Dave aronagence contiues
 

DeLorean wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:35:48 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
What are we to make of it--that people generally take the easiest
route to something?
When one is dealing with a governmental licensing
bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route
is offered by the rule *makers* for each license
class.
That's correct, but almost everyone *starts* with a license class having
less difficult requirements. You did it. I did it. Jim did it.

so what?

The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed
for the present licensing structure.
...and I haven't blamed them. They took the exams which were available
to them.
bull**** Dave

you blamed them 2 layers back in this thread
How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?
Now you're asking something different.
no he is not

Such a General Class licensee
could easily be considered to have learned less material since less
material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that.

so what? that is not the same as inferior Dave your use of langage is
slipshod


The twit has some nerve calling anyone's use of "langage" slipshod. He
can't fully understand anything he tries to read and his use of
"langage" is so slipshod that most folks can't understand what he
writes. In short, Mark is a twit.

Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route
to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered
to be the most intelligent. :-)
The easiest way might not be the fastest way--and mice don't take
amateur radio exams.
meaning you don't value intelgence you value only your hazing ritual

Mark snipes with,
"Dave your use of langage is slipshod"
"you don't value intelgence "

Mark, you idiot. Your spelling is slipshod and your "intelgence" is lacking.

My "aronagence contiues", does it? Mark "contiues" to post as a
mindless twit. He repeatedly defines "inferior".


Dave K8MN

One way to promote learning of code (long)
 

John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I became a member of the
Old Old Timer's Club 15 years ago. I've been a
ham for 55 years.

Cecil:
Quit rubbing it in!

A year from now I'll be 70 years old. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW...

I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW.
I don't see much difference between an electronic
keyer and a PC.

Ignoring someone because of how their CW is generated is just as prejudiced as
ignoring someone because they didn't have to pass a code test...

That's the point I was trying to make.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history!

Like AM?
--

The invention of the motorcycle did not make the bicycle obsolete. The
invention of the car did not make walking obsolete. Power boats did not
make all sailboats obsolete, although many sailboats were replaced by
power boats.

People still *run* marathons, even though they'd go a lot faster with a
lot less effort if roller skates were used.

AM did not become obsolete when SSB was invented. Morse Code did not
become obsolete when voice and RTTY were invented.

There will still be people who CHOOSE to use Morse if it's presented to
them
as fun and they're allowed to make the choice without intimidation (and
without berating them)

And if there's available spectrum and other Morse Code operators.

And if there isn't it will be because not enough people are interested in
using that mode.
(I'm not trying to encourage its demise, just stating the evolutionary
reality.)

Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be
hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill.

True ...

The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer,

Absurd ...

Not at all.

ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at
some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less.

IMHO, that's a rather shortsighted view. Consider this statement:

ALL that a written test does is indicate that you can pick out
at least the minimum required number of correct multiple-choice
answers in a test where all of
the questions and answers are freely available beforehand.
Nothing more, nothing less.

The focus on the nature of the test (multiple choice) and memorization
is specious and contrived to depricate the test. I'm beginning study
for a private pilot's license ... and the written test for that is multiple
choice, too. In the aviation field there doesn't seem to be a group
of old-timers who bemoan the nature of the current test and denigrate
newbies - in fact, I see AOPA and everyone I've encountered doing
their best to encourage newcomers because they recognize that the
future of general aviation depends on it.


In addition, as long as you don't cheat, FCC does not care how you
get the right answers, nor which questions you get right or wrong.
They don't care if you memorized, or if you guessed, or if you
really understand the material. They also don't care if you have a Ph.D
in EE, etc. - you get the same test.

Yea ... what else did you expect. Minimum entry requirements are just
that. Doesn't matter where you start from. As long as you can pass
the minimum requirements you get in. Hopefully you continue to learn
and grow.


[snip to related material]

The point I was making is that *passing the written tests* is/was a
very
different thing from passing the Morse Code tests, particularly if
someone
had some background in electricity or electronics. Which is much more
likely today than someone having background in Morse Code.

