On Jan 28, 4:25?pm, wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:48 am, wrote:

On Jan 27, 10:04?pm, wrote: On Jan 26, 6:44 pm, wrote: On Jan 25, 7:52?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Being
the only ham in a room full of grumbling commercial guys was a bit
unnerving . . sorta like "OK kid just do it and hit the road."

Those are just two data points, and if you went in the fall and
spring, you missed the big summer push.

Makes sense. I took both my Novice and General exams in the fall and
never even noticed any "big summer push".

It was when school was out and all us younguns could go downtown and
take the exams.
With good timing, three times in a summer.

When I went for the 13 wpm code (summer 1968), there were several
groups of four or five of us at the code table. When I went back in
1970 for the 20 wpm and the Extra written, I was the only one there
for that speed.

Back then the shipping industry was advertising heavily for radio ops
and Philly was a big port. The guys taking the commercial tests tended
to be on the shaggy side like sailors rather than white-collar types
looking for jobs at broadcast stations. I've always thought that
somehow this is why I got swamped by 'em when I took my exams

Sounds reasonable! Also, the office did code tests only two times a
week (Tuesday was
written-only day) and so you ran into them each time.

In any event, work overload at FCC was the cited reason for the
change.

The reasons they cited and the reality of it were probably two
different critters. Even back then it was obvious that the FCC was
working on getting out of the ham testing biz.

They went back and forth. In 1951 they restructured the licenses in a
way that would generate a lot more testing - then in 1953 they gave
all operating privileges to Generals and above. In '64 they virtually
eliminated the Conditional and did the incentive licensing thing,
almost guaranteeing a lot more work for themselves.

All the ham licenses
except Novice cost money - you musta just missed the fee thing in '68.
I think it was $9 back then.

That was during the incentive licensing thrash when the regs changed
monthly. I guess I got lucky.

Probably.

I swapped my old 2x3 3-land call for N2EY in '77 as well, when I moved
to the Empire State. Sequentially issued and free, not a vanity call.
Kept it when I moved back.T

There's another example of rapid-fire changes in the regs. When I went
for my '77 casllsign swap you submitted a list of the specific calls
you would like to have, w3rv was not a sequentially issued callsign.
You had to comb thru the print version of the callbook to find open
1x2 callsigns before submitting your list. PIA. My first choice was
w3ru but somebody ahead of me in the line got w3ru so I got my second
choice and became w3rv.

Yup. In 76 or 77 they opened up the N prefixes, and I got the 129th
one in 2 land. By 1979 they had announced that they would not reassign
1x2 calls - if I gave up N2EY, nobody else would get it. So I kept it.

I did the trip to Gettysburg with Nick k3nl. A couple years ago he e-
mailed me and told me w3ru had just become available and told me to go
for it.

Yeah, right. Not hardly!

Similar story here. N3EY was available for a long time but now
somebody has it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Then in 1965 the growth suddenly slowed to a trickle. In the next
decade or so, the
numbers hovered around 250,000, with some years a little up and some a
little
down. That was the year the Conditional distance went from 75 miles to
175 miles,
and the FCC added enough exam points so that almost all of CONUS was
covered.

Do you think that change might have affected growth?


Wasn't that about the time "incentive licensing" kicked in? It's said
that hams were less than happy about having to upgrade to get back
frequencies they had the use of before.

On Jan 27, 10:04 pm, wrote:

That resolves an ongoing bit of confusion on my part.

Just on one matter.

I haven't been
able to remember if I took my Novice exam in 1953 or 1954. What I do
remember is that I took the exam during a Thanksgiving break at the
FCC office in the Philly custom house and that there was no other way
for me to take the test. Based on your June 10 '54 date I must have
taken the test in the fall of '53 when I was a high school
sophomore.

What made you decide to go straight?

I guess life as an outlaw bootlegger Cubscout Sparky, constantly
having to look over your shoulder for the FCC DFing truck or the
Cubmaster was too much to bear...

How about a question like this:

"A manufacturer guarantees his crystals to be within .01% of the
marked frequency, when used in the recommended circuit at 20 degrees
C. The crystals have a negative temperature coefficient of 50 parts
per million per degree C.

What is the lowest whole-kilocycle frequency that should be ordered
for a 40 meter crystal, if the crystal is to be used in the
recommended circuit over the temperature range of 5 to 35 degrees C?
Allow 1 additional kilocycle to allow for crystal and component
aging.

Show all work."�


That was an important thing at that time.


Still is, in a way. The question could be modernized to calculating
the
dial setting on a ham rig where the temperature coefficient and
possible
error of the reference oscillator are known.



