|
Those Old Study Guides
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 |
Those Old Study Guides
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. |
Those Old Study Guides
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... |
Those Old Study Guides
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. |
Those Old Study Guides
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 |
Those Old Study Guides
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 |
Those Old Study Guides
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. |
Those Old Study Guides
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 |
Those Old Study Guides
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. |
Those Old Study Guides
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 |
Those Old Study Guides
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... 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! Individuals/corps make a living though such "questionable practices." Regards, JS Under the current laws there is no renewal. The max copyright length applies automatically. The renewal requirement was dropped a long time ago. Anything that fell out of copyright (i.e. was not renewed) before that change occurred went into the public domain and stayed there (there are a few exceptions but it gets too complicated). Those that were still under copyright at the time of the change had their copyrights automatically extended to the max length. Dee, N8UZE |
Those Old Study Guides
|
Those Old Study Guides
On Jan 28, 5:32�pm, robert casey wrote:
(N2EY 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? * Nope. The Conditional distance changed from 75 to 175 miles on April 15, 1965. The changes known as "incentive licensing" did not become effective until November 22, 1968 - more than three and a half years later. The growth stoppage was noted in 1965. So it seems very unlikely that those changes had any effect. There were other factors besides the Conditional distance change, IMHO. For example, one of the main sources of new hams used to be SWLs and others who would hear hams using 'phone on their "shortwave" receivers, and would want to join the fun. But by 1964, SSB had become the most popular HF 'phone mode, and SSB was unintelligible on most SWL receivers. Another factor was the rise of the "counterculture" among young people, who had fed the growth of ham radio all through the 1950s. Ham radio was considered too "square" by many of them, too allied with the military-industrial complex. It's said that hams were less than happy about having to upgrade to get back frequencies they had the use of before. Some were unhappy. Others simply took on the challenge and upgraded. But those changes took place more than 3-1/2 years after the Conditional distance changed. And here's the kicker: The "incentive licensing" restrictions took place in two stages, on November 22, 1968 and November 22, 1969. During the 1970s, the number of US hams grew much faster than they did in the 1960s. By 1979 there were at least 350,000 US hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Those Old Study Guides
Dee Flint wrote:
... Under the current laws there is no renewal. The max copyright length applies automatically. The renewal requirement was dropped a long time ago. Anything that fell out of copyright (i.e. was not renewed) before that change occurred went into the public domain and stayed there (there are a few exceptions but it gets too complicated). Those that were still under copyright at the time of the change had their copyrights automatically extended to the max length. Dee, N8UZE Dee: I defer to your knowledge. I have no horse in that race at this time. Thanks, the data is nice to know though. Warmest regards, JS |
Those Old Study Guides
On Jan 28, 5:48�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote: "John Smith I" wrote in ... 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! Individuals/corps make a living though such "questionable practices." Regards, JSUnder the current laws there is no renewal. *The max copyright length applies automatically. *The renewal requirement was dropped a long time ago. Anything that fell out of copyright (i.e. was not renewed) before that change occurred went into the public domain and stayed there (there are a few exceptions but it gets too complicated). *Those that were still under copyright at the time of the change had their copyrights automatically extended to the max length. Thank you, Dee...you must have gone to www.copyrights.gov and looked at Circulars 15A and 15T, yes? :-) LA |
Those Old Study Guides
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Goodbye troll ... JS Goodbye babbling, ineducatable twit. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Those Old Study Guides
|
Those Old Study Guides
|
Those Old Study Guides
Cecil Moore wrote in news:lB6vh.36134$QU1.13970
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: 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. Sounds like a Catholic family! ;^) 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. Fortunately I got my radio's as presents. I did however, want to join a band. They bought me a guitar, but after that I was on my own. I bought a guitar amp and a PA amp, and was making payments while awfully young too. But then again, I was making between 100 to 200 dollars a week while in high school in the late 60's early seventies. That was some serious jack at the time for a kid! Can you imagine an out-of-state company trusting a 14 year old teenager on a time payment contract nowadays with no co-signer? It is pretty amazing. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... "Bob Brock" wrote in : On the other hand, we could identify what the critical tasks a ham operator needs to operate, tell the prospective ham what those tasks are, give the prospective ham the answers to those tasks (such as a question and answer pool) and then test on those identified objectives. After the new ham gets his license to get on the air, we could provide him with a learning environment to enhance those basic skills and become a more experienced and adept operator. Me, I go for plan "B." Hear, hear! Q and A pools are here to stay, Amateur radio is no exception. The moaning and wailing, gnashing of teeth and hand wringing about the good old days -that my research convinces me *weren't* anyhow - is more likely just nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist. I agree. I can understand that a little bit. Since I got my license, I've started a love affair with hollow state. I love the heat, the look and feel, even the smell of that vintage equipment. But there is too much evidence that those good old days weren't all that good after all. I wonder who is going to provide a better learning environment, people such as myelf - a presumably substandard product of the dumbed down newfangled system, who only passed a 5wpm code test, and the "easy" new tests, or one of the old geniuses who comes into the room with the attitude that the new ham is as likely an idiot as not? My experience so far is that it's up to the new guy to learn on his own. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote in message ups.com... From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18 -0500 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. Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between E-Com (AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking people to shelters during an ice storm and major power outage. Nothing has upgraded around here since then to allow the different agencies to communicate if cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do it again. Not all of us live in the big cities and based on what I've seen critiqued, they aren't much better than those of us out in the sticks when it comes to interagency communications. |
Those Old Study Guides
wrote in message oups.com... Bob Brock wrote: wrote in message ups.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: Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used. It's more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking it. Every tried grading essay questions? Yes - but you missed the point, Bob. In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except that most of them were 5 choices rather than 4. But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not officially. And this benefited the ARS in which way. If someone knows the task...they know the task. To be honest with you, I've known some CB'ers who knew as much or more about radio than ham's. However, I've not known any CB'ers since about 1974 or so. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:37:34 -0500, "Bob Brock" wrote: "robert casey" wrote in message thlink.net... Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not just the code test, either. Is there really a problem here? Or is it that we have fun arguing this issue here? Ham are. for the most part, quite well behaved, unlike the CBers. So I don't see what is broken in ham radio testing. I agree. If it's not broke, don't try to fix it. esp as it seem to me at least the questions pools are getting better now that the FCC has left them to us (or rather to NVEC) http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ I'm reviewing to go to General and they seem to be pretty comprehensive to me. |
Those Old Study Guides
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. Would you put that question in an Amateur Radio test today? Well, you could. You'd have to pick the correct answer from those offered in the multiple choice. But you could work "backwards" with each choice to find the one that fits right. There are ways to cheat almost any system. Do you know of any actual cheating under the old system? Oh, there were jokes to the effect that for an extra fee, you were guaranteed to pass... There have been documented cases of suspected cheating under the VEC system, where the FCC called in hams who then flunked the retest. I imagine that some of those recalled may have passed their retests.... Good, glad they were caught. One of the interesting things about people when they get to be curmudgeons is that they use present day exposures and punishments as some sort of evidence of corruption as compared with the good old days, when there was apparently no corruption because there wasn't any expose's of the wicked. The FCC probably weighed the downsides of a cheater escaping undetected and decided that such a cheater would not degrade the quality or safety of the amateur service that much. Unlike say a cheater "passing" state medical board exams to become a licensed medical doctor. You just have to do enough to limit it to a level that doesn't make testing look like a joke. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
From: "Bob Brock" on Mon, Jan 29 2007 12:18 am
