RadioBanter - View Single Post - Feb 23 is the No-code date

Mike Coslo · January 22nd 07, 03:17 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote in
ps.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169319231.725804.81990
@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.

Here's a sample - lots more to come.

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?

I'm assuming that if the applicant recieves question number
32 or
33 that they also recieved number 31?

That's the study guide, not the actual exam.

We really don't know what the old exams were actually like (actual
questions), except for the memories of those who took them, because
FCC kept them secret. All we really have are the study guides, which
are not the same thing at all.

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.

Yup, that was in the study guide that I looked at.

For the General - not the Extra.

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

did they get both questions again?

In the study guide.

These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
were on the old exams.

The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of
the amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown
inthe license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a"
thru "e".

The question would be something like,
"which is the coupling capacitor?"
"which is an rf choke?"
"what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
above?"

So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and
their names
and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely
different format from the study guide.

Is that supposed to be difficult?

It's not about difficulty at all. It's about what knowledge is needed
to pass the test.

Look at my postings and I do not think you will find me saying I think
the old tests were "harder" or "more difficult". What you will see is
me saying they were better.

Big difference.

IMHO, one of the problems in amateur radio today is too much emphasis
on passing the test, and not enough on what to do with it. IMHO, a
one-day Tech license course is too likely to produce a person with a
license who doesn't know enough about how to get on the air and use
the license.

Of course Elmering is part of the answer. And you're looking at the
most powerful Elmering tool ever invented. But it has to be used - by
both the Elmers and those needing help. Read the various reflectors
(much better behaved than Usenet) and you'll see a lot of that going
on.

If you had a basic knowledge of
the circuit, you would be able to guess at the part names - if you
didn't already know..

If you had a basic knowledge of the circuit, you wouldn't be guessing.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "basic". I'm a real neophyte
at hollow state, and I almost got the "Draw the schematic" version of th
equestion correct.

The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small
part of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was
covered!

How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
detail.

Which of course means that the applicant knew what to
concentrate
on. sometimes I think that what a lot of Hams want is for the test
questions to be both very much in depth, and completely random, with
the questions produced on-site by the steely eyed proctor. ;^)

Part of the old *process* (not the test content as much as how it was
given) was that you only had general areas of study.

Agreed on your point about the increased number of potential
subjects to cover in the present day tests. I suspect the only way to
reconcile that with your (testing wishes?) would be to concurrently
test to the old time depth, with the increased subject matter? I
doubt that quadrupleing the number of test questions would sit very
well with anyone except those who don't have to take the tests any
more.

That's not my wish at all.

As a committee designed product, that is what would have to happen
to stop some people from griping.

What I'd like to see is more emphasis on the basics of radio (Ohm's
Law, basic antennas, how circuits actually work), particularly in the
Technician and General exams. Leave the more-exotic, niche stuff for
the Extra.

I can't argue with that. I'd happily trade all of the space
operations and all of the stupid band size questions for some more
technical stuff.

And regardless of what anyone other than FCC wants, both the number of
tests and the number of questions for each license class dropped
dramatically in 2000.

I had some profs and teachers that gave out one question tests!

One more point:

The old Novice was easy to get. Its written was very basic, and so it
had a small study guide. But that license also conveyed extremely
limited privileges! On top of that, it wasn't a permanent license -
you had one shot at the Novice. So there was a real incentive to
learn.

Comparing the old Novice to the current Tech is apples-and-oranges.

In 1956, the Technician test was the General test without Morse
testing.

How "hard" were the old exams? How much did the "old timers" actually
know?

Here's one story - you tell me:

Back in the late 1960s, I knew a young amateur who was a Technician.
This was in the days when the Advanced had just been reopened for new
issues, and the Advanced written test was reportedly the technical
equivalent of at least the Second 'Phone, if not the First 'Phone,
except for the regulations part, of course.

In those days, those who had both amateur and commercial licenses
usually said the technical part of the tests needed to get the Amateur
Extra (three exams, General.Advanced /Extra) was at least the
technical equivalent of the 'First Phone.

One summer day this young amateur, who would enter 9th grade that
fall, went to the local FCC office to take the 13 wpm code and upgrade
to General. (No additional written test was needed back then, because
the Tech and General used the same written test in those days). He
passed, and was about to go home and await his new license, when the
FCC examiner suggested he try the Advanced written. (He couldn't try
the Extra because of the "time-in-grade" requirement back then).

Time in grade - smart idea....

This young amateur hadn't studied for the Advanced written at all. He
knew some radio theory and practice, and the regulations, all of it
self-taught. He'd only been a ham about a year or two, but even a 14
year old back then knew better than to say no to The Man From FCC.

So he sat down and tried the Advanced - and passed easily. Not
because of some study guide or other, or some memorization tricks, but
because of knowing some radio theory and the regs.

So while some may have said they were "hard" and some say the OTs
didn't know much, the truth was somewhat different.

I didn't really study for my Tech license, only a bit for my
General, and did indeed spend some time on the Extra. Even so, the tests
were not "hard" when I took them.

But I believe that the tests are an entrance test, not some sort of
PhD thing. Its what people do after they get them that counts. And I
really do like the time in grade thing before getting an Extra license.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -