The Extra Class test (I took it in 1985) did include a question or two
that
required some trig, but I figured out the answer in my head before
finishing
the equation. It was obvious that the conjugate impedance was going to be
capacitive. There was only one answer with a -j, so it was obvious that
that
would be the correct answer.

Ed, NM2K

I picked up on that too. If you didn't know what was going on there, you
would be left drudging through a math problem.

The thing about Trig was having to memorize all the substitutions in order
to poke the problem into a manageable calculation, or you wind up losing
precision. If that happens, you wont have the clear cut answer for the
multiple guess.

In some ways I miss tube equipment. Now I have to deal with surface mount
technology. Even for a resistor, I risk putting a soldering iron up my nose
while squinting through a loupe. I just dread the idea of replacing a chip
with 100 legs or more. In the 70's you had to know tubes and everything
else too because there was so much transition. Ham Radio magazine was my
best friend, and it was an opportunity to learn the discrete versions of
complex stuff like synthesizers and various issues that had to be overcome.
It's all easier now. If you can figure out what a controller is supposed to
do, all you have to do is make sure the rest of the components can comply.
But there is so much offshore cheap junk now that almost everything is
worthless to fix but cheap to modify. Except for industrial controls and
things like that. But now customers are just trained to throw stuff away on
a bigger scale. I get the idea that We as American citizens are not allowed
to know technology any more.

JB wrote:

In some ways I miss tube equipment. Now I have to deal with surface mount
technology. Even for a resistor, I risk putting a soldering iron up my nose
while squinting through a loupe. I just dread the idea of replacing a chip
with 100 legs or more.

These things are the best. They are stereo so you get depth perception.
They are cheap and the optics are very good. I can read the numbers
on parts the size of a grain of salt and I'm 59 years old. I have no
SMT dread.

http://www.mageyes.com/

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Jimmie wrote:
"Is there a website that may have this data?"

I got my first class phone ticket in 1949. My house was destroyed
recently my tickets and degrees went with it.

Commercial tickets have been converted to non-expiring "General
Radiotelephone Operator Licenses". The FCC maintains a list of the
commercial licenses it has issued.

When I wrote the FCC requesting a replacement certificate, they
responded saying my request had been "dismissed". Then I wrote to The
W5YI Group which advertises in QST. They said to send them $20 and
within a few days my replacement "General License" arrived from the FCC
in the mail. I highly recommend their service! Their address is:
W5YI Group
P.O. Box 565101 Dallas, TX 75356

I had been issued First Class Radiotelephone License No. P1-9-12391 in
April 1949.

W5YI Group also got me a new copy of my KB5WZI Amateur License which had
also been destroyed. I believe their fee for that was $7.5o. All this is
very reasonable considering the hassle of trying to deal directly with
the FCC.

Fortunately, my university says it encourages the display of degrees and
will glady replace them at no charge.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

One place I worked at stole mine right off the wall before firing me
"because they couldn't throw me in jail for anything". I simply reported
the theft to the FCC and they gave me a new certificate with a new number.
Ever since then, I would only display a copy stamped COPY, but I won't even
do that any more because some one might try to use it. Someone tried that
once and got caught. Stupid is trying to send in a bogus application to the
FCC. Some one tried that once and FCC mailed it back to me asking if I knew
anything about it. Ye haw! It's like going into a doctor's office for an
examination and telling them you need the prescription "for a friend". It's
like pulling a gun on a cashier and saying "I don't want to hurt anyone".

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On 21 Sep 2008 03:37:42 GMT, Ed
wrote:

I have also noticed that most of the PGs don't even have an FRN #
What's a PG?

Its the first two letters in the FCC General RadioTelephone Operator
License number.
Ed K7AAT

Thanks. ULS, CORES, FRN numbers, and such started around 1998(?). It
was essentially optional (because the system didn't work) until about
mid 2000, when Congress demanded that all business with government
agencies include an SSI number (social security number). To get an
FRN number, you need to supply an SSI number.

I passed my GROL in Nov 1994, somewhat before FRN numbers were first
issued. Prior to that, I had an FCC 2nd and later 1st RadioTelephone
license with radar endorsement. I didn't want to deal with the ULS
mess so I avoided getting one. I eventually wanted to upgrade from
Technican class to General class[1], and which required an FRN number.
Oh well. Some of my friends and accomplises that obtained GROL
licenses at the same time as me still have not obtained FRN numbers.


