On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote:

On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway?

About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle.

have conflicting figures here from
some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Who is that, Leo?

That was you.

No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo.

I'm sorry, Jim - you are incorrect ..... once again!

Nope. The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles.

By your 'accuracy' scale. (LOL!))

238,000 is a much more accurate approximation at apogee and perigee -
and thus, on average, in general.


I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here
a few times. 250,000 miles, each time.

A bit too approximate, OM

In your opinion.

- it varies considerably as the distance
changes during the orbit cycle:

As I noted when I wrote:

"About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect
circle."

Mean distance: 238,712 miles
At apogee: 252,586 miles
At perigee: 221,331 miles

That's a 11% error rate at perigee, and approaching a 5% error rate
at mean distance.

Nope.

Not an "error rate".

I'm guessing that you aren't employed by NASA.....


The figure 250,000 miles is accurate to within 11.5%.
(approximately) at perigee, using your figures.

Twice in each orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000
miles, btw.

Twice each day, a stopped watch is accurate, Jim......just like this
miscalculation - er, approximation....whatever you say


ot too far off at apogee, though - perhaps we can
get someone to hold it still for you?


If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault
your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter
million miles....

Hiding behind Len now, are we....?

Never thought I'd see the day!

(him too, I'd reckon.....)


But you were much closer than you were with your Mars calculations!
One of them went over a 100% error rate.

(just in case you forgot again, you can find that one with Google if
you search the groups for the following subject line: " European
Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?" - August 7,
2004, to be precise).

Yup, I made an error on the Earth-to-Mars distance. So what? The error
was corrected.

By Len, actually. Not by you!

(you left it sit until 2 days later (August 9th), after several posts
pointing it out.......and even then, you tried to obscure it with a
new set of calcs - quite redundant, in fact, as the correct numbers
were already supplied in the posts immediately following the error.

That was quite odd.


Did I call anyone names for pointing out m,y mistake?

Not that I recall. I don't think you even pointed out your mistake -
until it had already been done.

Did I make fun of their education?

...now that would have been funny!


You're welcome!

Ptoooey - did you forget?

Ptoooey?

Ptoooey.

Ptoooey.


No signoff again?
ad form!

73, Leo

(why be 'approximate' when exact is so easy?)

No reply? orse form....

Why should I reply to someone who is anonymous?

Just thinking of that now?

Anonymous' means 'Having an unknown or unacknowledged name'. Mine's
Leo! (duh!)

You yourself have 'acknowledged' it many times in past correspondence
with me, over the past three years.

You forgot, huh? I understand.


(how can someone argue vehemently an error of only 0.04% in one
thread, and be as much as 11 percent out in this
one - and over 100
percent in another?? hat just ain't logical!!)

Who is arguing over an error of 0.04%, Leo?
Certainly not me.

No?

...Gee, wasn't that you who was arguing with Len that 49.46% rounds up
to 50%, and not 49%?

That's a difference (error) of 0.04%, isn't it?

Um....yes, it is!

Wrong Again, Jim! (ouch!)


Len claimed:

"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

But he was wrong. 100% mistaken.

That puts you in good company, Jim - you have been a member of the
100%er's club too!

Actually, Len was only off a few fractions of a percent, by your own -
ahem - calculations. You, however, were definitely in the 100%-plus
error category. Galactically speaking, of course.


Even if we allow the inclusion of Technician Pluses in the total, they
do not exceed the number of all other US license classes combined. The
difference is more than 0.5%, not 0.04%.

-um- that wasn't the 0.04% error thingie, Jim....please try to follow
along!


But the percentage difference doesn't matter. Len did not specify
"approximately" or cite any numbers in his claim

He didn't specify approximately, but he cited many, many numbers in
his claim!

In fact, his claim was based on numbers.....


"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

All he did was make the claim, which is either true or false. Only two
possible states - true or false - not a question of approximations or
percentage of accuracy.

I showed Len's claim to be false - using the numbers Len provided!
Those numbers are exact, not approximations.

In short:

The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

Too approximate. You're either precise or approximate - you can't
have it both ways!


Twice per orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000 miles.

Stopped watch theory. See above.


but

The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! Perhaps not.



Jim, N2EY


73, Leo

Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12
days now.

Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon!

73, Leo

From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:


The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! Perhaps not.

Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12
days now.

Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon!

I don't think he did...probably because he can't
control the subject being argued, especially the
comparisons he insists on using. :-)

Just in looking at www.hamdata.com figures from 22 Feb
to 25 Feb, the barest trend might be showing up.

Overall USA totals went from 721,781 (22nd) to 721,745
(25th), a loss of 42. That was despite a tiny peak on
the 24th to 721,839. Club calls increased by 6 from
10,349 (22nd) to 10,355 (25th)...so thats a small
stabilizing influence. :-)

The number of no-code-test Techs went from 311,851 (22nd)
to 311,948 (25th) for a gain of 97. That despite a drop
of 30 between 311,978 (24th) to 311,048 (25th) which may
explain the slight rise in General class: 142,031 (22nd)
to 142,043 (25th) for an increase of 12. Extra class went
from 111,464 (22nd) to 111,497 (25th) for a gain of 33.
That raises a question of just WHERE did those increases
come from?

His (apparent) home-made software just doesn't tell him
from where. He keeps implying that "no-code-test Techs
are all dropping out after 12 years" but yet those same
numbers are RISING. Since that is apparent, then the
number of new licensees coming in that way must be LARGER
than the 97 gain indicated by raw hamdata.com numbers!

At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test
Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The
number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on
the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are
49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is
so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant
would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-)

What hasn't been made clear is EXACTLY where and with
what Miccolis gets his data, data that he posts with
implied "accuracy." I just go to www.hamdata.com and
get their raw numbers...no sweat, no bother tying up a
line (one needs DSL or equivalent to handle multi-MB
files daily) and there is inherent TRUST with their
numbers. On the other hand, there ain't no "trust" with
Miccolis data. Does he use raw FCC database files and
do sorting/tabulating from that? Or does he crib from
some other, as yet unidentified source?

Miccolis claims to "know" which and how many licensees
are still within the 10-year license period. If he can
"know" that, then a few days of raw data comparison can
show "upgrades" from a "lower" class to a "newer." That
would be a good indicator of WHERE the changes come from.
He doesn't do that. He just makes noises implying that
"all the decreases" are coming from the no-code-test
class "dropouts." Yet the raw hamdata numbers show
increases in that class. He hasn't been able to explain
that yet.

Miccolis keeps talking about the "not counting" those in
the 2-year grace period. He hasn't explained HOW he
determines this. It is possible to determine since the
data fields ARE there in the database...just as there are
indicators of not having been licensed before, thus are
newbie entries. The once-newbies in no-code-test Tech
who actually drop out after 12 years can be determined
but all we get from him is the unquantified general-case
ambiguous stuff about "they are just dropping out." :-(

Regardez,
LA

On 26 Feb 2007 10:10:20 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:


The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! Perhaps not.

Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12
days now.

Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon!

I don't think he did...probably because he can't
control the subject being argued, especially the
comparisons he insists on using. :-)

Good point!


Just in looking at www.hamdata.com figures from 22 Feb
to 25 Feb, the barest trend might be showing up.

Overall USA totals went from 721,781 (22nd) to 721,745
(25th), a loss of 42. That was despite a tiny peak on
the 24th to 721,839. Club calls increased by 6 from
10,349 (22nd) to 10,355 (25th)...so thats a small
stabilizing influence. :-)

The number of no-code-test Techs went from 311,851 (22nd)
to 311,948 (25th) for a gain of 97. That despite a drop
of 30 between 311,978 (24th) to 311,048 (25th) which may
explain the slight rise in General class: 142,031 (22nd)
to 142,043 (25th) for an increase of 12. Extra class went
from 111,464 (22nd) to 111,497 (25th) for a gain of 33.
That raises a question of just WHERE did those increases
come from?

His (apparent) home-made software just doesn't tell him
from where. He keeps implying that "no-code-test Techs
are all dropping out after 12 years" but yet those same
numbers are RISING. Since that is apparent, then the
number of new licensees coming in that way must be LARGER
than the 97 gain indicated by raw hamdata.com numbers!

At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test
Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The
number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on
the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are
49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is
so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant
would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-)

Agreed.


What hasn't been made clear is EXACTLY where and with
what Miccolis gets his data, data that he posts with
implied "accuracy." I just go to www.hamdata.com and
get their raw numbers...no sweat, no bother tying up a
line (one needs DSL or equivalent to handle multi-MB
files daily) and there is inherent TRUST with their
numbers. On the other hand, there ain't no "trust" with
Miccolis data. Does he use raw FCC database files and
do sorting/tabulating from that? Or does he crib from
some other, as yet unidentified source?