wrote in message From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18 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. Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between E-Com (AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking people to shelters during an ice storm and major power outage. Nothing has upgraded around here since then to allow the different agencies to communicate if cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do it again. Not all of us live in the big cities and based on what I've seen critiqued, they aren't much better than those of us out in the sticks when it comes to interagency communications. Yes, I can understand that "the sticks" (as you say) don't have all the communications facilities. However, we can't neglect the fact that so much of the USA population lives in urban areas. In my life experience, as I wrote, I've also been in emergencies. Further, since I live in a "sunbelt" area, we don't have ice storms and, usually, electric power here is a reliable thing. But, I spent the first 19 years of my life IN a northern Illinois city that DID experience ice storms, regular winter snowfall, etc., and the electric power was not always reliable. No, I wasn't involved in radio comms then. My urban area has a LARGE population. On January 17, 1994, we all experienced a sizeable earthquake here. It killed 58 people. It left thousands temporarily homeless, hundreds requiring medical aid for injuries. The ENTIRE population (roughly 8 million) was without ANY electric power for half a day, a few areas (physically damaged) without for 3 days. My point was not a "can you top this" thing but to point out that the public safety and utility infrastructure had ALREADY prepared for this sort of thing and acted as they had planned and trained for when disaster struck. At that time the centralized emergency communications network was new, involving dozens of neighboring government public safety organizations. It received a "trial by fire" test and passed it. Now I don't claim (or "boast") that it is best, only that it WORKS. Intelligent advanced planning and continuing training WORKS. Let's see. Others have complained that "the sticks" don't have lots of money to do such things. No doubt true. But the Greater Los Angeles area doesn't have "lots of money" either. TAXES pay for nearly all. If there are 8 million taxpayers, then the amount becomes large. In the case of the LA emergency communications network, the local public safety organizations ALREADY HAD the major part of the communications equipment. So did the utility companies. The thing needed was some way to tie them all together, ORGANIZE, PLAN AHEAD, and KEEP TRAINING in the different possible scenarios. Out here there's lots of nature lovers who grouse and grumble about our "concrete rivers." Flood control channels, numerous in the 1.5 million population San Fernando Valley. What most of them don't realize is that the normally quiet, peaceful rivers and streams have become raging torrents during heavy rainfall and flash flooding. There's a few old, old motion pictures still around that recorded one of the old floods. It used to KILL people and render a lot of "the Valley" impossible to settle for cities. Some good thinking, PLANNING AHEAD, help from the WPA following the Great Depression enabled the flood control channels to be built and make the place safe from flood destruction. Yeah, "the sticks" couldn't afford that, either...the federal government had to help out. [need I mention the TVA?] But, we wound up with no terrible destructive flash flooding as had been nature's norm in past centuries. Mama Nature goes on a big bender every once in a while, everywhere. We can't stop that, only divert some of it. The key is not necessarily money, just to ORGANIZE, PLAN AHEAD, and KEEP TRAINING for any area, large, small, or in-between, using resources at hand. More resources is a different problem...politics of money disbursement is something to handle at the local level. ORGANIZE, PLAN AHEAD, TRAIN and keep on TRAINING. It works. For professionals and amateurs alike. Press releases won't do it. |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"Bob Brock" wrote in
: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... "Bob Brock" wrote in : On the other hand, we could identify what the critical tasks a ham operator needs to operate, tell the prospective ham what those tasks are, give the prospective ham the answers to those tasks (such as a question and answer pool) and then test on those identified objectives. After the new ham gets his license to get on the air, we could provide him with a learning environment to enhance those basic skills and become a more experienced and adept operator. Me, I go for plan "B." Hear, hear! Q and A pools are here to stay, Amateur radio is no exception. The moaning and wailing, gnashing of teeth and hand wringing about the good old days -that my research convinces me *weren't* anyhow - is more likely just nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist. I agree. I can understand that a little bit. Since I got my license, I've started a love affair with hollow state. I love the heat, the look and feel, even the smell of that vintage equipment. But there is too much evidence that those good old days weren't all that good after all. I wonder who is going to provide a better learning environment, people such as myelf - a presumably substandard product of the dumbed down newfangled system, who only passed a 5wpm code test, and the "easy" new tests, or one of the old geniuses who comes into the room with the attitude that the new ham is as likely an idiot as not? My experience so far is that it's up to the new guy to learn on his own. Unfortunately, I had much the same experience. There is a good bit of "anti-Elmering that has gone on the last few years. I will note at the same time I did get some excellent help from a few old timers. They are the ones who should be emulated. The group I am in is doing what we can to change the Anti-Elmering situation. We're starting Classes, projects even at beginners level, and above all grumpy superior Hams who believe that the new guys are just glorified CB'ers are welcome - but they have to check their attitude at the door. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Those Old Study Guides
robert casey wrote in
