RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 7th 04, 08:16 PM

On 07 Feb 2004 03:13:57 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 6 Feb 2004 15:18:39 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 06 Feb 2004 14:54:40 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo

writes:

in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon
request to persons with appropriate Professional license
qualifications.

In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses
left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter
because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer
required).

An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows:

It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is
radio operation,

Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV
broadcast
transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so.

Of course not - operating RTTY on the Amateur bands is dead easy -
connect the transmitter to your sound card, install a software
program, make a couple of tests and adjustments, and away you go!

Are those "tests and adjustments" covered in the "professional"
license tests?

Are the amateur frequencies where RTTY is allowed, and what types of
RTTY are allowed, covered in the professional license tests?

Well, the Canadian bandplans are not mandated by IC - they are
voluntary, and developed by the amaueur community themselves.

Not talking about bandplans.

Uh - you were, Jim - those would define the frequencies where RTTY is
allowed, no?

Therefore, not covered on the Amateur exam. Neither was RTTY, as I
recall - that was learned later, after licensing!

Band edges. Power limits. Amateur operating practices. Requirements to
ID. Content limitations. All different for hams. Not covered in commercial
license exams.

True, but I guess that our Government trusts those who have achieved a
commercial licence to look these things up before going on the air.

Or are you aware of specific instances where this policy has caused a
problem?

And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week
to get it running, so what?

Depends on the mistake.

Well, other than operating out of band, there ain't much that a
"sorry" wouldn't cover!

So when somebody decides to run ten or twenty times the legal power,
a "sorry" is supposed to cover it? Or when somebody uses ham radio
for commercial purposes, or music, etc.. a "sorry" is supposed to cover it?

Sorry, that's not good enough.

Those aren't mistakes, Jim - they are violations of law. Commercial
licensees operate within similar limitations...

You're experimenting, and that's what
amateur radio is all about.

Then why have any ham radio tests or licenses at all? You're arguing
for the end of all testing for a ham license, Leo.

Not at all -

Yes, you are. If a "sorry" can cover most violations, there's no need for most
of the tests.

How so? Are you suggesting that a testing plan capable of being
passed by 7-year olds ensures that these violations do not occur?

That's silly, Jim. I've heard different on the bands....

I'm suggesting that (many of) the radio skills acquired
in the acquisition of a commercial license are directly applicable to
the Amateur service. Transferrable skills.

Maybe. But most of what a ham needs to know is not covered by a
commercial license test.

And can easily be looked up - it ain't that hard!

Now, make a couple of mistakes and knock WNEP-TV off the air for a
couple of minutes - you might be an unemployed professional!

Which acts as an incentive to know what you're doing.

Yup!

Does WNEP-TV change frequency, or have to listen first before
transmitting?

That is a pretty simple skill - I'm sure the broadcast engineers could
figure it out rather quickly

I don't think so. They're used to doing all the talking and none of the
listening.

Hmmm - you don't happen to work there, do you?

and the Pros have made a career of it

All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen
on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of
something
most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession).

Politicians?

Some say politicians are a subset of the oldest profession. ;-)

Fully agreed!

So we should listen to those professionals?

Coming from a guy with a BSEE and an MSEE, Jim, that sounds a bit
silly - would you not consider yourself to be educated far in excess
of the Amateur requirements? Perhaps even a pro yourself?

Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their
profession,
don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not
question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They
must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to
do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-)

I'll take your word for it, having no personal experience with the
profession that you are referring to. If you say they're good, Jim,
then they're good!

I wouldn't know - I'm only an amateur in that field too.

Generally speaking, though, professionals are more knowledgable than
lay people because they are involved in their field full time, and are
held to standards of conduct and proficiency set by not only the
regulators but by their employers.

Generally speaking. However, commercial radio and amateur radio are
different fields. Being a "professional in radio", by itself, is no
indication of qualification to operate an amateur radio station, and
even less of an
indication of qualification to determine amateur radio policy.

