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

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.

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

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

... 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 ...

My experience, too. I think if I hadn't known reactance vectors, I would
have failed it. Tip of the hat to ELI the ICEman.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

On Sep 21, 1:43*am, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message

...

... 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 ...

My experience, too. *I think if I hadn't known reactance vectors, I would
have failed it. Tip of the hat to ELI the ICEman.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)
Oh well I am not listed for my commercial license. I just realized it
had expired when I was working on CBs ooops. Work for the gov now and
dont have to have one but I may take the test fot the general anyway.
I dont know what happened to my origonal, after 5 moves anything could
have.

Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:43 am, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message

...

... 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 ...
My experience, too. I think if I hadn't known reactance vectors, I would
have failed it. Tip of the hat to ELI the ICEman.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)
Oh well I am not listed for my commercial license. I just realized it
had expired when I was working on CBs ooops. Work for the gov now and
dont have to have one but I may take the test fot the general anyway.
I dont know what happened to my origonal, after 5 moves anything could
have.

Jimmie

http://www.w5yi.org/catalog.php?sort=10

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
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.


----------

I took the General Radiotelephone Operator's License exam in 1981, just
after it went into effect. However, they were still giving the old 2nd class
exam, which was mostly about tube technology and which shared nothing in
common with the Extra Class amateur exam of the time.

My original license number was PG-3-110. I took the exam for the radar
endorsement a few months later and they changed the license number to
something else, which slips my mind at the moment.

Ed Cregger

I took the General Radiotelephone Operator's License exam in 1981, just
after it went into effect. However, they were still giving the old 2nd
class
exam, which was mostly about tube technology and which shared nothing in
common with the Extra Class amateur exam of the time.

I did 2nd Phone in the late 70's and there was tube, transistor, RTL and TTL
logic theory, and 'complete the schematic' type questions but less of that
and more general types of engineering and circuit theory, AC/DC theory, RF
and transmission lines and most of it involving Electronic Math. Trig,
Vectors, no Smith charts or Calculus. Very little of it had anything to do
with tubes specifically. The rest was FCC parts. It was said at the time,
that it was more like the Advanced Ham ticket. I got my Advanced a year or
two before, and I agree the technology level was equivalent and it was about
200 questions or so. Later when I did the Extra, (90's) there were
questions well beyond the 2nd Phone but only 25 of them! The code test and
the noise floor equations made me strain. I wish the bandwidth and
modulation questions were on the Technician class test though.

"JB" wrote in message
news:uSDBk.486$UB3.159@trnddc07...

I took the General Radiotelephone Operator's License exam in 1981, just
after it went into effect. However, they were still giving the old 2nd
class
exam, which was mostly about tube technology and which shared nothing in
common with the Extra Class amateur exam of the time.

I did 2nd Phone in the late 70's and there was tube, transistor, RTL and
TTL
logic theory, and 'complete the schematic' type questions but less of that
and more general types of engineering and circuit theory, AC/DC theory, RF
and transmission lines and most of it involving Electronic Math. Trig,
Vectors, no Smith charts or Calculus. Very little of it had anything to
do
with tubes specifically. The rest was FCC parts. It was said at the
time,
that it was more like the Advanced Ham ticket. I got my Advanced a year
or
two before, and I agree the technology level was equivalent and it was
about
200 questions or so. Later when I did the Extra, (90's) there were
questions well beyond the 2nd Phone but only 25 of them! The code test
and
the noise floor equations made me strain. I wish the bandwidth and
modulation questions were on the Technician class test though.


------------

Yep, the solid state and basic computer theory were there too, but I was
surprised that they used a schematic of an RF tube amp for diagnostics
purposes. I was sure that they were going to use solid state equipment for
diagnosis. I was wrong. As it turned out, tubes are always easier for me to
figure out, so it ended up being a plus for me.

The Advanced Class amateur license test was definitely the pinnacle of
amateur radio technical testing, but I didn't feel it was up to the 2nd
Phone test that I took for the General. In fact, I even found a few mistakes
in the Advanced test.

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

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/