hlink.net: 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. Would you put that question in an Amateur Radio test today? Well, you could. You'd have to pick the correct answer from those offered in the multiple choice. But you could work "backwards" with each choice to find the one that fits right. Sure you could put it in. But as one of a limited number of questions in a test, it falls at the bottom of the relevency scale. There are ways to cheat almost any system. Do you know of any actual cheating under the old system? Oh, there were jokes to the effect that for an extra fee, you were guaranteed to pass... I'd heard a little bit of that kind of stuff too. There have been documented cases of suspected cheating under the VEC system, where the FCC called in hams who then flunked the retest. I imagine that some of those recalled may have passed their retests.... Good, glad they were caught. One of the interesting things about people when they get to be curmudgeons is that they use present day exposures and punishments as some sort of evidence of corruption as compared with the good old days, when there was apparently no corruption because there wasn't any expose's of the wicked. The FCC probably weighed the downsides of a cheater escaping undetected and decided that such a cheater would not degrade the quality or safety of the amateur service that much. Unlike say a cheater "passing" state medical board exams to become a licensed medical doctor. You just have to do enough to limit it to a level that doesn't make testing look like a joke. Agreed. If a cheater were to keep their nose clean and operate properly, they would appear to everyone as just another good ham. Of course, those with a tendency to cheat tend to expose themselves in the end.Probably part of the personality, and general stupidity that cheaters have in common. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
"Bob Brock" wrote in
: wrote in message ups.com... From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18 -0500 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. Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between E-Com (AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking people to shelters during an ice storm and major power outage. Nothing has upgraded around here since then to allow the different agencies to communicate if cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do it again. Not all of us live in the big cities and based on what I've seen critiqued, they aren't much better than those of us out in the sticks when it comes to interagency communications. And you can bet any new systems that come along will have more layers of structure embedded in them. Which of course will fail sooner rather than later. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
Mike Coslo wrote:
... And you can bet any new systems that come along will have more layers of structure embedded in them. Which of course will fail sooner rather than later. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Mike: In college, in the very early '70s, I had an electronics instructor, came to teach through the military. I was confused and seen academia as a series of VERY rigid hoops you had to jump through. On day, Mr. Willet(sp) said to me, during a discussion, "It doesn't matter how you learn a thing, it only matters you learn it." At the time I did not realize the importance of his words, but not too much after, I adopted them and have shared them with others, along the way ... and, more importantly, I have adopted them as a rule to live by. Those words have served me well ... Warmest regards, JS |
Those Old Study Guides
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... [snip] Jim, You are exxpressing an opinion. That you choos to describe your opinion as accurate, then I guess it follows that you think (know) that my opinion on the matter is innacurate. Innacurate is a present day euphemism for lying. It's a shame that words are being distorted to mean something that they were not to mean. If inaccurate is a euphemism for lying, what are we now going to use to take the place the original meaning of inaccurate? Dee, N8UZE |
Those Old Study Guides
Dee Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... [snip] Jim, You are exxpressing an opinion. That you choos to describe your opinion as accurate, then I guess it follows that you think (know) that my opinion on the matter is innacurate. Innacurate is a present day euphemism for lying. It's a shame that words are being distorted to mean something that they were not to mean. If inaccurate is a euphemism for lying, what are we now going to use to take the place the original meaning of inaccurate? Dee, N8UZE Dee: The following are definitions of "lie": # be located or situated somewhere; occupy a certain position # be lying, be prostrate; be in a horizontal position; "The sick man lay in bed all day"; "the books are lying on the shelf" # dwell: originate (in); "The problems dwell in the social injustices in this country" # be and remain in a particular state or condition; "lie dormant" # tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive; "Don't lie to your parents"; "She lied when she told me she was only 29" # a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth # have a place in relation to something else; "The fate of Bosnia lies in the hands of the West"; "The responsibility rests with the Allies" # Norwegian diplomat who was the first Secretary General of the United Nations (1896-1968) # lie down: assume a reclining position; "lie down on the bed until you feel better" # position or manner in which something is situated Technically, anything "deviating" from the truth is a lie. This is not how we commonly use the word "lie" however, as we "add" that the intended goal of the person stating the "lie" is deception. Or: You can lie without making a conscious effort to do so. I just point out the above for intellectual diversion. And, when I accuse someone of lying, I am assuming and inferring he/she consciously wishes to be deceptive and/or misleading. If you want to see the page I got this from, enter this into a search engine (google?) define:lie Note the colon and NO spaces. This "dictionary" works well for any other words also ... example: define:politician Warmest regards, JS |
