Code a Deterrent to a Ham Ticket ??
 

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...


What will be very interesting to see is what effect complete elimination of
code testing has on the number of new hams and the overall growth of the
ARS.
More than three years ago, the 13 and 20 wpm code tests, and the medical
waivers, were dumped by FCC. Result was growth of about 11,000 hams - and a
lot of already-licensed hams got upgrades. Sure doesn't seem like there
werea lot of people being kept out by the 13 and 20 wpm code tests.

And of that 11,000 how many do you 'spose are engineers who wouldn't
have become hams unless the code test was dropped to 5 wpm?

Damfino.

And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?

Some will, some won't.

I know a couple of engineer-ham who have made great contributions. One of them
is W1RFI. Just for starters, he and other ARRL HQ. folks put together that 121
page commentary on BPL.

Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on 03-104 (BPL).
Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did, KB3EIA did...anybody else?

Of course Reply Comments are still open.

btw - I'm an engineer, and none of the tests were a deterrent for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 13 Jul 2003 06:35:28 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

I don't mean contributions in the sense of Ed's work on the BPL
comments package. One of the rationales proffered over and over again
by the NCI types for deleting the code tests has been that
eliminatinating the code tests will bring flocks of engineers into the
hobby who would then come up with technical contributions, "advance
the state of the art" etc. Maybe I missed it but I don't know of any
such "event" since 1991 when engineers could become hams without a
code test.

I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz. Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:
On 13 Jul 2003 06:35:28 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:


I don't mean contributions in the sense of Ed's work on the BPL
comments package. One of the rationales proffered over and over again
by the NCI types for deleting the code tests has been that
eliminatinating the code tests will bring flocks of engineers into the
hobby who would then come up with technical contributions, "advance
the state of the art" etc. Maybe I missed it but I don't know of any
such "event" since 1991 when engineers could become hams without a
code test.


I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz. Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

But if they don't "do code" then they will never be "real hams"
like Larry and Dick. They just don' want to, as Larry says,
"bother to be as good as he is."

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on 03-104 (BPL).
Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did, KB3EIA did...anybody else?

I did, at least their website said I did! I didn't go back and go through all the
gyrations
later to see if it actually did show up there, but I did post my comments to the
EFCS page


I didn't post any comments. First because I was all ate up by other
matters and missed the deadline. But even if I had submitted a comment
it would simply parrot a zillion other similar comments. What good
would that do? The FCC is not conducting a referendum on BPL. I
seriously doubt that a large number of comments by us weenie private
citizens has anywhere as much effect on the FCC as do the the few
professionally crafted comments submitted by the heavy hitters in the
biz such as the ARRL and the IEEE. Imlay and Hare have a whole bunch
more clout with the FCC than any of us have combined so I bought a
$100 money order yesterday and it'll be on it's way to Newington
tomorrow.

w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on 03-104 (BPL).
Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did, KB3EIA did...anybody else?

I did, at least their website said I did! I didn't go back and go through all the
gyrations
later to see if it actually did show up there, but I did post my comments to the
EFCS page

I didn't post any comments. First because I was all ate up by other
matters and missed the deadline. But even if I had submitted a comment
it would simply parrot a zillion other similar comments. What good
would that do? The FCC is not conducting a referendum on BPL. I
seriously doubt that a large number of comments by us weenie private
citizens has anywhere as much effect on the FCC as do the the few
professionally crafted comments submitted by the heavy hitters in the
biz such as the ARRL and the IEEE. Imlay and Hare have a whole bunch
more clout with the FCC than any of us have combined so I bought a
$100 money order yesterday and it'll be on it's way to Newington
tomorrow.

Prolly the better move. Actually I plan to wait until the lawsuit is filed-yep, after a
close reading
of the filing of the United Power Line Council, which HQ is located no more than 3
blocks from the White House on Pennsylvania Ave, I truly believe this is a done deal,
and the only way out will be
the route I lambasted last time ARRL did it- I think they'll have to sue theFCC over
this one, if even that does any good.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:59:09 -0400, Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:

I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz. Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

If so, they were hams working as engineers, not engineers working as
hams. Being up here in The Silicon Forest, I have come to know a
whole pile of ham-engineers at Intel and Tektronix. I daresay that
very few of them have so intertwined their professional engineering
and amateur radio activities to the point where one cannot
distinguish one from the other. Most of the ham EEs of my
acquaintance prefer to keep a very distinctive line between the two,
many under pressure of their employer.

Those who have successfully blended their specialties are folks like
Dr. Dave Leeson, W6NL/HC8L, a real DX hound who is the founder and
CEO of California Microwave and Professor of Electrical Engineering
at Stanford University, and who serves as an Expert Witness when we
go to the California legislature or into litigation over amateur
radio issues - that is if he's not off on some DXpedition or world
radio contest or other.

Another example is Phil Karn, KA9Q, who, besides our being taken for
each other because of the similarity of our names, is a whiz-bang
guru of data transmission systems with Qualcomm and has developed a
whole bunch of software for digital data transmission specifically
designed for the amateur radio service.

Finally, myself and several others across the country are a "three
way mixture" of lawyer, engineer, and active ham, all so intertwined
to make our professional lives an E-ticket ride.

In all the above situations, there is input -directly- into amateur
applications per se, not development of some system or device which
has such general application that it -could- have application in the
amateur service "somehow".

A fine - but finite - difference.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel
ARRL Volunteer Consulting Engineer

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On 12 Jul 2003 21:31:26 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on
03-104 (BPL). Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did,
KB3EIA did...anybody else?

Ed Hare covered all the points that I could have made except about
the technical (in)adequacy of the supporters of this nonsense
inside the Commission, so upon medical advice I didn't file anything
separate.

The medical advice was necessary because the actions of the Three
Fools + Two Wise Men lately have driven up my blood pressure 20
points.

Retirement indeed.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2003 06:35:28 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

I don't mean contributions in the sense of Ed's work on the BPL
comments package. One of the rationales proffered over and over again
by the NCI types for deleting the code tests has been that
eliminatinating the code tests will bring flocks of engineers into the
hobby who would then come up with technical contributions, "advance
the state of the art" etc. Maybe I missed it but I don't know of any
such "event" since 1991 when engineers could become hams without a
code test.

I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz.

You haven't even started, the list of engineering feats pulled off by
engineers who are hams is endless. In every case I know about however
including those you cite they did what they did as professionals
working for money outside the ham bands, not as amateurs. The topic
on the table here is technical innovations which have advanced the
state of the art in the field of RF comms made by engineers working
within their roles as hams. Let's see your list of those. I'd be
particularly interested in your list of ham engineers who wouldn't
have made those contributions if they had to take any code tests.

Let's see a list of YOUR technical accomplishments in radio, Kellie.

Your SINGLE patent is a mechanical one, not even related to radio.

What innovation or push of the SOTA envelope has 1999 graduate
Larrah Roll done? He IS an Extra "heavy" (20 WPM code test).
How about colonel Klunk 8 Minnesota? Stealth engineer N2EY?
The Whiskey zero EX? All long-timers.

They've had LOTS of time to innovate and do envelope pushing.

Shrug.

Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

Great PR for ham radio but that's button-punching operational "stuff"
based on aerospace comms technologies which have been under
development since the earliest days of NASA. I haven't heard much
about any mission specialists breaking out soldering irons and doing
any innovtive sorts of things.

Sigh. Begin with the Apollo 13 mission.


Geez, Kellie knows about NASA as much as he knows the electrical
systems of US WW2 vehicles! :-)

LHA

In article QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01, "Guessing"
writes:

Someone squawked
As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me
exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is
abolished might be another matter.

Nonsense and a big copout

Bull**** anonymous one. You can't be more wrong.

If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests

I passed the BS tests. But, academic degrees are NOT set by any
federal laws, cannot be changed outside of the academic community.

Want a driver license -- take a test

I took my first one in 1950 in Illinois. But, state laws are debateable AND
changeable by law.

Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a professional
test

Plenty of jobs out there, not all of them require "drug tests." The
physical
examination for insurance purposes, NOT for all jobs.

Want insurance -- take a physical exam

Not always needed. I've never had to get a physical exam for car
insurance...nor house insurance. :-)

Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test

Long before I got my degree I was a working electronics design
engineer. No "unions" in electronics engineering. :-)

Want to advance in the Military -- take the test

In my 4 years of active duty in the US Army, I went from E-1 to E-5 in
two and a half years WITHOUT ANY FORMAL TESTS.

Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test

I've passed many bars. A few I even walked into and got served.

Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests

Steamy, are you trolling again? Mess up your Anger Management
class again?

Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one

I've never been in Dodge. I once rode in a Dodge. I'm sober as a judge
and right now I judge you to be some kind of trolling putzim.

Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al test
Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands ought to be
totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!!

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I was legally ON HF the first time in 1953 and didn't have to
get my first FCC radio license until 1956.

Simple as that.

You ARE "simple," simple one.

Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't
serious about it.

Awwww...got your feelings hurt by NCTAs? :-) :-)

If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other college
grad ???

One can brainwash pre-18 teeners a LOT easier than older folks. :-)

Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ??
Didn't think so !!

I'm only on a "good friends" basis with three US radio amateurs. All of
them became licensed well before the "no-code" OR technician licenses
came into being.

Were you born in Newington or were you brainwashed as a child?

LHA

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

It depends on whether you consider colleges and universities as institutions
of higher learning or as job training schools. If the former then the
various non-degreee specific classes are appropriate. If the latter, then
they are not.

Why do you keep on with this academic thing?

US amateur radio is NOT an academic institution. The FCC is NOT an
academic agency. Any federal radio operator's license is NOT a degree
or certificate of learning. Geez.

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

You haven't even started, the list of engineering feats pulled off by
engineers who are hams is endless. In every case I know about however
including those you cite they did what they did as professionals
working for money outside the ham bands, not as amateurs. The topic
on the table here is technical innovations which have advanced the
state of the art in the field of RF comms made by engineers working
within their roles as hams. Let's see your list of those. I'd be
particularly interested in your list of ham engineers who wouldn't
have made those contributions if they had to take any code tests.

What about the fact that many of us engineers who have advanced the
state of the art in the field of RF comms (while working for money
outside the ham bands) BECAME engineers because we were first
interested in radio/electronics by being introduced to ham radio?

No argument from me, ham radio has historically and obviously been an
EE hatchery going back to Marconi's days, 'snot even a discussion. But
I ask "Who have accrued the benefits of this phenomenon?" My
contention in this respect is that it's been by an overwhelming
majority the kids themselves who got into ham radio then became EEs as
a result who have benefitted most ($$$). A classic example of the
Amateur Service doing exactly what it's supposed to do to justify it's
existence. For once.

You say it has been so since Marconi, now you say "for once."

Which is it?

The world radio-electronics community recognizes Marconi and Popov
as the first to prove radio as a communications medium. That was in
1896. The first actual installation of the Morse-Vail Telegraph System
for wired landline communications was done in 1844.

Marconi was a shrewd and aggressive entrepreneur back two turns of
the century ago. Not one who, as amateurs are supposed to be, would
not hesitate to ask for pecuniary interest for his efforts. Gugie did a
LOT of asking and made several such bundles of money.

In my own case, having been a radio nerd back when radio was the about
the only high-tech game in town I had to decide between EE and ME
since in that timeframe I was also a gear and motorhead in addition to
being a beepist.

You might want to run the term "beepist" past Ed and Jim. They don't
take kindly to street names given to radio-telegraph operators.

Ya, dose got dere own 'hoods!' :-)

I quite consiously opted *against* EE because I
didn't want to put myself into a situation where my job followed me
home into my hobby thus it was that I became an ME. Absolute fact and
it wasn't any more complicated than that. But my hobby has quite often
held me in good stead on le yob because I've quite often found myself
doing EE work on ME projects. I've nailed several gigs over the years
by virtue of being considered "multidiscipinary" by employers, thankew
ham radio for the contributons to my career.

