| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
August 22nd 03, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
NCI Petition for Rulemaking
"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 |
|
#2
August 22nd 03, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#3
August 22nd 03, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#4
August 23rd 03, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#6
August 23rd 03, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#7
August 23rd 03, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
August 23rd 03, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... 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 *personal* view is that the former (basic block diagram level understanding) should be the minimum. More detailed knowledge is something that folks can and should, ideally, strive for ... however, RF chip design is an area for the pros .... hams can't fab RF chips in their workshops ... BUT, they CAN "fab" all sorts of interesting things with FPGAs and other programmable logic devices - with affordable "eval" boards and inexpensive (sometimes free) software. A few years ago (at work, I admit, but I could just as easily have done it at home, as I have the tools) I designed an all-digital (I mean nothing but gates) modem for orthogonal BFSK that performs within 1.2 dB of theoretical ideal, yet was coded in VHDL and synthesized into an FPGA for the proof of concept model. While the VHDL was later re-targeted into a custom ASIC along with some other stuff, the cost of an FPGA that would be more than capable has come down to the point where home experimenters and "cottage industry shops" catering to the amateur market (which is, comparatively, a "niche market") could use this method of producing all sorts of useful stuff. So, to sumarize, my *personal* view is that block diagram understanding is a minimum "entry level". More than that is "a good thing" and should be a goal. Not every ham is going to be/can be an RF engineer, nor do they need to be, but the overall average level of technical knowledge could, in my *personal* opinion, be increased if ham radio was focused a *bit* more on the radio/electronics and a bit less on "operating," 73, Carl - wk3c |
|
#9
August 24th 03, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Len Over 21" wrote in message ... 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? For most modulated sine waves, the 3rd harmonic is usually the strongest *harmonic* although it depends upon several factors. Generally, the odd harmonic components add and the negative components subtract with modulated sine waves. Having said that, most modern rigs that produce FCC quality signals will filter such harmonics several 10's of dB rendering reception almost impossible except in the near field. I thought I needed to correct this BS, that emanates from someone who claims to understand modern amateur technology theory. Hams transmitting signals of any significance on 12MHz will not be hams for long. de KR4AJ |
|
#10
August 24th 03, 04:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| NCI filed Petition for Rulemaking Aug. 13 | Policy | |||
| FYI: QRZ Forum - NCVEC Petition & Comments | Policy | |||
| Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
| Sign in the petition against the abuse of the Band Plan forward this message to your buddies) | Dx | |||
| My Comments On RM-10740, the "Wi-Fi" Petition | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
