"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?

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.

This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and
knowledge
of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full
compliance with the rules.

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?

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.

But FCC trusts that New Ham will seek out a manual, read up, get help
from Old Hams, and be a responsible licensee even though the tests
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.


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.

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.

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.

Element 1 is in no way a test of "proficiency". It's a skill test at a
very
basic level. To call it a proficiency test is to demonstrate ignorance of
the
word proficiency.

Proficiency is measured against some "yardstick" ... in the case of Morse,
the FCC has (currently) determined the yardstick to be 5 wpm.
You can argue all you want, but that's the way it is ...

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

Yet they wouldn't include a sunset clause back in 2000

True ... they didn't include a sunset clause.

Which means they were not 100% convinced. Otherwise why do the whole
thing all over again?

and they're making all of us go through an NPRM cycle all over again.

How the FCC will handle this is yet to be determined ...

So far it looks like NPRM time. As more and more proposals/petitions
roll in, and old ones remain unresolved, the ARRL forecast of two
years begins to look reasonable.

If FCC thinks there really is
"no regulatory purpose" to a code test, WHY are they dragging their feet
and doing the whole circus AGAIN?

See my last sentence ...

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".

[snipped unrelated discussion of BPL]

Not unrelated at all. But I understand why you snipped it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"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?

No. Do I think that every ham *should* have at least a basic,
fundmental idea of how their radios work? Hell yes. (that is
my personal view)

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

They are certainly a step in the right direction ... but since this is
beyond the NCI Petition's scope and NCI's agenda, I don't
want to debate it in this context ...

[snip of written test related stuff as OT for this thread]

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.

In your view ... 5 wpm proficiency was what the FCC determined
to be adequate to satisfy its obligations under the *old* ITU Radio
Regs. NOW the ITU Radio Regs don't require any Morse test
at all and the FCC is free to eliminate that unnecessary element that
they have ALREADY determined "does not comport with the purpose
of the ARS" and "serves no regulatory purpose."

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.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it's what the FCC says that
COUNTS.

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.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.

Yet they wouldn't include a sunset clause back in 2000

True ... they didn't include a sunset clause.

Which means they were not 100% convinced.

No, they stated that they would not presuppose the outcome of
a WRC and were uncertain when the matter would be considered
by a WRC ... they did NOT indicate any doubt or "waffling" on their
"does not comport with the purpose of the ARS" and "serves no
regulatory purpose determinations.

Otherwise why do the whole thing all over again?

and they're making all of us go through an NPRM cycle all over again.

How the FCC will handle this is yet to be determined ...

So far it looks like NPRM time. As more and more proposals/petitions
roll in, and old ones remain unresolved, the ARRL forecast of two
years begins to look reasonable.

We shall see ... hopefully the FCC will have the courage and wisdom
to save a LOT of their valuable, limited resources and spare the ham
community another two years of crap and just get it over with.

If FCC thinks there really is
"no regulatory purpose" to a code test, WHY are they dragging their
feet
and doing the whole circus AGAIN?

See my last sentence ... [refering to "How the FCC will handle this
is yet to be determined ..."]

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".

It takes time for the government to do anything ... we're still in the
pre-dawn
stages of a regulatory day ... but that doesn't mean it's going to take 2
years
either ...

[snipped unrelated discussion of BPL]

Not unrelated at all. But I understand why you snipped it.

BPL is unrelated to the Morse test issue, but I *did* file Reply
Comments on BPL ... in fact, at the risk of being accused of
boasting a bit, I got a very gracious e-mail from someone high
up at ARRL HQ complimenting me on them and thanking me for
corroborating Ed Hare's field test observations ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy". The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc. His definition of proficiency is
along the lines of what level must a person obtain to prevent forgetting it.
Basically his research showed that those who achieved 13wpm did not forget
the code even if they did not use it. They would get "rusty" so to speak
and their speed would fall off if they did not use it but they would not
forget it. Once they resumed using it, their speed would fairly quickly
climb back to their previous level. That would seem like a reasonable
definition.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.

His definition of proficiency is
along the lines of what level must a person obtain to prevent forgetting it.
Basically his research showed that those who achieved 13wpm did not forget
the code even if they did not use it. They would get "rusty" so to speak
and their speed would fall off if they did not use it but they would not
forget it. Once they resumed using it, their speed would fairly quickly
climb back to their previous level. That would seem like a reasonable
definition.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you might want to suggest this as the definition of "Morse
Proficiency" to the FCC.

