Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
From: "an old friend" on Fri, Jan 19 2007 10:42 pm
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was. I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation. Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some could send it "perfectly." realy Len as I understand It was ONCE vital to the ARS in 1908 certainly but somewhere betwen that date and 1950 that ended Yes, it very definitely ended - insofar as REALITY of the times is concerned. I can't speak with life experience about 1908 but, in 1950 I was a Junior in High School and had already fooled around with "radio" in various forms, some WW2 surplus conversions, some homebuilt. 1950 is 56 years ago. :-) By 1950 many things in "radio" had happened. The military networks had converted to teleprinter for the vast bulk of long-distance communications on HF during WW2 and, with US military now all over the globe, a definite "Cold War" needed quicker comms. The public had gotten a taste of "on the scene" radio in 1940 with Edward R. Murrow's broadcasts from London DURING the "Blitz." Television broadcasting was exploding in scope and availability of TV receivers all over the nation. The US Army had already proved the viability of using the moon as a reflector of radio waves ("Project Diana" in 1946). US Public Safety radio services were busy converting to VHF FM voice for police, fire departments, ambulances, state patrols. AT&T was busy with the first trials of long-distance microwave relay of television and hundreds of voice circuits on a single microwave link. Single-channel SSB had come into reality courtesy of the new Strategic Air Command's need for reliable long-distance voice communications for their bombers...a different version of multi-voice- channel "SSB" in worldwide use since the 1930s. Metallurgists and physicists were busy trying to produce a new gadget called a "transistor" in quantity, having to invent all sorts of things needed to make them economically feasible. The experimenters in crystal growth were beginning to be successful in making large, pure, man-made crystals of quartz and those methods would also be used in making germanium and silicon ultra-pure later. FM audio broadcasting was expanding under new regulations and a US realignment of allocations above 30 MHz. Standardization of FM stereo broad- casts was still being worked out and the NTSC was being called together again to work out color TV broadcasting standards; the "fight" between CBS and RCA methods had come to an impasse (industry didn't really like either one). Radar was, of course, already proven and was expanding in civilian applications. Raytheon, in some lab trials with old S-Band magnetrons, discovered that one could heat foods with controlled microwave energy and the first of the "Radaranges" had been born (they would - foolishly? - sell that concept and brand name to Amana). Civil airways communications were close to standardizing worldwide on the US military pioneering of VHF communications and radionavigation systems...already given a baptism of fire with the Berlin Blockade of 1948 and the intense Allied air cargo supply effort to keep that city alive. Air to ground radiotelemetry was already being used during tests of new aircraft and was being adapted for missle testing and guidance (using mostly captured German V2 rockets). The old IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) L-band transponder system for aircraft of later WW2 was being improved and standardization for civilian applications being done by a newly-re-formed ARINC. The USN was busy pioneering TACAN at L-band and was having success with that (especially for carrier-based aircraft); TACAN would eventually be adopted for the military and a civilian form, DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) was being tested. Civilian radio- navigation testing of VOR (Very high frequency Omnidirectional Range) was successful, an easy- to-use directional navigation aid that would work in small general aviation aircraft. The maritime world wasn't happy with LORAN so some other systems were being tried out such as DECCA. The USN would eventually prove out the prototype that would become GPSS for the whole world. Up-and-coming UK science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke (an engineer on RAF work with radar-assisted landing in WW2) had already written up a three-satellite worldwide radio communications relay system in Wireless World magazine and lots of folks were beginning to have deep thoughts about that...no worries about "MUF" or other HF propagation quirks since it wouldn't depend on ionospheric bounce. In 1950 the ARRL was busy promoting the glory and majesty of the "epitome" of radio communications, on-off keying CW as "vital" to maintain a "pool of trained radio operators" in the USA via ham radio. Oh, and a very few smart amateur radio hobbyists (who were also engineers and educators at their day jobs) were trying to explain SSB theory in the pages of QST. There was great resistance to this new-fangled SSB in the rank and file of amateur brass pounders then, and apparently there still is... :-) Okay, so it is 57 years later. What do we have in the world of "radio?" Communication satellites are busy working 24/7, their equatorial orbit spaces already FILLED, supplying us with speed-of-light comms over