Re: [Elecraft] Not All Hams are Technicians (WAS: Microphones)
Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: Agreed Dave! Hams are not necessarily electronics technicians or engineers. Many simply want to operate with what they feel is the best commercial gear their budget will allow. However, very few hams have their installations professionally installed and monitored, so hams do have to be technicians to at least a small extent, unless they want to be limited in the same way as legally operated CB stations. The very minimum they need is to be able to recognize when a system exceeds their ability to evaluate its interference potential and safety risks, and install it properly, so higher powers need more technical skills. It's also been the case that people have argued, on this list, that type approval should be abandoned for commercial amateur radio equipment on the basis that all hams are trained technicians, not that I agree with that. (Low power users need technical skills in order to get the best of their limited equipment, rather than for safety reasons.) We've always had that disparity among Hams. Decades ago, before radiosporting was popular, those operators were largely traffic-handlers in the days when a telephone call to a city 100 miles away was both expensive and difficult. Hams offered an excellent way for people to pass In the UK, and I suspect most countries, such traffic handling was illegal (recently there are some relaxations) on the basis that it undermined the businesses of the telephone companies and commercial users of radio. The current relaxations are probably more to do with stopping the reduction in the number of amateurs self training than in reduced threat to businesses, although the reduced cost of commercial communication channels would be a factor, too. The reason that the radio regulations have special provisions for disaster relief are to override the ban on third party traffic in a case where public policy considers that commercial considerations should be overridden. On the other hand, spectrum pricing (creating a market for radio spectrum) actually means that governments would prefer that services not be provided for free on the basis of cheap amateur radio licences. -- David Woolley The Elecraft list is a forum for the discussion of topics related to Elecraft products and more general topics related ham radio List Guidelines http://www.elecraft.com/elecraft_list_guidelines.htm ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] Not All Hams are Technicians (WAS: Microphones)
David wrote: In the UK, and I suspect most countries, such traffic handling was illegal (recently there are some relaxations) on the basis that it undermined the businesses of the telephone companies and commercial users of radio. - Forgive my US-centric view David. It is also my understanding that the USA was a bit out-of-the-ordinary in the fact that traffic handling has been encouraged throughout the history of Amateur Radio here. After all, that was why Maxim and his colleagues formed the American Radio *Relay* League back before WWI when the maximum range of most stations was a few hundred miles at best, so a network of stations was needed to pass traffic across the continent. In the USA, commercial messaging companies complained but WWI put an end to that. The large number of trained, ready-to-go operators that were available when the USA entered the war brought recognition from the President of the USA on down. However, the US rules also strictly forbade any amateur traffic containing business or other important communications that would normally be handled by a commercial carrier. Obviously, that has resulted in a lot of discussion and litigation ever since, but the training of skilled telegraphers and message handlers was a recognized cornerstone in the justification for the hobby here. Much positive publicity occurred around Amateur traffic handling, such as the famous example in 1921 when ARRL member stations on the east coast accepted a message for a recipient on the west coast. It was sent, delivered, and a reply returned to the sending station on the east coast in at total of 6-1/2 minutes for the complete exchange! That was the stuff of headlines in a day when the fastest traffic system most people knew about was an expensive telegram that might take hours to go across the country. Amateurs gained a great deal of favorable publicity and recognition by demonstrating public officials could communicate quickly and efficiently through the Amateur network if needed. Right along with that came the work of Amateurs in emergency communications, providing first-ever inside information about disasters with requests for specific aid and the first health and welfare messages telling those outside the area the status of their friends and relatives. By the time I joined the hobby in the 1950's, there were a large number of experienced Hams who believed that the only real justification for their license was to build and maintain a station that was very reliable and efficient, and to maintain an strict, regular schedule of checking into daily traffic nets. Their dedication to handling traffic was at least as great as any radiosport enthusiast's dedication to scoring in a contest today. My point was that there has always been, in the USA at least, a large number of Hams whose primary interest is in setting up and operating the best station they can afford. As others point out, American Hams must still know how to properly operate and adjust their equipment to ensure they meet FCC regulations. The current license exams focus largely on testing this knowledge. I suspect that's true world-wide. But many Hams care little about what goes on under the hood of their rigs beyond the end results in making contacts, nor do they need to for their purposes. In my view, they are as much Hams as those, like myself, whose primary interest is in designing and building communications equipment. And I heartily agree with you about keeping and protecting that privilege to build our own gear. As more and more Hams are less interested in building, it's important we not lose sight of the fact that much useful and important technical experience is gained by Hams who do tinker with their gear, and we contribute significantly to the communications art. Ron AC7AC ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] Not All Hams are Technicians (WAS: Microphones)
I very seldom post to this list - taking up even more bandwidth doesn't seem to be what the list needs lately Hi, but this thread sparked a response so I thought I'd share it. Although I was into CB in a big way back in the day (when it was as polite and compliant as we sometimes wish amateur radio was today), college, career, and family intervened until 2006 when I finally became licensed at age 44 (passed my General in 2007, shortly after rushing to pass the code before the requirement was eliminated). At that time I was one of those interested in operating with the best equipment my budget could allow, but I had/have no real electronics experience, other than doing all my own soldering when needed and one summer as a teenager when I worked for a neighbor who was in the process of inventing the first automated wire-wrap assembly line jig. I still remember him trying to beat Ohm's Law into me, without much success. Since becoming licensed, I actually find the pursuit of learning electronics more attractive than operating, most of the time. I seem to be in love with QRP, mostly because of all the opportunities to build. I still don't know what I'm building, but I'm doing everything I can to read, question, and study, and hoping that repetition will help! Currently awaiting my attention at the bench are a Pixie II, a Norcal SMT dummy load, one of each of everything Hamgadgets sells, and a BLT tuner. My goal is to use each as a learning project, taking my time with each one and understanding the purpose each component serves before moving on to the next. The recent QST article Building to Learn couldn't have been more timely. I couldn't wait to build my KX-1 last year, and it turned out great (with some help from Don on the 3080 board!), but I have to admit that my approach did not make it a learning experience. The hurdles these days are time, and access to a willing Elmer who doesn't mind teaching stuff that he's known for 50 or more years to someone new. -- 73, de Mike, KC0KBC -- Original message -- From: Ron D'Eau Claire [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed Dave! ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
