Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 26, 9:25?pm, Dave Heil wrote:
If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be happy
to field questions.

Dave K8MN

I'll be happy to field questions, too. I have the License Manuals from
1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

wrote:

On Jan 26, 9:25?pm, Dave Heil wrote:
If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be happy
to field questions.

I'll be happy to field questions, too. I have the License Manuals from
1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.

1957 is as close as I've been able to get to 1953, the
one that I used.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Bob Brock on Wed, Jan 24 2007 9:12 am

On 23 Jan 2007 22:36:44 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:370m, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license.
Afterall, that is what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on the streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

I wasn't being serious Len. I didn't read here years ago and would be
surprised if someone seriously suggested periodic retesting.

My apologies to you, Bob. Sometimes it is hard to
discern who is serious or who is wry in this Din
of Inequity. [as in ham-on-wry... :-) ]

Not a problem Len.


In my
state, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written.

In North Carolina, all one has to do to renew drivers licenses is an eye
examination, test for color blindness, and go through the road signs to tell
the examiner what the various signs mean. The only time you have to take
the written test or drivers test is if you have had a moving violation since
your last license issue date.


But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

I agree completely. The test pools appear to be adequate. For the most
part the new hams I have observed appear to be capable of making that first
contact and improve as they gain experience. It's a safe and fun hobby that
has practical application during times of emergency or national need. My
experience has been that, when asked, they will make the sacrifice of time
and personal equipment during disasters to provide that essential common
radio communications between various federal and state organizations who
cannot communicate directly with each other via radio. IMO, having more
hams at the current level of standards is a good thing.

Feb 23 is the No-code date
 

From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18
-0500

In my
state, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written.

In North Carolina, all one has to do to renew drivers licenses is an eye
examination, test for color blindness, and go through the road signs to tell
the examiner what the various signs mean. The only time you have to take
the written test or drivers test is if you have had a moving violation since
your last license issue date.

That seems to be the case with most, if not all, states in
the USA. In California the DMV has a "study guide" free in
printed form, PDF download, or HTML perusal on-line for its
written test. I did mine a couple years ago and it was
comprehensive. No qualms, no anxiety, just kicking myself
mentally for missing ONE question that was obvious as to
what the correct answer should have been. :-)

Interesting to note all the remarks some make about "needing"
real equipment to operate and a good simulation of station
environment. That's comparable to the driver's license road
test where an inspector rides along observing-directing as one
is out in traffic. Not a "simulation" but the REAL thing.
Yet MOST states have dropped that road test, satisfied with
the written test...plus the eye quick-check, new-legislation-
since-last-tested quickie quiz, and some other subtle clues
the clerks observe to find out if a person is "with it." :-)

Operating a ton or two of moving machinery in the midst of
other moving machinery on a street or road is FAR MORE
HAZARDOUS to both operator and anyone nearby. Yet most
states have dropped doing that sort of testing except, as
you note, moving violations have been done or just requiring
a ten-plus year period of such retesting. That's for
practical reasons NOT bounded on the cost of maintaining
road driving inspectors but more like the following:

1. Most drivers doing testing are NOT (generally) trying
to kill themselves or anyone else in the near future...they
will be needing an automobile for regular transportation
and have enough common sense to follow driving laws and
procedure to keep that ability.

2. Most DMV (or state equivalent) testing offices-locations
are some distance from a testee's residence and/or place of
work. They have used their vehicle to get to the test area,
itself a form of "being able to operate a vehicle."
Exceptions of first-license applicants are just exceptions
and a minority - they MUST have the road test in most states.
California used to be nit-picky about new residents bearing
another states' drivers license: in 1956 I had to take a
road test despite having held an Illinois license since
1950 (was "becoming a resident by accepting employment here").
That may still be in force but irrelevant.

3. In my infrequent observations of California DMV offices,
there's been no change of the number of road test inspectors
nor of facilities and they have made the same number of free
guides and information for the public. Plus, they've
implemented the photo ID and now issue license cards with
holographic impressions and a magnetic data stripe on them.
This state, like most states, has a computer data network
on drivers licenses as well as identified vehicles. The
cost of all those things has increased budget requirements,
not decreased them. Much of that has been to aid police
departments since vehicular operation CAN, and unfortunately
does lead to fatal incidents.

In comparison to the amateur radio hobby, there really isn't
much. Operation of a hobby radio seldom results in any
fatality. Of course, any amateur may make stupid mistakes
and off themselves but home accidents happen to all humans
and aren't related to amateur radio licensing. The RF
safety regulations have always been questionable to me (I've
dug into comprehensive medical studies of such things done
by the USAF by medical researchers). Much of today's "RF
Safety" regulations seem to be the result of legislative
hysteria based on such "dangerous" sources of radiation as
HVAC power lines, cell phones, and microwave ovens. :-)

To have "practical amateur radio station operation" as a
test is in the realm of the highly impractical. For one
thing there is little standardization in form-fit-function
or control of desk-mount transceivers...except for a single
brand's model series. Desk-mount transceivers share very
few common controls with compact, multi-function handheld
two-way radios. Compare any ready-built ham transceiver
of this brand-new century with any available in, say, 1960
and there is a world of difference in technology between
them. On the other hand, basic automobile operational
controls have only varied slightly in the last half century,
including instrumentation. Steering wheel, gearshift,
speedometer, lights, turn-signals, accelerometer, brake
pedal are all there today as they were in 1950. Only the
clutch as a basic control has all but disapperared with the
automatic transmission (the gearshift remains although its
function settings are different).

But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

I agree completely. The test pools appear to be adequate.

I looked into www.ncvec.org to refresh my memory. There's
only ONE graphic file there and that for Extra. Seems to
be covering the FCC regulations as well as the California
DMV does its Motor Vehicle Code questions.

For the most
part the new hams I have observed appear to be capable of making that first
contact and improve as they gain experience.

