Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 12:09 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 118
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

-= bob =-

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 12:41 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.


Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #3   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 01:27 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 116
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.


Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.


Hi Jim,


Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
higher than thay are now?

Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 01:55 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 618
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date


wrote in message
ups.com...
KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...

Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.


Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?


There is an article on the ARRL website about it. Apparently they have
access to information that says it is scheduled to be published on January
24th. This would make it effective on February 23rd.

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Water under the bridge now. I will focus my efforts on teaching, elmering,
and conducting tests.

Dee, N8UZE


  #5   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 03:00 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...


Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.


Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.


Hi Jim,


Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
higher than thay are now?


I think they were higher then, yes.

Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?


It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person
had to know and
understand to pass the tests.

The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for?

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1953, 1962, and
1971. They contained the study guides provided by FCC, but *not* the
actual Q&A used on the tests.

Having read all of them cover-to-cover, I can say I think the standards
were higher then.

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...


Those sample questions were *not* the actual questions used on the
test. They were simply made up by Ameco.

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?


Lots of ways:

For example, which of the following requires more knowledge:

Question 1:

The length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz is about:

a) 100 feet long
b) 50 feet long
c) 67 feet long
d) 40 feet long


Question 2:

Determine the length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz, using
the appropriate formula. Show all work.

That's just one question.

--

Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would cover
the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc. So the
typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards, forwards and
sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.

But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able to
solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
correct answer out of the four supplied.

In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that the
old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but covered
those subjects in some depth. The new
tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little
depth.

Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.


I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse
process in other ways.

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
space.

When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.

I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
gathering.

The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but
the Q&A weren't
available publicly.

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?


73 de Jim, N2EY



  #6   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 05:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 169
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

wrote:

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
space.


The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.

How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.

If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.

On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.

When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.


But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true today.
I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years ago.

In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?


The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.

When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license. Then
I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus learning
enough theory to pass the General exam.

In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.

So you walk this tightrope of trying to keep the barriers to entry high
enough so that there is some
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 05:32 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm

wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
KC4UAI wrote:


Time to end the debate I suppose...


Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.


Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?


[does that mean Miccolis can't understand what the ARRL
wrote on its web page? :-)]


Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.


[quick, someone put up a sign saying "wet floor"...a
bunch of morsemen spilled their cask of sour grape mash!]

Hi Jim,

Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
higher than thay are now?

Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?


Hello Mike.

Sigh...it's an old, old story with humans...whatever
someone did in their (relative) youth was ALWAYS "more
difficult" than what anyone else does in the present time! :-)

I've heard that song played over and over again for as long
as I've been an adult. The lyrics might change a bit from
decade to decade but the tune is the same. :-)

All these olde-tymers walked (uphill both ways) barefoot
through the snow to take Their FCC exams. :-)

Funny you should mention 1956. It's a clear time in my
life experience. In the summer of 1956 I was at H&H
Electronics in Rockford, IL, talking to Gene Hubbel, then
a W9, later W7DI (now SK). H&H had just gotten in some
new study guides. Can't remember the publisher but I
categorized all such as "Q&A" books. Must have been at
least three different publishers around that time. I
looked through a couple of them (always a nice "feel" to
a brand new book out of the carton). An "in-your-face"
customer asked me if I was going to take a test? I
replied, "already did it in March" and pulled out my
small First 'Phone ID card. Sneering he then asked
"which [Q&A book] did I use?" I said "None" and,
disbelieving, he was about to get physical over that!
[really, some folks wander around always looking for a
fight] Gene distracted him before the small store got
torn up. [not a big problem for me to handle physical
stuff since I had been released from active Army duty in
February] I had never used any Q&A book earlier that
year because no store in town had them...had to settle
for memorizing a borrowed copy of the FCC regs then
published in loose-leaf format. Hard work, that, but
it got done, I passed my First 'Phone but never "aced"
it. Passing was good enough for me then. Didn't walk
uphill both ways to Chicago, just rode the train 90
miles (shoes always on feet) to get there. shrug

I looked in here nearly a decade ago and there were
the "in-your-face" yahoos tawkin 'bout how HARD it
was for them...in the 60s...in the 70s...etc. :-)
The really rabid ones were going on about "the GROL
ain't hard, not like the AMATEUR EXTRA!!!" :-)
They apparently were too young to remember that a
GROL didn't get created until around 1980 or so. It
eventually became a lifetime thing, no renewals
necessary. Wasn't so in 1956 when a First 'Phone
took at least two hours to complete four different
test parts, only one of which was multiple-choice.

I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.


I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process
was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation.
Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well
anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some
sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some
could send it "perfectly."

I've always regarded amateur radio as a FUN HOBBY. So
many enjoy it. But, some take almost a perverse attitude
in trying to "run it" according to Their standards...even
personal desires. Nobody vetted Them as "bosses" but
they strut around acting like bosses. Amateur radio is
NOT an occupation, guild, craft, or something absolutely
vital to national security. It is a HOBBY but some take
it wayyyyy too seriously.

Part of the problem of this nostalgia thing about "how
the older testing system 'worked so well'" lies with all
the 50- and 60- somethings suddenly facing their own
mortality. [we are ALL going to die, no exceptions,
its in our designer genes] The "old" ways are a form
of comfort, of security. They've survived them. They
are comfortable with what they have but don't want to
remember the struggle they had to reach to reach that
pinnacle of their claimed knowledge and experience.
Running around with a self-made (unofficial) "boss"
title is NOT going to help the hobby, regardless of
how good it makes Them feel.

