(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible
for their proper operation.

Do you think every ham understands how their radios work? Do you think
the tests even begin to measure the things a ham needs to know to
determine if a radio is working properly?

Do you think that you could submit questions to the QPC concerning
those things that a ham needs to know?

And so it degenerates into a Morse Code argument again. Knowledge and
skill in Morse (Farnsworth) will keep your radio working properly.

2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts
and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

No, it's proficiency that the test measures

That's a skill.

... proficiency in decoding Morse
in one's head at some specified speed.

5 wpm. Which is not "proficient" by any stretch of the imagination.

Its the new standard, albeit probably short lived.

And that's ALL it is according to
the FCC (see the "No Code Technician" decision from 1990 and the R&O
in 98-143 ... you'll see EXACTLY that in both documents).

Sure. But just because FCC says it does not make it true.

Ditto the ARRL.

The Morse test which is Element 1 tests the skill of receiving Morse code
at a very basic level.

Exactly, it measures a specific level of proficiency.

"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

Where is Morse proficiency defined? Where is Morse defined?

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building
radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur
radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are
responsible
for their proper operation.

Do you think every ham understands how their radios work? Do you think
the tests even begin to measure the things a ham needs to know to
determine if a radio is working properly?

Do you think that you could submit questions to the QPC concerning
those things that a ham needs to know?

Reverend Jim always blames nasty ol' FCC.

And so it degenerates into a Morse Code argument again. Knowledge and
skill in Morse (Farnsworth) will keep your radio working properly.

It must be that morsemanship is to technological measurement of
transmitter performance as the laying-on of hands is to modern
medicine. :-)




2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of"
...

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts
and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

No, it's proficiency that the test measures

That's a skill.

... proficiency in decoding Morse
in one's head at some specified speed.

5 wpm. Which is not "proficient" by any stretch of the imagination.

Its the new standard, albeit probably short lived.

And that's ALL it is according to
the FCC (see the "No Code Technician" decision from 1990 and the R&O
in 98-143 ... you'll see EXACTLY that in both documents).

Sure. But just because FCC says it does not make it true.

Ditto the ARRL.

The Morse test which is Element 1 tests the skill of receiving Morse
code
at a very basic level.

Exactly, it measures a specific level of proficiency.

"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

Where is Morse proficiency defined? Where is Morse defined?

A couple of REALLY old-timer morsemen tell me that even 20 WPM
is kid stuff. REAL proficiency starts at 40 WPM and goes on up.

Don't sweat the technical stuff...morsemanship will do ALL. It is the
magic wand, the talisman of the occult, the ONLY thing needed in
the year 2003 to "make a radio work properly." :-)

Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service

Has a nice ring to it.

All those Brass Pounder Leaguers ought to file and request an NPRM
for just changing the ARS title and drop all written tests, keeping only
a morse test...at 40 WPM, of course.

LHA

In article , Robert Casey
writes:


Do you think every ham understands how their radios work?

Few do.

At what level of expertise do you need here? Simple concepts on how
superheterodynes
work (block level diagrams) or precise knowledge on RF analog chip design?

My take on the general level of expertise can be reduced to:

"A transmitter sends out signals and a receiver receives them."

:-)

Or, when questioned on something more specific, the pointing to a large
stack of old QSTs and some Handbooks, "I got all the techie smarts I
need right THERE, I took my TEST long ago and don't have to learn
nuthin!"


Do you think
the tests even begin to measure the things a ham needs to know to
determine if a radio is working properly?

The FCC no longer devises the license exam test questions and it no
longer requires a minimum number of questions on specific topics within
the minimum number of written test questions per class.

Address your complaints about written exam question content to the
VEC Question Pool Committee.

At least enough knowledge to spot gross problems.

"Gross problems?"

Address bitching about "today's technical test dumbing-down" to the
VEC QPC.

Meanwhile, continue to operate solely in the ham bands (on HF, there
are no other real ham bands) and forget about interfering with any other
radio services. That's not a "ham problem" anyway, is it?

How could you possibly know something was
wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked?

By how it behaves. And by how other hams tell you it sounds, or
doesn't sound.

HAR! Another reducto ad absurdum commentary! :-)

If (as you said earlier) hams don't have any grasp of technical matters,
how can they possibly judge the quality of signals? :-)

Listening to an AM or SSB signal with an FM receiver doesn't yield much
information on that AM or SSB signal, does it? How about judging
signal quality of FM on an AM receiver? Does slope detection yield
"quality" of signal that way?

