"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

There may still need to be *some* evaluation done even at the 100/50W
power
level, but they are simplified compared to what needs to be known for
the whole
raneg of amateur power/frequencies.

I don't think that safety stops at the "station evaluation level.

Agee 100%

One of the things that will probably happen if we get out of the mode
that makes us even think of doing safety evaluations is that the new
hams may not be thinking about RF safety at all.

As a novice in the late 50s, RF safety wasn't very much a part
of my understanding...beyong the concept of not touching
electrical or RF conductors. The "unseen" RF in the air wasn't
really the focus of the Novice syllabus either. But then too,
Novice was limited then to 75w as measured by plate power.

"Remember, don't put the antenna of your handy talkie in the puppy's
mouth and press the talk button".

Yet we put that antenna within less than an inch of our own brain
when we transmit.

I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard
about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for
the introductory license.

I agree and also believ that safety (electrical, RF and mechanical)
should be a fundamental part of novice understanding.

If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power to
something like 5 watts or so.

Better to keep testing on safety.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air

I agree 100%! That's the whole point of multiple license classes. It's
not in
the best interests of amateur radio to require all newcomers to pass the
Extra
just to get started.

Sure. I'm just pretty bullish on the safety requirements.

I agree.

... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level
tests
that I and many others took those many years ago

No it's not clear at all! In fact, it's an apples and oranges
comparison.
Here's why:

Books like "Now You're Talking" are meant to be stand-alone study
guides. They
contain the entire question pool, with explanations of each question and
how to
get the answer. And much more.

The old License Manuals were not meant to be "one stop" books. They
focused on
the license process only - where the tests were held, the process, etc.
The
"study guides" were *not* the actual Q&A, but rather *essay* questions
intended
to indicate the areas to be tested.

If you really want to make a comparison, take an old ARRL License
Manual, add
on "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning The Radiotelegraph Code"
and
"Understanding Amateur Radio" and you'll begin to have an
apples-to-apples
comparison.

Or consider these questions from the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following
components:
(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter.

Study Question #32:
From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how
can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
consumed
by the load be determined?

Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be
in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?

Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having
the
following components:
(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank,
(c) high voltage source,
(d) plate-current meter,
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.

Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

The above were just *some* of the study questions for the *Novice* exam
of
1976. Took up less than a page. How many pages of explanation would it
take to
teach the above material?

The actual exam did not use these questions. Instead, it might show, for
example, a schematic of the amplifier circuit similar to, but not
exactly like
the one shown in the license manual, with 5 of the components labeled
"a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the
coupling
capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the
capacitor
labelled ''d' in the circuit above?"

And that's at the *Novice* level.

Does anyone think that the current entry-level exams are tougher than
that?

You know, I can't answer that question very easily. I don't believe
that more questions makes for a harder test. And although I wasn't
raised on hollow state, I figured out the questions you posed after a
little enjoyable study.


... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ...


The NCVEC proposal definitely *is* a dumbing down. The ARRL proposal is
much
better because it does not set a precedent of no homebrewing, etc.

The NCVEC proposal is just plain Dumb.

Well certain aspects certainly are. There are, however,
a number of identical proposals in NCVEC to the ARRL
with which I agree.

And I think it is also insulting toward the lowest license class.

The "signed statement" thing of the NCVEC proposal is really, really
bad.

Just like the weird thing I was supposed to sign when I bought that
C.B. rig right about the time they gave up on licensing.

I agree also. I would favor three aspects to the Novice (and all other
tets too): 1 - Some basic electrical/electronic/RF knowledge,
2 - Safety knowledge and 3 - Rules/regs. Each part should be
a separately scored subsection with a passing score required
in each subsection. This is a point I think Jim N2EY and I
have agreed on for a long time.

One aspect of the rules/regs questions could deal with operating
privileges...BUT I'd suggest that be done with a frequency chart
being provided to each test taker to then use to answer specific
questions. I see no need to memorize band slots by license
class. I sure couldn't parrot what the exclusive Extra sub-bands are
for HF if I was asked. Better to know the person can read
and use the frequency chart because it does change over time.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK