AF6AY wrote: "In my viewpoint, anyone (licensed in anything or not) who changes a "drive" (of any type) or changes a plug-in card on a main board is doing the same level of skill AS A MOTORIST CHANGING A FLAT TIRE. Pretty much a no-brainer, skill-wise." So someone who has a flat tire will likely not contact Goodyear for help in how to do it. Yet I'm sure there are some Extra Class radio amateurs who contact Microsoft because a CD or DVD drive isn't recognized by Vista or some similar occurrence. After all, you've said the two things are somehow equivalent. Dave K8MN
K6LHA on 2009-12-02K8MN wrote on December 1, 2009: "I'd expect a radio amateur to be able to tend to everyday home computer housekeeping and problem solving with ease. No ham would have problems uninstalling and reinstalling a CD-ROM or DVD Drive or a SATA drive from any modern computer, no matter how basic or how much of a hot rod it happens to be." Even if this departs greatly from the article subject, I would have no agreement with this. Outside of the usual RFI or WLAN or Wii (etc.) emissions, personal computers DO NOT INVOLVE RADIO. Personal computers communicate, yes, but over INFRASTRUCTURE circuits; if 'radio' is involved, that 'radio' is PART of the infrastructure or (linked by infrastructure) over remote radios supplied by others. Neither the FCC nor the QPC consider personal computerism as any sort of USA amateur radio knowledge/skill. ---------- One has to take "modern computers" in the light of a rather short life. While a form of PERSONAL computerism existed back in 1976 (when I started in it), the genesis of MILLIONS of 'IBM'-clone PCs began in 1980, just 29 years ago...the Internet did not go public until 1991, just 18 years ago. Less than three decades ago there were NO Windows, not even a GUI (Graphical User Interface) until Apple used it in Xerox PARC version for their Macintosh 9" screen device with a PARC version of the mouse. Hard drives were extremely rare and expensive for personal computerists back then and very, very little was STANDARDIZED in the form of hardware...or even software. IBM made, perhaps mistakenly, their first PC as open-source. Open-sourcing is the revelation of formats, interconnections, and general technical data, WITHOUT much of Intellectual Property protection (very surprising considering IBM was extremely conservative in IP protection at the time). Three decades ago there were NO "CD-ROMs" much less "DVDs" since neither their standards nor hardware (shape, size, characteristics) had been formalized; while a general concept of them probably existed, NONE were there to install or uninstall. The only 'standard' operating system was CP/M (Control Program - Microprocessor) by Gary Kildall, an outgrowth (and form of standardization) of several in-industry operating systems used in development systems, many of which used EIGHT-inch floppy disks and drives. Three decades ago only the 5 1/4 inch floppy had the first (of several) standards in size and format that could be installed (and uninstalled) by personal computerists. What made it POSSIBLE for personal computerism was the DIGITAL INTERGRATED CIRCUIT. Not necessarily the 'CPU chip' but the hundreds of OTHER circuits necessary to complete a personal computer structure. Solid-state was the key. The ONLY vacuum tubes were found in the form of a CRT as the alphanumeric display or 'monitor' (name derived from TV broadcasting), almost always monochrome back in 1980 for economy. LCD was there but rare and none were available in even 15 inch diagonal sizes for personal computerists. The standard digital logic family was TTL orginated by Texas Instruments. The first clock rates were in the 1 to 20 MHz range, primary determiner for overall execution rate of programs. Compare that to the current clock rate of about 2600 MHz which is bumping up against "Moore's Law" of miniaturization and cramming MILLIONS of gates on one single IC with the NECESSITY of cooling systems to get rid of excess heat from losses in parasitic capacitance of that same complex IC running at MICROWAVE frequency speeds. The average 'ham' hasn't worked IN the ham bands above 1 GHz, let alone random-access memory structures of 500 MHz access rates. The average RAM of 1980 was, at best about 4 KBytes by 8 in size for top of the line RAM ICs. Today it is easy to get 1 MegaByte by 8 static-flash RAM and ROMs of 1 MB x 16 off-the-shelf at distributers such as Jameco. The top-of-the-line ROM of 1980 was the "2716," a 2K x 8 EPROM. "Flash" memory structures had not yet been developed. The hard disk of 1980 was 100 KByte (economy) to 5 MByte (expensive). By comparison, an eMachines PC desktop of today has 260 GigaByte capacity with 260 MegaByte RAM, at least 