In Brit, in order to get any sort of licence, even the beginner's licence
targetted at the 5-year-old (and shame on any grown man who took one out!)
you have to go through an elementary construction exercise, which I believe
gets promptly forgotten.

I wonder if perhaps we in these NG could get together and design a set
of constructions that would then become a standard as a minimum set of
test equipment so that beginners, even if not taught about such things on
their
various syllabi, could verify the power, frquency of transmission, and
harmonic
output, for without such a capability, such licensees are indistinguishable
from CBers?

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, gareth wrote:

In Brit, in order to get any sort of licence, even the beginner's licence
targetted at the 5-year-old (and shame on any grown man who took one out!)
you have to go through an elementary construction exercise, which I believe
gets promptly forgotten.

I wonder if perhaps we in these NG could get together and design a set
of constructions that would then become a standard as a minimum set of
test equipment so that beginners, even if not taught about such things on
their
various syllabi, could verify the power, frquency of transmission, and
harmonic
output, for without such a capability, such licensees are indistinguishable
from CBers?

You should come to Canada. In 1972 when I got my license, there was not
only the code sending and receiving tests, but a multiple choice test on
operating and technical matters, and we had to draw and describe various
items, like a receiver, a transmitter, a 100KHz frequency standard, etc.
You could use simple versions of each, but you had to be able to describe
the workings, and the guy giving the test knew the stuff.

The minute I got my license, I could run a full kilowatt, and operate on
all bands, the only thing missing was no phone operation.

Then they restructured in 1990, and the beginner's license is now a very
simple test (or so I hear), but you can't build transmitters. They sugar
coat it by saying "the licensee can build anything except transmitters"
but a simple CW transmitter is easier to build than a useful receiver.
You get more restrictions on operating, and I think power is limited. You
have to take the advanced test to get full privileges.

"Nobody builds anymore" was the cry, so why put a complicated test in the
way of people wanting to become hams. But once upon a time, building was
part of the process, now it's relegated to a "niche"

Michael

En el artículo ple.org
, Michael Black escribió:

But once upon a time, building was
part of the process, now it's relegated to a "niche"

It's called "progress", a concept that is wasted on some of the
dinosaurs in uk.radio.amateur hankering after the "good" old days.

In the "good" old days we had polio, smallpox, diptheria and sundry
other nasties which have been eradicated by modern technology. I
suppose these same dinosaurs wallowing in nostalgia lament their passing
and the decline of other delights, such as the workhouse and sending
children up chimneys.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On 10/01/16 05:09, Michael Black wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, gareth wrote:

In Brit, in order to get any sort of licence, even the beginner's licence
targetted at the 5-year-old (and shame on any grown man who took one
out!)
you have to go through an elementary construction exercise, which I
believe
gets promptly forgotten.

I wonder if perhaps we in these NG could get together and design a set
of constructions that would then become a standard as a minimum set of
test equipment so that beginners, even if not taught about such things on
their
various syllabi, could verify the power, frquency of transmission, and
harmonic
output, for without such a capability, such licensees are
indistinguishable
from CBers?

You should come to Canada. In 1972 when I got my license, there was not
only the code sending and receiving tests, but a multiple choice test on
operating and technical matters, and we had to draw and describe various
items, like a receiver, a transmitter, a 100KHz frequency standard, etc.
You could use simple versions of each, but you had to be able to
describe the workings, and the guy giving the test knew the stuff.

The minute I got my license, I could run a full kilowatt, and operate on
all bands, the only thing missing was no phone operation.

Then they restructured in 1990, and the beginner's license is now a very
simple test (or so I hear), but you can't build transmitters. They
sugar coat it by saying "the licensee can build anything except
transmitters" but a simple CW transmitter is easier to build than a
useful receiver. You get more restrictions on operating, and I think
power is limited. You have to take the advanced test to get full
privileges.

"Nobody builds anymore" was the cry, so why put a complicated test in
the way of people wanting to become hams. But once upon a time,
building was part of the process, now it's relegated to a "niche"

Michael

+1

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

En el artículo , Brian Reay
escribió:

I think that is a bit unfair.

Tongue wedged firmly in cheek

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , Brian Reay
escribió:

I think that is a bit unfair.

Tongue wedged firmly in cheek

I am gratified to hear it. There are some of us who might think that
without at least some electronic design or construction effort amateur
radio was remarkably like philately. Though we would probably not admit
to that opinion in public.


--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
I am gratified to hear it. There are some of us who might think that
without at least some electronic design or construction effort amateur
radio was remarkably like philately.

It has the stamp of CB?

gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
I am gratified to hear it. There are some of us who might think that
without at least some electronic design or construction effort amateur
radio was remarkably like philately.

It has the stamp of CB?

Radio operating is a perfectly respectable hobby and has its own high
skills and practical knowledge base. I see no reason to criticise it or
its practitioners. It is just not overwhelmingly interesting to me. I
do not claim my interests to be the One True AR though. And I can't
see a great deal wrong with CB for that matter, it is just a very narrow
subset of operating.



--

Roger Hayter

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Brian Reay
escribió:

I think that is a bit unfair.

Tongue wedged firmly in cheek

bum cheeks ? ....

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , Brian Reay
escribió:

I think that is a bit unfair.

Tongue wedged firmly in cheek

I am gratified to hear it. There are some of us who might think that
without at least some electronic design or construction effort amateur
radio was remarkably like philately. Though we would probably not admit
to that opinion in public.


Roger Hayter

....and especially if they have no CW skills