[1] I was going to just sign the paperwork for the General class
license as I had passed 5 wpm back in the stone age of ham radio as a
Novice. However, the VE assured me that the price was the same for
the Extra Class license, so I should try taking it anyway. The logic
seemed reasonable except for one problem. I hadn't studied for the
Extra in the slightest. So, I blundered, guessed, snarled, and
muddled my way through the Extra exam, fully expecting to fail
miserably. I had to borrow a calculator. I was amazed when I passed
the Extra by one question. I'm fairly sure I answered all the
technical questions correctly, but missed most of the operating, band
limits, sub-bands, rules, and regs.

You've described a key test taking strategy that applies well beyond the
FCC license exams. No licensing authority requires 100% scores, and they
generally specify the distribution of questions among subjects. (this is
true for pilot exams and the professional engineering exams, as well).
One can reasonably take a strategy of spending your study time to get
perfect score on the parts you know and accepting what you get on the
parts you don't. Overall, I believe that the lower "stress level" going
into the test knowing that even if you screw up the small number of
questions you don't know, you can still "pass", is an overall benefit.

This, is, of course, why you have behind the wheel driving tests, have
to have an examiner check ride, or reference letters and proven
experience for all those licenses. The folks giving the test KNOW that
you can't possibly test everything.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:44:26 GMT, "JB" wrote:

One place I worked at stole mine right off the wall before firing me
"because they couldn't throw me in jail for anything". I simply reported
the theft to the FCC and they gave me a new certificate with a new number.

Chuckle. That like that happened to me, twice. I worked for a
communications shop where I was the only one with a license. After I
left, they continued to use my license number or repair logs for
several years. When I worked for a radio manufactory, they made a
rubber stamp with my license number and continued to use it for
several years after I left.

At one point, I let my license expire because I couldn't find it for a
few years after moving. I had to take all 4 elements plus radar
endorsement again from scratch. I passed 1, 3 and 4, but messed up
from overconfidence on element 2. That meant that I had to do all of
it again in a month. This time I studied and passed. To save on gas
and parking in downtown San Francisco, a small group of techs and
engineers went together. We had all studied the latest semiconductor
and radio technology that we worked with every day. However, the test
was exactly the same as the one I had taken about 10 years previously.
Tubes, dynamotors, Marconi antennas, Faraday shields, and other
technology from the stone age. A few of the techs failed the exam
because they had never studied or worked with a tube radio.

Ever since then, I would only display a copy stamped COPY, but I won't even
do that any more because some one might try to use it. Someone tried that
once and got caught. Stupid is trying to send in a bogus application to the
FCC.

In theory, that won't happen with the ULS system and FRN number as
long as your password is secure.

Some one tried that once and FCC mailed it back to me asking if I knew
anything about it. Ye haw! It's like going into a doctor's office for an
examination and telling them you need the prescription "for a friend". It's
like pulling a gun on a cashier and saying "I don't want to hurt anyone".

I haven't had that problem. A friend that runs an avionics shop
casually mentioned that about half of the GROL licenses he sees are
counterfeits. He says they seem to use random license numbers, which
are easy to verify with a ULS web search. Why they bother is beyond
my limited imagination.

Incidentally, identity theft, or rather identity borrowing, is why I
don't post my resume online. I've had to deal with several attempts
at impersonating me or borrowing my history on job applications. None
were financially or professionally detrimental, but the potential is
there.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

But now customers are just
trained to throw stuff away on a bigger scale. I get the idea that We
as American citizens are not allowed to know technology any more.


Its not the technology... its the economics. Why in the world would a
consumer want to more in labor charges for a sophisticated electronics
product that cost less to replace than repair?

Ed K7AAT

On Sep 22, 10:32*am, "JB" wrote:
The Extra Class test (I took it in 1985) did include a question or two
that
required some trig, but I figured out the answer in my head before
finishing
the equation. It was obvious that the conjugate impedance was going to be
capacitive. There was only one answer with a -j, so it was obvious that
that
would be the correct answer.