2 GHz clock, retail price across the counter less than $500 including keyboard, mouse, speakers, with CD/DVD burner. All of the 'peripherals' (including a CRT or LCD or Plasma 'monitor') can interconnect with any PC of the last decades with the exception of a USB port. USB was a later development and now standardized (proof of its flexibility and universality as the 'port' for all external devices). MILLIONS of PCs produced in the last twenty-plus years all over the world through primarily in Asia (for economy for buyers) has resulted in MASS STANDARDIZATIONS. Regulated DC power supplies are all standardized in connectors and voltages. "Drives" all have standardized shapes, sizes, mounting holes and electrical characteristics. Mouses are standardized, whether contact or optical types. Keyboards are standardized for both key layout (in some cases country-specific due to language variations) and connections and electrical characteristics. Parallel and serial ports are still the same as they were on the original IBM PC of 1980. Those "D" connectors used were new on the electronics market in 1956. The "printer port" is disappearing from new PCs since printers now use the USB port. The "main board" of a PC determined the spacing of peripheral-function plug-in cards with pin-outs essentially the same as for the 1980 original. The interconnect cabling for all the items within the "box" are all functionally-interchangeable. Even RAM extension connectors on the main board are standardized. "Sound cards" (not in the 1980 orginal) have been standardized for electrical and physical characteristics for both internal and external connections. Holding all of it together is the OPERATING SYSTEM, a group of programs operating together to achieve all the basic functions through standardized DLL (Dynamic Link Library) access, primarily for GUI. Part of the OS now functions as the (much reviled by some) "plug-and-play" versatility of adding/subtracting programs/peripherals. The Operating Systems, or OS, have changed since 1980. The first OS from IBM (the opening door for Microsoft to eventually make Billions) did NOT have ANY "Windows." It was the "command line" type where all users had to LEARN all the arcane abbreviations of commands and how to structure them FOR THAT OS. It took a while for MS to catch up to Apple once the GUI versatility and ease was proven in the marketplace. It took Apple quite a long time to bring out a display larger than the teeny 9" diagonal B&W of their orginal Macintosh. By then the IBM Boca Raton, FL, division making PCs had gone kaput due to those western upstarts and Asian imports. Emphasis in personal computers changed to SOFTWARE...and with that the explosion of "amateur" developers (i.e., small independent software types who saw a chance to expand and try to be as big as the two in Redmond or Cupertino. Most didn't develop well enough and fell by the wayside. But, the developers had HELP from MS in software through special (and costly) development packages on disk, the most economical form of information dissemination to masses. Revile MS all you want, but MS DID make it possible for all those developers to BEGIN. That their products are now monopolistic and, to some, usurous, is quite another matter. No personal computerist can DO "plug-and-play" without the OS already programmed to enable it. NO personal computerist can DO it without the peripheral's information characteristics (usually invisible to the user) that allows the OS to sense it is new or old. In just the last decade there have been some extreme advances in personal computerism. Flash memory and the USB port enables portable, safe program storage in a tiny mobile package that can hold up to 16 GigaBytes. LCD displays (and a few plasmas) of up to 21 inch diagonal and maximum resolution good for HD TV) are now on the market for less than a comparable CRT display...and they have NO visual scan distortion that needed to be corrected in CRTs. The USB port, already mentioned. Disk reader-burners of greater versatility and flexibility. "Plug-and-play" ID standardization. Another quantum leap in CPU clock rates and RAM access times. A perhaps un-noticed paper thing from the larger PC makers: Printed instructions and illustrations which are understandable enough by NON-electronic humans to set one up, change internal units, and the like. Perhaps Hewlett-Packard led the way with their 'Pavilion' line but I haven't researched it enough to see if that was so. Sure, it's like "PCs for Dummies" in the sarcastic-named book series on so many things, but following instructions WILL allow anyone who can handle screwdrivers, even beginners, to accomplish things. Just think, UNLICENSED PC Users, ordinary