Come on, few hams are that stupid.

I've met some. A few of those were morsemen, too! :-)


First thing I check is to see that I have the right receive
mode enabled. "Oh, I had LSB enabled for 20 meters, no wonder everyone
sounded screwed up".

Nu?

My hearing is not special but it is absurdly easy to spot a wrong-sideband
SSB receive mode by EAR, not having to check any panel controls...


On most modern HF transceivers, the 3rd harmonic has the strongest
content of RF. The 3rd harmonic of 3.5 to 4.0 MHz is 10.5 to 12 MHz
and there aren't many "ham listening frequencies" there, are there?

More than the fundamental?

Of the HARMONICS, the 3rd is MOST LIKELY to be the strongest
HARMONIC.

Don't try to get into nit-picky arguments over parts of sentences.

The third harmonic of 3.5 to 4.0 MHz transmissions doesn't fall into any
"ham bands" on HF so it is extremely unlikely that any other amateur
would have any listening capability in that part of HF.

Modern radios rarely have a failure in this
that is not obvious in other areas of performance.

That's a very nice blanket statement which is so much phlogiston, a
perfect rationale to absolve oneself from any need to know anything
technical. From experience in lots of "modern radios" designed and
built for far harsher environments than amateur radio, that's BUNK.

The Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of "modern radios" is FAR
BETTER now than at any time in the past, especially after the solid-
state era was entered. A couple of orders of magnitude BETTER.

"Modern radios" just haven't reached the perfection level yet.

Hams tend to give "signal reports" as 5-9-9 regardless of actual
lower values...it's the buddy-thing to do to fellow hams, right?

"Everyone is "59" on my meter..." :-)

Of course. Every ham signal is always perfect everywhere. Uh huh.

Do you really think even the Extra test measures that knowledge?
Particularly given the extremely wide range of technologies that a ham
is authorized to use?

We do put some faith in the quality of our manufactured equipment. Like if
the
harmonics are really down 60 dB or if our rigs are leaking harmonics only 55
dB
down. But we should be able to spot a gross deficency (like something broke).
Not necessairly be able to repair it ourselves, but be able to spot the
problem and
take the bad equipment out of service.

Not a problem. Just read the QST Equipment Reviews and BELIEVE them.
Don't bother with trying to measure anything yourself. Forget theory,
forget
having to learn anything, forget it all, just adjust those paddles and beep
away. Equipment Reviews wouldn't LIE to anyone, would they? After all,
HAMS did the testing, right? If specifications are printed on real paper
with
real ink, they are absolutely withoutadoubt "honest" and faithful to all
hams.

Do ALL the "technical discussions about performance" based on SOMEONE
ELSE's measurements. Argue the fine points of what SOMEONE ELSE
wrote. Never challenge any specifications printed on real paper with real
ink...if a ham did it, it is beyond criticsm. There's no point in doing it
yourself unless you have all the "credentials" and have been a ham for
decades...NOT doing a lot except USING the radios.

If you swiped a credit card for $2000 or so for an all-mode, all-everything
super-special, esthetically-gorgeous, ham whiz-bang, do NOT question
ANY of the manufacturer's specifications. Accept it on FAITH. You "got
what you paid for," right?

Hello? Want to improve written test content and quality? Go talk
at the VEC QPC and bitch at them...

No arguments on that? :-)


Example: New Ham buys old rig, which requires tuning up. Even though
in perfect operating order, said rig can be mistuned by the unknowing
to produce all sorts of spurious responses. Current tests say nothing
about proper method of dipping and loading, grid drive, audio gain,
etc. Heck, most current EEs couldn't get the thing to work without
help.

BFD. Did that 50 years ago, not even an EE then. Rather OLD
rigs then, some of them. :-)

Issue is a new ham trying to use the old rig as "plug and play" like a
new rig. He has to RTFM.

Nope. All that is necessary is skill and proficiency at morse code.
And being able to subtly tune in a signal in ways that professionals
couldn't possibly do.


didn't cover 1% of how his new/old rig works. FCC trusts that New Ham
will educate him/herself on the technology used and not cause
interference. So why should New Ham be forced to jump through a
written test hoop and learn things he/she won't use? Answer: Because
some folks think he/she should have to. And for no other reason.

Has the FCC *EVER* stated such a position? I don't think so.

The FCC does NOT specify the various content of written questions
on ANY written element...ONLY the total number.

See VEC QPC......

