I read a couple articles in the recent (Jan 2011) QST Magazine that I found note-worthy and figured I would post up here again to brush the dust off of my blog. I really don’t have much time to post these days. Actually, I don’t have much time to think about what to post about.
Topic 1:
There is an absolutely FANTASTIC article in the “Getting on the Air” section of QST called “Feeding a Balanced Antenna with Coax Cable”. I have talked so much in the past on balanced vs. unbalanced feed lines, tuners, and baluns. This article is one of the better ones I have read – and I learned a bit myself as well.
One thing is for sure with Ham radio – you can never learn everything. There are so many “big pictures” to be broken down in to the puzzle pieces that are the makeup of those pictures that learning is a never ending process. A great place to start understanding feed lines, balanced antennas, and baluns is page 61 in the January 2011 QST. It doesn’t tell you everything, but from everything else I have learned this article brings in a whole bunch of puzzle pieces for a pretty good overview in understanding what is going on by using the classic dipole-fed-with-coax model (haven’t we all see enough of that example? NOPE!).
Topic 2:
Bringing up one of the inherent problems with getting newcomers in to the Ham radio world, Eric KL7AJ depicts an interesting approach to snagging the interest, and holding it, in his article “Put the Mad Scientist Back Into Ham Radio.” A note-worthy idea Eric presents is to “scare” people, lets think the younger generations here, in to getting some excitement out of Ham radio. As Eric puts it as the article begins – “In our day, it was our job to create emergencies. The new EmComm oriented hams are intent on “fixing” emergencies”.
Within the context of the article – when was the last time something “bad” happened in an “experiment”? I, for one, have ”let the magic smoke out” of a few things – one of which being the multi-meter I blew up with over 1000 volts. All those experiments lead to a more thorough understanding, and when one goes awry I ask the question “why” and try to reason what I can to fixing the problem, or better yet – preventing it. What better experience than to experience it? Of course, there are lines that should never be crossed (IE, be careful and don’t do things that are really dumb where you will most certainly be hurt or killed).
In addition to Eric’s perspective a lot of what I think about in relation to Ham radio is why things work to begin with. Most of what I get myself in to doesn’t have much risk, let alone a problem to begin with. I don’t need that risk to experience thrill. My thrill is connecting the many dots of theories and knowledge to paint a picture. I seem to find myself lost in scattered dots, and segments, so the more connections I can bridge to tie more of the dots and segments together the better off I feel. The icing on the cake is bridging a connection and making something actually work.
This brings me up to topic 3:
An interesting perspective I have on the world today is the lack of understanding, or care of understanding, that seemingly a lot of people possess.
One quote I have and use, and you may have seen it posted other places, is:
”To truly solve a problem you must first understand the problem.”
OK, so lets break it down. Identify the problem. What is the problem? Something that isn’t happening or doing what it is supposed to. So what are the causes? Here is where most people stop.
How are the causes of a problem resolved? Well, you have to understand them to know. That brings me to the key to my 3ord topic – one must ask the question “why”.
To truly solve a problem you must first understand the problem. Can you see how many ways a problem can be broken down? Think of a connect-the-dots session shaped like a pyramid – made out of lines and dots that arrive at the top to a singular point, or should I say, the “main idea” or “big picture”. This is an identical model to the composition of a problem solution. Starting at the base, and you can dig as deep as you want here to as many details as you want, you find every singular component of the workings of something. As you move up the “pyramid” you combine the segments of the workings of other bigger details and you eventually understand the major components/functionality of something.
Most people start at the top of that pyramid and burn out as they try to work down, some never jump past a level or two. Again, the key component here is the “why” question. It leads to endless segmenting.
This is all just a big process, or model. As weird as you may see me being, I love the question “why”. If something sparks my interest and I have a desire to understand something, even if there is no problem to begin with, I will ask “why” until I satisfy myself. Well, sometimes I don’t satisfy myself – I just build some clusters of segments and store them away to tap later.
