In article , Robert Casey
writes:
And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"
Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.
Sure.
Just like how the FCC allows us to send and receive Morse code on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.
Neither the use of Morse code nor the construction/modification of equipment is
mandatory. Many hams enjoy amateur radio without doing either.
At least be able to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and such.
Sure.
Just like being at least be able to recognize most of the 43 symbols of the
Morse Code when sent at the very slow speed of 5 wpm.
Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to
modify his radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could.
Yet they often do just that.
It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker.
Usually such modifications require the high level of technical skill required
to cut the blue wire or crush diode D17....
And such modifications are not mandatory at all. Most hams today use certified
equipment, do they not?
Which is more common on the amateur HF bands: hams using homebrew/seriously
modified equipment, or hams using Morse code?
Do you really think the written exams adequately test whether a ham can build
or modify amateur radio equipment - particularly considering the wide range of
bands, modes and technologies usable by hams?
I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.
IMHO they've been gradually watering down the theory tests for over 25 years.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|