Hmmm. Then there was the discussion about not putting "ham radio" in
a resume. Speak to Jim.

Reverend Jim has yet to say where his resume landed. :-)

Has *nothing* to do with engineers who did not come up this way and
are already engineers when they belatedly "discover" ham radio. And
will allegedly come up with "advances in the state of the art" once
they enter the hobby without having to suffer any code tests. Like you
claim will happen.

State your accomplishments in advancing the state of the art in
amateur radio, other than trying to get me to put up an antenna in
your back yard.

Kellie is getting on in years, may need physical help to put up his
antennas.

Now, if he laid that antenna on his many claims for "26 patents" he
might get a few feet above ground level. :-)

It's all bull****. The last time any ham engineer or not actually
advanced the state of the art in RF comms to any noticeble extent
beyond that which the commercials and/or the gummint hadn't already
done was probably done in the 1915 timeframe. If not spank me with an
example.

So the ARRL history books are lying to us? Speak to Jim.

Dan Tayloe should spank Kellie. Tayloe did damn good with that
innovation of a CMOS switch as a direct-conversion receiver mixer.
He has a patent application on it.


Drive a stake in it and move on.

w3rv

Too much Buffy, I see.

"Buffy" got cancelled. :-)

Brian wrote:

Too much Buffy, I see.

Is that possible?


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

A very sick transit, Gloria Mundi. :-)

LHA

I must get around to learning Latin one of these days

"sic transit gloria mundi" = So goes the glory of the world.

It's a Latin phrase that has been used by many in word-play. :-)

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...

Drive a stake in it and move on.

w3rv

Too much Buffy, I see.

"Buffy" got cancelled. :-)

So did the Morse Code exam, which is why all the sour grapes. ;^)

Heh heh heh, lots of whine from sour grapes amongst the morsemen.

While (fortunately) Sarah Michelle Gellar (who played the part of
"Buffy") is still with us, so is (unfortunately) test element 1. :-)

LHA

On 15 Jul 2003 02:30:09 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

You can't force people to become well-rounded.

Sure you can, whether they want it or not. To paraphrase the Dean
of the School of Engineering (a graduate of that school and a
top-notch guy whom I came to know and respect in the years that I
was there - may he rest in peace) at our orientation: "If you want
a degree from this instituition (one of the top three engineering
schools in the country) you will have to take the all courses that
we give when we give them. If you want to have "free choice" and
take or don't take only what you want or when you want it, you can
go to Basket-Weaving University and let someone who wants to be here
take your place." (Admissions were 100 per year out of a field of
2000 qualified applicants per year.)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Piano is an
essential skill in music, and I firmly believe all musicians should start
on the piano and be tested in piano proficiency before being allowed to
move on to any other instrument -- which will be much easier as a result.

73 de Larry, K3LT

As a player of the clarinet, I agree completely.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Do you still play? I still own a clarinet (a beautiful LeBlanc Noblet, all-
Grenadilla wood) but I haven't played it in over 25 years. It is presently
450 miles away from me in the care of a niece who also used it to
learn music the wrong way -- now she's involved in Drama! I keep saying
one of these days I'll take it with me after a home visit and try to once
again figure out which end to blow into. (Ooops-- something tells me I'm
going to be seeing that last sentence again!). I also want to get one of
those nice big Casio electronic keyboards and take actual lessons on it,
and perhaps become a Real Musician™ someday!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Phil Kane wrote:

On 18 Jul 2003 05:17:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

OTOH, millions of young children today are "forced" to learn how to do
basic arithmetic even though inexpensive calculators have been around
for decades.

What "learning"? Go into your local fast-food place or grocery
store and see the blank look on the clerk's face if s/he has to make
change and the register is not working.....

Yeah. Even if the register is working, some get confused when, for a
bill of $5.72, I
hand them a ten and a single. "I was hoping to get back a five and some
coins"....

For some reason I don't encounter that sort of thing around here.

