Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tod Olson, K0TO, recently sent the following. I thoroughly subscribe to the
stated sentiment. Quote:
73, de Hans, K0HB -- "Just a boy and his radio" -- |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
A real ham is someone who follows the rules is nice to other operators.
and doesn't brake any homeowner complex rules ![]() and a real ham is also a ham sandwich ![]() -- AL'S COMPUTERS "Radio K0HB" wrote in message news:F4CB4B1A56A342D4B12DE54005DAA7C6@HANSPC... Tod Olson, K0TO, recently sent the following. I thoroughly subscribe to the stated sentiment. Quote:
73, de Hans, K0HB -- "Just a boy and his radio" -- |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 9, 8:14 am, "Andy" wrote:
A real ham is someone who follows the rules is nice to other operators. and doesn't brake any homeowner complex rules ![]() and a real ham is also a ham sandwich ![]() Since I have been a Ham, and apparently long before, so many Amateur radio licensees have been seriously concerned with "What makes a real Ham?" In my other avocations, I don't hear people discussing who is real or not. We don't have real versus unreal amateur astronomers, or real Hockey players versus the non real version. And while I have my own thoughts on the matter, which are more in line with what I consider good traits, like manners, discretion, high activity level and technical acumen, I don't worry a whole lot when one or another feature goes missing, though I have been known to take action on some who have problems in the first two areas. All of this is to ask, Why are so many amateurs so concerned about this? - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6/9/2010 8:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
All of this is to ask, Why are so many amateurs so concerned about this? Real or not, it may be a stigma attached to the word "amateur." So there's always this constant posturing to put up some kind of artificial level to be obtained. Hence the "real ham" status. Jeff |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:14 am, wrote: A real ham is someone who follows the rules is nice to other operators. and doesn't brake any homeowner complex rules ![]() and a real ham is also a ham sandwich ![]() Since I have been a Ham, and apparently long before, so many Amateur radio licensees have been seriously concerned with "What makes a real Ham?" In my other avocations, I don't hear people discussing who is real or not. We don't have real versus unreal amateur astronomers, or real Hockey players versus the non real version. And while I have my own thoughts on the matter, which are more in line with what I consider good traits, like manners, discretion, high activity level and technical acumen, I don't worry a whole lot when one or another feature goes missing, though I have been known to take action on some who have problems in the first two areas. All of this is to ask, Why are so many amateurs so concerned about this? - 73 de Mike N3LI - Well, I have to agree with the person who basically said "Attitude" There is so much to Ham Radio that I'd have to write a book (The ARRL Radio Operator's Handbook?) to describe it all, And it matters not if you are into CW, or SSB or FM or Emergency Communications or voulenteer work or SSTV or Digital or EME or repeaters or satellite or expermenting and developing or.... Well, pick a chapter of said book. A real ham: Has a license, uses it, and thinks of himself (or herself) as a ham radio operator. (Assuming we are talking radio ham) IF (s)he is sitting on their license and never touches a radio (Save for the AM/FM/FM in the dash of their car) then they are not a real ham. But so long as they are doing something with their license, They are. Side note: I like the folks who cry about how new hams do not have to know Morse code (Alas, I had to learn it when I got my first license, but today....) Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. But you do need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 10, 8:47�am, John Davis wrote
: On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote: Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. �But you do need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra. As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canada has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top level whether or not they exercise their option. Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1 engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is NOT. 73, Len K6LHA |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 12, 12:24 pm, K6LHA wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:47 am, John Davis wrote : On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote: Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. But you do need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra. As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canad a has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top level whether or not they exercise their option. Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1 engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is NOT. No, Amateur Radio is not rocket science. Most of us refer to that as something that is difficult, rather than literal. I've always thought that rocket science in itself is not terribly complicated anyhow. Mainly technical applications and challenges of directing a lot of energy. Orbital mechanics, now that's a little more interesting and involved. 8^) Anyhow, I've always thought that many of us who have been in electronics for many years some times tend to think that "it's easy". Actually once you get beyond Technician level, which is designed to not be that difficult, it is a bit of a problem for some. Not for you or me, but a person who becomes interested in radio, but not experienced at all in the electronics art, very well might have problems with the Extra license. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6/12/2010 12:24 PM, K6LHA wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:47�am, John w rote : On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote: Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. �But you do need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra. As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canada has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top level whether or not they exercise their option. Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1 engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is NOT. 73, Len K6LHA One of the more or less bad things about Americqn English is that many words have multiple meanings.. YOu read MAY wrong. I was not implying "May or May not" I was saying that it is no longer required.. A completly different May. By the way, it has yet another meaning, Right after April. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6/12/2010 8:25 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Jun 12, 12:24 pm, wrote: On Jun 10, 8:47 am, John wrote : On 6/9/2010 9:13 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote: Well.. Today you may not need Morse Code. But you do need Rocket Science, at least to pass Extra. As of 23 February 2007 NO ONE in the USA had to take any code test for any amateur radio class. There is no "may" about it. Industry Canad a has an option for their equivalent but there one can be at the top level whether or not they exercise their option. Amateur radio as "rocket science?!?" Nonsense. The amateur extra test is only 50 questions, nothing complicated about it, not one question about rockets or space travel. Having worked for a pioneer rocket firm (Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, makers of the Apollo F-1 engines and the Space Shuttle Main Engines), "rocket science" it is NOT. No, Amateur Radio is not rocket science. Most of us refer to that as something that is difficult, rather than literal. I've always thought that rocket science in itself is not terribly complicated anyhow. Mainly technical applications and challenges of directing a lot of energy. Orbital mechanics, now that's a little more interesting and involved. 8^) Anyhow, I've always thought that many of us who have been in electronics for many years some times tend to think that "it's easy". Actually once you get beyond Technician level, which is designed to not be that difficult, it is a bit of a problem for some. Not for you or me, but a person who becomes interested in radio, but not experienced at all in the electronics art, very well might have problems with the Extra license. - 73 de Mike N3LI - I am aware that Rocket Science, like hte word May, has multiple meanings In this case I meant orbital mechanics, Apogee, Perogee, Period and that kind of thing, All of which are indeed on the Extra class exam pool. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 14, 6:00�am, John Davis wrote
: In this case I meant orbital mechanics, Apogee, Perogee, Period and that kind of thing, All of which are indeed on the Extra class exam pool. Yes, they are - as are many other subjects. But the orbital mechanics questions make up only a small part of the question pool. Even if some of them are in a prospective Extra's test, s/he could get them all wrong and still pass. They represent but a small part of the question pool. ---- It is my understanding that the term "rocket science" came into popularity during the early days of NASA, when people like Von Braun were well-known figures in the "space race", as the USA tried to catch up to the Soviets. It is also my understanding that Von Braun did not like the term at all, and described himself and the others as engineers, not scientists. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A real attempt at a real 9/11 report. | Shortwave | |||
What makes a real ham | Moderated | |||
Makes you wonder... | CB | |||
What makes a real ham? | Policy | |||
Who makes this radio? | Shortwave |