folks WITHOUT electronic smarts, "putting together computers!" :-) No problem. I seen for myself another taking two weeks to get a "Hello World!" routine working, finally being successful, then telling others afterwards he is a "computer programmer!" Gross exaggeration on his part and untrue. In my viewpoint, anyone (licensed in anything or not) who changes a "drive" (of any type) or changes a plug-in card on a main board is doing the same level of skill AS A MOTORIST CHANGING A FLAT TIRE. Pretty much a no-brainer, skill-wise. To possibly, just possibly, get BACK TO RADIO with a tie-in to 'computer things,' I would suggest investigating the RISC (Reduced Instruction Set) of the Microchip Inc. PIC microcontrollers. Those are now (and have been for a decade) the simplest IC to do frequency counting tasks to run an LCD. It takes some skull-sweat to get used to assembly-level programming and no one can exaggerate the results. If the routines are designed and organized properly, the results are there for anyone to see. A microcontroller can be the heart of most any tuning knob/device for frequency control and, at the same time, drive most any output device whether up-down counter for a frequency synthesizer or the particular digital interface of an amateur radio transceiver. It is extremely versatile and flexible, but REQUIRES thinking in a different way than vacuum tube technology.
K8MN on 2009-12-01N2EY wrote: "For example, in the past decade or so I've learned some things about Windows- and DOS-based PCs, both hardware and software. I can take a case, power supply, drives, cables, motherboard, memory and other hardware, plus a monitor, keyboard, mouse and OS, and assemble a working computer without much effort. Adding hardware, such as a DVD drive or memory, is downright simple to me, because of the knowledge and experience gained in the past 10-20 years, and because the OS's since WIn98SE have lived up to their claim of Plug and Play." "But to someone who doesn't know much about computers, even such a "simple" task can be far from simple, even if all goes well, and completely baffling if something doesn't work. Obvious things such as connector seating and BIOS settings may not be obvious to them at all. Basic troubleshooting methods such as trying the hardware in a different computer may never occur to them, because they haven't learned to think that way." "It all depends on the person, and Amateur Radio is no exception." I'd expect a radio amateur to be able to tend to everyday home computer housekeeping and problem solving with ease. No ham would have problems uninstalling and reinstalling a CD-ROM or DVD Drive or a SATA drive from any modern computer, no matter how basic or how much of a hot rod it happens to be. 73, Dave K8MN
N2EY on 2009-11-27KD7YVV asked: "whatever happened to SIMPLE?" One more point about the whole simplicity discussion: It's important to remember that what is "simple" or "obvious" to one person may be "complex" or "obscure" to another. I've seen "candlestick" phones like yours with dials in the base, and ever since, people have gotten wrong numbers because they confused the numeral zero (0) with the letter O, and the numeral 1 with the letter I. For example, in the past decade or so I've learned some things about Windows- and DOS-based PCs, both hardware and software. I can take a case, power supply, drives, cables, motherboard, memory and other hardware, plus a monitor, keyboard, mouse and OS, and assemble a working computer without much effort. Adding hardware, such as a DVD drive or memory, is downright simple to me, because of the knowledge and experience gained in the past 10-20 years, and because the OS's since WIn98SE have lived up to their claim of Plug and Play. But to someone who doesn't know much about computers, even such a "simple" task can be far from simple, even if all goes well, and completely baffling if something doesn't work. Obvious things such as connector seating and BIOS settings may not be obvious to them at all. Basic troubleshooting methods such as trying the hardware in a different computer may never occur to them, because they haven't learned to think that way. It all depends on the person, and Amateur Radio is no exception. 