Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.
Al Klein wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:36:26 -0400, "J. D. B." wrote: Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from becoming like CB - right? Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. then give it up along with your hang ups about cb if you please There are CBers who are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air. granted now what is WRONG with that? Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can - except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests. then how do they get the lecnse? they learn enough to pass clearly not more than that in many case I grant you Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today. The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple audio and DC stuff. why? Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on 20. Modern stuff. why do you need to know that in order to operate? to just get on the air.. Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace understanding hopefully comes later different folks come to different levels of understanding about different subjects at different time the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned you convince of the need and I will support you And no more published answers. NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a change in ITU treaty lang. It took us No Code what 4 or decades to acheeve the changes we needd in order to bring off No Code Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell "too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff". Which is why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't. It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater 80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11 element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to receive it? never heard such a complaint ever It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything." Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M" all code tested hams I have never heard any realy bad behavoi r from any ham that hasn't had his license renewed at least twice (which leaves out ALL No code techs BTW) indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are just full of it |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.
On 25 Jul 2006 12:12:44 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote: Al Klein wrote: There are CBers who are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air. granted now what is WRONG with that? That's fine - for CB - that's what it's for. Ham radio is NOT CB. (Or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be.) Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can - except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests. then how do they get the lecnse? They memorize the answers. they learn enough to pass If you call learning how to cheat "learning". Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today. The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple audio and DC stuff. why? Why what? You said we should forget CW and concentrate on more modern aspects of the hobby. A computer-radio interface is modern. Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on 20. Modern stuff. why do you need to know that in order to operate? to just get on the air.. Because if you try to run much over 100 baud on 20 you're just making interference. the fact that you didn't know that shows that there are things you need to learn before you start transmitting in "modern modes". Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace understanding hopefully comes later How do you begin to understand WHY you can't run more speed on 20 by just operating? different folks come to different levels of understanding about different subjects at different time you're saying that not everyone is equal. then why treat everyone as if everyone were equal? the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned The license is a permit to operate. Whether you ever learn anything after you get it is totally irrelevant to the license. And no more published answers. NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a change in ITU treaty lang. Which part of any treaty says that the answers have to be published? Quote it. It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater 80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11 element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to receive it? never heard such a complaint ever I see it a few times a day on some fora. It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything." Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M" all code tested hams And all I heard was hams talking about designing and building things that everyone knew couldn't be done. I guess you don't remember when 440 MHz was considered much too high a frequency to be useful for anything. After all, how useful was a frequency you couldn't transmit on as far as you could read a billboard? indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are just full of it And perhaps you just don't know as much as you'd like to think you do. Let's start with English, shall we? Or do you think you really communicate well with the mish-mash you use instead of a real language? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test.
Al Klein wrote: On 25 Jul 2006 12:12:44 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: Al Klein wrote: There are CBers who are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air. granted now what is WRONG with that? That's fine - for CB - that's what it's for. Ham radio is NOT CB. (Or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be.) no way cb going to do what you can do on 20m man Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can - except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests. then how do they get the lecnse? They memorize the answers. which is learning enough to pass the test they learn enough to pass If you call learning how to cheat "learning". I never call following the rules cheating Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today. The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple audio and DC stuff. why? Why what? You said we should forget CW and concentrate on more modern aspects of the hobby. A computer-radio interface is modern. expect if you want something to work and be stable and movable you are not going to build a modem Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on 20. Modern stuff. why do you need to know that in order to operate? to just get on the air.. Because if you try to run much over 100 baud on 20 you're just making interference. the fact that you didn't know that shows that there are things you need to learn before you start transmitting in "modern modes". wrong if I run more than few buads over 100 (or under for that matter) nobody is going to be answer to since it is not one of the standard speeds the why is irelavant In this case I would venture to say you are wrong I supect you could run 110 on 20m after all rules are normaly set a bit on the conservsitive side you don't becuase people aren't looking for that speed and therefore are unlikely to make a concent if it were just and FCC it means maybe someone would be there to bust you if it truel is pphysics does not not what speeds you packet at on 20 requuires NO understanding merely obeinece to the rules Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace understanding hopefully comes later How do you begin to understand WHY you can't run more speed on 20 by just operating? you don't need to understand you may choose to learn in which case more power to use, but you are not required to learn this point different folks come to different levels of understanding about different subjects at different time you're saying that not everyone is equal. no I am not I am saying everyone will develope differently we all equal in our rights before the law then why treat everyone as if everyone were equal? the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned The license is a permit to operate. Whether you ever learn anything after you get it is totally irrelevant to the license. a very grave difference and resaon why the ARS is in trouble this difinate split in philosophy but the point is what level is required to operate that level is easierly obtained with little real understanding indeed wether you learn anything after matters not to your stauts as a license holder And no more published answers. NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a change in ITU treaty lang. Which part of any treaty says that the answers have to be published? I made no such claim I claimed that amending the treaty was one of the few means to Close the question pools off the pools are open becuase the FCC felt it could no longer support legaly (or practicaly) keeping them closed. an act of congress closing them or enacting an ITU requirement that be closed is about the only to close them at this point Quote it. It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater 80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11 element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to receive it? never heard such a complaint ever I see it a few times a day on some fora. hang out with a better grade of ham then I have not seen one such claim in 8 years do you go out looking to be offended? It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything." Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M" all code tested hams And all I heard was hams talking about designing and building things that everyone knew couldn't be done. and you are one them "it can not be done" shame on you I guess you don't remember when 440 MHz was considered much too high a frequency to be useful for anything. Indeed I don't since I we TV on UHF if not before I was born at least before I paying much attantion to such details but you are tlaking the past After all, how useful was a frequency you couldn't transmit on as far as you could read a billboard? indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are just full of it And perhaps you just don't know as much as you'd like to think you do. prehaps I don't but ulike you I don't claim to know everything or that one needs to try and know everything you coment about needing to be able to caluate path loss before trying an EME qso for example Let's start with English, shall we? Or do you think you really communicate well with the mish-mash you use instead of a real language? obviously I do commucate wether you want to call it english or not since we are comucating with your proven hyperbole why some anyone believ what you type |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Canada want to drop the code! | Swap | |||
The Pool | Policy | |||
New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |