On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 14:20:30 EDT, Klystron wrote:

If the size of the pool were increased, would that satisfy your
objection? Given a finite body of information, there are only so many
questions that can be formulated from it to test an applicant's
knowledge.

The national Multistate Bar Exam, one element of each state's bar
exam, is composed of 200 multiple choice questions. Half of those
come from the published "Green Book", a compilation of 500 Q&As, the
equivalent of the Question Pool Study Guide. The other half are
composed on the fly by a "faceless committee" for each semi-annual
exam (all given on the same day nationwide). Thus, 20% of the Q&As on
each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the
Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested.

The answer choices of each question usually consist of two that are
obviously incorrect and two more that appear to be very close, and
the process is really to identify the better of the two. A score of
130 = 65% or better is the minimum required in most states. In
California, acknowledged to have the toughest test, a score of 152 =
76% is an absolute pass where performance on the other elements of the
exam are not even taken into account.

Granted that the level of knowledge required for passing the Bar exam
is greater than the level of knowledge required for passing an amateur
exam, the key factor in both is not the size of the published pool,
but should be the knowledge of the examinee.

As we were told in Bar Exam review courses, the correct answer is
right there in front of you, and all you really have to know is "a",
"b", "c" , or "d".
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 16:00:50 EDT, Phil Kane
wrote:

Thus, 20% of the Q&As on
each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the
Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested.

Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of
those published. The ratio of published to non-published questions is,
of course, 50%/50%.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil Kane wrote:
[...]
Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of
those published.
[...]


Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive.

I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published
questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100
questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We
have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over
10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an
acceptable solution?

--
Klystron

"Klystron" wrote

Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive.

I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published
questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100
questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We
have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over
10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an
acceptable solution?

Objection overruled. Now sit down at your rig and "work" someone in the cw
portion of the band... at 25 wpm. You already have your license; enjoy it.

;-)

for my part I prefer the flexibility of using my equipment how I want to,
not how a computer tells me I should.

Well put Ivor. I feel the same way.

My most recent 2m radio (Yaesu FT1802) has automatic repeater shift, which I
have been forced to turn off as it tries to shift the TX on a few
frequencies which due to local convention, I require to use simplex.
Automatic features are great, especially if you can switch them off )

--
Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL
FISTS #9666
CW Ops QRP Club #753
Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group
www.mncarg.org

On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck " wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In . com writes:
The classic
'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work?

Another angle on the same challenge would be who would be motivated to
develop a vendor-independent standard, that would actually be widely
adopted by vendors, to implement this? Witness the various permutations
of DC power connectors (with amateur radio emergency groups driven to
distraction trying to establish at least local standards). Witness the
inability to develop working, vendor-independent, interoperable
standards for high-speed radio modems (9600 baud and above) that could
be found in commonly-available commercial amateur radio gear. Amateur
radio equipment manufacturers appear to prefer to differentiate their
products by unique, and unfortunately incompatible, means of interfacing
and control, with few economic incentives to standardize with other
brands.

I think there are a couple of reasons for that:

1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of
standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig.

2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it
means less sales

the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When
the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and
Elecraft, do this already.

Will your amateur radio that is programmed to recognize band edges and
allowed modes be able to be modified via reasonably available tools and
techniques for the indefinite future? Examples that may cause me to
think otherwise include:

- Most amateur radio equipment in the past couple of decades, for
economic reasons, tends to use custom bit-masked EEPROM's to
implement their internal programming, something that would not be
economical to duplicate by third-party manufacturers. Though amateur
radio equipment would seem to be covered by the Magnuson Moss Act
(i.e., availability of parts on the open market for some period of
time after the end of manufacture, preservation of warranty even if
third party parts and service are used, etc.), I also recall letters
to QST complaining about repair depots simply being unable to fix
amateur radio equipment, some of which was less than 10 years old.

Isn't that true of almost any consumer electronics?

We hams are the exception that proves the rule. We tend to keep rigs
in working order for a very long time, compared to, say, VCRs,
computers or TV sets.