I think the FCC does has some specifications on the material to be
tested.

The FCC specifies the number of questions on every written test
element. Beyond that the ENTIRETY of the written test questions
and answers is left solely up to the VEC QPC.

The FCC has "final cut" on the written elements (final approval) but
that is rather pro forma.

And on the quality
of the wrong answers on a multiple choice test. You can't ask "the
voltage across a 1 ohm
resistor at 1 amp is: a) bananas, b) New Jersey c) 1 volt d) a can of beer."

Complain to the VEC QPC if you have a problem with that.

Sure. But just because FCC says it does not make it true.

The FCC does the licenses, and they decide what they care about in
deciding if an applicant gets a license or not.

No kidding?!? :-)

The FCC hasn't "cared much" anywhichway since the small but slight
change in Part 97 a few years ago when the VEC QPC got the WHOLE
magilla on written element questions and answers.


"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

Well, the tests are done "Farnsworth" style, ie, fast code characters spaced
at 5 WPM
rate. Idea is to get people to learn the sounds of the characters instead of
thinking of
the dits and dahs and deducing the character. Less time wasted getting
proficient at
code if one chooses to.

There you have it...MORSEMANSHIP is the MOST IMPORTANT factor in
amateur radio operations below 30 MHz!!!

According to some, anyway...


You can bet your NAL that what the FCC is *TRUE* is very much true
if you get NAiLed.

Well, the FCC isn't going to NAiL you for being only able to do 7WPM instead
of 20
in the extra CW subband (really the extra data subband). Actually, I think we
should
informally keep the novice subbands as beginner Morse code users and have
informally
reserve the extra subbands for people who can do high speed Morse. Used to be
and
likely still is that expert morse men rove the novice subbands looking to
elmer the newbies.

Morsemanship uber alles in the year 2003!

There are NO "novice class" amateur radio licenses issued in
USA amateur radio. Are you going to keep space on a
"reservation" for all those missing indians or what?

How about we keep all those Morsemen Chiefs on their elite little
EM spectrum reservations, maybe have dude ranches where
youngsters can all attend to learn the Old Ways of Morse?

All those old Morse Chiefs have been giving us "lip" on their
morsemanship, now we can give them "lip service" by keeping
them all on their EM reservations. Everyone can be happy, the
Chiefs can brag up a storm, recite the old Maxims, and keep the
religion of morse alive in their peyote-fueled fantasies about radio.



We'll see. Not even 2 months since WRC-03, and the summer is not even
over yet. FCC could, upon review of the petitions, say "Yeah, we went
through this 3 years ago, nothing's changed, bye-bye Element 1".

The FCC hasn't said that yet. Or do you have "insider information" that
even Phil K. doesn't have?

Takes time for the brearucracy to turn its wheels. You think ham radio issues
like this
are at the top of the FCC's list of burning issues? I doubt it.

I'm not worried. It took TWENTY-FOUR YEARS to make a
dent in the "40m problem" and that isn't resolved yet.

All those Morse Chiefs are big and important...mouth-wise. They've
beeped for so long that they won't hesitate to send smoke signals
to the Great (Black and) White Father in Washington to Keep The
Morse Faith. [the Forestry Service may have to send tanker planes
to help control all the smoke and fire...]

All should strive to protect and serve the standards and practices of
the 1930s' radio in this new millennium. Keep the morse faith.

beep, beep

LHA

In article , Robert Casey
writes:


Morsemanship uber alles in the year 2003!

There are NO "novice class" amateur radio licenses issued in
USA amateur radio. Are you going to keep space on a
"reservation" for all those missing indians or what?

What about all of us "extra-lite" licensees?

I've looked high and low on the FCC website and can't find any
amateur radio "extra-lite" license class.


We only need 5wpm nowadays, and if
I want to QSO Larry, I would want to have some skill.

Not an answer.

First of all, you've not established any NEED for a morsemanship test
for the US amateur radio license having below-30-MHz privileges.

I don't know which "Larry" you are talking about, but there's never been
any NEED for "QSO-ing any 'Larry'" in the US amateur radio regulations.



How about we keep all those Morsemen Chiefs on their elite little
EM spectrum reservations, maybe have dude ranches where
youngsters can all attend to learn the Old Ways of Morse?

As morse only requires a small bandwidth, those "reservations" wouldn't
be much of a burden.....

True enough. :-)

Let them get burned up and send smoke signals. Electronics runs on
smoke; if the smoke leaks out it won't work. :-)


LHA