....as Mark Twain* said - "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Too bad he never got the chance to discover RRAP - he never knew how
right he was!

* (or Benjamin Disraeli.....who knows?)

Regardless of the source of the numbers, the results would be more
believable if the calculations were shown for each
category.....otherwise, the numbers are just that - numbers. Numbers
which can be tailored to support one's own agenda, should they wish to
do so....

Plus, our resident - ahem - statistician does not have much of a track
record here in the rigorous calculations area......lol


Miccolis claims to "know" which and how many licensees
are still within the 10-year license period. If he can
"know" that, then a few days of raw data comparison can
show "upgrades" from a "lower" class to a "newer." That
would be a good indicator of WHERE the changes come from.
He doesn't do that. He just makes noises implying that
"all the decreases" are coming from the no-code-test
class "dropouts." Yet the raw hamdata numbers show
increases in that class. He hasn't been able to explain
that yet.

Agreed. Refer to the 'average distance to the Moon' that I called him
on......I presented detailed reasoning to show his error - he simply
restated his position over and over, as if doing do made it correct!

Looks like a familiar pattern.


Miccolis keeps talking about the "not counting" those in
the 2-year grace period. He hasn't explained HOW he
determines this. It is possible to determine since the
data fields ARE there in the database...just as there are
indicators of not having been licensed before, thus are
newbie entries. The once-newbies in no-code-test Tech
who actually drop out after 12 years can be determined
but all we get from him is the unquantified general-case
ambiguous stuff about "they are just dropping out." :-(

There appears to be a belief amongst some here that the removal of
code testing will open the floodgates, resulting in an influx of new
hobbyists who saw code as a barrier, and up to now stayed out of
Amateur Radio.

I don't believe that this is likely to happen. Of course, there are
some who may have been held back by Morse code testing alone (which
may have been true in 1960, but not in communications rich 2007) - but
I'd say that the vast majority of people interested in becoming hams
have already done so.

Considering the paradoxical manner in which Morse code testing was
dropped in the US, new wannabe hams still have the hurdle of two exams
to pass before they hit the General level and have significant access
to the HF voice subbands. The Tech and Tech Plus licensees gained very
little when code was dropped - a small voice allotment on 10m (not
worth the expense of setting up an HF station for...), and (here's the
paradox...) access to three HF CW subbands, which are useless to them
without the ability to use Morse code! For this reason alone, I would
expect to see a decrease in the Tech categories, and a proportionate
increase in the General category (and to a lesser degree, Extra),
representing the Techs who wish to take advantage of the Morse-free HF
access at that level. After this correction, it should level off -
then it's dead guys and decreases for the forseeable future, unless
the younger members of society get r-e-a-l-l-y bored with the
Internet, cellphones, text messaging and IM!


Regardez,
LA

73, Leo

From: Leo on Mon, Feb 26 2007 3:38 pm

wrote:
From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:


The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! Perhaps not.

Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12
days now.

Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon!

I don't think he did...probably because he can't
control the subject being argued, especially the
comparisons he insists on using. :-)

Good point!

CONTROL is everything in this medium. :-)

Miccolis has the annoying habit of trying to solidify
his comparisons of His making, then saying another's
comparison are "wrong" or "mistaken" or some such.

For example, he keeps OMITTING all USA licensees from
totals if they are in the US 2-year grace period. Since
he hasn't presented HOW he determines this (it can be
done from FCC database data fields), everyone has to
take his data on face value. I mean how many have the
time and high-speed connections to grab a daily 80 MB+
data file and sort it? :-)

Now, on this "grace period:" Contrary to implied
belief, the FCC still considers those licensees to
be licensees. Why would they hold the callsigns in
abbeyance until they are renewed? US Regulations
state that licensees cannot operate when in the grace
period until renewed, but they are still "hams" other-
wise. Over a long period of licensing, one can simply
take 5/6th of the totals for a class and say those are
"in the grace period" and not be far off the actual,
exact, uber-pedantic grace period.


At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test
Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The
number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on
the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are
49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is
so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant
would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-)

Agreed.

In looking at the www.hamdata.com figures by class for
26th February and comparing it with the 22nd (day before
the sky fell on morsemen), there's the barest smidgen
of a trend.