Ed, NM2K

I picked up on that too. *If you didn't know what was going on there, you
would be left drudging through a math problem.

The thing about Trig was having to memorize all the substitutions in order
to poke the problem into a manageable calculation, or you wind up losing
precision. *If that happens, you wont have the clear cut answer for the
multiple guess.

In some ways I miss tube equipment. *Now I have to deal with surface mount
technology. *Even for a resistor, I risk putting a soldering iron up my nose
while squinting through a loupe. *I just dread the idea of replacing a chip
with 100 legs or more. *In the 70's you had to know tubes and everything
else too because there was so much transition. *Ham Radio magazine was my
best friend, and it was an opportunity to learn the discrete versions of
complex stuff like synthesizers and various issues that had to be overcome.
It's all easier now. *If you can figure out what a controller is supposed to
do, all you have to do is make sure the rest of the components can comply..
But there is so much offshore cheap junk now that almost everything is
worthless to fix but cheap to modify. *Except for industrial controls and
things like that. *But now customers are just trained to throw stuff away on
a bigger scale. *I get the idea that We as American citizens are not allowed
to know technology any more.

I had to take a test for the FAA once that the prep material took you
through all kinds of cr stuff that I studied for two months.
When I finally took the BIG test that my job depended on it was ALL
about decibles. The two hour 50 question test took me twenty minutes
and I never picked up my calculator. About all you had to know was 1db
was 20% 3db doubled or halved and every 10db
was 10 times and you pick the multiple guess answer. I remember the
guy giving the test thought I had given up and turned the
test in after only 20 minutes .He certainly was surprised when he
found I ACED it.The people that failed it all knew what they were
doing
They just got bogged down in the crank and grind of the math.

Jimmie

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:08:36 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On 21 Sep 2008 03:37:42 GMT, Ed
wrote:

I have also noticed that most of the PGs don't even have an FRN #
What's a PG?

Its the first two letters in the FCC General RadioTelephone Operator
License number.
Ed K7AAT

Thanks. ULS, CORES, FRN numbers, and such started around 1998(?). It
was essentially optional (because the system didn't work) until about
mid 2000, when Congress demanded that all business with government
agencies include an SSI number (social security number). To get an
FRN number, you need to supply an SSI number.

I passed my GROL in Nov 1994, somewhat before FRN numbers were first
issued. Prior to that, I had an FCC 2nd and later 1st RadioTelephone
license with radar endorsement. I didn't want to deal with the ULS
mess so I avoided getting one. I eventually wanted to upgrade from
Technican class to General class[1], and which required an FRN number.
Oh well. Some of my friends and accomplises that obtained GROL
licenses at the same time as me still have not obtained FRN numbers.


[1] I was going to just sign the paperwork for the General class
license as I had passed 5 wpm back in the stone age of ham radio as a
Novice. However, the VE assured me that the price was the same for
the Extra Class license, so I should try taking it anyway. The logic
seemed reasonable except for one problem. I hadn't studied for the
Extra in the slightest. So, I blundered, guessed, snarled, and
muddled my way through the Extra exam, fully expecting to fail
miserably. I had to borrow a calculator. I was amazed when I passed
the Extra by one question. I'm fairly sure I answered all the
technical questions correctly, but missed most of the operating, band
limits, sub-bands, rules, and regs.

You've described a key test taking strategy that applies well beyond the
FCC license exams. No licensing authority requires 100% scores, and they
generally specify the distribution of questions among subjects. (this is
true for pilot exams and the professional engineering exams, as well).
One can reasonably take a strategy of spending your study time to get
perfect score on the parts you know and accepting what you get on the
parts you don't. Overall, I believe that the lower "stress level" going
into the test knowing that even if you screw up the small number of
questions you don't know, you can still "pass", is an overall benefit.

This, is, of course, why you have behind the wheel driving tests, have
to have an examiner check ride, or reference letters and proven
experience for all those licenses. The folks giving the test KNOW that
you can't possibly test everything.

That reminds me on how i advised coworkers on test taking strategy for
the PE exam. Don't waste time on areas that you know well, nor in
areas where you are really weak. Study the areas that you kind of
know. That is the best chance to improve your score. It works by
track record.