I can't comment much on that since my "first contact" on
real radio was back in 1952 in training at Fort Monmouth,
NJ. :-) Very strict protocol observance, of course. The
Army was not a hobby activity, just involved in a skill
set of DESTROYING an enemy with self-survival a plus. :-)
The next three years of active duty was more of the same
with a much bigger, more complex set of "radios."

Much later as a civilian and taking flying lessons, I had
NO problem operating an aircraft radio, using Civil
Aviation flying jargon and FAA procedures. That seemed
to really **** off one of my two instructors. Apparently
he wanted to play control-freak in constantly berating me
for being such a newbie dummy. The other one kept
insisting I needed that 3rd Class (Restricted) Radio-
telephone License (no test required) to "be lawful." Had
to explain to VNY Skyways CEO that my First 'Phone (then
6 years since issuance) was quite lawful and had to get
an FAA tower man at VNY to back me up. Skyways had the
temerity of billing me the usual 1-hour rate of $17.50
I spent NOT in flying lessons but instead arguing with
folks who supposedly "knew better." I quit that flying
thing for various other reasons afterwards although lack
of spare money at the time was primary motivator. :-)

It's a safe and fun hobby that
has practical application during times of emergency or national need. My
experience has been that, when asked, they will make the sacrifice of time
and personal equipment during disasters to provide that essential common
radio communications between various federal and state organizations who
cannot communicate directly with each other via radio.

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

IMO, having more hams at the current level of standards is
a good thing.

For the hobby, I'll agree with you. For the electronics
industry it won't make a dent either way...and it won't
much change the REAL Public Safety organizations in a
few urban government structures who've already had their
emergency plans proven by the REAL thing.

On the other hand, as a resident of the Center of Film
and TV production city of Los Angeles, CA, I have the
displeasure of being close to the show biz elite who
produced such "documentaries" as "Independence Day."
Still, I'm not worried about Alien Invaders from Outer
Space or whether or not there are enough morsemen to
"Save the World" with their intrepid morse skills...:-)

Best regards,
LA

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dave Heil wrote in news:SKyuh.17581$w91.2494
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be happy
to field questions.


Are those things still under copyright Dave? Scanning them and
putting them on the web would be a tremendous asset, as well as
interesting. I could provide the space.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

On Jan 25, 9:26 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to
the Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you
got the license, as did the retest rules.
Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.
You're welcome, Cecil. Thanks for reading.

The old Conditional was preceded by the Class C, which was essentially
the same license with a different name. Early 1930s until the 1951
restructuring.

Some folks think that the 1964-65 rules Conditional changes really cut
into the growth of US ham radio. After those changes, a ham who wanted
a renewable license with HF privileges pretty much had to go to an FCC
exam point unless s/he lived *way* out in the boonies. Just getting to
the exam could be a major journey, depending on where you lived.

I understand what you say here Jim, but I don't agree. If a person
can go to the trouble of learning Morse code, they should be able to
go to the trouble of traveling to the FCC exam points. I can't
imagine that a peron who went to the trouble of learning the
material would feel otherwise.

Just for grins, Mike, make the applicant 12-14 years of age. Put him in
a family with one automobile where the father works during the day and
the mother doesn't drive.


I was lucky - all I needed was decent shoes and a couple of subway
tokens. Three quarters of a mile to the 69th Street Terminal, the
Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated to 2nd Street, and a block south to
the US Custom House.

I travelled about 120 mikes fro my Tech, about 300 for my General
written CSCE, a mere 20 for my Element 1, and aroud 70 for my Extra.

The nearest examination point when I was a kid would have been better
than 50 miles each way, in a time before there was an Interstate Highway
anywhere nearby. The journey each direction would have taken at least
an hour-and-a-half over two lane mountain roads. The examination point
was one of those which the FCC visited quarterly.

Dave K8MN

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dave Heil wrote in
hlink.net:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

On Jan 25, 9:26 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to
the Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you
got the license, as did the retest rules.
Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.
You're welcome, Cecil. Thanks for reading.

The old Conditional was preceded by the Class C, which was
essentially the same license with a different name. Early 1930s
until the 1951 restructuring.

Some folks think that the 1964-65 rules Conditional changes really
cut into the growth of US ham radio. After those changes, a ham who
wanted a renewable license with HF privileges pretty much had to go
to an FCC exam point unless s/he lived *way* out in the boonies.
Just getting to the exam could be a major journey, depending on
where you lived.

I understand what you say here Jim, but I don't agree. If a
person
can go to the trouble of learning Morse code, they should be able
to go to the trouble of traveling to the FCC exam points. I can't
imagine that a peron who went to the trouble of learning the
material would feel otherwise.

Just for grins, Mike, make the applicant 12-14 years of age. Put him
in a family with one automobile where the father works during the day
and the mother doesn't drive.


I was lucky - all I needed was decent shoes and a couple of subway
tokens. Three quarters of a mile to the 69th Street Terminal, the
Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated to 2nd Street, and a block south to
the US Custom House.

I travelled about 120 mikes fro my Tech, about 300 for my
General
written CSCE, a mere 20 for my Element 1, and aroud 70 for my
Extra.

The nearest examination point when I was a kid would have been better
than 50 miles each way, in a time before there was an Interstate
Highway anywhere nearby. The journey each direction would have taken
at least an hour-and-a-half over two lane mountain roads. The
examination point was one of those which the FCC visited quarterly.

Dave K8MN


It is interesting how times change, Dave. Just as an aside, those
are the types of roads I see out these days. Things have changed, I
suspect that autos are more comfortable and better handling today.
Certainly if a person couldn't drive yet, there would be another hurdle
getting the parents to join in on the fun. All the more challenge.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 27, 8:11�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote roups.com:

* * * * a most interesting history lesson snipped for brevity

Generals. This was in the era when FCC not only had many scheduled
exams, but would also send out traveling examiners upon request if a
minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed. Ham exam sessions
were being conducted by FCC at hamfests, conventions, and club
meetings, and the perceived need for the Conditional disappeared.

---

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to the
Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you got the
license, as did the retest rules.* * * *

Although I can see a few quirks here and there, I would have to say
* * that overall the testing, requirements, and methods have improved
* * over the years, rather than regressed.

On what do you base that conclusion, Mike?

I see the accessibility of the tests as improved. But that's about it.

I had to chuckle at some of
* * the early stuff, which was awkward, and most arbitrary.

Like what?

Some of
* * those tests amounted to "open book" tests, which are surely easier
* * than Open pool tests.

How?

The old tests were definitely not open book in any sense of the word.
You weren't even allowed to bring your own pencils in some cases.

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."

No open book, no cheat sheets, no formulas given - and that's just one
question on the General exam.

* * * * Certainly if there were only a few exams existing for the different
* * levels, it would be very important to be hush-hush about the
* * contents of those exams. It certainly would argue against those few
* * tests being so much superior.

How would the existence of a few tests argue against that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

On Jan 25, 9:26 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to
the Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you
got the license, as did the retest rules.

Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.

You're welcome, Cecil. Thanks for reading.

The old Conditional was preceded by the Class C, which was essentially
the same license with a different name. Early 1930s until the 1951
restructuring.

Some folks think that the 1964-65 rules Conditional changes really cut
into the growth of US ham radio. After those changes, a ham who wanted
a renewable license with HF privileges pretty much had to go to an FCC
exam point unless s/he lived *way* out in the boonies. Just getting to
the exam could be a major journey, depending on where you lived.

I understand what you say here Jim, but I don't agree. If a person
can go to the trouble of learning Morse code, they should be able to
go to the trouble of traveling to the FCC exam points.

It's a completely different situation. Learning Morse Code is directly
related
to getting the license and what is done with it. Traveling to a
distant city back
in the days before the Interstate Highway System isn't.

I can't
imagine that a peron who went to the trouble of learning the
material would feel otherwise.

I can. And it's not about how anyone felt - it's about the reality of
the
requirements.

It all depends on the situation, Mike. Consider the case posed by
K8MN,
which was very common in the 1950s and 1960s. How was a young 1950s
ham supposed to get to a license test session 120 miles away, and be
there before
8 AM on a weekday morning?

Remember too that the distance rule was "air line", meaning straight-
line
distance on the map, not actual distance on the road. In many places,
125 miles air-line could be twice that on the road. More than three
hours
at the common speed limit of 40 mph - if everything went according to
plan.

For me, the biggest difficulty in getting to the FCC office was the
fact that
tests in the Philly office were only given on Mondays, Tuesdays and
Wednesdays - which were all school days. Young hams like me had to
wait for summer, or a school holiday that was not a Federal holiday.
(There was no way a school kid would skip school for a day to take
a ham radio exam!) With the 30 day wait to retest, there was a real
incentive to pass on the first try.

I was lucky - all I needed was decent shoes and a couple of subway
tokens. Three quarters of a mile to the 69th Street Terminal, the
Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated to 2nd Street, and a block south to
the US Custom House.

I travelled about 120 mikes fro my Tech, about 300 for my General
written CSCE, a mere 20 for my Element 1, and aroud 70 for my Extra.

Round trip or one way? Weekday or weekend? Did you have to be there at
8 AM or be turned away?

Most of all, note the wide variation in distances. I'll bet you went
to different
VE sessions at various hamfests, some close to home, some not. You
went
when it was convenient for *you*.

My point is that in the Conditional days there was no choice. You went
to
the FCC office, on their schedule, unless you lived beyond the
Conditional
distance.

And note this most of all: FCC didn't change the distance in 1954
because
of concern for hams having to travel long distances to get to an exam
session.
FCC changed the distance to reduce their workload giving the exams!


73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
I understand what you say here Jim, but I don't agree. If a person
can go to the trouble of learning Morse code, they should be able to
go to the trouble of traveling to the FCC exam points.

You're assuming the person has a vehicle and a driver's
license. I already knew Morse code from Boy Scouts
but I had a heck of a time talking my parents into
taking off from work and driving their '37 Chevrolet
rattletrap six hours round trip to Houston just so I
could take the Novice exam when I was 14 years old.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 27, 9:15�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote rthlink.net:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
groups.com:

On Jan 25, 9:26 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to
the Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you
got the license, as did the retest rules.
Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.
You're welcome, Cecil. Thanks for reading.

The old Conditional was preceded by the Class C, which was
essentially the same license with a different name. Early 1930s
until the 1951 restructuring.

Some folks think that the 1964-65 rules Conditional changes really
cut into the growth of US ham radio. After those changes, a ham who
wanted a renewable license with HF privileges pretty much had to go
to an FCC exam point unless s/he lived *way* out in the boonies.
Just getting to the exam could be a major journey, depending on
where you lived.

* * * * *I understand what you say here Jim, but I don't agree. If a
* * * * *person
* * can go to the trouble of learning Morse code, they should be able
* * to go to the trouble of traveling to the FCC exam points. I can't
* * imagine that a peron who went to the trouble of learning the
* * material would feel otherwise.

Just for grins, Mike, make the applicant 12-14 years of age. *Put him
in a family with one automobile where the father works during the day
and the mother doesn't drive.

I was lucky - all I needed was decent shoes and a couple of subway
tokens. Three quarters of a mile to the 69th Street Terminal, the
Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated to 2nd Street, and a block south to
the US Custom House.

* * * * *I travelled about 120 mikes fro my Tech, about 300 for my
* * * * *General
* * written CSCE, a mere 20 for my Element 1, and aroud 70 for my
* * Extra.

The nearest examination point when I was a kid would have been better
than 50 miles each way, in a time before there was an Interstate
Highway anywhere nearby. *The journey each direction would have taken
at least an hour-and-a-half over two lane mountain roads. *The
examination point was one of those which the FCC visited quarterly.