73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY on 2009-11-25To KD7YVV: Will I'm all for new technology, and have often invested in it, there's something to be said for the tried-and-true. Part of the wisdom that comes with experience (not age - experience) is that not everything "new" is automatically better, particularly when all the costs are considered. Besides the dollar cost, there's the various learning curves. For example, when Vista came out, I did some research and decided to stay with XP until they got the bugs worked out. Turned out Vista had so many bugs it's soon to be an orphan. So many users had problems with Vista that we began seeing systems that could be "downgraded" back to XP! At the local Microcenter, refurb XP systems have been the hot item for a long time. Microsoft is now pushing Seven, which is a very good OS (I assembled a machine to run the free beta version of Seven some months back). But Seven requires considerably more of everything than XP. Depending on what someone uses their computer for, it may not be worth all the hassle and cost of making the jump. Time and effort are costs, just like dollars. There's also the fact that a lot of "new" things are really old things repackaged with new features, but which don't really do the basic function any better. For example, a couple of years ago the SteppIr verticals made a bit of a splash. No traps, stubs, or other methods of changing the electrical length of the radiator. Instead, the SteppIr verticals mechanically change the length of the radiator, so the antenna will resonate anywhere in its design range. And it's remote controlled. New? Innovative? Sure. Expensive? That too! But a SteppIr vertical doesn't radiate or receive RF any better than any other quarter-wave vertical. My old made-from-scraps-of-tubing-wood-and-wire 20 meter vertical at the former QTH on RadioTelegraph Hill did just as good a job as a 20 meter antenna. Replacing it with a SteppIr would not get me even one more dB of RF, coming or going. 73 de Jim, N2EY
KD7YVV on 2009-11-25Well, as for the phrase stuck in the past.... I look to the past for experience, but if I'm stuck in the past, so be it. :) Then again, I'm a curmudgeonly old fart (GET OFF MY LAWN!) who likes things simple. There's nothing wrong with the newer technology and I have nothing against it, but I'm finding the older I get, the more I prefer things that are familiar. --KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
N2EY on 2009-11-25KD7YVV writes: "Still though, when you get right down to it, tuning with a physical knob does have its advantages." Yes, it does. KD7YVV: "Remember the older cars? You could fix them yourself. Same with the older radios if you had the knowledge. Nowadays, you need a computer to tell you what's wrong." Sometimes. When the check-system light came on in my 2001 Honda Odyssey, I borrowed a system-code reader from a friend and discovered what it was. The error code was found on the internet, and the reader let me reset the code so I could see if it was a one-time thing or a continuing problem. The code-reader cost less than $60, which won't buy many good wrenches these days. Of course fixing it is another matter if it's something complex, like the transmission. But the reader put me in a lot better position with the shop, because I could tell them the exact code. There are inexpensive code-readers for lots of cars. KD7YVV:"whatever happened to SIMPLE?" Still around if you know where to look. Check out the rigs and products by Elecraft: www.elecraft.com Relatively simple, you can build and fix them yourself, and American engineered and made. Manuals are free-for-the-download, too. High performance, low price for what you get, and full-featured. KD7YVV: "This is why I like this old Kenwood 430S, it's a simple radio. Each knob, switch and button is clearly labeled describing its function. Sure, there are a lot more features etc. but do I really need to tune a station so that I'm on its exact frequency with an accuracy of 15 digits past the decimal point? If you think about it, will it REALLY make a difference?" Depends on what kind of operating you're doing. For most uses, the answer is no. That's what's great about HF - and why some folks have such a hard time with it. The antenna system and operator skills are much more important than most of the technology used. A skilled operator with a decent antenna and rig will be able to do just fine. KD7YVV: "Sure, all the new stuff is fun to play with, and a lot of innovation and advancements have been made over the years but for all the new stuff that's out there, there's something heartwarming about firing up an old rig." In many cases a good older rig will outperform or match a newer one. Features can't replace a good antenna nor basic radio performance. KD7YVV: "I watched a documentary on Cuba, and they still use a lot of stuff from the 1950's." Usually because they have no choice. But their ingenuity is excellent. Google "islander transceiver" for an example. KD7YVV: "Is newer better? At times it can be, but, whatever happened to SIMPLE?" Still around; you just have to know where to look. The Testimony of Simplicity is everywhere - but it doesn't stick out. I think what bothers a lot of folks isn't new stuff, nor innovation, but the blind assumption/implication by some that older/simpler is automatically bad. When you see phrases like "stuck in the past", for example. 73 de Jim, N2EY