The way I see it, the "threat" to the hobby that some
cry and cry about is just a personal threat to the
crier. They will LOSE their reference points for being
"better" than others. TS. Federal laws and regulations
aren't done to "better" the lives of minority hobbyists.
Federal laws and regulations apply to ALL citizens.

Hey, "change happens!" :-)



  #8   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 02:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 447
Default Morkie Get's It Wrong...AGAIN!


nobodys old friend wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
gathering.


it has it merits but ain't happening anymopre


Who says?

You?

The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but
the Q&A weren't
available publicly.

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed.


indeed they should if they are to advertise such


But they are NOT "technicians" any more than you are competent in
English, Morkie.

Is that a good thing, though?


why not?


Becuase it's "dumbing down".

Please notice that no such exam process exists in any of the
countries that are quickly overshadowing us in REAL technology
advances...Like Red China, Japan, Singapore, etc etc etc...

Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?


obviously they do


Obviously they can answer the questions. That doesn't make them
competent in the material.

Witness KB9RQZ as an example.

Steve, K4YZ

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 04:03 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 116
Default Feb 23 is the No-code date

wrote in
ups.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


KC4UAI wrote:
Time to end the debate I suppose...


Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this
year and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will
no longer be required for ANY class license it seems after that
date.


Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the
Federal Register before January 24?

We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again.
Not just the code test, either.


Hi Jim,


Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's
were
higher than thay are now?


I think they were higher then, yes.


As a person who took all the tests during the recent past -
Technician 1999, General and Extra 2001 and couppled with my research
into the issue, I respectfully disagree.



Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco
study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?


It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person
had to know and understand to pass the tests.


I'm not sure that this isn't changing the criteria in mid stream, but
assuming it isn't, I would then say that the tests are indeed relevent
today as well as apparently during that time.

The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for?


Novice and General.

I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1953, 1962, and
1971. They contained the study guides provided by FCC, but *not* the
actual Q&A used on the tests.

Having read all of them cover-to-cover, I can say I think the
standards were higher then.

In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that
little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first,
and answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the
book! All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question
pool...


Those sample questions were *not* the actual questions used on the
test. They were simply made up by Ameco.

After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?


Lots of ways:

For example, which of the following requires more knowledge:

Question 1:

The length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz is about:

a) 100 feet long
b) 50 feet long
c) 67 feet long
d) 40 feet long


Question 2:

Determine the length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz, using
the appropriate formula. Show all work.

That's just one question.


Okay, you show two separate and related questions. But that isn't
the scope of the questions that I extracted from the study guide. Almost
all the questions were in the form of your question 1.


Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would
cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc.
So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards,
forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.


Frankly, that is what I did for my Extra exam. That was much easier that
trying to memorize the pool.


But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able
to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
correct answer out of the four supplied.


I am so weary of that chestnut. I suppose real engineers don't
consult design manuals for hints and ideas.

In any field these days where it is necessary to prove that the
worker has been exposed to a particular bit of knowledge, there will be
a question pool. I've seen it for fields where a mistake can cost lives,
such as study guides with question pools for electrical code work. I can
get you the name of the book if you are skeptical. Its just how it is.
And I can remember what I studied for on my tests - I believe that the
pool does no harm, and a de facto pool has existed for many years.


In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that
the old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but
covered those subjects in some depth. The new
tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little
depth.

Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.


Always am.



I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially
from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams
regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is
going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test
elimination ever was.


I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse
process in other ways.

I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not
know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a
limited space.


My own thoughts on how Amateur radio should be organized are that
the higher classes of license should be earned by time in grade, so to
speak. I don't think that an extra should not know how to erect a HF
antenna, or have no experience with operations in general - and the
present system allows that.

Of course, it is possible for the person to wait out the period of
time before upgrading, but two things work against that - attrition due
to lack of interest, and the likelyhood that a person who does simply
wait it out without actually doing anything before upgrading is just
going to be some sort of statistic.


When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.


Related story:

I wanted to "build a Heathkit". Not wanting to get one of the rare
unbuilt ones and destroy it's value, I found an SB-200 at Dayton. I
bought it and completely dissassembled it. I cleaned everything,
replaced any parts that needed replaced, and some that didn't- like the
many modes the previous owners had done. I got a copy of the assembly
manual, and proceeded to put it back together. GReat gobs of fun, I'll
tell ya!

I would agree with your point. In this day of 100 percent appliance
stations, Amateurs should build as much as they can.

I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
gathering.


Well, that was when our tax dollars were going to other things.


The result was that there was testing available all over the place,
but the Q&A weren't available publicly.


I still am convinced that it essentially was available. Perhaps not in
verbatim form, but close enough.

And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
needed?


I think that the old novice test could have been taught in a day
also. Much of what is on the Technician test is common sense.

As for needed background, I think that getting licensed, getting on
the air and being elmered is what produces good hams.

Too much of what I have heard from a lot of old time hams is
disdain for newcomers - even now before the "great unwashed" come into
the hobby. Fortunately nickle Extras such as myself will be there to
help, not belittle or chase away.

I think I'm going to go heat up the Garage and get to work on that
mobile antenna I am building. Fun chat, Jim.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 20th 07, 07:53 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Those Old Study Guides

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.

More to come.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool? robert casey Policy 115 January 9th 07 01:28 PM
another place the fruit can't post MarQueerMyDear Policy 2 November 21st 06 06:22 AM
LAPD getting rid of "Code 2-High" calls on 5/16 Harry Marnell Scanner 0 May 15th 04 01:56 PM
Why You Don't Like The ARRL Louis C. LeVine General 206 January 6th 04 02:12 PM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017