Dave K8MN* * * * It is interesting how times change, Dave. Just as an aside, those
are the types of roads I see out these days. Things have changed, I
suspect that autos are more comfortable and better handling today.

Also more reliable.

When I was a kid, a trip to the New Jersey beaches was a major
journey. Most
of the roads were 2 lanes, and you slowed down through every town on
the way.
Three hours from the bridge over the Delaware to the bridge over the
bay was very good time. Today the trip takes half that time, due to
better roads and better cars.

Certainly if a person couldn't drive yet, there would be another hurdle
getting the parents to join in on the fun. All the more challenge.

Apply that logic to the Morse Code test - all the more challenge,
right?

And recall that FCC changed the distance to reduce *their* workload,
not to make the
exams more accessible to hams.

---

btw, the old License Manuals are probably still under copyright.
Quoting some of the questions is one thing, and comes under "fair
use". Scanning the entire book and putting
on the web is a different thing. Couldn't hurt to ask ARRL - I don't
think they have any plans to reissue those old LMs. They might even
like the idea, if it were posed as a historic
interest thing.

The study guide *questions* and the old regulations were Govt. issued,
and so could be used, I think.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

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

wrote:
Just getting to
the exam could be a major journey, depending on where you lived.
Come to think of it - my parents drove me to the Houston
FCC office for my Novice exam so at that time the distance
limit was still 125 miles. A year later, when my Novice
expired, I was eligible to take the Conditional by mail
because the distance limit had been reduced to 75 miles.
I have lost track of exactly when I got those licenses
but that knowledge should help to bracket the dates.Here's an exact date, Cecil:

June 10, 1954

On that date, the "Conditional distance" was reduced from 125 miles to
75 miles "air-line" from a quarterly examining point.

Also on that date, FCC stopped giving routine Novice and Technician
exams at FCC exam sessions, and instead gave the job to volunteer
examiners. After that date, Novice and Technician exams wouyld be done
by mail regardless of distance from and FCC exam point.

That resolves an ongoing bit of confusion on my part. 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.


In those days there were three FCC offices in Texas - Houston, Dallas
and Beaumont. Houston and Dallas gave exams on a weekly schedule, while
Beaumont was a sub-office that.gave exams by appointment. Exams were
also given four times a year in San Antonio.

Of course, in Texas, it's not at all difficult to be more than 75 miles
from all four of those offices.

The reason cited for the changes was that the FCC exam sessions were
overloaded with amateurs taking the exams, and the FCC had almost
overrun its 1953 budget for giving exams. In those days there were no
license fees to defray the cost.

That's very strange. There were very few ham tests given on the days
when I took my Novice exam and again when I took my General exam a
year later, the exam room was overloaded with guys taking commercial
exams on both occasions. I was the *only * ham in the room when I took
my General vs. a couple dozen others. The examiner opened the office
with a question "is there anybody taking a ham radio license test
today?" and I raised my hand. "OK, let's get you outta here." 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."

I've taken three ham tests and one commercial license test in '53, '54
nd '68. All the exams were given by FCC examiners at the Philly office
and none of them cost me a dime.

I swapped my original callsign for my current callsign at the FCC
office in Gettysburg in '77. It's not a "vanity" callsign and it was
also a freebie. I have yet to be be involved with a volunteer examiner
or pay the FCC for anything. Cheap, cheap . . !

This overload happened even though the FCC had stopped giving the
Advanced exam 18 months earlier (end of 1952) and there were few
applicants for the Extra because that license did not convey any
additional operating privileges. Also, the "retest if you move closer"
rule had been dropped in 1952, yet the FCC exam sessions were brusting
at the seems..

Thanks again, Jim.You're welcome, Cecil. Hope that helps pin down the date.

---

btw, in those days the FCC did not give credit for license exam
elements previously passed unless they were passed in front of an FCC
examiner. If a Novice who had gotten the license by mail went for the
Technician, s/he had to do the 5 wpm code again. If a by-mail
Technician went for the General or Conditional, s/he had to do the
written exam again even though, back then, all three of those license
classes used the same written test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:WiUuh.56418$wc5.30426
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Mike Coslo wrote:
I understand what you say here Jim, but I don't agree. If a person
can go to the trouble of learning Morse code, they should be able to
go to the trouble of traveling to the FCC exam points.

You're assuming the person has a vehicle and a driver's
license. I already knew Morse code from Boy Scouts
but I had a heck of a time talking my parents into
taking off from work and driving their '37 Chevrolet
rattletrap six hours round trip to Houston just so I
could take the Novice exam when I was 14 years old.

But they did, didn't they?

I had a rough time talking my parents into getting me my first
radios. I had to convince them I was serious. Perhaps the same situation
existed for you?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in news:SKyuh.17581$w91.2494
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be happy
to field questions.


Are those things still under copyright Dave? Scanning them and
putting them on the web would be a tremendous asset, as well as
interesting. I could provide the space.

I'm pretty sure that they are still covered under copyright. The
scanning could take a long, long time.

Dave K8MN

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in news:SKyuh.17581$w91.2494
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be
happy to field questions.


Are those things still under copyright Dave? Scanning them and
putting them on the web would be a tremendous asset, as well as
interesting. I could provide the space.

I'm pretty sure that they are still covered under copyright. The
scanning could take a long, long time.

Dave K8MN

Federal tests are copyrighted?

What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!

JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

I had a rough time talking my parents into getting me my first
radios. I had to convince them I was serious. Perhaps the same situation
existed for you?

My dad chucked a successful job as a writer at the Palm Beach Bureau of
the Miami Herald to become an Episcopal priest. I lobbied for some help
with gear and we made a deal. I paid for my used receiver from the
proceeds of a newspaper route and he and Mom bought the used transmitter
as a Christmas gift. Things like logbooks, a key, antenna wire and
coaxial cable were begged or purchased from the paper route money.