Those Old Study Guides
Dee Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... [snip] Jim, You are exxpressing an opinion. That you choos to describe your opinion as accurate, then I guess it follows that you think (know) that my opinion on the matter is innacurate. Innacurate is a present day euphemism for lying. It's a shame that words are being distorted to mean something that they were not to mean. If inaccurate is a euphemism for lying, what are we now going to use to take the place the original meaning of inaccurate? Dee, N8UZE You've nailed it, Dee. There can be all sorts of reasons for an inaccuracy. If I cut a board to 9 7/16 when it should have been 9 9/16, it doesn't mean that I've lied about the measurement. Dave K8MN |
Feb 23 is the No-code date
On Jan 23, 9:13�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
* * * * Q and A pools are here to stay, Amateur radio is no exception. As I've said many times. The moaning and wailing, gnashing of teeth and hand wringing about the good old days -that my research convinces me *weren't* anyhow - is more likely just nostalgia for a time that didn't really exist. Well, I've been a ham for almost 40 years, and in my life experience, some things back then were better, and some weren't. * * * * I can understand that a little bit. Since I got my license, I've started a love affair with hollow state. I love the heat, the look and feel, even the smell of that vintage equipment. I suggest you subscribe to the Glowbugs reflector. See: http://www.mines.uidaho.edu/~glowbugs/ for more info. But there is too much evidence that those good old days weren't all that good after all. Some things were better, some were worse. * * * * I wonder who is going to provide a better learning environment, people such as myelf - a presumably substandard product of the dumbed down newfangled system, who only passed a 5wpm code test, and the "easy" new tests, or one of the old geniuses who comes into the room with the attitude that the new ham is as likely an idiot as not? I vote for the person who is knowledgeable, and willing/able to share that knowledge. Regardless of what exact tests they took for their license. -- There's all sorts of Elmering going on via the online environment - one simply has to know where to look. I have found email reflectors to be a much better resource than usenet. 73 es CU in GB de Jim, N2EY |
Those Old Study Guides
On Jan 28, 11:03�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote roups.com: On Jan 27, 10:20�pm, Mike Coslo wrote: wrote roup s.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 impro ved * * 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. It was committee work, and reeks of committee work Actually I think it's more a patchwork job instead of a comprehensive one. Like the person who patches up a leaky roof rather than redo the whole thing from the rafters up. The patches cost less at the time, but you have to keep patching. The whole 125-75-175 mile Conditional distance thing looks like a regulatory patch job. FCC restructured the ARS license classes in 1951, did the Great Giveaway of 1952, then found their offices flooded with amateur exam-takers. So they reduced the Conditional distance and made Novice and Tech by-mail-only to lighten the load. * * 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. I don't know of any cheating either. But I don't think that this generation has a monopoly on abberant behavior. Of course not. But things do change over time. For example, the Watergate scandal changed the way a lot of Americans loooked at the Federal government, and how much it was trusted by them. 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. Would you put that question in an Amateur Radio test today? I'd put a modernized version of it. Something like this: Suppose a ham rig has reference-oscillator accuracy of .001% when new, and the output frequency can be considered as accurate as the reference oscillator. Suppose also that the rig has a negative temperature coefficient of 2 parts per million per degree C over the range from 5 to 35 degrees C, and the display can read out to 10 Hz. What is the lowest indicated frequency on the 15 meter band that a General class amateur should use for Morse Code operation, assuming the worst temperature condition and allowing 500 Hz for aging and other factors? 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. * * * * Wow, is this going to degenreate into how much easier people have it today since we can use calculators? No. I'm just pointing out how different it was. I can use a calculator, I can do longhand, I can even do a sliderule - ours was the last class in school that had to learn to use them. I never "had" to learn to use a slipstick - we were told to get one and learn to use it on our own time. 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. * * * * Would seem like it. But while I could likely do the math from the question, I don't know that much about crystals that maybe there was something else that the student needed to know. to get a correct answer. 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? * * * * Frankly, I don't see much of a difference. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about that. If I know that the remight be a question regarding temp cofficient of quartz crystals on teh test, I'd learn about them. And that's a Good Thing. 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. * * * * I did research before my tests. 