Two different concepts.

That's right. Amateur radio and commercial radio are two different concepts.

Creative reading, Jim !

Being a licensed professional in radio implies a knowledge of radio
theory and concepts - many of which are tranferrable from one area
(commercial) to another (amateur).

Some. Not many.

Electronics is the same in both areas - the rest is regulations ad
protocol, which can be learned quite easily. Most folks I know have
had the most trouble with the electronics theory - not learning the
regs or operating procedures!

By nature, amateur activities have
much greater margins for error than professional ones - they are hobby
based, after all!

Then why have licenses at all?

Duh.

Amateur radio policy, on the other hand, is made by legislators, none
of whom require any knowledge of radio to carry out the
responsibilities of their office.

They need to understand certain concepts of radio in order to do the job.
Doesn't mean they all do.

Yup. Most are politicians, though, not radio people.

And, rather than just sounding like
experts, they are expected to demonstrate their proficiency - that's
what they get paid for! 'Stay current or move out' is the rule of the
technically-oriented workplace.

Current with what? Most TV stations are still broadcasting NTSC
signals, based
on a mode that's at least 50 years old. If you don't care about color,
a 1946
NTSC TV (if you can find one that works) is still usable. Then there's
FM
broadcasting which is about as old and good old MW AM, which goes back
to the
1920s.

With equipment that is vastly more complex than what the average
amateur is using, though.

So what? They don;t have to buy it with their own money, nor take
care of it with their own money in their spare time. Amateurs do.
Makes all the difference in the world.

Really? That's the most ridiculous statement I believe that I have
ever heard! The tech working on a $500,000 base station is less
committed or less competent than an amateur operator because he did
not buy it with his own money?

It's his career, Jim. Vastly more important than a hobby.

If you get the opportunity, have a look
inside a cellular base station sometime - all of the equipment in
there is computer controlled

Which means no licensed operators are needed at all.

Absolutely correct - those licenses are no longer issued for most
radio professions, Jim - you told me that!

Elimination of operators has been a major goal of commercial and
military radio services for years. One less warm body to pay. Just
like the railroads eliminated most block operators years ago, and the
telephone company went to dial equipment, and the airlines went to
planes that can be flown by two, not three.

- nothing even resembling a piece of
radio gear to be seen.

Only if you don't know what it looks like ;-)

You bet I do, after 15 years in the field. Looks more like a
mainframe computer than a radio. What sort of equipment do you work
with, Jim?

The signal out, though, is Hertzian, and as old as the universe....

If it's as old as the universe, it existed before Hertz.

But Hertzian, all the same - named after him, you know.

- and invested
considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than
would be possible for most hobbyists.

Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back

when
the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most
to be
at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone.

But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing
of
the
amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't.

Of course not - they don't teach professional photographers how to
take amateur pictures either....

Then they are not qualified.

But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily

Then there's no problem with requiring them to take a test
for an amateur license.

Sure, but according to IC, that isn't a concern!

IC is just wrong.

I'll take your expert opinion under advisement, sir.

And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters
and put
them
on the air without any certification?

Nope - this is what the Amateur bands are for (type approval not
required, unlike the commercial frequencies).

Then the "pros" aren't necessarily qualified in that area, either.

In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim,
even though our bands permit it.

I can, and have.

I know - but they just ain't making them like you anymore!

Yes, they are. There are plenty of hams like me around, building,
operating, using Morse code....That sort of thing really bothers
some people.

Not many, sad to say. Less every day.

Passing any one of the current ARS
tests does not require that sort of undestanding of electronics
anymore. Not like when you first got involved - it has changed a lot
since then.

It was not required when I got started either. The US tests went to
all-multiple-choice in 1960. Pick enough right answers on the written
tests and you pass, regardless of whether you understand the material
or not.

Canada may be different. But I don't live there.

Same, actually. 100 questions, 60 correct gets you a basic license.

