Forty Years Licensed
Jack VK2CJC wrote:
If "mode sensitive" sub bands were programmed, every time someone moved, or a change in bandplan was brought in, it would be nessesary to go to the Yaecomwood dealership and ask to have the radio changed. An expensive, time consuming and unnecessary exercise :o) Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing capacity to be able to handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans. These rigs can be connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the equipment. For example, it's common to program local repeaters (and not-so-local repeaters) into the memory of VHF/UHF rigs using the software on the owner's PC then downloading the information into the rig. It would be an easy programming effort to do the same kind of thing for HF. Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and modify it based on license class and/or personal preference. Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of band plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired. Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it. No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could undo given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting. For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance operator", I don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from doing something stupid. |
Forty Years Licensed
" The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the receiving end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to do RTTY.. If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate using AFSK for RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended consequences". Dee, N8UZE Indeed, it is also a problem if you use the HF set as the driver for a transverter to a band where the bandplan is entirely different. 73 Jeff |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 12:51?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: So it makes sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to prevent our mistakes. I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind. The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit of computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce sub-bands? I don't know of any that do, in terms of subbands-by-mode or subbands- by-license-class. But I don't think it would be a big feat of software engineering to have a lookup table that compared the mode selection with the transmit frequency, and allowed transmission only if the selection was in the lookup table. Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step and not allow SSB in the CW band? As N8UZE points out, this would limit flexibility, because all sorts of "soundcard data modes" are often implemented by putting the rig in SSB mode and feeding audio into it. This may become less of a problem as more rigs incorporate data modes internally. (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or keyboard). I don't think that most folks who find themselves doing something stupid like using SSB outside of the US sub-bands do so because they don't know the regulations. They get caught up in the excitement of a contest or chasing DX or their mind slips out of gear, and when they realize what they've just done they feel about two inches tall. With all due respect, if someone forgets the regs by being caught up in the excitement, they really don't know them in a practical sense. I would like to see the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big bucks for to keep me from doing this, while at the same time giving me the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different. The second problem is that, for flexibility, you'd have to include the ability to defeat/disable the feature. Which means it could be left in the off position unintentionally, and provide no protection. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
"Steve Bonine" wrote in message [snip] : : For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance : : operator", I don't see anything wrong with using : : available technology to keep me from doing something : : stupid. Your brain is available technology and has been around for a lot longer than computers ;-) Seriously, I know what you're saying and I sort of agree, but I wouldn't want to see anything forced on us. If you feel you may "do something stupid" without assistance, fine, for my part I prefer the flexibility of using my equipment how I want to, not how a computer tells me I should. 73 Ivor G6URP |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 2, 12:27?am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Jack VK2CJC wrote: Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing capacity to be able to handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans. These rigs can be connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the equipment. It would be an easy programming effort to do the same kind of thing for HF. I don't know how 'easy' it would be, but it could be done. The classic 'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work? Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and modify it based on license class and/or personal preference. Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of band plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired. Or, the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and Elecraft, do this already. Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature would be part of the user interface. Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it. No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could undo given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting. Ultimately you'd want the ability to defeat the feature, in case the rig were sold or loaned to someone with a higher license class, or the rules changed, or you traveled somewhere with different rules. For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance operator", I don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from doing something stupid. I think it depends on the intent. It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since 1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating. That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it has probably saved me from a few problems along the way. It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to know things, like the subband edges. IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
|