KD7YVV on 2009-11-25Still though, when you get right down to it, tuning with a physical knob does have its advantages. Remember the older cars? You could fix them yourself. Same with the older radios if you had the knowledge. Nowadays, you need a computer to tell you what's wrong. Case in point, my wife and I have a 2001 Chevy Malibu. One time I was filling the thing with gas, and forgot to put the gas cap back on. Needless to say, I did discover it a few blocks later, but by then, the trouble light came on. I took the car down to a local auto shop, they let me use their diagnostic machine to reset the trouble light. Meanwhile, I'm thinking that it might be something serious. So, whatever happened to SIMPLE? I remember my first stereo as a kid at 12. Volume, Tuning, AM, FM, AFC, TONE (Bass--Treble). Simple radio. Nowadays, just about everything is driven by some form of software or firmware. This is why I like this old Kenwood 430S, it's a simple radio. Each knob, switch and button is clearly labeled describing its function. Sure, there are a lot more features etc. but do I really need to tune a station so that I'm on its exact frequency with an accuracy of 15 digits past the decimal point? If you think about it, will it REALLY make a difference? Sure, all the new stuff is fun to play with, and a lot of innovation and advancements have been made over the years but for all the new stuff that's out there, there's something heartwarming about firing up an old rig. I watched a documentary on Cuba, and they still use a lot of stuff from the 1950's. Is newer better? At times it can be, but, whatever happened to SIMPLE? --KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
N2EY on 2009-11-25WN9V: Good points! I'd forgotten about the Astro. I think a big part of the problem is that some designs don't follow the way rigs are actually used. For example, back in the 1950s/60s there began to appear HF rigs that used a row of selector knobs/switches rather than a single tuning knob. There was a knob for tens of MHz, MHz, hundreds of kHz, etc, down to kHz or even finer. The PRC-104 and other military radios had systems like that; as did ham gear like the B&W 6100 transmitter, and even homebrew such as W3QLV's synthesized VFO (QST Dec 1964). That sort of tuning arrangement is great if you know the exact QRG you want. Just set the switches and there you are. But it's no fun and quite inferior for simply looking around a band. That high-priced commercial/military radios did it that way doesn't make it better if you don't use the set the same way. The Astro had the same problem: Great if you know the frequency you want, terrible if you don't. The big problem is that the designers have to understand how the rig will actually be used, and not let their egos get in the way. 73 de Jim, N2EY
Reply to a comment by : WN9V on 2009-11-24
Sometimes an interface is better than we know. It is instructive to experience an alternative before we disparage the conventional knob. Remember the Swan/Cubic Astro 150? A high quality HF transceiver with synthesizer frequency control. The knob was a control that caused frequency to go up or down at a rate proportional to the amount that the knob was turned off of a neutral point. The knob traveled only a quarter turn clockwise and counterclockwise from the neutral point. What the system lacked was the ability to link together the knob position and the frequency. If you were tuning down the band and wanted reverse your tuning direction to hear a station that you passed up, Heaven help you. In this situation here is what we are used to: With a conventional knob on a VFO or PTO, you could backtrack with some confidence and you knew where to stop, even if the signal had gone silent, you knew how and where to stop and wait for the signal to reappear. Attempting the same backtracking on the Astro necessitated deceleration, reversing, acceleration and a keen sense of both speed and timing to find the passed-over station. If the designer had simply stuck with a constant Hertz per second tuning rate, operation would have been easier. Fortunately the Astro's mobile microphone had an up and down button that stepped the frequency by (if I remember right) hundred Hertz jumps. The equipment reviewer in QST was not enthusiastic about the Astro 150 tuning arrangement. The rig was marketed at about 900 bucks which was about the price of a top of the line Kenwood or Yaesu. I am convinced that the tuning arrangement killed the rig.