I listened to Dad for months about how all of this ham radio stuff (and
my guitar) were just "kicks" I was on and that they'd be gathering dust
in the closet. That sort of came true as my first hamshack was in the
walk-in closet off my bedroom. If the stuff gathered any dust, it was
in the closet.

After I'd been a ham (and a guitarist) for a number of decades, I used
to ask Dad if he thought there'd come a day when I'd pack all of that
stuff up and put it into a basement somewhere.

Dave K8MN

Those Old Study Guides
 

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in news:SKyuh.17581$w91.2494
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940,
1947, 1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would
be happy to field questions.


Are those things still under copyright Dave? Scanning them
and putting them on the web would be a tremendous asset, as well as
interesting. I could provide the space.

I'm pretty sure that they are still covered under copyright. The
scanning could take a long, long time.

Federal tests are copyrighted?

Read along with us, "John". We're discussing ARRL License manuals. The
study material was *not* actual FCC test material.

What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!

You have some distortion in your receiver. Your tax dollars weren't in
the picture. The material was copyrighted by the ARRL.

Dave K8MN

Those Old Study Guides
 

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in news:SKyuh.17581$w91.2494
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be
happy to field questions.


Are those things still under copyright Dave? Scanning them and
putting them on the web would be a tremendous asset, as well as
interesting. I could provide the space.

I'm pretty sure that they are still covered under copyright. The
scanning could take a long, long time.

Dave K8MN

Federal tests are copyrighted?

What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dave Heil wrote:

...
Read along with us, "John". We're discussing ARRL License manuals. The
study material was *not* actual FCC test material.
...

Dave:

Sorry, you are quite right, should have paid more attention.

Well, my red face will go away in a bit ...

Regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

wrote:

...
but in any case copyright lasts for 28 years as I recall

althought that was lenghen so it might still cover 74 or 75 but not
likely
What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!


JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

Quite right. That is what I mean about that ARRL, they are dug into the
hide of amateur radio deeper than a chigger in Lens' side! grin

Geesh will I be glad when they are finally gone ...

Regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 27, 10:20�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote roups.com:

On Jan 27, 8:11�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote
roup
s.com:

* * * * a most interesting history lesson snipped for brevity

Generals. This was in the era when FCC not only had many scheduled
exams, but would also send out traveling examiners upon request if
a minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed. Ham exam
sessions were being conducted by FCC at hamfests, conventions, and
club meetings, and the perceived need for the Conditional
disappeared.

---

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to
the Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time you
got the license, as did the retest rules.* * * *

* * Although I can see a few quirks here and there, I would have to
* * say
* * that overall the testing, requirements, and methods have improved
* * over the years, rather than regressed.

On what do you base that conclusion, Mike?

I see the accessibility of the tests as improved. But that's about it.

* * I had to chuckle at some of
* * the early stuff, which was awkward, and most arbitrary.

Like what?*

I'll answer this and the last question at one time. 75 miles, 150
miles. mail in tests, move closer than the "limit" lose your license if
you don't retest. Don't move, keep it. *That's just a little bit. It all
seems arbitrary, and almost capricious to me. YMMV.

The idea was that the FCC was balancing access to the test sessions
with maintaining control over the process. They were very concerned
about the whole process back then.

Remember that we're talking about 50+ years ago. Back then, there
were very clear memories of spy activities during both World Wars
where radio was used. (A US *amateur* discovered one during WW1
and brought it to the attention of the authorities by recording the
transmission). The '50s were the Cold War and the McCarthy era, too.

Maintaining control over every step of the licensing process was a big
deal to FCC back then.

It may seem arbitrary and capricious today, but it didn't back then.
Don't leave CONUS without a passport, btw.

* * Some of
* * those tests amounted to "open book" tests, which are surely
easier * * than Open pool tests.

How?

The old tests were definitely not open book in any sense of the word.
You weren't even allowed to bring your own pencils in some cases.* * * *

Mailing the test in? At least ther was no chance whatsoever of
looking up the answer in the book, eh?

The way it worked was that you found a volunteer examiner (note the
lack of caps) and *s/he* sent away for the exam and the other forms.

When the test came from FCC in its special sealed envelope, the
volunteer examiner would not open it until the actual exam session
began, and would seal it up in another special envelope and send
it back to FCC. There was a form that had to be notarized, where
both the examinee and the volunteer examiner swore that the exam
was conducted according to the rules. Most people took such things
very seriously back then, particularly when the Feds were involved.

This may seem wide open to corruption, but I do not know of *any*
cases where the by-mail exam process was compromised. Rumors
of cheating do not count.

Remember too that this was in the days before copy machines were
common, and getting a "photostat" was a big deal.

I took the Novice exam from a local volunteer examiner back in 1967.
He took the process very seriously, as did I. He wanted to help new
hams,
but he wasn't about to compromise the process or risk his license, a
fine
and a prison term.

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.

And to be honest, I would
have to look a few things up to give a reasonable accurate answer.
But
the math is not that difficult, unless I am way off.

The point is that the person taking the test did not have those
options. They'd have to answer that sort of question with just pencil,
paper, and
maybe a slide rule. And the actual exam question would be similar, but
different - maybe it would state that a certain crystal was on hand,
and
then ask if it met the criteria to be inside the band under all
operating
conditions. Maybe the temperature coefficient would be positive above
a certain temperature and negative below. And that would be *one*
question on the 50 question General test.

I could give an
answer I had around 50 percent confidence in now, but if I was wrong, it
would be like the guff that Dave has to take with his "out of band
frenchmen". Mike the dumb nickle Extra that couldn't answer a question
from an old test! ;^)

I am confident that if you studied the concepts in that question, and
worked out the answer to it and similar questions a few times, you'd
be OK. But that's not the point.

Can you see that being given a study question like that, and having to
work out a similar but different question during the exam, is a
completely different thing from a multiple choice public pool test?