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. * * * * Good, glad they were caught. Some passed, some didn't. Some didn't even show up or reply to FCC. Automatic flunk. One of the interesting things about people when they get to be curmudgeons is that they use present day exposures and punishments as some sort of evidence of corruption as compared with the good old days, when there was apparently no corruption because there wasn't any expose's of the wicked. Good point! One of the big changes that Watergate and similar scandals (remember that guy who was found drunk in the reflecting pool with a woman named "Fannie Fox"?) brought was that the mainstream press would publish those stories instead of hushing them up. The personal foibles of government officials used to be considered off-limits, but not any more. Your argumen could be used as saying that there was no steroid abuse in baseball before the first person was caught.... Agreed! But at the same time, it is an equally flawed argument to say that there was as much cheating then as now, without any evidence. 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. * * * * This ham is glad of that. If that makes the old timers better than me, then so be it. 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. * * * * Jim, You are exxpressing an opinion. I'm also expressing factual information as to how the tests used to be, compared to how they are now. That you choos to describe your opinion as accurate, then I guess it follows that you think (know) that my opinion on the matter is innacurate. My use of the word "accurate" is meant to refer to the factual information as to how the tests used to be, compared to how they are now - not the opinions surrounding them. Sorry if that wasn't clear. * * * * Innacurate is a present day euphemism for lying. It can be. Inaccurate can also mean a lot of other things. "Lying" generally means the telling of an untruth where the teller *knows* what is being told is untrue, but says it anyway with the intent to deceive the listener. I don't think you are trying to deceive anyone. * * * * I would hope that you are not accusing me of lying when I'm simply offering my opinion. In all my years on rrap, I have not accused *anyone* of lying. Telling untruths isn't necessarily lying - the teller could just be making a mistake. And I would say that *human beings* - young, old, male, female - are capable of becoming upset about just about anything. * * * * Not to the extent that aging men do. I disagree! IMHO, it depends on the induhvidual. 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 dont' know if upset is hte correct word. I think it is. He's having his version of fun with you folks that want to argue with him. I don't argue with him. I correct some of his mistakes and state correct factual information, and my opinions. That often drives him bonkers, but that's his problem, not mine. Kind of a co-dependency thing. ;^) I'll stick with my transference and projection diagnosis. Besides, the person in question won't be posting to rrap much longer, and won't be in the new moderated group. So it's really a moot point. Old joke: Two substance-abusers and a codependent are sentenced to death on the guillotine by a king. The first substance abuser is put in the machine, the lever pulled, the blade comes down - and miraculously stops a few inches above the condemned substance-abuser's neck. The king says "it's a miracle" and lets the first condemned person go free. The second substance abuser is put in the machine, the lever pulled, the blade comes down - and miraculously stops a few inches above the condemned substance-abuser's neck. The king says "it's a miracle" and lets the second condemned person go free. The co-dependent person is led to the machine, but says "I can fix this!" (thanks to Cary Tennis on Salon.com) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Those Old Study Guides
robert casey wrote:
Would you put that question in an Amateur Radio test today? Well, you could. You'd have to pick the correct answer from those offered in the multiple choice. What does an expensive wine glass have to do with ham radio? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Those Old Study Guides
Bob Brock wrote:
Since you're replying to my post, let me make it emphatically clear that I advocate publishing the questions and the answers as long as the questions are all encompassing of what a ham needs to know. *All encompassing?* Is a ham license a learner's permit or a Nobel Prize? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Those Old Study Guides
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... [snip] Jim, You are exxpressing an opinion. That you choos to describe your opinion as accurate, then I guess it follows that you think (know) that my opinion on the matter is innacurate. Innacurate is a present day euphemism for lying. It's a shame that words are being distorted to mean something that they were not to mean. If inaccurate is a euphemism for lying, what are we now going to use to take the place the original meaning of inaccurate? Language morphs all the time. Innacurate isn't even a new morph. It's been used by politicians for years to say "lying" without saying lying. I can use the word quite correctly. I was a little concerned when the word accurate was used in the expression of an opinion. Opinions don't have to be accurate. So when my opinions are decried as innacurate, I start to wonder. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Those Old Study Guides
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... Bob Brock wrote: Since you're replying to my post, let me make it emphatically clear that I advocate publishing the questions and the answers as long as the questions are all encompassing of what a ham needs to know. *All encompassing?* Is a ham license a learner's permit or a Nobel Prize? Do you think that there should be a Nobel Prize for ham radio? |
Those Old Study Guides
Mike Coslo wrote:
So when my opinions are decried as innacurate, I start to wonder. Inaccurate opinions are a sure sign of dementia. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com