Getting back to electronics, Ham radio, and the modern world - the greatest gift Ham radio has given me, and for which I am so engrossed in it, is it is a perfect environment to grow clusters of how things work. Go to a university and, not that there aren’t any, find the engineering students that have a medium, of some type, to apply what it is that they are learning, or have “learned”. How many people can you find? What is their background? What interests did they have as a kid and can you environmentally piece together why they are where they are?
Being a college graduate myself, not in engineering, and after being in an industry for nearly a full year now, I see two surrounding perspectives of sitting in a ripe environment to explore and build segments:
The first perspective is beneficial as it allows me to dig deeper than most people ever would in my industry. There is a lot I have figured out, and a lot of it is also just a redirection of what I have previously known to a new area. It is a two-way street. I can apply what I already know asking the “why” question to bridge clusters of segments and I can ask the “why” question even more to learn new things and build new segments.
The second perspective is negative, and this touches on the modern world part of the equation, in that the “why” question is not embraced. To put that another way, I see the majority of people aren’t very open to questions related to the workings of things. There is a threshold a lot of people have and once you hit that threshold and surpass it, whether in knowledge or they just don’t want you to know, they close up. That makes it hard to get a thorough understanding of how and why certain things are. On top of all of it – it makes it very difficult to solve a problem.
With the key to my 3ord point being the “why” question, the “big picture” to my 3ord point is this:
You have to have the state of mind to build your understanding off of. It is a continuous building cycle. The more you experience and the more you ask the “why” question the more questions you’ll have and the better understanding at which you should, eventually, arrive. If you don’t have the state of mind to think through that process you will never gain an understanding. It has to make sense, partially, enough to provoke asking a “why” question directed towards what you don’t understand in an effort to understand it. I think most people loose interest very quickly.
If all we do is continuously evolve in technology to where we are expanding beyond what once was we loose the background and the reasoning as to why something is. How many devices do we have today that are throw-away’s – as in if it quits working we throw it out? What about those devices that if it quits working we hire someone else to fix it? If a device is truly a throw-away,what got us to that point? What about those devices that are not throw-aways? Your vehicle for example. If it needs an oil change, what do most of us do? On the other side of the equation, how do you know it needs an oil change, or do you know?
I know – program a computer and a sensor to tell you!
Why can’t you know yourself?
Have you ever asked a question to try and solve a problem when there are people that know, somewhere, but after searching the only one available to ask the question to, and that person should be a higher level than what is normally attainable, ignores the question and shifts the topic of discussion because they don’t know? I think most people would never experience that (not including school or any other environment where, if you ask enough people, you hit the one that knows) because most people don’t have the ability to get to the point where they have the state of mind to ask the question in the first place.
In my example, which I won’t detail here because it really doesn’t matter, I solved a problem after everyone within my industry I asked questions to (I had lots of them, naturally) zipped up tighter than a drum or ignored the questions. My guess is none of those I asked knew, they just didn’t say so. Those that did know were in a ”black box” and, no matter how many people I went to, could not get in to the “black box”.
I guarantee 99.9999% of the very few that have questions rejected on that level give up the process – whether that is hiring out the work or throwing out the scenario in which the problem is present and replace it. Ham radio taught me otherwise – it is a constant learning environment where questions are asked, answered, and those that aren’t readily answered are researched, possibly experimented, until there is an answer. It is the outside-the-box thinking.
If more people carry the same perspective on understanding there are a lot of things in this world that would work much better. Of course, most people don’t have the state of mind. I bet video games, being on the computer all the time (gaming, facebooking), watching movies, and partying (some drinking too much) are great outlets to further the thought processes of our kids. Some may make us more well-rounded people, but they don’t kick-start the problem solving model (the pyramid model I mentioned earlier). The further technology advances the more we loose the basics that created those technologies in the first place. How are people to be effective problem solvers if they don’t know the background and don’t have the state of mind?