Overall US individual licensee totals fell by 44 (711,432
minus 711,388). Technician class (the evil no-code-test
one that is 'supposed' to be causing all the drop-outs)
went from 311,851 on the 22nd to 311,966 on the 26th.
That's a gain of 115! Except for that short one-day
drop (24th to 25th) of 30, no-code-test Technician class
has been steadily INCREASING. Extras went from 111,464 on
the 22nd to 111,500 on the 26th, a gain of 36 and Generals
went from 142,031 on the 22nd to 142,051 on the 26th,
another gain, of 20. ALL the other classes showed losses.

By the way, the combined Tech and Tech-Plus classes
(352,199) now make up 49.51% of all USA individual
amateur radio licensees. Slow but inexorable growth
trend (albeit very small) despite Tech-Plus losses of
147 from 22nd to 26th. There's a higher-than-even
probability that many Tech-Plusses upgraded to other
classes since the 22nd. Just the same, individual
licensee grand-sum total shows a small decrease in just
five days.


Regardless of the source of the numbers, the results would be more
believable if the calculations were shown for each
category.....otherwise, the numbers are just that - numbers. Numbers
which can be tailored to support one's own agenda, should they wish to
do so....

Plus, our resident - ahem - statistician does not have much of a track
record here in the rigorous calculations area......lol

Well, let's just say that NASA won't be consulting
him anytime soon to help plot Earth to Moon or Earth
to Mars space trips... :-)



Agreed. Refer to the 'average distance to the Moon' that I called him
on......I presented detailed reasoning to show his error - he simply
restated his position over and over, as if doing do made it correct!

Looks like a familiar pattern.

VERY - unfortunately - familiar pattern. :-(


There appears to be a belief amongst some here that the removal of
code testing will open the floodgates, resulting in an influx of new
hobbyists who saw code as a barrier, and up to now stayed out of
Amateur Radio.

That's the PRO-code-testing rationale. It is wrong,
of course, but if that is repeated often enough by
lots of morsemen, it will become "CW" (Conventional
Wisdom).

I don't believe that this is likely to happen. Of course, there are
some who may have been held back by Morse code testing alone (which
may have been true in 1960, but not in communications rich 2007) - but
I'd say that the vast majority of people interested in becoming hams
have already done so.

I agree with you there. But it's almost impossible to
convince the olde-tymers that. :-(

Having observed US amateur radio since the late 1940s
until now, the amount of "real" publicity given about
amateur radio OUTSIDE of the amateur radio community
is limited to the occasional "filler" piece in the
newspapers on weekends or slow news days. It is a
quaint hobby thing done by either kids or retirees
from the general newspaper stories. That overlooks
some REAL efforts done by experimenters (such as a
home-made, precision Vector Network Analyzer) or the
emergency communicators (a group in Arizona having
modified RVs ready-to-roll in very quick notice).

The USA ARRL has simply failed to get any substantive
network and newspaper attention about amateur radio
for YEARS. If they do, it will prominently feature
'officers' of the League...which is itself indicative
of what They seem to have wanted all along. :-(

It is nice that respected newsman Walter Cronkhite
has narrated a special video. Big problem is that
such a video is USELESS to the purpose of attracting
anyone in the general public to ham radio if it airs
in the wee small hours of morning or on "community
channel" cable.

Considering the paradoxical manner in which Morse code testing was
dropped in the US, new wannabe hams still have the hurdle of two exams
to pass before they hit the General level and have significant access
to the HF voice subbands. The Tech and Tech Plus licensees gained very
little when code was dropped - a small voice allotment on 10m (not
worth the expense of setting up an HF station for...), and (here's the
paradox...) access to three HF CW subbands, which are useless to them
without the ability to use Morse code!

I know, but *I* wasn't going to fight that after
trying to drop code testing for over 15 years...

So, the newbies get some (however slight) "action
space" for "CW"...which is really a sop or compromise
to the stridency of olde-tyme hamme morsemen. Maybe
some try it out and do it for a while. It's a safe
bet that the 'establishment' (hard-core morsemen)
aren't going to be kind to them. :-(

For this reason alone, I would
expect to see a decrease in the Tech categories, and a proportionate
increase in the General category (and to a lesser degree, Extra),
representing the Techs who wish to take advantage of the Morse-free HF
access at that level.