You might also want them to define Morse Code as it has some how
slipped out of Title 47. Hey, while they're at it, ask them to define
how to compute "Words per Minute," and Farnsworth.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be
quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill
of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?


Re-read the following sentence as it states why.

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?


Since I've given the title of the book, surely you can do the research
yourself for that data. Hint, it's available as a free download off the
internet so you can find it with any search engine. However the fourth
edition is copyrighted 2003 and is by William G. Pierpont, N0HFF.

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.

His definition of proficiency is
along the lines of what level must a person obtain to prevent forgetting
it.
Basically his research showed that those who achieved 13wpm did not
forget
the code even if they did not use it. They would get "rusty" so to
speak
and their speed would fall off if they did not use it but they would not
forget it. Once they resumed using it, their speed would fairly quickly
climb back to their previous level. That would seem like a reasonable
definition.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you might want to suggest this as the definition of "Morse
Proficiency" to the FCC.


The FCC can define it anyway they like for their regulatory activities. The
author's definition is one that works in the real world, i.e. the point at
which the person is at little risk of forgetting the training.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be
quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill
of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?


Re-read the following sentence as it states why.

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?


Since I've given the title of the book, surely you can do the research
yourself for that data. Hint, it's available as a free download off the
internet so you can find it with any search engine. However the fourth
edition is copyrighted 2003 and is by William G. Pierpont, N0HFF.

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.

His definition of proficiency is
along the lines of what level must a person obtain to prevent forgetting
it.
Basically his research showed that those who achieved 13wpm did not
forget
the code even if they did not use it. They would get "rusty" so to
speak
and their speed would fall off if they did not use it but they would not
forget it. Once they resumed using it, their speed would fairly quickly
climb back to their previous level. That would seem like a reasonable
definition.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you might want to suggest this as the definition of "Morse
Proficiency" to the FCC.


The FCC can define it anyway they like for their regulatory activities. The
author's definition is one that works in the real world, i.e. the point at
which the person is at little risk of forgetting the training.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, wow, that's great. I love these little trips down memory lane.
And to hell with the FCC and their role in regulating amateur radio.
They don't define Morse Code but should, they don't define WPM rate
but should, then they require a pass/fail Morse Exam that excludes
otherwise qualified citizens from access to HF radio. And the VEC's
substitute a Farnsworth Exam where Morse is specified.

Letting the FCC define something "any way they" want is a recipe for
disaster.

An interesting note. I do recall having learned American land-line Morse
once as a lark and was capable of perhaps 16 words per minute - but I was
using a mental look-up table for those characters/numbers that were
different from international Morse. The long and short of it is this: I did
copy with no errors 40 words per minute of international Morse code in the
US Navy in 1967. I used American Morse once only in 1968. I did not use
any Morse from 1969 until I retook the amateur extra exam in 1993. I
passed, but I have forgotten the American Morse. A few weeks of writing
some Morse code programs did pump my speed up just a wee bit on
international Morse

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.



There gpes the Brain child on another erroneous tangent. Only in the
ham shacks of NCI members has use of code began to wane within ham
radio. If he'd bother himself to actually check what'seing done *on
the air* he'd soon find that the use of Morse has grown within the
ARS,not waned. All this in spite of the hearfelt wishes and strenuous
actions of him and the likeminded.

"None so blind as those who won't see!"

(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.



There gpes the Brain child on another erroneous tangent. Only in the
ham shacks of NCI members has use of code began to wane within ham
radio. If he'd bother himself to actually check what'seing done *on
the air* he'd soon find that the use of Morse has grown within the
ARS,not waned. All this in spite of the hearfelt wishes and strenuous
actions of him and the likeminded.

"None so blind as those who won't see!"

Poor DICK. Believes his own BS.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:51:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy". The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc. His definition of proficiency is
along the lines of what level must a person obtain to prevent forgetting it.
Basically his research showed that those who achieved 13wpm did not forget
the code even if they did not use it. They would get "rusty" so to speak
and their speed would fall off if they did not use it but they would not
forget it. Once they resumed using it, their speed would fairly quickly
climb back to their previous level. That would seem like a reasonable
definition.

I can attest to that. Having been without an antenna for nearly a
year some time ago, my speed fell way off, but I retained what each
letter in code was.

Contests are a good way to get the code speed back up to snuff in no
time, if you're "rusty". Of course, the first few hours are a beast,
but by the time the contest is over, you're working QSO's in your
sleep. LOL

Stacey, AA7YA