Back in the mid sixties, in grammar school we spent a huge amount of
time on arithemitic chores like long division. Back then before calculators
and
home computers, it probably made some sense to learn how to do this by hand.
Nowadays, they probably should teach some of this, and also get kids to
be able to make judgements of an answer is wildly wrong, or reasonable
(like did I hit the "x" key when I wanted "+"?).

They do, at least in the local public schools.

My grammar school "taught to the test". We had yearly achievement
tests (computer graded multiple choice, somewhat similar to the SAT)
and they wanted good scores. So stuff like creative writing was not taught
(doesn't show on the test). No music either. Anyway, if you had some
wits about yourself, a computer graded arithemitic test with multiple
choice answers is a lot easier than one the teacher grades (if it's an
addition problem, all you need add is the right-most colunm and then
you pick the answer with the matching least significant digit).

Ugh.

The point still remains - should the whole subject of basic arithmetic simply
be dropped because we now have calculators?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Except, what about the "useful skills" that you learned in college and have
never turned into a career?
heh heh, walked right into that one...

Slam dunk! So much for the Soma cum Loud "Human Resources"
graduate...:-)

LHA

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Except, what about the "useful skills" that you learned in college and have
never turned into a career?
heh heh, walked right into that one...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I have a job that I enjoy, has little or no stress, and has great pay and
benefits. Had I taken an entry-level job in Human Resources, I'd be making
about a third less money, have no job security whatsoever, and I'd most
likely be under the thumb of some menopausal nightmare of a YL boss.
I got a degree in HR because that program gave me the most bang for the
buck in transfer credit, and I wanted to have a B.S. in something - anything.
The fact that I no longer desire to sit in a cubicle all day doesn't mean that
I haven't gained anything by obtaining a college education. BTW -- do
YOU have a college degree? What was YOUR major?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Except, what about the "useful skills" that you learned in college and
have
never turned into a career?
heh heh, walked right into that one...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I have a job that I enjoy, has little or no stress, and has great pay and
benefits. Had I taken an entry-level job in Human Resources, I'd be
making
about a third less money, have no job security whatsoever, and I'd most
likely be under the thumb of some menopausal nightmare of a YL boss.
I got a degree in HR because that program gave me the most bang for the
buck in transfer credit, and I wanted to have a B.S. in something -
anything.
The fact that I no longer desire to sit in a cubicle all day doesn't mean
that
I haven't gained anything by obtaining a college education. BTW -- do
YOU have a college degree? What was YOUR major?

73 de Larry, K3LT


Yeah, I always like how your job description ends up sounding like a
defense...LOL

No, I don't have a college degree, Larry. I didn't have the money to waste.
I also didn't have the time to waste. I wanted to do too many things, so I
set out to do them. And, I've accomplished most of them.

With or without that college degree I now earn quite a healthy living, with
a lot more room to grow. So, you wasted your time, in my opinion, and I did
not, in my opinion.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

Larry,

What is your chosen occupation? Sounds like you've found your niche.
I'm still looking for mine.

-Robert

"El Asesor" wrote:

Gee I looked at the subject, then the contents and I
am totally baffled.

Come on guys/gals -- if your post is for one person
only or you change subject matter --- please change
the subject title.

Don't make a hundred (thousand?) readers open up
something totally unrelated to the subject.

Yeah I know -- who made me a net-police person? But
dog gone I get tired of opening up these posts that
have nothing to do with the subject.

Yeah I know --- then don't open em up. But there is
some good stuff here --- don't want to miss them.


I agree. If someone is going to change the subject of a discussion, please
change the subject line and take it out of the tread. By doing so, you
reduce the distraction for those not interested in the new subject, but also
better attract those who are interested in that new subject (it's no longer
buried in a thread they may not be interested in).

Of course, this can't be done in every case or every time a person has a
quick out-of-context comment, but it should at least be tried when it looks
like the new subject is developing into a major discussion in itself.

And this is not an attempt to be a newsgroup policeman - it's simply a
polite plea from a fellow newsgroup participant.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/