carriers of TV, voice, data, and the part of the international backbone of the Internet. Land-based microwave radio relay is being replaced by fiber optic cable handling digitized anything at GigaHertz rates...under the oceans too. One in three Americans now has a cell phone, a little two- way radio tied into the telephone system, something never really envisioned in 1950 despite the early "walkie-talkies." Cell phones can now contain digital cameras and little calculators, play hours of digitally-recorded sound. All of that enabled by the enormous technology explosion of the solid- state ear beginning about 1960. Digital TV is now a reality, both broadcast as well as cable. We have stereo FM broadcast, even multi-channel audio with "storecast." "Shortwave" broadcasters are transmitting digital audio on HF, something pooh- poohed as "impossible" by certain "radio experts." The old 500 KHz worldwide maritime emergency frequency is all but dead, replaced by Inmarsat- relayed GMDSS...a system conceived and approved by the maritime community. No more dramatic morse messages from stricken ships, now its a quick, almost-anyone-can-use-it data message that will be picked up worldwide. GPS is, of course, a proven reality and many different models of receivers can be purchased at consumer electronics stores. The aviation community is considering replacing the 1955-standardized-worldwide civil airways radionavigation with GPS, possibly a hybrid using microwaves for the approach guidance. RFID is now a reality, able to track everything at store portals and, with implants, animals and people. Private boat owners can add HF SSB to their harbor and inland VHF radio equipment, many models, even some made entirely in the USA (SGC in Puget Sound), no big "test" needed. Almost every long-distance truck operator has at least one CB radio on board and that has been so for decades. Police and fire department personnel can carry VHF or UHF two-way radios on their person for instant communications. In some police departments their VHF and UHF radios have two-way data transmission capability via "computer" terminal equipment in patrol cars. WLANs (Wireless Local Area Networks) have been a reality for a decade, used in large offices and businesses spread over a large area, even in factories (with all their inherent RFI from motors, etc.). Homes can be networked wirelessly. Cordless telephones, once operating solely on 49 MHz, have expanded to the 5 GHz ISM band (once a seeming impossibility a half century prior) and with security through on-line digital encryption. Anyone watching team sports on TV can see the ubiquitous Motorola logo on headsets of coaches, little wireless two-way radios that are similar to the $50 per pair FRS and GMRS handie-talkies sold in consumer electronics stores. The US military has highly secure digital radios (low VHF range up through mid-UHF, almost jam- proof) for small-unit land comms (voice and/or data) and in relay with air and sea support; they've had that since 1989. The military has long had the 225-400 MHz band for AM airborne voice comms and has peripheral equipment to adapt it for secure digital voice and data. Of course, the military has had precision GPS since 1980 (they pioneered and paid for it). NASA has radio equipment for tracking and receiving data (including imagery) from very distant space probes and, in the late 1960s, enabled us to see the first humans set foot on the moon in real time, audio and video. Radio even relayed real- time biometric data from astronauts on their way to and from the moon. US submarines still use VLF radio to communicate while submerged, all using encrypted data (not morse code)...very slow speed data but also very secure and automatically recorded at the ship. In early 2007 the FCC will finally END the "need" to test for morse code skill to get any amateur radio license. They did this despite the insistence of olde-tymers that one "HAD" to test for morse in order to "qualify" to enter the "service" of US amateur radio. I'm not sure where and what these olde-tymers imagine US ham radio is, but they just don't realize the entire rest of the radio world has long since dropped morse code as any requirement for communications. Amateur radio has always been a HOBBY, nothing more, nothing less. Morsemanship "vital" to the nation? No way. Morsemanship "necessary" for emergency work? No way. Morsemanship "needed to provide a pool of trained radio operator for national defence?" No way. Morsemanship "necessary" for government licensing purposes? No way, even back in 1990. Morsemanship an absolute must for ham radio? No, that was always a figment of the old morsemen's imagination, implanted there by ancient tales of emotional glory of the distant PAST. It is excellent that the FCC is finally getting around to modernizing the US amateur radio regulations. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
From: Steve Bonine on Fri, Jan 19 2007 8:20 pm
The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care. Good post, but I have to dispute a few things in your paragraph. For example, on tests and testing. In "today's environment" the "students" seem to be about as willing and knowledge-hungry as when I was in high school. [graduating class of 1951...:-)] To further define that, SOME students cared and SOME students didn't much give a snit, most of those in between varied considerably. I can see the same basic attitudes of invididuals now as back then...if one strips off the veneer of what is/was social behavior in their peer group. [that seems to cloud many folks observation capability...of those who had a different social environment/mores/ethos]. As a working design engineer for a long time, I've NEVER questioned the "why" of Ohm's Law of Resistance. It simply WAS. It's just one of the many laws of radio-related physics. Yes, I suppose I could write up a bunch of stuff on Ohm and the "why" of his "law" since I once HAD to learn that at some instructor's insistence (he never did any design work himself, just "taught", but all had to comply in order to pass his course). In 50+ years NOBODY has asked me about the "why" of Ohm's Law of Resistance. That amounts to hundreds of knowledgeable folks. Ohm's law just IS. More radio-related is the equation for resonance. [frequency=1/(2 pi (L*C)^0.5), in units of Hertz, Henries, Farads] The "why" of that? I would have to research it, spend two weeks or so at that, all spinning my wheels on rote work that has NO intrinsic worth. I KNOW it works because I've proved it to myself over and over and over again in actual calculation, construction and test. It is one of those things that just IS. Memorize it, engrave it on the synapses, and go to work USING it. It is a reliable equation and works every time. "Ohm's Law" is a very, very simple equation using only three variables and not one single trans- cendental function. It's almost elementary algebra. To some licensed amateurs it might seem to be "rocket science." :-) How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do. The material in the US amateur radio test is up to the FCC to decide. The FCC grants the licenses, not the "amateur community." The FCC was never chartered to be an academic organization agency. From my observation, most of the folks "perceiving the goal of the exam" are usually working from a base line of their OWN knowledge and experience; i.e., expecting all to be "as good as they." :-) If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful remaining knowledge for most people. On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of radio. Again, the function of the FCC is simply to regulate all US civil radio. The FCC grants the licenses and they have the task of deciding what is necessary for Their test. To save taxpayer dollars, the FCC created privatized testing via COLEMs and VECs. For US amateur radio the VEC create the questions and answers which are then approved/disproved by the FCC. By regulation the VEC are required to be already-licensed radio amateurs. Presumably those volunteer examiners know something about radio and the general knowledge base or background of those taking license tests. :-) It would seem more logic to steer the discussion onto the VEC Question Pool Committee rather than to blabber about What Should Be (or What Should Not). The VEC QPC determine the questions and answers and approval seems to be pro-forma with the FCC. What seems to be the case on that subject in here is merely Word War III on licensing and an ignition point for yet one more conflagration of the Angry Insistent (on Their way). In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law? Good question. :-) One such inhabitant of this Din of Inequity (K4YZ) once stated he "deserved an extra" because of his "ability to tune in a signal!" :-) In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. I disagree with that considerably. The expenditure of anyone on their hobby is up to the individual hobbyist. Being aware of several hobbies done by folks I am acquainted with, such expenditure of personal time and effort varies and none of it is compensated for by anyone but the hobbyist. It's an old, trite phrase in here that "all must dedicate themselves and work hard" for an amateur radio license, any class. Again, I'll ask "why?" Who is going to compensate those ham radio hobbyists? Will they get cheers and bouquets from their fellow hobbyists for such "dedication?" I think not. At best they would get a few words of approval if in person. In here they would receive yet-another flame war trigger of antagonistic comment, of allegedly "not doing as good" as the flamer. This "dedication" thing seems to be an imaginary construct existing in different forms in each individual. Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a craft, a guild, a union, or any occupation thing. The hobby is NOT necessary for the survival of the nation nor one whose primary concern is public safety. [like all citizen organizations, they CAN be of aid in emergencies but that is NOT a prerequisite in the amateur radio regulations] Does everyone have to be "dedicated" to something? Or can't they just go and enjoy the hobby without meeting someone else's idea of "standards?" There are exactly two choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the hobby die. The requirements were changed. I differ on that. Requirements EVOLVE as I see them. They evolve to fit many, many things but, foremost, I think is that they should fit the present-day and the immediate future. There was nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that mandated amateur radio to preserve and protect the old ways of amateur radio. Nothing about preservation of "tradition." The agency granting all amateur radio licenses in the US exists solely to regulate all US civil radio...it is NOT a "club," NOT some agency beholden to anyone specific or any organization. The FCC should be responsive to ALL US citizens, on ANY radio service it regulates. For the most part I think they are just that. The FCC and its ham radio license testing doesn't exist to provide emotional sustenance to the olde-tyme ham radio lifestylers who wish to preserve the environment as it was when they were first licensed. That's not evolution, just stagnation in favor of a small minority. That is FAR from "serving the nation," just ordinary selfishness. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in ups.com: Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not* be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc. So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards, forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test. Frankly, that is what I did for my Extra exam. That was much easier that trying to memorize the pool. OTOH some of the materail is only possible to learn by memorization the band edges, rules. I find the RF safety easy but then I have studied maxwells equation and reconzie element from them but the answer is an arbitary limit set by the FCC But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the correct answer out of the four supplied. I am so weary of that chestnut. I suppose real engineers don't consult design manuals for hints and ideas. me too In any field these days where it is necessary to prove that the worker has been exposed to a particular bit of knowledge, there will be a question pool. I've seen it for fields where a mistake can cost lives, such as study guides with question pools for electrical code work. I can get you the name of the book if you are skeptical. Its just how it is. And I can remember what I studied for on my tests - I believe that the pool does no harm, and a de facto pool has existed for many years. I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited space. My own thoughts on how Amateur radio should be organized are that the higher classes of license should be earned by time in grade, so to speak. I don't think that an extra should not know how to erect a HF antenna, or have no experience with operations in general - and the present system allows that. interesting diea Id coment more and negitively but I see your next para Of course, it is possible for the person to wait out the period of time before upgrading, but two things work against that - attrition due to lack of interest, and the likelyhood that a person who does simply wait it out without actually doing anything before upgrading is just going to be some sort of statistic. I would agree with your point. In this day of 100 percent appliance stations, Amateurs should build as much as they can. funny I have built a few thing I am found of vacutumed 6 m am unit I built from direction in CQ VHF was supposed to be based of a radio originaly published for use on an 5 m band with just the compents altered a bit to fit 6m And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed? I think that the old novice test could have been taught in a day also. Much of what is on the Technician test is common sense. As for needed background, I think that getting licensed, getting on the air and being elmered is what produces good hams. elmerd and not abused Too much of what I have heard from a lot of old time hams is disdain for newcomers - even now before the "great unwashed" come into the hobby. Fortunately nickle Extras such as myself will be there to help, not belittle or chase away. I think I'm going to go heat up the Garage and get to work on that mobile antenna I am building. Fun chat, Jim. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more detail. That's probably true. So do "we" want new hams to have a broad-shallow knowledge or a narrow-deep knowledge? Do "we" want Swiss Army Knife type hams or quantum electrodynamic photon experts? I suggest the former would be more valuable to the "service". Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades- and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the "service" than one who is ignorant of most trades and master of one. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Didit |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
wrote in news:1169319231.725804.81990
@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote in ups.com: Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample questions? I'll post them if you are interested. Always am. Here's a sample - lots more to come. From the 1976 ARRL License Manual: Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter . Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? I'm assuming that if the applicant recieves question number 32 or 33 that they also recieved number 31? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank (c) high voltage source (d) plate-current meter (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Yup, that was in the study guide that I looked at. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? did they get both questions again? These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that were on the old exams. The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf choke?" "what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and their names and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different format from the study guide. Is that supposed to be difficult? If you had a basic knowledge of the circuit, you would be able to guess at the part names - if you didn't already know.. The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small part of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was covered! How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more detail. Which of course means that the applicant knew what to concentrate on. sometimes I think that what a lot of Hams want is for the test questions to be both very much in depth, and completely random, with the questions produced on-site by the steely eyed proctor. ;^) Agreed on your point about the increased number of potential subjects to cover in the present day tests. I suspect the only way to reconcile that with your (testing wishes?) would be to concurrently test to the old time depth, with the increased subject matter? I doubt that quadrupleing the number of test questions would sit very well with anyone except those who don't have to take the tests any more. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
" wrote in
ps.com: From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910 KC4UAI wrote: Time to end the debate I suppose... Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer be required for ANY class license it seems after that date. Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal Register before January 24? [does that mean Miccolis can't understand what the ARRL wrote on its web page? :-)] Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not just the code test, either. [quick, someone put up a sign saying "wet floor"...a bunch of morsemen spilled their cask of sour grape mash!] Hi Jim, Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were higher than thay are now? Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion? In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book! All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool... After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions? Hello Mike. Sigh...it's an old, old story with humans...whatever someone did in their (relative) youth was ALWAYS "more difficult" than what anyone else does in the present time! :-) Don't know if you read the other post I wrote on the subject in a different thread, but I'll repeat it here. In trying to figure out just where this canard came from, sfter my investigation into why the "old tests were so much harder", I came to the conclusion that they weren't more difficult. So where the discrepancy? My theory is that when these old timers took the test, they weren't all that knowlegable. So those tests were harder for them. During their post-test lifetime, they learned more, and became more experienced. But they forgot that they learned all that stuff, and in the crankiness that middle aged men can fall prey to, suddnely expect that all the new hams should know aht they do now. I also suspect it doesn't matter. They don't dislike the new hams because they are dumb or less qualified, they dislike new things. I've heard that song played over and over again for as long as I've been an adult. The lyrics might change a bit from decade to decade but the tune is the same. :-) All these olde-tymers walked (uphill both ways) barefoot through the snow to take Their FCC exams. :-) Funny you should mention 1956. It's a clear time in my life experience. In the summer of 1956 I was at H&H Electronics in Rockford, IL, talking to Gene Hubbel, then a W9, later W7DI (now SK). H&H had just gotten in some new study guides. Can't remember the publisher but I categorized all such as "Q&A" books. Must have been at least three different publishers around that time. I looked through a couple of them (always a nice "feel" to a brand new book out of the carton). An "in-your-face" customer asked me if I was going to take a test? I replied, "already did it in March" and pulled out my small First 'Phone ID card. Sneering he then asked "which [Q&A book] did I use?" I said "None" and, disbelieving, he was about to get physical over that! [really, some folks wander around always looking for a fight] Gene distracted him before the small store got torn up. [not a big problem for me to handle physical stuff since I had been released from active Army duty in February] I had never used any Q&A book earlier that year because no store in town had them...had to settle for memorizing a borrowed copy of the FCC regs then published in loose-leaf format. Hard work, that, but it got done, I passed my First 'Phone but never "aced" it. Passing was good enough for me then. Didn't walk uphill both ways to Chicago, just rode the train 90 miles (shoes always on feet) to get there. shrug I looked in here nearly a decade ago and there were the "in-your-face" yahoos tawkin 'bout how HARD it was for them...in the 60s...in the 70s...etc. :-) The really rabid ones were going on about "the GROL ain't hard, not like the AMATEUR EXTRA!!!" :-) They apparently were too young to remember that a GROL didn't get created until around 1980 or so. It eventually became a lifetime thing, no renewals necessary. Wasn't so in 1956 when a First 'Phone took at least two hours to complete four different test parts, only one of which was multiple-choice. I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was. I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation. Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some could send it "perfectly." I don't really have any problems with levels of "ability" and goals such as DX awards or contesting. I do have problems with superior hams. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Feb 23 is the No-code date
