Ah yes, McPhee - - and the decline of US amateur electronics

When that book came out, I cringed a bit; thought that he had quoted a bit too much of Ted Taylor's lore: recall when he discussed a 'problem' of yield (I forget the context now - but it was about early fission tests or transitional to the 'Mike' kluge which.. nevertheless vaporized Elugelap atoll). Gotta hunt up my copy..

He said.. ~ "if you were going to drive a nail, you wouldn't put the head up to it and push, would you?" Innocent enough, but it referred to a (then) pretty clever idea and - it sure as hell wasn't declassified. Of course, now we have Chuck Hansen's book with *pictures* and much of the substance of any mysteries diagrammed (!) even on to rudimentary thermonuclear tricks, including doping, reflectors, Po-Be n source, F-F-F: the works.

What has declined however, in this vaunted US amateur experimentation - is the art + science too: represented by the Heathkit Co. No more kits from there; few left who use a soldering iron and merely construct (a TV, say - more than a few housewives did exactly that! once). All their excellent manuals gave both an overview explanation and then a detailed one of the exact operation of all the stages. Their test equipment wasn't quite HP in precision of pieces or accuracy, but - it was exc. training and explanation better than most texts. Many later engrs -- became interested via Heathkits, as kids.

(I still use one of Heath's later and superb designs - which produces a rise-time of ~600 pSec - for scope risetime measurement and adjustment; it exceeds the performance of a couple $1500 "trade" devices of a decade ago and is equiv. quality to HP of a few years earlier. Ditto their tiny Geiger counter which was a kit form of the Monitor 4 and able to read alphas as well as very lo-energy X-rays. Lab quality. Alas, they made things like this just before they had to fold - for lack of interest.)

Today we mainly buy stuff assembled (as always was cheaper - if labor is paid or figured-in). Even Hams / radio amateurs now most-often buy; they do not build. (Most that is; there's always a creative group at the core).

It is apparent that fewer and fewer (old or young) today know even Ohm's Law: this while more and more of the environment is not merely electical but electronic in operation! So I don't know if Doug's comments apply as much as they once did {??} nor then, is the barrier to parity of the Chinese so unthinkable..

Ashton
(And yes IMhO there are entirely too many people who know how to make a crude fission device -- while there are kilotons of Pu everywhere: at least that demands an implosion device; U²³⁵ makes the task almost too trivial to think about for long, in a world of loonies and some of those now in charge Here. All U²³⁵ ought to be guarded IN Fort Knox IMO)

Post #71,828 by Ashton 1/1/03 6:16:04 AM Reply	Ah yes, McPhee - - and the decline of US amateur electronics When that book came out, I cringed a bit; thought that he had quoted a bit too much of Ted Taylor's lore: recall when he discussed a 'problem' of yield (I forget the context now - but it was about early fission tests or transitional to the 'Mike' kluge which.. nevertheless vaporized Elugelap atoll). Gotta hunt up my copy.. He said.. ~ "if you were going to drive a nail, you wouldn't put the head up to it and push, would you?" Innocent enough, but it referred to a (then) pretty clever idea and - it sure as hell wasn't declassified. Of course, now we have Chuck Hansen's book with pictures and much of the substance of any mysteries diagrammed (!) even on to rudimentary thermonuclear tricks, including doping, reflectors, Po-Be n source, F-F-F: the works. What has declined however, in this vaunted US amateur experimentation - is the art + science too: represented by the Heathkit Co. No more kits from there; few left who use a soldering iron and merely construct (a TV, say - more than a few housewives did exactly that! once). All their excellent manuals gave both an overview explanation and then a detailed one of the exact operation of all the stages. Their test equipment wasn't quite HP in precision of pieces or accuracy, but - it was exc. training and explanation better than most texts. Many later engrs -- became interested via Heathkits, as kids. (I still use one of Heath's later and superb designs - which produces a rise-time of ~600 pSec - for scope risetime measurement and adjustment; it exceeds the performance of a couple $1500 "trade" devices of a decade ago and is equiv. quality to HP of a few years earlier. Ditto their tiny Geiger counter which was a kit form of the Monitor 4 and able to read alphas as well as very lo-energy X-rays. Lab quality. Alas, they made things like this just before they had to fold - for lack of interest.) Today we mainly buy stuff assembled (as always was cheaper - if labor is paid or figured-in). Even Hams / radio amateurs now most-often buy; they do not build. (Most that is; there's always a creative group at the core). It is apparent that fewer and fewer (old or young) today know even Ohm's Law: this while more and more of the environment is not merely electical but electronic in operation! So I don't know if Doug's comments apply as much as they once did {??} nor then, is the barrier to parity of the Chinese so unthinkable.. Ashton (And yes IMhO there are entirely too many people who know how to make a crude fission device -- while there are kilotons of Pu everywhere: at least that demands an implosion device; U²³⁵ makes the task almost too trivial to think about for long, in a world of loonies and some of those now in charge Here. All U²³⁵ ought to be guarded IN Fort Knox IMO) When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy. -Paul Richards
Post #71,873 by rcareaga 1/1/03 4:04:30 PM Reply	Re: Ah yes, McPhee Have you noticed, incidentally, that McPhee can make a book-length tome about damn near anything a ripping good read (although some would rather he'd get off his decades-long geology tear)? I mean, if I learned that his 2003 title was to be "Lint," I'd at least spend some time at Cody's or Moe's perusing it--and might very well take it home. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #71,911 by Ashton 1/1/03 7:32:28 PM Reply	Well.. Rhodes ain't too shabby in that department, either. Hmmm Cody's. Migawd ... Berkeley. You might even know what a Bevatron is (was)! Did I miss you among the other 24,999 in that Vietnam march to-deliver-a clue-by-4? (or a newbie to the scene?) Yes, if you see a copy of Lint - the Real Story - I'll likely spring for it too. There are so few decent writers who also can add and know what an element might be. Turning scientists into writers seems to need a transposition of the Right-brain over to the Left- side. (Except that's wrong too - Feynman! and then there's M. Crichton: though I rarely consider an 'MD' a scientist, after watching a few try to play one - with real particles.) Ashton
Post #71,940 by rcareaga 1/1/03 10:28:18 PM Reply	Rhodes not shabby at all Indeed he ain't. I thought The Making of the Atomic Bomb was dazzling; the follow-up on the H-bomb a bit less so but still impressive. Nearly as good in its way as TMotAB is R.K. Massie's Dreadnought, published in 1991, an account of the Anglo-German naval rivalry from about 1870 to 1914. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."

Welcome to IWETHEY!