So??? That only goes to support the fact that Morse is essentially
unimportant in today's real world. (not to say you can't still find it
fun or that you shouldn't use it)

I was talking night before last with Ed Hare - remember the 3 page study
guide that he had for his novice test and compare that, as he does, to
the
200+ pages of "Now You're Talking" - there has been NO "dumbing down"
for
entry into ham radio. How anyone could assert with honesty and a
straight
face that 200+ pages of material is "dumbed down" compared to 3 pages is
something that simply is unfathomable.

I have debunked W1RFI's "200 page" myth several times - including in
person. I wish you'd been there for that one, Carl.

Despite your assertions, I don't believe that Ed's assertions can be
legitimately debunked.

[more snip for brevity]

The "equalizer" idea is simply to point out that almost all hams who
try to learn it
start at the same place. That's not true of the written exams.

Again - SO???

Testing for licensure is not about "making folks work for it" or the liberal
Democrat idea of "equalizing outcomes" (as opposed to equal OPPORTUNITY).

The equal opportunity is the opportunity to take the prescribed test - no
matter WHERE
you started from - and, if you pass the test, get a license.

Testing should not be some sort of "social enginneering" exercise, but
should ONLY
involve the required demonstration of meeting the established minimum
requirements
for licensure.

73,
Carl - wk3c

One way to promote learning of code (long)
 

Mike,

GREAT response - really illustrates the reality!

Unfortunately, too many people fall into your 2nd explaination (just want to
bitch - and keep newbies out of "their" bands)

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
Cecil Moore wrote in news:_9goh.25784$QU1.5684
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

wrote:
Nobody really knows how "hard" the old exams really were, because
they're not available for comparison.

But the ARRL License Manuals are still around, e.g.
The unit of resistance is the ______.
A. Volt
B. Amp
C. Watt
D. Ohm

I have in front of me a Coleco Radio Amateur Question and Answer
License guide from 1956, the "golden Age of Amateur Radio"

The booklet is a 6 by 8.5 inch paperback of 32 pages. It notes on
the cover that it contains:
FCC-type Multiple Choice Questions
Typical FCC-Type Practice Exams
Questions Grouped by Subjects
Novice, Technician and General CLasses

Let us take a look at some of the questions.....

1. The Instrument used to measure resistance is:

a. wattmeter
b. ammeter
c. voltmeter
d. ohmmeter

2 The unit of power is:

a. the ampere
b. the coulomb
c. the watt
d. the joule

3. The third harmonic of 350 c.p.s. is:

a. 117 c.p.s.
b. 250 c.p.s.
c. 700 c.p.s.
d. 1050 c.p.s.

4. The instrument used to measure current is:

a. wattmeter
b. ammeter
c. voltmeter
d. ohmmeter

5. The frequency of a sine wave is:

a. the time in seconds for one cycle
b. the amplitude of the wave
c. the number of cycles per second
d. the angle of rotation


gawsh-awful simple stuff there.

Some are a little less elementary, but still not too bad...

17.The Q of a resonant circuit is the:

a. inductive reactance divided by the resistance
b. inductance divided by the resistance
c. circulating current divided by the capacitance
d. circulating current divided by the inductance

18. If a 6 henry choke is connected in series with a 12 henry choke,
(with no mutual inductance between them) the total inductance is

a. 4 henries
b. 3 henries
c. 36 henries
d. 18 henries

Here is a formula...

20. The formula for the reactance of an inductor is: (in the form that
can be handled by newsgroup text)

a. 2pi/fL
b. 1/2Pi*fL
c. 1/2*fL
d. 2Pi*fL/2

a couple more formulae, then back to some "cyphering"

22. What is the total resistance of one 10 ohm resistor and two 20 ohm
resistors all connected in series

a. 50 ohms
b. 5 ohms
c. 30 ohms
d. 45 ohms

Okay, we move on to Vacuum tube questions. I'll not go too much into
these, as I suspect most of us would agree that vacuum tubes aren't
terribly relevant to getting a license these days...

28, The maximum safe heat radiation capability of the plate of a tube is
indicated by the following rating:

a. transconductance expressed in mhos
b. maximum plate dissapation expressed in watts
c. plate resistance expressed in ohms
d. grid bias expressed in volts

okay - now we get to one of the dreaded "schematics"

30. Draw a schematic diagram of a pentode audio power amplifier stage
with an output coupling transformer and load resistor, showing suitable
instruments connected in the secondary for measurement of the audio
frequency voltage and current; and name each component part.

analysis he

Most of the components are named for us. The output transformer with a
load resistor and a voltmeter and ammeter are no-brainers. Various
things like the screen, grid, and cathode resistors are known even to
a tube neophyte as myself. In truth, I didn't think of the bypass caps.
I suppose I would have gotten this one wrong. But I suspect if I was
taking the test in those days, I would have had more exposure to hollow
state technology. Certainly I would get that one now if I were to take
it a second time.


I don't feel like typing much more. Hopefully I've made my point.
And if anyone missed it, my point is that the tests given in the so
called "golden age" of Amateur radio were definitely NOT harder than the
tests administered today. Of course those rascals from Coleco could have
just been pulling our legs, making a booklet that was not relevent to
the tests as they really were at that time. Kinda doubt that though.

So what really happened? My guess is that they only *seemed* harder
to those who took them - at the time they took them. A lot of people are
not very experienced when they are starting out - otherwise they
wouldn't be starting out. Those tests might just seem plenty difficult
to a real newbie.

So the newbie passes the test. Newbie learns a lot over the years,
and eventually becomes an old timer. As an old timer, the ex newbie
forgets that so much of their learning took place between those first
tests, and what he/she eventually ended up with as a knowledge base. So
the old time starts to think that all hams should be tested according to
the old timer's knowledge level.

Or than again, maybe they just want to bitch.

(Sorry all, for the reasoned response - I realize that it doesn't belong
in this group - heheh.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
ink.net...
in a rerun, wrote:
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am
[snip to the part I didn't see since Len's rantings go into my killfile]

[in case you've forgotten...possibly since the NCI web
site didn't appear to know it until after a week had
passed after the FCC announcement...just a deduction]

You often make poor deductions, Leonard.

Yes ... he does. It wasn't a week after the Public Notice, but a couple of
days, before it was posted to the NCI website (and a link to the Report and
Order was posted within 24 hours of its release).

I was on Maui for 10 days on a combination of business and vacation, but
modern technology (my EVDO card) alllowed me to access the internet
wirelessly from my notebook :-)

73,
Carl - wk3c

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

The falacy of this whole argument is that current written tests are "easier"
than the old written tests.

It is only in the faded memory of old timers that the old written tests were
"harder"
.... as has been pointed out, they probably *seemed* hard to the (then
newbie)
old timers when they took them, but from all evidence presented it is simply
inaccurate
to conclude that they were, in fact, harder.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Dave Heil wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?

Now you're asking something different. Such a General Class licensee
could easily be considered to have learned less material since less
material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that.

Certainly I can see that - times change. But should the
new General Class licensee be forever relegated to the
untouchable "nocode CBer" caste simply because of the
timing of his birth?

What if he has a PhD in RF engineering to go with his
brand new General Class Amateur Radio License? What if
he is ex-military and can do 40 wpm in Morse code? Isn't
that worth anything or is he predestined to be forever
shunned by older amateur radio operators because his
exam was easier through no fault of his own?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
The falacy of this whole argument is that current written tests are "easier"
than the old written tests.

My Conditional exam in 1952 was certainly harder
for me than my Extra exam in 2000. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
The falacy of this whole argument is that current written tests are
"easier"
than the old written tests.

My Conditional exam in 1952 was certainly harder
for me than my Extra exam in 2000. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Perhaps, Cecil, but you're omitting the fact that you got an EE degree
between those two events :-)

Don't feed the trolls :-)

73,
Carl - wk3c

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW...

I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW.
I don't see much difference between an electronic
keyer and a PC.

Ignoring someone because of how their CW is generated is just as prejudiced as
ignoring someone because they didn't have to pass a code test...

Kind of like sending Morse Code so poorly that a Technician with a
computer reader couldn't copy it.

I think Cecil was making a point, not actually presenting a method of
operation.

Aaron J, keeper of the Morse Myths, welcome back.