60% passing? At least here it's ~74%.

Yup - we have asked IC to raise the bar considerably on the tests.

After all, it would be pretty
silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf
Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards!

After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy
to pass, even without a formal education in electronics.

Agreed! But at least it still exists.

Sort of, in vestigial format.

You seem to be arguing that such licenses aren't really needed
anymore.

No - I'm arguing that they are becoming meaningless - simple memory
work that a child can do.

If they're meaningless they aren't needed.

Agreed. Either make 'em meaningful, or drop the charade.

Has the licensing of young children caused any problems for the ARS?
Are they making a mess of the bands?

Don't think so!

btw, Canada used to have an age requirement of 15 for any class of
amateur license. Would you have them put that requirement back?

No - I fully support children becoming involved with Amateur Radio.
What I don't support is testing for the highest levels of
qualification made so simple that 7-year olds can memorize their way
through!

The USA never had an age requirement for a ham license, but at
least one frequent poster here petitioned the FCC to add an age requirement
of 14 years. Fortunately the FCC did not do so.

Too easy, I'd say,

The FCC disagrees.

Unfortunately.

They're PROFESSIONALS, Leo! They have to "keep current or move out",
right?
It's their JOB to know what's needed, right? Who are we poor dumb old
broken
down amateurs to question them? ;-)

They are regulators and politicians, actually....

They're still PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO. Who are you or I to question them? ;-)

Say what? Nice twist, Jim!

Must not question the professionals. Their egos can't take it.

Well, I'm sure that if you asked a holder of a first class radio
license who has worked in the field for years a radio theory question,
they'd probably get it right!

I've seen them get it wrong. Some don't even know what firmware is.

heh - Software that resides in non-volatile memory, usually EEPROM.
This one does!

IC has been advised of this under the recommendations that the RAC
made to them following WRC-03 - I sincerely hope that they listen!

Me too.

but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass
exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and
complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2
syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....)

And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public
info,
too.

True, but if one did that, they'd have a tough time staying employed
with it - employers have a nasty habit of asking their staff to
demonstrate their abilities empirically, on a frequent basis!

How often does the average employee at WNEP have to demonstrate
knowledge
of calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers?

The receptionist - never. The hands-on technical people - rarely -
but they would need it to complete their formal education in radio
theory, I'd reckon.

Is formal education necessary for the license?

Not to my knowledge! But i think that someone would have a difficult
time passing a commercial test without some training - there is no
"Now You're Talking" book for the GROL......

Rote memorization was what my point was about, though - and I'm sure
that was the case.

How do you know for sure?

I don't - but I'd say the odds are pretty heavily in my favour.

They are - but you wrote as if there were no other possibility.

I really don't believe that there is. Of course, if I was the type
who believed that holding an Extra ticket was the epitomy of amateur
radio knowledge, I'd want to believe that the girl was extremely
bright and well above average intelligence and capabilities for her
age.

Say....you don't know anyone like that, Jim - do you?

Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether
or
not she's qualified or knows how to do the required math?

Well, if she can, she certainly is a prodigy alright. Grade 11 math
in Grade 2 - that is impressive! I'd say highly unlikely.

Not Grade 11 stuff. Squares are 4th grade stuff around here. Logs
maybe
6th grade. Complex numbers probably 9th or 10th.

Not Grade 2, though

Nope. But not grade 11 either.

It is here - complex numbers are on the Grade 11 curriculum.

As I recall, Grade 2 was time for "Fun With Dick And Jane", not "Fum
With Maxerll And Hertz".

"Fun with Dick And Jane" is long gone.

So are Maxwell and Hertz, for that matter - you forgot to point that
out!

It was "Dick and Jane" when we were ther, though - remember?

And, whatever it is today - it is still primary education - not
electronics, math and regs.

The 7 year old in question is homeschooled, btw.

Ever talk to a 7-year old kid, Jim?

At least daily.

Listen often too?

At least daily.

How about you?

Daily, for a year. Twice. Then they hit 8

They just don't operate at that level.

Some of them do. It depends on the child and the environment. Ever had
a
barely-7-year-old read "Watership Down" to you, and not miss a single
word? I have.

Yup - I have yet to meet one who could read a schematic, or calculate
impedance though - no wonder the watership went down!

You obviously never read the book.

I did - twice, out loud. Just humour, Jim - you should try it
sometime!

As I recall, the book involved a bunch of rabbits looking for a home,
and avoiding danger. Perhaps, in your edition of the book, the
rabbits learned about electromagnetism and current flow and morse code
and band edges and operating protocols and Q-codes and mathematics and
perhaps a smattering of quantum mechanics along the way.

In the version I read to my kids, there were a bunch of rabbits
looking for a home.......and avoiding danger......the end.

Good memories, though - like a sponge!

Much of what's on the test (band edges, regs) is pure memory stuff.

Thought the Extra was more theoretical than regulation based?

None of them are heavy on theory. Not anymore.

I see. Good thing too, for the young kids....

She is an Extra, though - I'll just bet she could build her own
transmitter from scratch (forgetting for a moment that 7-year olds
generally have enough trouble making neat letters with a pencil, let
alone operating a soldering iron....)

The 7 year olds I know write and draw quite well. Also use computers
and do math.

In one local second grade class, one of the first week's assignments
was to
write what you did over the summer. Expectation was 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
pages after
editing. (The kids are expected to do a rough draft, edit and final.
By the end of third grade it's outline, rough draft, edit, final). One
7 year old turned in a 31 page story (after editing) in the required
time. It was quite readable, legible, accurate and had all the
required elements.

I built my first transmitter at age 13. From junk parts. Worked quite
well. Of course I had previously built a couple of receivers and used
them
to learn the Morse code off the air.

There is a huge difference between 7 and 13, Jim. Big difference.

Sure. But the point is that simple transmitter building isn't that hard. And
there's no requirement that a ham build anything.

If you mean building a kit, I agree. If you mean building from
scratch (which is the first level that I consider a project of mine to
be homebrew), that's quite a bit harder.....

Since then I've homebrewed-from-scratch at least 7 transmitters,
8 receivers, 3 transceivers, and their related power supplies, antenna
tuners, control systems, accessories, test equipment, antennas and
shack
furniture.

The above does not include kits built and rebuilt, old gear restored
to
operation, military surplus converted to ham use, repairs and
adjustments,
and stuff done for other hams. Of which I've done plenty...

It's easy and fun. Too many hams don't know what they're missing.

Absolutely.

But you're not 7!

I'm not 13 either.

You were when you were building radio stuff - say, why didn't you get
off your behind and get your Extra at 7 like that bright little girl
did, Jim?

It took you 9 more years than her to get that ticket, Jim - you were
at least as smart as her, weren't you?

Or maybe it's pretty darn easy now, by comparison, eh?

Hmmm.

- unlike the chief engineer at
your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field

He probably doesn't have a license and probably never built a
transmitter.

Is that a requirement for an Amateur license? Wasn't on my test....

Then why does it matter?

I don't know, Jim - you brought it up!

You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great
accomplishment for Amateur Radio.

It points out that the tests aren't that hard. Which some of us have
been saying for years.

Agreed.

And I applaud the little girl's
dedication to memorizing the material and passing all of the required
tests. That took a lot of effort on her part.

But it is a clear indication that the testing procedure is far too
easy - IMHO. It can be memorized, which removes any requirement to
comprehend the material. Do you believe that a 7-year old can
comprehend the theories of complex numbers as they relate to impedance
in a resonant circuit?

I'm sure some can.

Sure, Jim.

There are plenty of older hams who can't do it either. Would you take their
licenses away?

Of course not. That would be silly.

The whole point of putting that on the test was to encourage people to
learn technical material, not memory walk through it.