But unless the question isn't from any book, or just somehow shows
up on a test with no references anywhere to be found, I'd do a bit of
research and the answer would be forthcoming. Hard? Not in the least.

The research would have to be done before the test, though.

And it's not about "hard". It's about how much the examinee has to
actually understand the material, and be able to demonstrate that
understanding.

No open book, no cheat sheets, no formulas given - and that's just one
question on the General exam.* * *

Maybe the steely eyed FCC examiner watches you take the test you
mail in so that you don't have to take the test in front of the steely
eyed FCC examiner?

See above about cheating.

* * * * Certainly if there were only a few exams existing for the
*different
* * levels, it would be very important to be hush-hush about the
* * contents of those exams. It certainly would argue against those
few tests being so much superior.

How would the existence of a few tests argue against that?

Jim, am I being obtuse or what? Seems to me that if there are only a
couple tests, that cheating would be much easier, that retesting would
likely expose the applicant to the same test again, and that your
"buddy" could give you some valuable hints.

There are ways to cheat almost any system. Do you know of any
actual cheating under the old system? There have been documented
cases of suspected cheating under the VEC system, where the FCC
caleed in hams who then flunked the retest.

I saw the same question from
your 1960's essay type question, and my 1950's guide. Unless we are
arguing extremely small points here, any differences between the tests
of the good old days and now just aren't big enough to be that
concerned about.

The process is a big part of it. But as I said before, the old exam
process
is gone and won't come back any time soon - if ever.

In fact, as this discussion goes on in here and outside of this
group, I am more and more convinced that an equally acceptable
explanation is a sense of nostalgia, a yearning for good old days that
perhaps never really existed, and the fact that middle aged men are
capable of becoming *upset about just about anything.

Well, I'm not upset at all. Just accurate. Some people don't like
accuracy.

And I would say that *human beings* - young, old, male, female - are
capable of becoming upset about just about anything.

The most easily-upset person who posts to rrap isn't middle aged -
he's old. Gets upset over *any* disagreement with his views...;-)

I sometimes feel
the tug myself, until I remember just how the good old days were.

* * * * I could be wrong though.....

"The good old days weren't always good
Tomorrow's not as bad as it seems" - Billy Joel

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 27, 10:04�pm, wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:44 pm, wrote:

On Jan 25, 7:52?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:
Just getting to
the exam could be a major journey, depending on where you lived.
Come to think of it - my parents drove me to the Houston
FCC office for my Novice exam so at that time the distance
limit was still 125 miles. A year later, when my Novice
expired, I was eligible to take the Conditional by mail
because the distance limit had been reduced to 75 miles.
I have lost track of exactly when I got those licenses
but that knowledge should help to bracket the dates.

Here's an exact date, Cecil:

June 10, 1954

On that date, the "Conditional distance" was reduced from 125 miles to
75 miles "air-line" from a quarterly examining point.

Also on that date, FCC stopped giving routine Novice and Technician
exams at FCC exam sessions, and instead gave the job to volunteer
examiners. After that date, Novice and Technician exams wouyld be done
by mail regardless of distance from and FCC exam point.

That resolves an ongoing bit of confusion on my part. 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.

Agreed.

In those days there were three FCC offices in Texas - Houston, *Dallas
and Beaumont. Houston and Dallas gave exams on a weekly schedule, while
Beaumont was a sub-office that.gave exams by appointment. Exams were
also given four times a year in San Antonio.

Of course, in Texas, it's not at all difficult to be more than 75 miles
from all four of those offices.

The reason cited for the changes was that the FCC exam sessions were
overloaded with amateurs taking the exams, and the FCC had almost
overrun its 1953 budget for giving exams. In those days there were no
license fees to defray the cost.

That's very strange. There were very few ham tests given on the days
when I took my Novice exam and again when I took my General exam a
year later, the exam room was overloaded with guys taking commercial
exams on both occasions. I was the *only * ham in the room when I took
my General vs. a couple dozen others. The examiner opened the office
with a question "is there anybody taking a ham radio license test
today?" and I raised my hand. "OK, let's get you outta here." 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.

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

btw, when I was between sophomore and junior year of high school
(1970),
I went to that same office - to take the Extra exam. The place was
crowded but I was the only one there to take the Extra, so the
examiner took me first.

I've taken three ham tests and one commercial license test in '53, '54
nd '68. All the exams were given by FCC examiners at the Philly office
and none of them cost me a dime.

I took the Novice from a local ham in '67, the Tech and Advanced in
'68, the Extra in '70 and the commercial in '72. All the ham licenses
except Novice cost money - you musta just missed the fee thing in '68.
I think it was $9 back then.

I swapped my original callsign for my current callsign at the FCC
office in Gettysburg in '77. It's not a "vanity" callsign and it was
also a freebie. I have yet to be be involved with a volunteer examiner
or pay the FCC for anything. Cheap, cheap . . !

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.

This overload happened even though the FCC had stopped giving the
Advanced exam 18 months earlier (end of 1952) and there were few
applicants for the Extra because that license did not convey any
additional operating privileges. Also, the "retest if you move closer"
rule had been dropped in 1952, yet the FCC exam sessions were brusting
at the seems..

Thanks again, Jim.

You're welcome, Cecil. Hope that helps pin down the date.

---

btw, in those days the FCC did not give credit for license exam
elements previously passed unless they were passed in front of an FCC
examiner. If a Novice who had gotten the license by mail went for the
Technician, s/he had to do the 5 wpm code again. If a by-mail
Technician went for the General or Conditional, s/he had to do the
written exam again even though, back then, all three of those license
classes used the same written test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
wrote:

...
but in any case copyright lasts for 28 years as I recall

althought that was lenghen so it might still cover 74 or 75 but not
likely
What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!


JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

Quite right. That is what I mean about that ARRL, they are dug into the
hide of amateur radio deeper than a chigger in Lens' side! grin

Geesh will I be glad when they are finally gone ...

