Stefan Wolfe wrote:
...
being able to answer the old format seems to more accurately measure one's
basic understanding of an amplifier circuit. I vote for the old. Why did
they change it to multiple guess?



Amplifier? No such thing!

Just two types of oscillators:

1) Self-sustaining oscillator.

2) Input-controlled oscillator (smaller input--smaller oscillations,
larger input--larger oscillations, "special case"=no input--no
oscillations).

Regards,
JS

robert casey wrote:

...
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.

Not only that, word on the street is:

Hams are thinner, have more hair, have fewer warts and better looking
than CB'ers too! attempted-straight-face

Well, except for the fat-bald-warty-ugly-hams

JS

Stefan Wolfe 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:

Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:

(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter

.
Study Question #32:

From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
consumed by the load be determined?


Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?


Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
following components:

(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank
(c) high voltage source
(d) plate-current meter
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.


Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
were on the old exams.

The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe
license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e".

The question would be something like,
"which is the coupling capacitor?"
"which is an rf choke?"
"what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
above?"

So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and their
names
and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different
format
from the study guide.

The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small part
of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was covered!

How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
detail.

This is the first time I have ever seen the old format but I must admit I
prefer the old format to the new, without the answers published in advance.
Actually the new extra class format asks the same sort of questions but
being able to answer the old format seems to more accurately measure one's
basic understanding of an amplifier circuit.

The questions I listed above were from the 1976 *Novice* study guide...

I vote for the old. Why did
they change it to multiple guess?

It's a bit of a story:

From the first days of amateur licensing to 1950, all US amateur
license written exams were a mixture of essay questions, draw-a-diagram
questions, show-your-work calculation questions, and multiple choice
questions. Test preparation and grading were all done by FCC or other
government officials (FCC did not exist until the early 1930s).

When the Novice license was created in 1951, its test was all
multiple-choice. But the test preparation and grading were all still
done by FCC. Through the 1950s the other license classes remained as
they had been.

All this time, the license exams were considered almost government
secrets. The actual tests were not public knowledge. Instead, FCC
published "study guides" in essay format that indicated the areas the
tests covered.

About 1961, FCC decided to "modernize" the license tests. They were all
converted to multiple choice format, with a new answer sheet that could
be machine-graded. This transition did not take place overnight, though
- the field offices first used up their supply of old tests before
going to the new ones.

Still, the tests themselves remained secret, and the study guides
stayed in essay format even though the tests themselves were multiple
choice.

By changing the written tests to multiple-choice, the person grading
them did not need to know anything about the test content. This greatly
reduced the FCC's workload in administering the tests. That was the
main reason for the change - to reduce FCC's workload.

In the 1970s, there was a fellow on the West Coast named Dick Bash who
published a series of books whose contents were reportedly almost
identical to the actual tests. He reportedly did this by stationing
himself or a helper outside FCC offices, questioning people who had
just taken the tests, and paying them for each question they could
remember. He also reportedly sent people to FCC to take the tests - not
to pass them, but to remember what was on them.

This caused a lot of outcry and protest in both the amateur community
and FCC. But the top brass at FCC refused to go after Bash, and his
books stayed on the market. Although the rules said that the contents
of the exam were not to be divulged to others, FCC did not stop Bash at
all.

This system continued until about 1983, when FCC created the VE/QPC
system. The VE/QPC system turned over most of the testing work to
unpaid volunteers. The Question Pool Committee prepared and maintained
the questions used on the tests, and the Volunteer Examiners
administered them. VE fees went to pay the direct expenses of the
system - duplicating, facility rental, postage, etc. FCC retained
ultimate control, approving all the questions and setting guidelines,
but leaving the grunt work to unpaid amateur volunteers.

The VE/QPC system meant that the tests could no longer even keep up the
appearance of being secret. The question pools were made public, and
there were no more study guides, since the actual exam was available.
It also relieved FCC of an enormous amount of administrative work,
which was the main reason for the change.

The idea was that the number of questions in the pools would be much
larger than the number on the actual test, and that individual tests
would be made by a random choice of questions from the pools.

That's how we got the system we have now.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cecil Moore wrote:
AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
as of a government"

From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
"avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"

Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...


It is by law, Part 97, the "Amateur Radio Service".

Ah, if Webster's fails then try again using the Federal Regs huh...

That part cannot be argued.

Your *usage* can be argued though. Heck anything can be argued...

The "service" that is performed is by the federal government for the
benefit of US citizens.

You said (quote):
"Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one."

If as you say the "service" is that performed by the Government for the
citizens, then how does your sentence make any real sense? Use hobby and it
makes perfect sense.

It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not a choice of either/or. It is both.

It is both only if service = hobby. And service does not equal hobby, that was
my point. Everybody here knows what you meant including me. 'Service' has been
used for 'hobby' as long as 'CW' has been used for 'code'. And most hams think
that service means that we perform some kind of terribly useful service to the
public. But the truth be told, we are more a pain in the butt to both the public
and the government than any kind of real service. There. Now can we stop with
the semantics...

wrote:

Not proven at all, Len. In fact, when you argue with Mike,
you are arguing with a nocodetest person.

Lennie's had the proverbial "hard on" for me since he showed up on USENET
back in the mid 90's. I can only conclude his obsession with me is due to
the fact that I have a ham radio license while, alas, he does not.


This isn't a new thing, or a secret. Look up his 1998
comments to the FCC on the subject, if you don't believe me.

What is even more amusing is if you look up Lennie's comments to the FCC,
out of thousands of pages of comments, he felt the need to rebut my comments
virtually line for line.