The FCC or the VE creating the tests likely wanted to test for knowledge
to be sure that hams at those times knew enough to avoid common mistakes
of those days. Being just outside the band may have been a common error
back in the 50's.

I can't remember the last time the FCC busted a ham for a purely
technical problem. One that required more of the ham to report to the
FCC via mail that he had taken the defective transmitter out of service
and was going to have an Elmer help him fix it.

On Jan 28, 2:02�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:* ...

Len:

I believe that they MUST APPLY to have that copyright lengthened, it
does not automatically occur (and, on or before a certain day the work
will expire copyright)--you'd be surprised how many works still fail
that. *Although, some publishing houses are set up to "automatically
apply", even though they had no interest in the work they end up gaining
possession of the copyright!

The www.copyright.gov website will clear that up on OLD
copyrights.

Once 1978 was reached there was "life plus 50."
Now, just WHO is going to renew such things other
than corporate entities? :-) Now it is "life plus 70."

Arguing matters over a 1938 copyright in the year
2007 is rather like "how many angels dance on the
head of a pin?" :-)

Individuals/corps make a living though such "questionable practices."

J. K. Lasser's "Your Income Tax" came out on news-
stands faithfully during year-end holiday time in the
USA. For many years. Had ALL the IRS forms in it.
NOT a "questionable practice." Quicken does the same
thing but goes through all the decision diamonds
and the math to fil them in. No charge for duping the
fed forms. Enormous work in programming the
thing.

BTW, J.K. was the father of actress Louise Lasser.

Government works are NOT copyrightable. By law.

I've downloaded (for free) lots of old textbooks, mostly
TMs but reproed hard-covers from different Internet
sites. Those are out-of-date now (for their material)
but are useful for nostalgia purposes or just to cross-
check where some of the slightly-later theory things
came from. Many folks have been very busy copying
all those (all pages included, even blank ones), putting
them together to upload for others.

I'm not going to get in ten kinds of snit to forever
argue the "legality" of such repros. Such arguments
are done by LITTLE people trying to be "big" barracks
lawyers. If someone goes to a lot of trouble to do
the copying and collating and uploading, take
advantage of it. It is NOT some grande felony matter
such as pirating a copy of "Pirates of the Carribean"
DVD or the latest "hit diva" wailing into a microphone
for a 2007 platinum CD issue.

The ultimate in such copying was the enormous job
a group had in cleaning up an R-390 receiver TM.
Quite legal. But, they not only cleaned up the
schematics and graphics, they RETYPED the text
and many tables! Terribly neat, easy to read TM
was the result. Of interest only to boatanchor
collectors, not the collectors of pre-1950 Study
Guides. Sheesh.

However, some regard old ARRL publications as
religious icons. Nothing logical could be said about
them.

LA

On Jan 28, 11:14�am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Federal tests are copyrighted?
What is wrong with that picture? *If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!Can they be published under the freedom of information act?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

No need to go FOIA. Government works are NOT
copyrightable. By law.

LA

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
What part of "ARRL License manuals" are you having difficulty understanding?


Jim:

Much better question would be, "What part of ARRL don't I have a problem
with?"

It starts at the floor and goes ALL THE WAY UP!

Good job on totally changing the subject.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
What part of "ARRL License manuals" are you having difficulty
understanding?


Jim:

Much better question would be, "What part of ARRL don't I have a problem
with?"

It starts at the floor and goes ALL THE WAY UP!

JS

What? You wanna chat about ARRL license manuals?

I don't ... ain't that obvious from my answer, what part don't you
understand about it?

JS

John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
What part of "ARRL License manuals" are you having difficulty
understanding?


Jim:

Much better question would be, "What part of ARRL don't I have a problem
with?"

It starts at the floor and goes ALL THE WAY UP!

JS

What? You wanna chat about ARRL license manuals?

I don't ... ain't that obvious from my answer, what part don't you
understand about it?

Good job on changing the subject once again.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

robert casey wrote:


Then in 1965 the growth suddenly slowed to a trickle. In the next
decade or so, the
numbers hovered around 250,000, with some years a little up and some a
little
down. That was the year the Conditional distance went from 75 miles to
175 miles,
and the FCC added enough exam points so that almost all of CONUS was
covered.

Do you think that change might have affected growth?


Wasn't that about the time "incentive licensing" kicked in? It's said
that hams were less than happy about having to upgrade to get back
frequencies they had the use of before.

The first half of the Incentive Licensing changes was implemented in
November 1968; the second half went into effect in November 1969. There
was, of course, some grumbling. Some of those doing the grumbling
decided that they'd be happy with General Class privileges. Some took
the Advanced exam which had no additional Morse Code test. Some went
all the way to the Extra. There were others who didn't grumble and
simply passed the additional exams.

Dave K8MN