Steve Bonine wrote in
m: wrote: I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited space. The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care. How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do. If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful remaining knowledge for most people. Up for a challenge? Memorize the Extra test, all 800 some questions in the pool. Then let's take a test. I'll give you the test question number, and you give me the letter answer. Since memorization presumably has nothing to do with the knowledge, this should be easy as the new applicants have in taking the so called dumbed down tests On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of radio. A lot of Technicians I know used the "Now You're Talking" books. Lots of stuff in there that prepares you for radio operations. When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story. But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods. Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true today. Where did you get that? I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years ago. In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law? Do you think that most new hams get their license, then hire people to put their stations together after they buy their "Yaecomwood" boxes? And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed? The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah, maybe they do. I'll bet those stupid Novices used to bother the good Hams too.... ;^) When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license. Then I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus learning enough theory to pass the General exam. I spent 6 months learning Morse code to 5 wpm, failing my first test. Aced the other tests. In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the hobby die. The requirements were changed. I respectfully disagree. Since we started a new program to recruit and test new hams (and upgrade old ones) we've been doing at least one a month. We're working well above attrition and the actuarial tables. That's hardly vanishingly small interest. That's just the start. We have a station for the new guys and gals to use, with a control Op if need be (usually me) to sit with 'em as they get their feet wet. Wanna know the best way to turn off new hams? Be grumpy and superior. Know for sure that you had a much harder time to earn your stripes than they did. Don't talk to them at club meetings. Make sure they know you're superior, so don't miss a chance to tell em that. With that sort of attitude you'll have a self fulfilling prophecy. Ham radio will die - all around you, wherever you go. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote in news:qoush.50660$wc5.9835
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: wrote: How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more detail. That's probably true. So do "we" want new hams to have a broad-shallow knowledge or a narrow-deep knowledge? Do "we" want Swiss Army Knife type hams or quantum electrodynamic photon experts? I suggest the former would be more valuable to the "service". Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades- and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the "service" than one who is ignorant of most trades and master of one. There are so many more possibilities in Amateur radio these days. Lots of possibilities for test questions. RF safety, spaec station operations. More bands to have those stupid band questions. Seems like a good thing to me. We often hear (and I believe) that the test is a starting point, not an end. Exposure to the many facets of Amateur radio can only be better than lots of questions about just a few subjects. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Those Old Study Guides
Mike Coslo wrote: Cecil Moore wrote in news:qoush.50660$wc5.9835 @newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: There are so many more possibilities in Amateur radio these days. Lots of possibilities for test questions. RF safety, spaec station operations. More bands to have those stupid band questions. Seems like a good thing to me. We often hear (and I believe) that the test is a starting point, not an end. Exposure to the many facets of Amateur radio can only be better than lots of questions about just a few subjects. we do need (and we hams have in theory) good questions which ARE hard to write and some the questions we have are well stinkers but each pool I have read sems to be better than the one it replaced so i suspect our current system is the worst of all worlds for testing except of course for all the others that have been tried (seem to recall that as a quote of someone - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool? | Policy | |||
another place the fruit can't post | Policy | |||
LAPD getting rid of "Code 2-High" calls on 5/16 | Scanner | |||
Why You Don't Like The ARRL | General | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |