"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote:

The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence
holders on here, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting Full Licensees.

Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed.

The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation and
Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the trainers
too, and those that train the trainers. They all need retesting, some in
Basic English, it would appear.

What was that, that Reay was saying only recently about cross-posting
malicious abuse?

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 20:00:37 +0000, gareth wrote:


What was that, that Reay was saying only recently about cross-posting
malicious abuse?

I believe he said that he was all in favour of it, and he applauded your
heroic efforts in the field.

HTH

On 01/12/14 21:14, Brian Reay wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote:

The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence
holders on here, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting Full Licensees.

Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed.

The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation and
Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the trainers
too, and those that train the trainers. They all need retesting, some in
Basic English, it would appear.

Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather
than address the matter raised.

Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather
than address the matter raised.

--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 01/12/14 21:14, Brian Reay wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 01/12/14 18:21, Brian Reay wrote:
The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence
holders on here, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting Full Licensees.
Before that, there's the problem of those that haven't progressed.
The more I hear of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Foundation
and
Intermediate licence holders on the bands, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting them on a regular basis. And the trainers
too, and those that train the trainers. They all need retesting, some in
Basic English, it would appear.
Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather
than address the matter raised.
Yet again you introduce red herrings and make unsupported claims rather
than address the matter raised.

Indeed. The matter raised was using the tunable IF in older transceivers.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"Jeefaw K. Effkay" wrote:
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers 5.0
to 5.5MHz.

How could someone with an RAE, who claims so much experience of
homebrew,
and
the hobby in general make such an error?

Especially as, if say STC, happens to ask a question the same person
derides him without mercy.

Plus, of course, this is far from an isolated incident. If ever there
was
evidence needed for retesting Full licence
holders, this is it. The danger is, OFCOM may think, based on this
individual, that testing must include all three exams, even for existing
Fulls.

Don't put ideas into their heads, Brian. That's far to much of a "nice
little earner" not to be implemented.

The same could be said of any retesting regime Frank.

The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence
holders on here, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. After all, they can run
400W,
operate maritime mobile etc. and thus the potential for serious issues is
far greater if they don't know what they are doing.

The argument seems to go a step or two further than simply re-testing, and
that is to examine the knowledge or otherwise of new techniques.
Take DSP as an example. I've never used it, and am not interested in ever
using it. Why should I be tested to see if I know how it works, and when it
is discovered that I know bog all about it and care even less, why should I
lose the ability to use the modes I've used over the past 48 years?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"Jeefaw K. Effkay" wrote:
On 30/11/2014 13:16, gareth wrote:
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

The IF is not tunable. It's fixed at 9MHz. It's the VFO that covers
5.0 to 5.5MHz.

How could someone with an RAE, who claims so much experience of homebrew,
and
the hobby in general make such an error?

Especially as, if say STC, happens to ask a question the same person
derides him without mercy.

Plus, of course, this is far from an isolated incident. If ever there was
evidence needed for retesting Full licence
holders, this is it. The danger is, OFCOM may think, based on this
individual, that testing must include all three exams, even for existing
Fulls.

Don't put ideas into their heads, Brian. That's far to much of a "nice
little earner" not to be implemented.

The same could be said of any retesting regime Frank.

The more I see of the glaring ineptitude of some old time Full licence
holders on here, the more convinced I am that
there is a case for retesting Full Licensees. After all, they can run 400W,
operate maritime mobile etc. and thus the potential for serious issues is
far greater if they don't know what they are doing.

The argument seems to go a step or two further than simply re-testing,
and that is to examine the knowledge or otherwise of new techniques.
Take DSP as an example. I've never used it, and am not interested in ever
using it. Why should I be tested to see if I know how it works, and when
it is discovered that I know bog all about it and care even less, why
should I lose the ability to use the modes I've used over the past 48 years?

The point is Frank, those calling for the retesting of newcomers all to
often seem to be far from competent themselves. Moreover, they expect
others to show progress yet don't seem to have even maintained the
knowledge the supposedly had at the time of their exam.

Equally, those who call anyone using commercial kit CBers, tend to have a
collection of commercial kit themselves.

Not to mention a history of having used CB themselves, possibly more than
those they attack.

If there is a case for enforcing progress for one group of licensees then
there is a case for all.

Of course, by and large those calling for enforcing progress for newcomers
or even just retesting are merely being vindictive. They also fear enforced
progress for themselves as they know they would fail.

Brian Reay wrote in news:746858540439165686.804151no.sp-
:

The point is Frank, those calling for the retesting of newcomers all to
often seem to be far from competent themselves. Moreover, they expect
others to show progress yet don't seem to have even maintained the
knowledge the supposedly had at the time of their exam.


BT are going to kill Giganews, and due to recent events I decided I'd not be
chasing Usenet after I lose easy access, but this point is too interesting
for me not to post, even if I don't see any replies. (BT puls the plug in
under 48 hours from now).

From what I can see in Usenet, part of the problem may be due to aging. To
solve that needs a lot of expertise in psychology and other feilds I'm not
qualified to attempt detail about, but I di have a bit of insight picked up
from observations, my own experience, and especially science and medical
programs on the BBC radio 4 network. Got to start somewhere...

As people get older, they may forget many details, but they may retain good
habits of using equipment despite that. This may or may not relate to recent
research that suggests that age related memory loss, and especially that
related to Alzheimers, may affect short term memory, but old memories may be
harder to acess, but still very strong when they are reached. One problem
with repetition is that laying down many new memories can reduce the clarity
of originals that are close to the same patterns. This is less true for
subconscious actions than for consciously mediated ones.

The problem with all that is that arranging tests, deciding the criteria, the
setup, the frequency, and any modification that takes age or condition of
memory into account, is tough, and almost certainly will not happen because
of the great expense in defining the tests, let alone doing them.

A crude but effective analogy is old people driving on roads. I'm not aware
of many old people being forced to retake driving tests. Eye tests, perhaps,
but usually that means tests specific to physical and mental function
regardless of purpose, and mainly specific to the person, not the purpose,
and carried out by doctors, not technical examiners. Other than that, it is
unlikely that this will change much unless old people start crashign cars or
driving up motorwats the wrogn way more than is generally true. These things
do happen, I hear reports of them, but I never hear calls for blanket changes
in testing of older people. The reverse is true, the govt is forcing them all
to work for years more than originally expected before they can even retire
and collect a pension! The ONLY deeply contentions debate on any related
issue right now (so far as I know) is about the safety of people when aging
firemen are expected to haul them out of burning buildings and down ladders!

So unless the airwaves are dramatically invaded by errant and aging radio
hams, nothing will happen. Not unless radio hams will pay for the change,
anyway.

The real answer to this is to accept that we are all fallible. Instead of all
the bickering and carping I have seen in most posts for the past month,
things would be better if radio hams helped each other through it with less
assertion and assumption. All that nonsense seems to do is make people
entrenched, unwilling to accept any fallibility, and that's the easiest path
to the worst case scenario. Hams were granted licenses on the grounds that
they could police themselves once licensed. If that looks like failing, then
maybe that liberty really might get curtailed.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

I am thinking specifically of the FTDX560 / Sommerkamp 747 where the
tunable IF is 5.220 - 5.720, and covers down to 5.125 off the lower limits
of the VFO, IF is 3.180, so it is (was) essentially a 60M rig with an
Xtal controlled treansverter.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

I am thinking specifically of the FTDX560 / Sommerkamp 747 where the
tunable IF is 5.220 - 5.720, and covers down to 5.125 off the lower limits
of the VFO, IF is 3.180, so it is (was) essentially a 60M rig with an
Xtal controlled treansverter.

As it happens, I have the VFO, XTAL filter and carrier Xtals from
a scrapped one of those, and had recently measured the vfo spread with a
view to making
a single-bandeer out of it.

Bearing in mind the rather silly and infantile abusive post from a certain
quarter,
does that post suggest that OfCom should consider retesting all those Class
Bers
who downgraded to a Fools' Licence because that very downgrading implied
only the technical competence of a Fools' Licensee?

Hoist by his own petard, what goes around comes around, or people who
live in glass houses, etc?

On 01/12/2014 12:49, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
Anyone who has a scrapped Yaesu / Sommerkamp HF rig from
30 years ago, or so, will find that for both TX and RX, the
tunable IF covers the 60m / 5MHz band.

I am thinking specifically of the FTDX560 / Sommerkamp 747 where the
tunable IF is 5.220 - 5.720, and covers down to 5.125 off the lower limits
of the VFO, IF is 3.180, so it is (was) essentially a 60M rig with an
Xtal controlled treansverter.

There is a block diagram of the Yaesu FTDX560 on page 3 of the manual
he
http://www.foxtango.org/ft-library/F...ers_Manual.pdf

The IF is 5.52 to 6.02MHz

I'd be interested to know if anybody has successfully mod'd any of the
1970s Yaesus to cover 60m. I have an FT-200, but I'm guessing that's
unfeasible as the VFO covers 5.0 to 5.5MHz

73
Mike G4KFK/A61