He specifically asked FCC to do the following in response to NPRM
98-143:

I have always felt stronger (not read: more difficult) theory examinations
were more important to the ARS than morse code testing. It is an opinion
that I hold to this day.


IOW, he *supported* the NCI proposal of that time! He's a
dyed-in-the-wool no-coder!

I actually have my NCI membership certificate packed someone in my boxes.


3) Reduction of the number of amateur radio license classes
to two.

I still feel two license classes - a 50MHZ+ and a 30MHZ- would not
necessarily be a bad idea.


This was almost ten years ago. I don't think Mike has changed

Not at all. I still feel all my ideas presented 8 years ago hold merit
today.

I do not really see any need for two HF licenses. The FCC should simply
eliminate the General license and have a Class A and Class B license.


Well, it's interesting to see that you can be nasty to those
who agree with you....

Since Lennie's first appearance... oh, 10? years ago, he's pretty much been
a nasty fellow.

As I've posted in the past, he reminds me a great deal of my
long-since-departed paternal grandmother, who was so miserable, she had to
try and make everyone else around her miserable too. I can only conclude
that Lennie's inability to get a ham license has made him very, very
miserable.

73
KH6HZ

wrote:

... "Trivial Pursuit" ...

Excellent analogy, and demonstrates my point to a 'T'.

Perhaps, but that's not the big issue.

What I see as the big issue is that such testing may actually
do a disservice to the amateurs themselves, because they wind
up with a license but not the basic knowledge on how to set
up a station and operate it.

Because that wouldn't help the situation at all - at least
not in the above example.

I disagree.


First off, a regulations question is essentially a
memorization question.

Yes. I've stated before that certain types of questions -- i.e. definitions,
regulations, etc. -- tend to be more rote memorization. However, there is no
reason why those examination questions cannot likewise be randomized to some
extent.


Second, if the exact questions are publicly available,
figuring out the correct answer is pretty easy. Then all the
person has to do is "memorize" the correct answer enough to
recognize it. Changing the distractors doesn't make any
difference.

However, my proposal has been to randomize the correct answers (as much as
possible). Granted, my choice of question was not ideal. Rather than using a
range, use a specific frequency and 3 distractors, requiring the applicant
to choose the correct frequency (hence, knowing band limits, etc.)


Where such an approach would have an effect would be in
questions like Ohm's Law, where the values could be randomly
generated.

Yes. Some questions naturally lend themselves to randomization then others.

In some respects, I think definition questions, such as "what is ohm's law"
simply be eliminated. Either the person knows what ohms law is (via a test
question where they have to use it to solve a problem) or they do not.
Having the definition as a test question is silly.


Maybe not. I think that, in the long run, it is actually
easier to learn the material. It's the short run that is the
problem.

I'm not really sure of this.


In practice, however, not much can be done other than to
enlarge the question pools and possibly have computer
randomization of values. The FCC is clearly
not going to take over the testing jobs that have been done
by unpaid volunteers for more than 20 years.

I think writing a computer program to generate examinations, and releasing
the examination to the public so folks could generate their own tests in
prep for taking the "real thing", would, in fact, be a 'good thing'. Heck,
I'm sure W5YI would love to charge prospective hams $25 for the "actual
program used to generate your FCC Examination!"

Plus, it eliminates the need for the VECs to constantly maintain a pool of
questions -- less long-term work. With randomization, they have a near
inifinite pool of questions, all generated at the time a test is needed.

73
KH6HZ

spewed gibberish with:

are you claiming you did or did not

I think I stated previously that the one and only ship license I held had my
ULS FRN attached to it.


no but it is ilgela to comit fraud to obtain even one

Fraud is, alas, a criminal offense. At no time did I violate any Part 97
rules or regulations. Nor for that matter have I ever been arrested,
charged, or convicted of any crime, including fraud.

On the other hand, being a Gay Pagan Dyslexic Ham is an offense which the
military court-martials people for -- at least, in the past.

no he doesn't

Yeah, I guess "Pob 212, PO BOX PoB212" on the license of KB9RQZ isn't a "PO
Box" lol.



how many are you?

None.


so the PoSBoix is merely one of the means you used to comit fraud

What do you use your PO Box for, Morkie? Kiddie Porn?


What's Morkie hiding?

nothing but you are afraid of me

Afraid of you? Are you a stalker?


Probably explains why you
can't get a ham license too.

out right lie now MD

Lennie doesn't have an amateur license, does he?

wrote:

back to the sex crap

Sorry I got you all hot and bothered, Lt. General Colonel Morgan.

spewed gibberish:

not that I have seen

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the applicable threads.


now you say you think this is the case care to drop the condictional
make the satement

I can't parse this. Care to repeat it in English?


so?

The only "fraud" here, Morkie, is your impersonation of a radio amateur.



you should have lost your license Riley was generous

At no time was my license as a radio amateur ever in jeopardy of being
revolked, as at no time did I ever violate any portion of Part 97, nor any
other federal laws or regulations.

Too bad, so sad, for you Morkie.


you are afraid of me it is obvious you can't even be a man and spell my
name right

Considering you cannot form a coherent sentence without at least one
gramatical and spelling error, you are certainly in no position to criticize
other peoples' spelling.


no but you lied and said he can't get one he can get one anytime so you
lied again

I never said Lennie couldn't "get" a ham license. Lennie's not very likely
to get one, because Lennie likes to bitch, moan, and complain. Amateur Radio
and code testing is merely a means to that end.

"robert casey" wrote in message
link.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.