Regards,
JS


John,

Here's a site that summarizes if documents are still under copyright or not.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/tra...lic_Domain.htm

Basically if the work was published in 1923 or later, there is a potential
for it to be still under copyright. Copyright laws have changed a lot.

Dee, N8UZE

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

On Jan 25, 9:26 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

Your recollections are correct, Cecil, with minor corrections to
the Conditional distance. Which changed right around the time
you got the license, as did the retest rules.

Thanks Jim, for the history lesson.

You're welcome, Cecil. Thanks for reading.

The old Conditional was preceded by the Class C, which was
essentially the same license with a different name. Early 1930s
until the 1951 restructuring.

Some folks think that the 1964-65 rules Conditional changes really
cut into the growth of US ham radio. After those changes, a ham who
wanted a renewable license with HF privileges pretty much had to go
to an FCC exam point unless s/he lived *way* out in the boonies.
Just getting to the exam could be a major journey, depending on
where you lived.

I understand what you say here Jim, but I don't agree. If a
person
can go to the trouble of learning Morse code, they should be able
to go to the trouble of traveling to the FCC exam points.

It's a completely different situation. Learning Morse Code is directly
related to getting the license and what is done with it. Traveling to
a distant city back in the days before the Interstate Highway System
isn't.

I was a kid from a rather poor family. And yet I could get my parents to
help out with things-once I convinced then that I was serious.

That's great - and how it should be.

But not all families are like that. For example, "helping out" is
defined
differently by different families.

In my case, the parental units defined "helping out" as allowing me to
use a corner of the basement for my radio stuff, and allowing me
to hang antennas from the various trees and from the side of the
house.
Plus I didn't have to pay for the electricity I used to run the radio
corner.

*Everything* else connected with ham radio was on me. That's why I
say I was lucky to live so close to an FCC exam point.

Regardless, effort is the important thing, and I don't see it as
different.

But it *is* different.

I can't
imagine that a peron who went to the trouble of learning the
material would feel otherwise.

I can. And it's not about how anyone felt - it's about the reality of
the requirements.

It all depends on the situation, Mike. Consider the case posed by
K8MN, which was very common in the 1950s and 1960s. How was a young
1950s ham supposed to get to a license test session 120 miles away,
and be there before 8 AM on a weekday morning?

Perhaps it was a filter like learning CW? (oops, my bad)

Remember too that the distance rule was "air line", meaning straight-
line
distance on the map, not actual distance on the road. In many places,
125 miles air-line could be twice that on the road. More than three
hours
at the common speed limit of 40 mph - if everything went according to
plan.

Living in central PA, I'm painfully aware of that. My parents house is
around 5 miles away by air, but no closer than 11 iles by car.

How long would it take to drive from there to Philly or Pittsburgh
back before
the Interstate Highway system?

What do you think it was like in the Rockies, where 175 miles air-line
could be
twice that by road?

For me, the biggest difficulty in getting to the FCC office was the
fact that
tests in the Philly office were only given on Mondays, Tuesdays and
Wednesdays - which were all school days. Young hams like me had to
wait for summer, or a school holiday that was not a Federal holiday.
(There was no way a school kid would skip school for a day to take
a ham radio exam!) With the 30 day wait to retest, there was a real
incentive to pass on the first try.

I'll bet it was an incredibly exciting event for you, no?

It was a *serious* event, more than exciting. If a kid timed it right,
there
could be as many as three chances to test in a single summer. But it
was a long stretch through the school year. About the only chance we
had back then was the Christmas break - if the holiday didn't also
close
the FCC office.

No sarcasm here, I'm serious.

The point I would make is that the perceived "difficulty" included
both
the test itself and accessing it. As I have said before, making the
test
sessions more accessible is a Good Thing.

I was lucky - all I needed was decent shoes and a couple of subway
tokens. Three quarters of a mile to the 69th Street Terminal, the
Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated to 2nd Street, and a block south
to the US Custom House.

I travelled about 120 mikes fro my Tech, about 300 for my
General
written CSCE, a mere 20 for my Element 1, and aroud 70 for my
Extra.

Round trip or one way? Weekday or weekend? Did you have to be there at
8 AM or be turned away?

I was going to become a ham, but I couldn't get there before 9 am.....
;^)

I could leave the house at 7 and be at the FCC office by 8 without
even walking fast.
Easy.

Most of all, note the wide variation in distances. I'll bet you went
to different VE sessions at various hamfests, some close to home, some
not. You went when it was convenient for *you*.

Only the General CSCE was at a Hamfest. The rest I looked up and went
to.

Point is, you had lots of options. That's a Good Thing.

My point is that in the Conditional days there was no choice. You went
to the FCC office, on their schedule, unless you lived beyond the
Conditional distance.

And note this most of all: FCC didn't change the distance in 1954
because of concern for hams having to travel long distances to get to
an exam session. FCC changed the distance to reduce their workload
giving the exams!

I had to look up to see what we were discussiong here, Jim. My
point is that I seriously doubt that eliminating the mail ins
harmed Amateur radio. Numbers continued to grow (I believe) and by
the 60's, American society was becoming much more mobile.

The facts are somewhat different.

Amateur radio in the USA grew from about 60,000 hams in 1946 to about
250,000
in 1964. That's a quadrupling in less than 20 years, which works out
to around 8% growth per year for 18 years. At least 190,000 new hams
if nobody dropped out. Probably over 200,000 - more than 10,000 per
year.

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?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Those Old Study Guides
 

On Jan 26, 9:25 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be happy
to field questions.

Dave K8MN

Sheesh! It sure took you a lot of tries to become a ham.

Those Old Study Guides
 

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in news:SKyuh.17581$w91.2494
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

If anyone has questions about how the license manual questions and
material have evolved through the years, I have the 1938, 1940, 1947,
1955, 1963, 1973, 1974 and 1975 ARRL License manuals and would be
happy to field questions.