I disagree a bit based on my observations in one corner of
a large urban area of the southwestern USA. The interest
of newbies here seems to be for the Technician class.
Given an urban population of roughly 8 million in a 120 by
60 mile area, VHF and up works out very well for contacts
that they can actually meet in-person. Of course, the
Greater L.A. Area is one where the auto rules what
happens and that may not apply to other USA locations.
Again, by direct observation, Techs seem to be younger in
age than the other classes (discounting Novice) and prefer
the company of those nearer their own age. One could see
the same thing two decades ago on the "social" BBSs (those
that had regular in-person gatherings of members). The
"age" group is NOT necessarily just chronological...those
who are bright, lively, alert, flexible with differing
mores and opinions have a "younger" mental age.

The stodgy olde-tymer will take umbrage to that since
they maintain They are bright, lively, etc., but they
overlook the fact that They are holding to thoughts of
a bygone era, three to four decades ago when They were
chronologically young. Social mores CHANGE and They
can't always adapt to that, preferring the company of
those with like minds (or 'hive minds').


After this correction, it should level off -
then it's dead guys and decreases for the forseeable future, unless
the younger members of society get r-e-a-l-l-y bored with the
Internet, cellphones, text messaging and IM!

I agree with the "dead guys and decreases." I don't
quite agree with the others. Yes, the Internet and
cell phone has become the new phenomenon of NOW. Folks
of now ARE affluent enough to afford cell phones and
unlimited-service 'Net accounts. NOW is NOT the
wind-coils-on-round-oatmeal-containers style of pre-
WW2 times or futzing with "crystal sets" and pi-net
two-tube MOPAs in the "most economical manner."
NOW is NOT the 1960s or the 1950s with attendant
monetary values.

The USA pushed a "radio panic button" with 11m CB back
in 1958. A decade later the off-shore makers of
inexpensive but fully-functional, all-channel mobile
or fixed transceivers for the UNlicensed was the lift-
off for communicating. The DESIRE to communicate was
always there. The growth of the BBS and BBS networks
is a different thing but still indicative of a desire
to communicate. That worked until the Internet went
public just 16 years ago...competition in means, a way
that forced most BBSs to just give up. Cell phones
are slightly older but not much...again the DESIRE to
communicate is there and evident from supermarkets to
sidewalks.

Amateur radio CAN help that DESIRE to communicate. But,
it will just shoot itself down if it stays mired in
what was "gee-whiz technology" four decades ago...or the
competition to collect as much wallpaper as possible
(which isn't real communication, just an odd contest).
Amateur radio just can't get anywhere if all the
cheering sections just spend all their time giving each
other high-fives on "how good we are" or "we are the
pioneers of radio" (very, very past tense). Self-
praise is something done here in moom pitchas (see
Sunday's Oscar Awards). The difference is that the
motion picture industry THRIVES on publicity; amateur
radio publicity outside of itself is almost nil.

73, LA

On 26 Feb 2007 17:44:22 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Leo on Mon, Feb 26 2007 3:38 pm

wrote:
From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:


The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! Perhaps not.

Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12
days now.

Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon!

I don't think he did...probably because he can't
control the subject being argued, especially the
comparisons he insists on using. :-)

Good point!

CONTROL is everything in this medium. :-)

Miccolis has the annoying habit of trying to solidify
his comparisons of His making, then saying another's
comparison are "wrong" or "mistaken" or some such.

For example, he keeps OMITTING all USA licensees from
totals if they are in the US 2-year grace period. Since
he hasn't presented HOW he determines this (it can be
done from FCC database data fields), everyone has to
take his data on face value. I mean how many have the
time and high-speed connections to grab a daily 80 MB+
data file and sort it? :-)

Now, on this "grace period:" Contrary to implied
belief, the FCC still considers those licensees to
be licensees. Why would they hold the callsigns in
abbeyance until they are renewed? US Regulations
state that licensees cannot operate when in the grace
period until renewed, but they are still "hams" other-
wise. Over a long period of licensing, one can simply
take 5/6th of the totals for a class and say those are
"in the grace period" and not be far off the actual,
exact, uber-pedantic grace period.


At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test
Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The
number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on
the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are
49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is
so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant
would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-)

Agreed.

In looking at the www.hamdata.com figures by class for
26th February and comparing it with the 22nd (day before
the sky fell on morsemen), there's the barest smidgen
of a trend.

Overall US individual licensee totals fell by 44 (711,432
minus 711,388). Technician class (the evil no-code-test
one that is 'supposed' to be causing all the drop-outs)
went from 311,851 on the 22nd to 311,966 on the 26th.
That's a gain of 115! Except for that short one-day
drop (24th to 25th) of 30, no-code-test Technician class
has been steadily INCREASING. Extras went from 111,464 on
the 22nd to 111,500 on the 26th, a gain of 36 and Generals
went from 142,031 on the 22nd to 142,051 on the 26th,
another gain, of 20. ALL the other classes showed losses.

By the way, the combined Tech and Tech-Plus classes
(352,199) now make up 49.51% of all USA individual
amateur radio licensees. Slow but inexorable growth
trend (albeit very small) despite Tech-Plus losses of
147 from 22nd to 26th. There's a higher-than-even
probability that many Tech-Plusses upgraded to other
classes since the 22nd. Just the same, individual
licensee grand-sum total shows a small decrease in just
five days.


Regardless of the source of the numbers, the results would be more
believable if the calculations were shown for each
category.....otherwise, the numbers are just that - numbers. Numbers
which can be tailored to support one's own agenda, should they wish to
do so....

Plus, our resident - ahem - statistician does not have much of a track
record here in the rigorous calculations area......lol

Well, let's just say that NASA won't be consulting
him anytime soon to help plot Earth to Moon or Earth
to Mars space trips... :-)



Agreed. Refer to the 'average distance to the Moon' that I called him
on......I presented detailed reasoning to show his error - he simply
restated his position over and over, as if doing do made it correct!

Looks like a familiar pattern.

VERY - unfortunately - familiar pattern. :-(


There appears to be a belief amongst some here that the removal of
code testing will open the floodgates, resulting in an influx of new
hobbyists who saw code as a barrier, and up to now stayed out of
Amateur Radio.

That's the PRO-code-testing rationale. It is wrong,
of course, but if that is repeated often enough by
lots of morsemen, it will become "CW" (Conventional
Wisdom).

I don't believe that this is likely to happen. Of course, there are
some who may have been held back by Morse code testing alone (which
may have been true in 1960, but not in communications rich 2007) - but
I'd say that the vast majority of people interested in becoming hams
have already done so.

I agree with you there. But it's almost impossible to
convince the olde-tymers that. :-(

Having observed US amateur radio since the late 1940s
until now, the amount of "real" publicity given about
amateur radio OUTSIDE of the amateur radio community
is limited to the occasional "filler" piece in the
newspapers on weekends or slow news days. It is a
quaint hobby thing done by either kids or retirees
from the general newspaper stories. That overlooks
some REAL efforts done by experimenters (such as a
home-made, precision Vector Network Analyzer) or the
emergency communicators (a group in Arizona having
modified RVs ready-to-roll in very quick notice).

The USA ARRL has simply failed to get any substantive
network and newspaper attention about amateur radio
for YEARS. If they do, it will prominently feature
'officers' of the League...which is itself indicative
of what They seem to have wanted all along. :-(

It is nice that respected newsman Walter Cronkhite
has narrated a special video. Big problem is that
such a video is USELESS to the purpose of attracting
anyone in the general public to ham radio if it airs
in the wee small hours of morning or on "community
channel" cable.

True enough - the only time that I have seen that video is when I
downloaded it from the ARRL website.


Considering the paradoxical manner in which Morse code testing was
dropped in the US, new wannabe hams still have the hurdle of two exams
to pass before they hit the General level and have significant access
to the HF voice subbands. The Tech and Tech Plus licensees gained very
little when code was dropped - a small voice allotment on 10m (not
worth the expense of setting up an HF station for...), and (here's the
paradox...) access to three HF CW subbands, which are useless to them
without the ability to use Morse code!

I know, but *I* wasn't going to fight that after
trying to drop code testing for over 15 years...

So, the newbies get some (however slight) "action
space" for "CW"...which is really a sop or compromise
to the stridency of olde-tyme hamme morsemen. Maybe
some try it out and do it for a while. It's a safe
bet that the 'establishment' (hard-core morsemen)
aren't going to be kind to them. :-(

Probably an accurate assessment...


For this reason alone, I would
expect to see a decrease in the Tech categories, and a proportionate
increase in the General category (and to a lesser degree, Extra),
representing the Techs who wish to take advantage of the Morse-free HF
access at that level.