Note also that hams like N4PY have come up with aftermarket software
improvements for rigs like Ten Tec.

- I recall a legal dust-up from some years ago, discussed on the
newsgroups, where Motorola was cracking down on efforts to
reverse-engineer radio interfaces and the software that is used to
modify the configurations of their radios. Regardless of whether
Motorola was taking a legally defensible position, if the software is
proprietary, or unable to run on current computers, or otherwise
unavailable or unusable in some way, you may be left holding the bag.

The idea is that you're either supposed to pay Motorola prices, or
replace the radios.

Consider the problem with VCR's and the recent change in the start of
Daylight Savings Time in the U.S., and no way to modify them.

That reminds me, I have a bunch of things to reset....

Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature
would be part of the user interface.

This would appear to offer more promise of future compatibility and
programmability, though might still run afoul of legal problems with
regard to reverse engineering or otherwise developing openly-published
specifications and third-party software tools. Whether or not these
positions would be legally defensible might not prevent manufacturers
from attempting to chill the open market for these tools via
intimidation tactics. Also, how long would it take for software-defined
radios to propagate out to the amateur radio community in significant
enough numbers to make a meaningful impact?

Good point! But the ability to add and change filters by firmware/
software methods is a major reason to go SDR.

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.

I think that's the important distinction. It's also related to a
classic conundrum in developing safety systems in other fields.

Yup - been there, done that.

I would
welcome an amateur radio that had fault protection to keep me from
blowing the finals if I accidentally transmitted into no load or an
infinite load. I'm not so sure about an amateur radio that would keep
me from transmitting out of band or in an unauthorized mode if
assumptions about what constituted "out of band" or "authorized mode"
changes, or if I find myself in a true, bona-fide, communications
emergency.

One way to implement such protection is to have an override switch
that must be activated for each exception. Or just a "feature off"
switch.

The Usenet newsgroup comp.risks (aka, "Risks Digest") has touched on
many of these types of issues. For example, while a rev-limiter on a
motor would increase safety by preventing a blown engine, putting speed
limiters on automobiles to keep them within speed limits may increase
accidents by denying the necessary amount of power to get you out of a
reasonably unanticipated emergency situation while passing or merging.

I can't think of a reasonable real-world situation where an RPM
limiter would cause problems.

Speed limiters, though, have practical problems. The max speed would
have to be set higher than the highest legal speed limit in the
country, so we're talking about 80-85 MPH. Since the car doesn't know
if it's on a superhighway or in a school zone, the practical effect
would be rather small.

An airplane whose controls would keep you from overstressing the
airframe, or flying into restricted airspace, might also keep you from
making appropriate emergency maneuvers, where landing alive with your
crew and passengers, but with an airframe you have just end-of-lifed, or
under fighter escort to be whisked off to a friendly interview with the
authorities, might be far preferable to the alternatives.

There's also the problem of what happens if the protection system
fails.

It seems to me that the best implementation for ham rigs would be a
firmware feature that you could turn off, and update as needed by
downloads.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
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.


That is pretty darn clever. Does it have any special characters for
backing up/corrections? I don't know if you've ever done it or not, but
I suspect that it would be really easy to drop into "cw speak", which
might be a little strnge for us native psk'ers. In any event, props go
out to Elecraft for an innovative solution.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Posted by on Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:23:33 EST

On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of
standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig.

STANDARDIZATION, nearly all of it industry standards,
make up nearly everything in the component parts of any
manufactured and nearly every home-built radio equipment
for at least the last half century. Everything from fasteners
(nuts and bolts) made to English and metric industry
standards, vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, inductors,
transistors and diodes (of the 'registered' 2N and 1N prefixes).
There's industry standards on aluminum and magnesium
alloys, even some on castings of same. There's industry
standards on rack panels even though that was once
started by AT&T for the telephone infra-structure. There's
industry standards on wire (American Wire Gauge ruling
through the market demand)...although those standards v.
government specifications blur for heavier guages.

The 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10% logarithmic-sequence of parts
values has become a de facto standard because of its
ease in equating the parts' tolerances. The 'UHF' series
of common RF connectors on amateur radios was
originally a military specification but has become a de
facto standard through its incorporation; the military
doesn't use it now, hasn't for years, the patents on it
have run out and it is a relatively cheap coaxial connector
compared to other, better coaxial connectors.

2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it
means less sales

Aeronautical Radio, Inc (ARINC) was once solely a
commercial company engaged in providing air-ground
communications with aircraft before our government
got its act together and created the air traffic control
system. They still do that but ARINC is better
known to commercial avionics equipment makers as
an industry Standards Group that, by common
agreement of members, establishes standards on all
civilian avionics equipment. Those cover everything
from cases, their mounting equipment, even the control
wiring with specified connectors and specific connections
for control functions. ARINC standards have been
acceptable to manufacturers and users for fifty years.
The civilian avionics market is smaller than the USA
amateur radio market.

The 'D-Star' VHF-UHF standard, currently under large
promotion by Icom, may or may not become a
standard. A lot of opposition to that standard is from
US amateurs because it originated in Japan and was
conceived and tested there. shrug

'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to
receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use'
standard and a recommendation by the IARU. Yet
most are under the impression that all S Meters are
calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely
report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-)

Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers,
are designed and made for stand-alone use.
Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna-
connector devices or different speaker boxes and
other audio processing things. The external
connections are standardized as to power input
(AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure
or DC power from the auto industry), computer
interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those
are included for read-out or computer control, and
'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna
tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by
independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker,
morse key connections still aren't standardized
fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows
more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-)

I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan
automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting.
Allocations of amateur frequency and modes for same
aren't locked to any standard but the common-agreement
terms of the ITU-R. Sub-band allocations are always at
the discretion of the national radio regulating authorities
and may change at any time dependent on that nation's
politicking for sub-band use. :-)

I've seen a LOT of different human factors documents and
guides, but have yet to see a specific arrangement for
manual control functions on any consumer electronics
product. The 'need' for that seems to be no different for
remote control via computer. Computer interfaces are
very standardized now but that industry has had a
quarter century to work those out; they evolved in
the same manner as all standards did. Some have
disappeared such as the 5 1/4" floppy and the
'Centronics' connector (Amphenol Blue-Ribbon); the 8"
floppy and CP/M OS disappeared so early that few
computerists of today know they once existed. :-)
PC operating systems are standardized on the MS
Windows package through agressive marketing and
buyers agreeing to that despite the 'Linux' alternative.

De facto 'standards' will come about through a
combination of manufacturer's marketing efforts and
public acceptance...plus other manufacturers
offering 'compatible' things to work with the apparent
market-leader that started the de facto standard.
That's how it was "forty years ago" and that's how it
will continue to be. shrug

AF6AY

wrote in message
oups.com...

The idea is that you're either supposed to pay Motorola prices, or
replace the radios.


Motorola just announced the intent to purchase Yaesu Musen.

The Man in the Maze
QRS at Baboquivari Peak, AZ

--
Iitoi

On Nov 5, 4:03?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
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

You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the
Morse
into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device.

That is pretty darn clever.

Yup.

Of course it means you have to know how to send Morse Code in order to
do PSK31 or RTTY without a keyboard, but still.....

Does it have any special characters for
backing up/corrections?

Check the manual. It's interesting reading.

I don't know if you've ever done it or not, but
I suspect that it would be really easy to drop into "cw speak",
which
might be a little strnge for us native psk'ers.

O RLY?

In any event, props go
out to Elecraft for an innovative solution.

They've got a lot of them. Their manuals are worth a read
just for the ingenuity that went into the rig designs.

I got a chance to use a KX1 on Field Day this year. Amazing
little rig. Complete with accessory paddles, it's about the size of a
stack of QSL cards.

73 de Jim, N2EY