From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Amateur Radio: A Technical Hobby? (was: QST, in my opinion)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <465@arrl.org> jkearman@arrl.org (Jim Kearman) writes:

>I think we need to move away from this insistence on calling
>Amateur Radio a "technical" hobby. Three years ago I decided
>to get active on HF. I had a trap vertical, so all I needed
>was a transceiver. I bought one, unpacked it and plugged it
>in. I had less difficulty operating the rig than I've had
>programming a VCR.

If we give up on the technical basis of the service, what's
the *practical* difference between amateur radio and citizen's
band? Both can be black box operations. If we reject continuing
education, one just has more bands and modes to buy black boxes 
for than the other.

I don't think that's philosophically acceptable. Amateur radio
is supposed to be about radio, and advancing radio technology, 
and radio operator skills, and public service, and international 
goodwill.  Most importantly, it's about learning, lifelong. Learning
to improve our methods and skills, learning about *radio*, learning
about *communicating* effectively. Not just for some test, every day.


Buying a black box and plugging it in isn't evil, but it's a very
limited subsegment of the basis and purpose of amateur radio.
Everybody doesn't have to be a wizard, designing his own equipment
from scratch. But everybody should have a *clue* how and why things
work. A major part of amateur radio is supposed to be self training,
not just once for an exam, but a continuing process for a lifetime.

>Amateur Radio licensees require some technical knowledge, but
>we've heard ample testimony that those questions and answers
>can be memorized. Amateur Radio appeals to many types of 
>people, and not just for technical reasons. To MY mind, their
>reasons are as valid as any. 

The exams aren't important, they just set entrance requirements.
What's important is the *continuing* education offered by
amateur radio once the licensing hurdle is past.

>In my personal opinion, there's more to technical knowledge
>than just electronics, digital or analog. There are many,
>many DXers and contesters who have no knowledge of what's
>happening inside the cabinets of their rigs and amplifiers.
>On the other hand, their operating skills and knowledge of
>propagation are legendary. They may not know beans about how
>the ionosphere works, but they know how to use it. This
>knowledge comes from experience, not books. I don't think 
>they are any less valuable to the hobby or society in general 
>because they think a synthesizer is used to make alien 
>concoctions on Star Trek.

Developing operator skills is an important part of the basis
and purpose of amateur radio, but it's only a part. A well
rounded amateur needs more than just ad hoc skills, he needs
a broader understanding of why things work so that he can
become an even more effective operator. A VCR operator is
not a skilled videotape engineer just because he's figured
out how to program the box. If he doesn't understand the
rudiments of how the system works, he's at a loss when a
tracking bar appears. He has to quit being a videotape
operator while he sends the unit back to Kenwood for
adjustment. That's becoming all too common in amateur
radio.

>Hard-core technical types spend less time on the air than the
>ragchewers and DXers they sometimes like to poke fun at. If
>it weren't for these technically disadvantaged operators,
>there'd be no one to work. Twenty meters would sound like
>10 GHz the weekend after a microwave contest.

Wouldn't that be lovely. :-) There'd be room for unattended packet
networks. (That's sarcasm son.) 

>To get back to my ongoing sermon, we need to accept that
>other people are not entirely like ourselves. Just having
>a ham license, no matter what class, should be enough to
>permit us to accept amateurs of all interests as equals.

I'm quite willing to accept amateurs with other interests,
but as *equals*? No, only under the law, not in any meaningful
sense of competence in fields they don't understand. I'll
accept them as equals, or even superiors, in their particular
areas of expertise, but not in areas where they have no
competence. Retoric to the contrary aside, all men are not
equal in their abilities, talents, and skills. I'll always
cheerfully offer help for them to *become* equal to me in
my areas of expertise, and always cheerfully *accept* help
in becoming skilled in my areas of weakness. But I can't
accept that apples and oranges can be meaningfully compared
as equal.


>Finally, if we truly want to keep the hobby going, we need
>to constantly recruit new hams. Beginner-oriented operating
>and technical articles in QST are one way. If you're not
>personally interested in them, why not give them to a 
>youngster who might? We old timers would love to see articles
>only of interest to us, but that's a shortsighted attitude.
>We can enjoy all this knowledge we've acquired over the 
>years. The beginner is just beginning. By the way, nobody 
>ever finds it particularly easy to write an article. Most
>of us would rather be playing with radio, rather than
>writing about it. Again, if we want newcomers, we must do
>things to attract them. So, if there's some area of Amateur
>Radio you'd like to see given more coverage in a League
>publication, please take it upon yourself to write about it.
>I don't guarantee you'll get published. I've had articles
>rejected by QST this year, too (the dogs! :> ). We've sent
>out lots of Author's Guides lately; I hope we see some
>results! 73.

I don't fault beginner articles, we're all beginners in something
at some time. What I do fault is repetitive information. Like
with the net, some things are just FAQs and need to be kept in
a reference section. That's what the Handbook and other League
publications are for, including those you've authored. QST 
should highlight things that aren't general knowledge, not
rehash yet another 40 meter QRP transmitter. Note, I'm not
against 40 meter QRP, nor am I against articles that teach
something, even if they use a 40 meter QRP transmitter as
the example. :-) Let's just try to keep it fresh and interesting
at all levels.

Sure that's hard. If it were easy CBers could do it. :-)

Gary KE4ZV