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 2, 2:04?pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, wrote: (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or keyboard). Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online now: www.elecraft.com Good trick. I can see using the front-panel display for the monitor but how does one input alphanumeric characters without a keyboard of sorts? You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the Morse into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device. Built in, not an add-on device. The decoder is reputedly very good too, its only limitation being the limited display space. Then again, what do I know? I'm just as lowly K2 "appliance operator" ggg bwaahaahaaa.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 1:09?pm, AF6AY wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine wrote: Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license responsibilities. Yet it is possible to get all four of those questions wrong and still pass the test. The result is a licensed amateur with big 'holes' in his/her knowledge of certain areas. I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a thankless job. The big question is whether the criticism is constructive, or just a form of complaining. IOW, does the critic offer a way to make the process better? The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia. Who are these people, making such claims, Len? It seems to me that one main purpose of license testing is to insure that the licensee knows enough about the thing being licensed for so that s/he can reasonably do what the license allows. For an amateur license, that means knowing the basics of amateur radio, in the form of technology, rules & regs, and operating practices. Most important is that the tests focus on what *amateurs* are allowed to do on the air, and how they typically do it. Experience and knowledge of other radio services may or may not be relevant. A Ph.D. in EE with multiple patents is not necessarily qualified to be a radio amateur if s/he doesn't know the amateur radio regulations. Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist. From my personal experience, and from that of many of *my* contemporaries, that reality certainly did exist. Not that the tests for an amateur or commercial radio license were equivalent to what I later encountered in EE school, but they were real tests of what the licensee knew with regards to amateur radio. There was no way one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone 'expert.' Agreed - but that wasn't the purpose. The tests were to see if the licensee had met a certain minimum level of knowledge and skill, not that the person was an expert. Anyone knowledgeable about Morse Code will tell you that even the old 1 minute solid copy 20 wpm Morse Code test wasn't "expert" level.....;-) When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a 'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came about through other political work, not the fact of privatization. The question-and-answer pools became public knowledge in two steps. The first was the publication of the "Bash books" in the 1970s, whose information was gathered by means that, IMHO, clearly violated the law. But the top folks at FCC decided not to prosecute Dick Bash nor those who helped him, so the books made it possible for those willing to spend the money to see a pretty close replica of the actual exams. The second step was the creation of the Question Pool Committee and the VEC system in the early 1980s. This replaced the work of paid Federal government employees with that of unpaid amateur volunteers. I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator system is so 'bad.' I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact questions and answers that will be on the test. In the pre-Bash-book days, a prospective licensee did not have access to the exact Q&A. There were study guides which indicated the general areas of information that would be on the test, and in some cases the test followed the study guide closely, but that was not the same thing as seeing the exact questions and answers. For example, the study guide showed some Ohm's Law problems in essay format. The actual test would show some Ohm's Law problems in multiple- choice format, but the prospective amateur did not know much else about the Ohm's Law problems on the test. The logical response in most cases was to learn enough Ohm's Law theory to be able to solve all sorts of problems in that subject. With the actual test questions available, it becomes possible to "study the test" rather than actually learning the material. In another thread in this NG, there have been discussions about using a class to teach the test rather than an understanding of the material. Which is better - learning and understanding the material, even at a basic level, or simply learning the test questions by rote memory, to be forgotten? It is composed of active fellow amateur radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be considered dummies. That's better than having questions and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur radio nor trying to get more licensees. Again, the perceived problem is not the VEC system itself, but the fact of public Q&A. Note too that the Question Pool Committee is, in practice, almost as much of a "faceless few" as the FCC was. VECs do not make up the questions and answers directly. Nor do they make any decisions on the process other than selecting specific questions for each exam, to insure randomness. They only proctor the exams. All in all, I think the VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on what to ask in every test element. I agree that within their limitations they are doing a good job. The problem is the limitations they have to work under. Those limitations are not of their doing. There have also been a few *documented* instances of irregularities in the administration of exams by specific VEC groups. (See FCC Enforcement Letters). It is even better when one considers the first word in their description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two decades (give or take). It's good to see you saluting and thanking them, Len. Particularly considering your criticism of certain VECs in the past. What changed your mind? Volunteer examiners go back a lot longer than the 1980s. They date back at least to the 1930s, when the Class C license was created for those who lived too far from an FCC exam point, or who were disabled. Later (1954), all routine exams for Novice and Technician licenses, as well as the Conditional, were done by volunteer examiners. My first amateur radio license exams were given by a volunteer examiner, K3NYT, when I was a little past my 13th birthday. I realize now that it took him some time and effort to make the exam sessions possible for me. That Novice license of 1967 opened up the world of amateur radio to me, and led to a career in electrical engineering. And yes, I thanked him. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com