Hasn't worked, has it? It's just a hoop most hams have to jump through, isn't
it?

Bull.

Horse.

Fully agreed - the animal is irrelavant, it's still poop....

Have you ever been around really bright children whose talents are
recognized and supported, Leo? They're capable of far more than
many adults give them credit for.

Complex numbers are simply a way of dealing with a pair of related
electrical quantities. There's no need to have a detailed
understanding of that whole
field of math just to do some LCR calculations.

Agreed - and any idiot can learn to plug numbers into a formula.

Why such a nasty tone? "Idiots"?

Not nasty at all - any idiot can plug numbers into a formula. It
takes education to understand the root concepts. Like when you took
your Masters....

The idea was to learn the root concepts and theories!

Hasn't worked, has it?

It has in the commercial world!

And there is *no* requirement that *any* ham understand complex
numbers.

There is, if he really wants to figure out why his 50 ohm antenna has
an SWR of 2.6 to 1......

Not at all.

How so? That's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.....

And why would a 50 ohm antenna have such a high SWR if it's 50 ohms?

Do the math!

A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of
professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the
US?

No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited
because they were essentially the same in both services.

The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in
the USA
that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge
of
amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not
qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license
test
alone.
And that's still the case.

With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone
who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional
qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges
when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this
arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas?

No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests
include
the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in
its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact.

IC disagrees. But I'll ask them to take your opinion under advisement

Wrong is wrong. But the IC are professionals, aren't they?

Yep - professional regulators. Them who makes the rules!

PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO!!!

No - Professionals In Government.

Personally I'd think, for example, that the guy who sits in a control
tower accurately vectoring planes all over our busy airspace is far
better equipped to carry on a two-way conversation on 2-meters than
the average amateur who passed a relatively simple test!

Maybe. But there's no requirement that he have any sort of radio
operator's license. He doesn't need to know how the radios work.
Complex numbers?

They aren'r required - you just told me that....

Exactly. Nor band edges, or power limits, etc.

All of which can easily be looked up. And memorized. By children.

He could
learn all of the operating procedures that he needs by reading a
couple of sections of the RAC study guide....a couple of nights would
be all it would take. And, in a real emergency, that's the guy that I
would want to see on the radio, coordinating things!

maybe - if he knows the environment.

Not the guy with
the mag mount 2-meter antenna on his callsigned baseball cap at the
local hamfest.....(I swear he goes to every hamfest in the world -
you've seen him at yours, haven't you? )

No. I'm too busy looking at rigs and parts.

Look up - he's there, along with the guys who look like the local
homeless shelter burnt down!

Gee, you sure have a high opinion of your fellow hams.

Well, not all of them

These folks may be your fellow hams, but
they certainly aren't mine!

I find their appearance, behaviour and odor inappropriate for the ARS.

(Oh My God! I'm beginning to sound like that other guy!!!
AAAAAHHHHHH!)

For the USA to make the
same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were
changed.
Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible

for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the
amateur-radio-related
questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an
amateur
radio station.

...unless they can find a 7-year old to elmer them, that is. That is
some prettty tough material to master! LOL!

Would you talk that way to a 7 year old, Leo?

Why not?

How much time *do* you spend with children?

Every day!

I encourage my kids to work hard to accomplish whatever goals they
wish to achieve. What I do not do, however, is coerce them into
believing that they have accomplished something fantastic when, in
reality, they really only memorized their way through in place of
doing any real hard work.

Guess I won't be getting a job on the Editorial Committee at the ARRL
any time soon.....oh well!

btw, when I was in EE school, I wound up elmering my faculty advisor.
He was a
PhD EE but didn't know much about radio, because radio is only a small
part of EE. He knew *his* part of EE backwards and forwards, but
needed *me* to help
him figure out ham radio. I was glad to help, of course.

Yep, you're quite the guy alright!

Glad you figured that out.

You bet - I've had you figured out for quite some time now, my friend!

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo