wrote:


Over-wound Spring wrote:

In case their are those who get a CB-type rig such as the 817
in their stockings and are misled by those-who-ought-to-know-better
into thinking that they are Radio Hams, the weekly (and
revised) FAQ is posted a couple of days early to enable
the parents to take the CB gear back to the shop.....

You should get an 817 yourself - no tuning required!

It's interesting to note that the author makes much of the repair
issue in his so-called 'FAQ', where he says:

"Usually such people are a variation of the CB Radio hobbyist; they
buy their radios off the shelf and send them back to be repaired"

and also goes on to say, referring to his vision of 'radio hams'
(whatever they are):

"They do this with gusto, and also repair and modify their own
equipment"

but elsewhere said

"I wouldn't recommend anyone whose background is in transistorised QRP
to tackle the neutralising of a compact PA stage with 600 VDC on the
anodes after replacing the antenna coupling capacitor "

Is there is a conflict here between the so-called 'FAQ' as laid down,
and its practice as suggested by its own adherent? Under what
circumstances should others 'repair with gusto' but not consider
adjustments to a valve PA? All PAs? Ones with 12V on the anode? What
are the limitations here? Is there a safety issue here? Where does one
go to get 'a suitable background'? The so-called 'FAQ' should make
things clear, not have the issues clouded by postings elsewhere.

But it doesn't stop here. Note that no licence is necessary for the
repair of radios, as anyone who wishes can repair them. Neither does
the possession of an Amateur Licence bestow a qualification for this
activity; it is not specifically mentioned.

But further to the repair issue; the so-called 'FAQ', as noted above,
states

"Usually such people are a variation of the CB Radio hobbyist; they
buy their radios off the shelf and send them back to be repaired"

but it is apparently a sanctioned activity to have a non-functioning
radio, and sell it off in that state, the 'redeeming' factors being
that the owner was prepared to repair it, and was intending to repair
it; the fact that he did not do so apparently being irrelevant.

So, under this so-called 'FAQ', anyone whose radio ceased to function,
but who thought they might have a go at repairing it, and indeed
intended to repair it, but in the end didn't for whatever reason ("I
can't find a screwdriver to get the lid off") would not have negated
their 'qualification' for inclusion in the strange but very limited
sect proposed by the so-called 'FAQ'! A mere 'statement of intent',
perhaps made years later, will be all that is required to save their
bacon!

It would seem that this issue of 'repair' needs to be clarified within
the so-called 'FAQ' itself, rather than by passing defensive remarks
in other utterances; and to do this as a matter of urgency as there
might be safety issues for anyone so encouraged to follow it. Also,
it makes the so-called 'FAQ' difficult to follow for its adherents -
should there be any - in much the same way that over the years
'operating' has been at various times both held high and then damned.

It would seem that this so-called 'FAQ' is itself in need of serious
repair; let us see if the author can tackle that, or whether he merely
intends to tackle it but then abandon it in favour of some activity
that actually lies within his ambit. It is suggested that for a number
of reasons, some possibly legal in scope, he does not republish it
until the problems inherent in it are satisfactorily dealt with,
otherwise serious issues might arise by any who follow it.


from
Aero Spike

"Spike" wrote in message
...

"I wouldn't recommend anyone whose background is in transistorised QRP
to tackle the neutralising of a compact PA stage with 600 VDC on the
anodes after replacing the antenna coupling capacitor "

Is there is a conflict here between the so-called 'FAQ' as laid down,
and its practice as suggested by its own adherent? Under what
circumstances should others 'repair with gusto' but not consider
adjustments to a valve PA? All PAs? Ones with 12V on the anode? What
are the limitations here? Is there a safety issue here? Where does one
go to get 'a suitable background'? The so-called 'FAQ' should make
things clear, not have the issues clouded by postings elsewhere.

Plus, of course, such a neutralisation isn't that difficult a task- being a
normal process after replacing a valve. I've done a couple of FT101's over
the years and I don't recall the PA being that compact.

Either way, assuming the technician involved had even a modicum of
experience in electronics, it is the sort of job I'd expect them to be able
to tackle.

73
Brian

Spike wrote:
It would seem that this so-called 'FAQ' is itself in need of serious
repair; let us see if the author can tackle that, or whether he merely
intends to tackle it but then abandon it in favour of some activity
that actually lies within his ambit. It is suggested that for a number
of reasons, some possibly legal in scope, he does not republish it
until the problems inherent in it are satisfactorily dealt with,
otherwise serious issues might arise by any who follow it.

But why would he allow "nugatories" (his word) such as truth and
common-sense to spoil his vision of amateur radio? A vision which,
according to this posting from 1999, included an HND-level exam!

Gareth Alun Evans wrote in message
...
Perhaps the answer would be to widen the terms
of the CB license, to include what are now the 2m,
6m, 10m and 20m amateur bands, using only
type-approved eqpt (which should suit the quasi-
CB activities of DX, WAB and contests, and the
current behavioural habits of the denizens of those
bands); and then to bring in a much higher
educational requirement (say, 'A' level maths
and electronics) as a pre-requisite for an RAE
at about the HND level. It cannot be ignored
that a good mathematical grounding is essential for
engineering design. This would also provide a
break-time to ease the Morse requirement.
Needless to say, all current Radio Hams (myself
included) would get only the expanded CB, and
would have to sit the new exams. I cannot see
that there would be any objection to this because
if you consider yourself to competent to design and
construct radios, then you'd pass the exam with
flying colours, wouldn't you?
A Radio Ham licence would then, indeed, be
a prized privilege

One wonders what would be the point? If 136kHz, 1.8, 3.5, 5, 7, 10, 18,
21 and 24MHz were only available to qualified engineers, what would
they use them for? What could they learn about propagation on these
bands that we don't already know? And, in a world where
mission-critical long-distance comms has already moved to fibre and
satellite, to what use would any new knowledge be put?

Surely it's better to promote the social side of the hobby (and yes
Gareth, it IS a hobby) to at least the same extent as the technical
side, and the only way to do this is for entry into the hobby to remain
"competitive" with other pastimes. The RSGB have shown that they can do
this efficiently.

73 and Happy CHRISTmas
Mike G4KFK
www.g4kfk.co.uk

wrote:


Spike wrote:

It would seem that this so-called 'FAQ' is itself in need of serious
repair; let us see if the author can tackle that, or whether he merely
intends to tackle it but then abandon it in favour of some activity
that actually lies within his ambit. It is suggested that for a number
of reasons, some possibly legal in scope, he does not republish it
until the problems inherent in it are satisfactorily dealt with,
otherwise serious issues might arise by any who follow it.

But why would he allow "nugatories" (his word) such as truth and
common-sense to spoil his vision of amateur radio? A vision which,
according to this posting from 1999, included an HND-level exam!

Presumably this is the level of attainment that he himself reached;
had he set it higher, he would have excluded himself!

But it is the so-called 'FAQ' that raises the greatest concern, for he
has now started to bound it with other advice - not written within the
so-called FAQ, but elsewhere. If this was done as part of a
professional's duties, it would be regarded as, well, unprofessional;
but in the context of encouraging newcomers, it is a dangerous and
disgraceful practice.

Should this so-called FAQ should be ignored by all, and a disclaimer
issued by the author? Perhaps an abuse report might be in order if
this not be done in the very near future.

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" wrote in message
...
but elsewhere. If this was done as part of a
professional's duties, it would be regarded as, well, unprofessional;
but in the context of encouraging newcomers, it is a dangerous and
disgraceful practice.

Certainly most professions expect the "established" to encourage and support
newcomers.
Experienced engineers tend to have newcomers as assistants, qualified
teachers have PGCE students to mentor and advise, new police officers are
put with experienced officers, junior Doctors are assign to a registrar,
etc., etc., etc.

Such a system only fails if the "established" person isn't so "established"
as maybe they should be.

73

Brian