RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 23rd 03, 01:53 AM

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible
for their proper operation.

Do you think every ham understands how their radios work? Do you think
the tests even begin to measure the things a ham needs to know to
determine if a radio is working properly?

Do you think that you could submit questions to the QPC concerning
those things that a ham needs to know?

And so it degenerates into a Morse Code argument again. Knowledge and
skill in Morse (Farnsworth) will keep your radio working properly.

2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts
and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

No, it's proficiency that the test measures

That's a skill.

... proficiency in decoding Morse
in one's head at some specified speed.

5 wpm. Which is not "proficient" by any stretch of the imagination.

Its the new standard, albeit probably short lived.

And that's ALL it is according to
the FCC (see the "No Code Technician" decision from 1990 and the R&O
in 98-143 ... you'll see EXACTLY that in both documents).

Sure. But just because FCC says it does not make it true.

Ditto the ARRL.

The Morse test which is Element 1 tests the skill of receiving Morse code
at a very basic level.

Exactly, it measures a specific level of proficiency.

"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

Where is Morse proficiency defined? Where is Morse defined?