in that. Essentially, consumer grade
electronics(and some industrial grade) will simply fall apart when
subjected to thefull brunt of MIL-STD-810.

With newer electronics becoming more compact there is less mass to be
affected by shock and vibration, will survive better than big clunkyold
electronics. Designers don't go full bore on temperature testing of
circuits for lower-grade environment products so those can fail there.
Salt spraywon't affect plastic cases much but there are seldom any good
seals betweencase and controls in amateur radio equipment. Just some
general examples.

I'm not saying that "all" amateur equipment will fail, only most of it
if stuck with the full brunt of MIL-STD-810 testing.

Handheld transceivers see most sales to professional users so it
isnormal to do a releatively-simple (nowadays) frequency modification
to run themon amateur frequencies. Few HTs sold to pro users get
full-on 810 testing (810 has more variations now than a half century
ago) so the marketing come-on phrasing of "compliance" isn't always
accurate to indicate "toughness."

So few here have had any experience in testing equipment under military
environmental conditions that they can't talk about it with accuracy.
I've seen some pros with experience survive such testing rather
crestfallen with "I should have anticipated that condition" after they
fished out the components that had vibrated loose at low-frequency
shaking.

Was I a victim of that same "should have anticipated" grouping?
Yes.Back in the days of slide-rules, no calculators, I slipped a
decimal point for a zener temperature compensation circuit for a
voltage reference. Found it during a temperature cycling test. Went
back into the log book, found the error, fixed it with an Engineering
Change Request and in hardware and published it in one night's extra
work (not paid for) at RCA. A few weeks later my HP-35 arrived and I
double-checked my correction. :-)

73, Len K6LHA

On Apr 29, 6:01�pm, K�HB wrote:
MIL-STD 810 related to shock, vibration, salt spray, etc.
It is unrelated to any "performance" criteria.

IOW, it's an environmental specification, not a radio-performance
one.

I followed the links provided by K3FU and noticed that in each
description the rigs were only said to meet the shock and vibration
requirements of MIL-STD 810, not the entire specification. The
description also didn't mention which version(s) were used. IMHO those
are important points.

Meeting the shock and vibration requirements is a matter of mechanical
design. Meeting requirements such as salt spray, temperature and
humidity extremes, high altitude, water immersion, etc., is a
completely different game because each and every component must either
meet the specification or be protected from the environment.
Components that meet the spec are more expensive and fewer, while
protecting from the environment is complex and often impractical for
size/weight/cost reasons

73 de Jim, N2EY