I disagree a bit based on my observations in one corner of
a large urban area of the southwestern USA. The interest
of newbies here seems to be for the Technician class.
Given an urban population of roughly 8 million in a 120 by
60 mile area, VHF and up works out very well for contacts
that they can actually meet in-person. Of course, the
Greater L.A. Area is one where the auto rules what
happens and that may not apply to other USA locations.
Again, by direct observation, Techs seem to be younger in
age than the other classes (discounting Novice) and prefer
the company of those nearer their own age. One could see
the same thing two decades ago on the "social" BBSs (those
that had regular in-person gatherings of members). The
"age" group is NOT necessarily just chronological...those
who are bright, lively, alert, flexible with differing
mores and opinions have a "younger" mental age.

Interesting perspective - I hadn't thought of that!


The stodgy olde-tymer will take umbrage to that since
they maintain They are bright, lively, etc., but they
overlook the fact that They are holding to thoughts of
a bygone era, three to four decades ago when They were
chronologically young. Social mores CHANGE and They
can't always adapt to that, preferring the company of
those with like minds (or 'hive minds').

A favourite quote on that subject:

"A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a
conformist." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson



After this correction, it should level off -
then it's dead guys and decreases for the forseeable future, unless
the younger members of society get r-e-a-l-l-y bored with the
Internet, cellphones, text messaging and IM!

I agree with the "dead guys and decreases." I don't
quite agree with the others. Yes, the Internet and
cell phone has become the new phenomenon of NOW. Folks
of now ARE affluent enough to afford cell phones and
unlimited-service 'Net accounts. NOW is NOT the
wind-coils-on-round-oatmeal-containers style of pre-
WW2 times or futzing with "crystal sets" and pi-net
two-tube MOPAs in the "most economical manner."
NOW is NOT the 1960s or the 1950s with attendant
monetary values.

Good point.


The USA pushed a "radio panic button" with 11m CB back
in 1958.

Thanks for saying 11m!

A decade later the off-shore makers of
inexpensive but fully-functional, all-channel mobile
or fixed transceivers for the UNlicensed was the lift-
off for communicating. The DESIRE to communicate was
always there. The growth of the BBS and BBS networks
is a different thing but still indicative of a desire
to communicate. That worked until the Internet went
public just 16 years ago...competition in means, a way
that forced most BBSs to just give up. Cell phones
are slightly older but not much...again the DESIRE to
communicate is there and evident from supermarkets to
sidewalks.

Amateur radio CAN help that DESIRE to communicate. But,
it will just shoot itself down if it stays mired in
what was "gee-whiz technology" four decades ago...or the
competition to collect as much wallpaper as possible
(which isn't real communication, just an odd contest).
Amateur radio just can't get anywhere if all the
cheering sections just spend all their time giving each
other high-fives on "how good we are" or "we are the
pioneers of radio" (very, very past tense). Self-
praise is something done here in moom pitchas (see
Sunday's Oscar Awards). The difference is that the
motion picture industry THRIVES on publicity; amateur
radio publicity outside of itself is almost nil.

On that point we agree completely.


73, LA

73, Leo

On Feb 27, 2:29�pm, Leo wrote:
On 26 Feb 2007 17:44:22 -0800, "
wrote:
From: Leo on Mon, Feb 26 2007 3:38 pm
wrote:
From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote:

* I disagree a bit based on my observations in one corner of
* a large urban area of the southwestern USA. *The interest
* of newbies here seems to be for the Technician class.
* Given an urban population of roughly 8 million in a 120 by
* 60 mile area, VHF and up works out very well for contacts
* that they can actually meet in-person. *Of course, the
* Greater L.A. Area is one where the auto rules what
* happens and that may not apply to other USA locations.
* Again, by direct observation, Techs seem to be younger in
* age than the other classes (discounting Novice) and prefer
* the company of those nearer their own age. *One could see
* the same thing two decades ago on the "social" BBSs (those
* that had regular in-person gatherings of members). *The
* "age" group is NOT necessarily just chronological...those
* who are bright, lively, alert, flexible with differing
* mores and opinions have a "younger" mental age.

Interesting perspective - I hadn't thought of that!

There's a parallel with the Clubs...usually a bit more than
fraternalism...some actually interested in learning about
new things. In my observation of the local scene, the old
Lockheed ARC tended to be a general downer...mostly
because the members were employed by Lockheed (in
Burbank, CA) and rather 'disturbed' because Lockheed
was abandoning Burbank, its home since the 1930s.

Several other ARCs in this area are of better attitudes
and actually go out and DO things...besides Field Day
and the "official" things. :-)

Think also of how the individual practices his/her amateur
radio: One control operator alone, connected only by some
electromagnetic thread to other similar creatures, also alone
in their "ham shack." In one way that is a "lonely" hobby
whose social intercourse is limited to reading about it. In
the beginning of BBSs it was that way with personal
computer users. Until some more aggressive BBS owners
got busy and had Gatherings of subscribers on a regular
basis. Those of us who went to those things got a MUCH
greater connection to their personnas on the screen and
could now communicate more comfortably with others.
The same is true of hams who go regularly to ARCs and
speak with others in-person; one can hear that on their
radio communications indicating a familiarity beyond the
usual formality of strangers.

* The stodgy olde-tymer will take umbrage to that since
* they maintain They are bright, lively, etc., but they
* overlook the fact that They are holding to thoughts of
* a bygone era, three to four decades ago when They were
* chronologically young. *Social mores CHANGE and They
* can't always adapt to that, preferring the company of
* those with like minds (or 'hive minds').

A favourite quote on that subject:

"A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a
conformist." *~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Good one! I'm tempted to laminate that and carry it in my
wallet!

73s, Len

From: Leo on Tues, Feb 27 2007 5:29 pm

On 26 Feb 2007 17:44:22 -0800, wrote:
From: Leo on Mon, Feb 26 2007 3:38 pm
wrote:
From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am

...continued

After this correction, it should level off -
then it's dead guys and decreases for the forseeable future, unless
the younger members of society get r-e-a-l-l-y bored with the
Internet, cellphones, text messaging and IM!

I agree with the "dead guys and decreases." I don't
quite agree with the others. Yes, the Internet and
cell phone has become the new phenomenon of NOW. Folks
of now ARE affluent enough to afford cell phones and
unlimited-service 'Net accounts. NOW is NOT the
wind-coils-on-round-oatmeal-containers style of pre-
WW2 times or futzing with "crystal sets" and pi-net
two-tube MOPAs in the "most economical manner."
NOW is NOT the 1960s or the 1950s with attendant
monetary values.

Good point.

Sigh...I just wish some of the article writers and,
especially, the EDITORS, would GET WITH IT. :-(

A two-transistor transmitter is cute in a tuna can
but, good grief, what is to be gained by it besides
a momentary novelty.

The USA pushed a "radio panic button" with 11m CB back
in 1958.

Thanks for saying 11m!

Hmmm...let's face it, that little sliver of a band was
underutilized at the time. shrug

I doubt that anyone in North America could have
predicted the onslaught of offshore CB sets a
decade later. No evidence of it...outside some
"knowitall" claims much, much later. :-(


Amateur radio CAN help that DESIRE to communicate. But,
it will just shoot itself down if it stays mired in
what was "gee-whiz technology" four decades ago...or the
competition to collect as much wallpaper as possible
(which isn't real communication, just an odd contest).
Amateur radio just can't get anywhere if all the
cheering sections just spend all their time giving each
other high-fives on "how good we are" or "we are the
pioneers of radio" (very, very past tense). Self-
praise is something done here in moom pitchas (see
Sunday's Oscar Awards). The difference is that the
motion picture industry THRIVES on publicity; amateur
radio publicity outside of itself is almost nil.

On that point we agree completely.

OK.

I thought it interesting to mention the first sign of
the 23 Feb changeover appeared on this morning's tally
of class totals at www.hamdata.com:

No-code-test Technician class totals DROPPED by 165
between 26th and 27th, now down to 311,801. The
General class here GAINED a sudden 248 (!) to reach
142,299. Extra class also gained by 74 to make it
111,574. Considering all the others but Clubs (gained
4), LOST numbers, that certainly seems to point to
Techs upgrading and some newbies (maybe) coming in
to the middle and high class licenses.

For the first time in a lonnnng while, the individual
licensee grand total spiked upward by 94 from the 26th
to hit 711,526 on the 27th. Not a biggie and may turn
out to be a statistical anomaly. On the other hand,
it could be the first batch of exams making it through
the VEC-FCC processing. We'll have to keep watching.

We will also be treated to Micollis Tesla saying "he
predicted it all along" or words to that effect. :-)

73s, LA