Are those things still under copyright Dave? Scanning them and
putting them on the web would be a tremendous asset, as well as
interesting. I could provide the space.

I'm pretty sure that they are still covered under copyright. The
scanning could take a long, long time.

Dave K8MN

Federal tests are copyrighted?

When ARRL, W5YI, and AMECO put their cover page on it... or provide
"explanation and/or interpretation" with the questions.

What is wrong with that picture? If they are using my tax dollars, they
are mine and everyone elses!

JS

What's wrong with scarfing up a dozen callsigns? The Government just
allocates more.

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dee Flint wrote:

...
Here's a site that summarizes if documents are still under copyright or not.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/tra...lic_Domain.htm

Basically if the work was published in 1923 or later, there is a potential
for it to be still under copyright. Copyright laws have changed a lot.

Dee, N8UZE



Dee:

I believe I was the first one here to point out the limitations of
copyright laws, and how Disney paid certain representatives of ours to
lengthen these laws to protect works which were still generating
substantial income ...

Google is publishing many works which are expired as is the gutenberg
project ...

But, in a nutshell, that rule above, you state, is a good "rule of thumb."

Regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

Dee Flint wrote:

...
Basically if the work was published in 1923 or later, there is a potential
for it to be still under copyright. Copyright laws have changed a lot.

Dee, N8UZE



Dee:

I forgot to mention, many works had expired their copyrights BEFORE the
representatives were paid off to lengthen that law--those works STILL
remain un-copyrighted. So, in effect, each older work has to be
researched to make a copyright determination--just another layer of
difficulty in an already difficult world ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
But they did, didn't they?

Yes, they did. But their old clunker had thrown a rod the
last trip we made to Houston and they thought it might
happen again. My Mother (God rest her soul) harped at me
about breaking down for the entire six hour round trip. She
wasn't proud that I passed - she just asked if I scored 100.
I wonder how many hams rode to the FCC office in a vehicle
that was manufactured before they were born? :-)

I had a rough time talking my parents into getting me my first
radios. I had to convince them I was serious. Perhaps the same
situation existed for you?

My parents made me pay for my ham rig out of my grocery
store earnings before they would take me to get my license.
That was my test of seriousness. I already had an S-53, a
Globetrotter, and a 40m dipole before I took my Novice exam.
After I received my license, I couldn't get the Globetrotter
to load so I traded it in on a Globe Scout. All the Globetrotter
had for an output was a link coupling wound on the final tank
coil. Thank goodness, the Globe Scout had an adjustable pi-net
output. :-)

I bought my ham gear on time payments and was making 50 cents
an hour at the time working on Saturdays. Can you imagine an
out-of-state company trusting a 14 year old teenager on a time
payment contract nowadays with no co-signer?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Those Old Study Guides
 

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

Those Old Study Guides
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
But they did, didn't they?

Yes, they did. But their old clunker had thrown a rod the
last trip we made to Houston and they thought it might
happen again. My Mother (God rest her soul) harped at me
about breaking down for the entire six hour round trip. She
wasn't proud that I passed - she just asked if I scored 100.
I wonder how many hams rode to the FCC office in a vehicle
that was manufactured before they were born? :-)

I had a rough time talking my parents into getting me my first radios.
I had to convince them I was serious. Perhaps the same situation
existed for you?

My parents made me pay for my ham rig out of my grocery
store earnings before they would take me to get my license.
That was my test of seriousness. I already had an S-53, a
Globetrotter, and a 40m dipole before I took my Novice exam.
After I received my license, I couldn't get the Globetrotter
to load so I traded it in on a Globe Scout. All the Globetrotter
had for an output was a link coupling wound on the final tank
coil. Thank goodness, the Globe Scout had an adjustable pi-net
output. :-)

I bought my ham gear on time payments and was making 50 cents
an hour at the time working on Saturdays. Can you imagine an
out-of-state company trusting a 14 year old teenager on a time
payment contract nowadays with no co-signer?

Cecil:

My gawd man, I wonder what it took to build character like you have
demonstrated. Some of that might have killed me (that might not all be
a joke either.)

Good job man. Well done. I'd imagine your mother and father were damn
proud of you, whether they were ever able to state such or not ... my
own story would pale in comparison :(

Warmest regards,
JS

Those Old Study Guides
 

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".

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

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!

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

b.

Those Old Study Guides
 

From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Jan 28 2007 9:04 am

"John Smith I" wrote in message

John,

Here's a site that summarizes if documents are still under copyright or not.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/tra...lic_Domain.htm

I would suggest going to the SOURCE of all US Copyright
information and protection:

www.copyright.gov

The Copyright Office has a number of quite-clear pages on exactly
what a Copyright IS, who is protected, what constitutes a
Copyright, etc.

Basically if the work was published in 1923 or later, there is a potential
for it to be still under copyright. Copyright laws have changed a lot.

Not quite correct. The first major upheaval in US Copyright
Law of "modern times" happened with Public Law 94-553
passed on 19 Oct 76.

As of 1 Jan 78, any work created on or after that date was
protected for "life plus 50," or the lifetime of the author
or corporate entity plus 50 years. This was later amended
to "life plus 70" [see PL 105-298]

Any work created BEFORE 1 Jan 78 had a number of different
protections, between 28 and 47 years after creation. After
the URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) that was
amended to 75 years with a possible total of 95 years. To
pin those protections down to nit-picky detail would require
the aid of a Copyright attorney who must include changes
from Public Law 105-298. Legal help is suggested when
there is question of a change of ownership of Copyrights, a
subject much more convoluted in details.

In essence, by Law, government works CANNOT be
copyrighted. A corporate entity (such as the ARRL) CAN
copyright their works but there is a very grey area on who
owns what when such entities INCLUDE non-copyrightable
works such as government regulations.

For the complete regulations on Patents, Trademarks, and
Copyrights see Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations available
free for download from the US Government Printing Office
website.

Those Old Study Guides