To chime in on the subject, I think Jim has done a real good job explaining
some
subject matter that is mystifying to most hams. He debunks a lot of myths and
steers people in the right direction for many topics ..... noise suppression
and
impedance matching to name a couple. Jim gives hams the option of being able
to
simply solve a problem (winding some coils, or whatever, to accomplish a goal)
or to go further and actually try to understand the underlying theory.
His approach is fairly straight-forward but he does have to go into discussions
of theory in order to make his points. Without this, the serious reader would
be left with a lot of questions. However, he does give hams who are not
interested in the gory details a way to accomplish their task.
I have an EE degree and have also become a certified computer forensics expert
(in my later years) and I can tell you that there is no way to understand the
theory and details of any of this stuff without a heck of a lot of head
scratching, mental agony, frustration, and lots of time. I do not think there
is a way to make it "simple" without leaving whoever goes through a simple
course woefully unprepared.
Writing manuals for people to use when operating equipment is one thing, and
even that, as someone has already said, is an inexact science fraught with
unpleasant surprises. Simplicity is fine, but the dumb-down approach to
subject
matter to the point that it is devoid of details is one thing that is getting
the majority of college graduates into real trouble (aside from being in debt
slavery).
The simple art of reading is now a big problem, thanks to the "simple" approach
schools seem to have embraced. Writing simple sentences with correct grammar
and spelling is another lost art, again thanks to educational simplicity.
Given
all this, is it any wonder that a lot of people think Jim's technical work is
too complicated?
Most people can learn a lot more than they think they can. It just takes work
and devotion to the task. There are a lot of lazy minds around, unfortunately
inside of very lazy bodies, that are just begging to be given something
worthwhile to do.
Sometimes I think we forget that ham radio is a hobby. Some folks are
technically oriented and some are not. Some are great code ops and others
haven't ever made a CW QSO. Some people computerize everything and others use
50-year old boat anchors on 75-meter AM only. Presumably, everyone has fun.
Why should everyone need to understand what Jim or anyone else writes about
"technical theory"?
--------------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) ------------------
1138 Waters Edge Circle - Shreveport, LA 71106
318-797-4972 (office) - 318-393-3289 (cell)
Computer Consulting and Forensics
----------- EnCase Certified Examiner ---------------
________________________________
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: tentec@contesting.com
Sent: Sun, October 30, 2011 7:41:57 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Interfacing Computers to Rigs
On 10/30/2011 10:56 AM, Casey wrote:
> My point is this: Jim wants people to stop using isolation circuits and
> his "carrot" to them is simply to tell them to do it the "right way" and
> the right way is to go study 66+ pages of technical material and to sort
> it all out for yourself.
Not true. I specifically pointed you to two small portions of the
tutorial, each only a few pages.
>
> I really can't understand Jim's expectations when the alternative for
> hams without an EE is to simply spend some money for the gizmo that
> provides some kind of solution. It's not very helpful or understanding
> of those hams who are not EEs to just throw a link at them. Being right
> doesn't necessarily mean anyone is going to listen to you.
I'm simply trying to help hams who are always crying "poor" to save
their hard earned money. Nothing is free, including knowledge. We must
pay for it by devoting our hours and our brains to study. It does NOT
require an EE degree. Most guys of my generation who learned radio did
so by studying the ARRL Handbook and the ARRL License Manual. We did
that LONG before we finished high school.
> And, please, don't tell me that passing any multiple choice exam where
> the entire question/answer pool is public is equivalent in any way to
> real electronics knowledge.
The ARRL License manual has always included a course on electronics and
radio fundamentals in one form or another. If someone choses to be
lazy and cram for the multiple choice test by memorizing answers, that's
their choice, and if they didn't learn much in the process, that's a
problem they made for yourself. Those of us who passed the General exam
in the old days had to draw schematics of fundamental circuit types!
Phil wrote:
>As someone who has written "greatly simplified instructions" to a
>class of highly trained individuals, I have discovered that about half
>of those who read my (2/3 of a page of #12 type) work are 'lost.' It's
>frustrating because it's written to a fifth grade level.
>
>
>Some thoughts:
>
>1. The simpler the better. If it's too long, it's too distracting.
>2. Technical people are the most easily confused. (They think they know??)
>3. Some people want the bottom line without any explanation and that's all.
As you noted, Phil, you were getting paid to do that, and you said you
hated it. I do my writing for pleasure, and to share what I've learned
with others who want to learn. I certainly benefitted from that when I
was starting out. That's the tradition of ham radio, what ARRL calls
"Elmering," and what I call "giving back." I also made my living for
five years by teaching electronics at a technical school (DeVry). Any
GOOD teacher will tell you that any education that does not include hard
work by the student is a lousy education.
73, Jim Brown K9YC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|