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-11-25
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-11-25
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-11-25
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-11-25
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-11-25
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-11-27
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-12-01
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-12-02
Reply to a comment by :on 2009-12-03
Microscopes have revolutionized our ability to explore the world at an incredibly small scale, revealing intricate details that are otherwise invisible to the naked eye. One essential component of a microscope that plays a critical role in obtaining sharp, clear images is the fine adjustment knob. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the function, importance, and techniques of the fine adjustment knob, shedding light on how this tiny mechanism helps researchers and students unlock the hidden wonders of the microcosm.
The fine adjustment knob is an integral part of a microscope's focusing system. It is typically located on the microscope's frame and works in tandem with the coarse adjustment knob. While the coarse adjustment knob facilitates initial focusing by rapidly moving the objective lens closer to or farther away from the specimen, the fine adjustment knob serves a more refined purpose. Its primary function is to fine-tune the focus of the microscope to achieve optimal clarity and detail. The fine focus knob is sometimes separate from the coarse focus knob, and sometimes it sits on top of the coarse focus knob.
Enhanced Precision: Achieving high-resolution images requires precise adjustments, and the fine adjustment knob enables researchers to make minute changes that can significantly impact image quality.
Clarity and Detail: When observing small or intricate structures, such as cellular components, the fine adjustment knob allows for delicate adjustments that help reveal finer details that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Minimizing Vibrations: Rapid adjustments using the coarse adjustment knob can introduce vibrations that blur the image. The fine adjustment knob's slow and controlled movements minimize these vibrations, leading to sharper images.
Initial Coarse Adjustment: Before engaging the fine adjustment knob, it's essential to achieve a rough focus using the coarse adjustment knob. This ensures that you're in the right focal range to make precise adjustments.
Subtle Turns: The fine adjustment knob moves the objective lens only a fraction of a millimeter, so it's crucial to make subtle turns. Slowly rotate the knob in the direction that improves the focus, observing the changes through the eyepiece.
Both Eyes Open: When using a binocular microscope, keep both eyes open while adjusting the fine adjustment knob. This prevents eyestrain and allows you to monitor the changes in focus accurately.
Practice Patience: Achieving optimal focus may take time, especially when dealing with challenging samples. Be patient and don't rush the process to obtain the best results.
Biological Research: In biology, observing cellular structures demands exceptional clarity. The fine adjustment knob enables researchers to examine cells and tissues in minute detail, aiding in understanding their functions and interactions.
Medical Diagnosis: In the medical field, microscopes are indispensable for diagnosing diseases at the cellular level. The fine adjustment knob helps pathologists identify abnormalities and make accurate diagnoses.
Material Science: Microscopy is pivotal in material science, allowing researchers to analyze the properties of various materials. The fine adjustment knob enables them to explore the microstructure of materials and identify defects.
Education: In educational settings, the fine adjustment knob helps students develop microscopy skills. Learning to use this knob effectively is essential for budding scientists to explore the micro world accurately.
The coarse adjustment knob on a microscope serves the essential function of rapidly adjusting the focus of the microscope's objective lens to bring the specimen into a rough focus range. This knob is larger and moves the objective lens in larger increments, making it suitable for quickly bringing the specimen into view and starting the focusing process. It helps researchers and students locate the specimen on the slide and get it roughly in focus before fine-tuning the focus using the fine adjustment knob.
The coarse adjustment knob is particularly useful when initially locating the specimen, changing magnification levels, or shifting focus between different specimens. Its larger movements allow for quick adjustments and help prevent the objective lens from coming into contact with the specimen or slide, which could damage both the microscope and the sample.
However, it's important to note that the coarse adjustment knob should be used cautiously, especially when working with high magnification objectives, to avoid potential damage to delicate specimens or objectives. Once the specimen is roughly in focus using the coarse adjustment knob, the fine adjustment knob should be employed to achieve a more precise and detailed focus, bringing out the finer structures and details of the specimen.
Some microscopes only have a coarse focus knob, and while this will work well for lower magnifications below 80x, when using higher magnifications it is best to use a microscope with both coarse and fine focusing.
Comments
Please Join Us to post.
0