On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Then what do you think that they test for?

Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are
nothing more than jumping thru hoops

In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think
that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the
questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?

You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to
memorize the correct sequence were you?

I used to train people at a nuclear power plant. The way I did it was
to provide the students with a list of objectives, which were usually
in the form of questions. I told them up front that when I was
finished with the class, I expected to have covered those objectives
and that they needed to know the answers. When I wrote the test, you
know where the questions came from? Yup, they came from those
objectives word for word because that was what I wanted them to learn.
So, if they would study those objectives and know the answers to those
objectives, they could pass the tests with no problems. We didn't
play games with them and train them on objectives and test them on
something unrelated. We taught them, they learned what we wanted them
to learn and we validated that they had learned it without playing
mind games with them by extending the tests beyond the objectives.

That worked very well in a nuclear environment. We maintained a SALP
1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for
quite a while. Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,
but that's simply not true and anyone who is rational would know that.
In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or
they don't pass the test.

On 04 Sep 2003 01:29:46 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c

Bull****, Prove it.

See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.
Now, someone wants proof and the only way to proove it is to publish a
list of members which NCI won't do. It was like watching two trains
going opposite directions on the same track, you guys knew it was
going to happen, yet you did everything possible to make it happen.

The question then becomes, why? One possibility is that you thought
that a number could be published and no one would say, "Proove it."
We all know better than that though. Another possiblity was that it's
what you wanted to happen, because when it did happen you could all
jump on the "the number is BS bandwagon". The advantage of the "BS
bandwagon" is that it moves you away from just how untenable the code
requriement position really is and it makes you feel somehow stronger.

I'm sure that there are other reasons that you guys were so adamant
about wanting a number that you knew you would disagree with. I'd
like to hear them. What are they?

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license
test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage
over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ...

If you have an optimized receiver and suitable conditions, maybe - depends
on
what you determine to be "equivalent data rates".

Bits is bits ... same equivlent data rate is pretty clear.

So we'll say 30 wpm plain text.

But hams don't do slow-HF-BFSK. 60 wpm FSK Baudot RTTY is about the most
basic
data mode still in use by hams.

No, because it works well at higher rates and higher rates are desirable.

Sometimes higher rates are desirable.

BUT, if they *did* slow WAY down to Morse rates, they'd have at
least a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse..

After your mistakes in the "ARS License Numbers" thread, Carl, I tend to be a
bit skeptical about your numbers. 54%, anyone?

More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect
copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect
the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it.

That all depends on the equipment in use. Using a receiver optimized for
one
mode in an attempt to receive another may or may not be a good idea.

What mode do you use most on HF, Carl?

I'm playing with the soundcard modes right now ... PSKxx in particular,
helping some friends check out some pretty slick freeware they're
developing.

That's nice....guess SSB has it limitations, huh?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Then what do you think that they test for?

Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then
Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens
are nothing more than jumping thru hoops

Bob,

If you're bothering to argue with Bruce....

In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think
that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the
questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?

You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to
memorize the correct sequence were you?

The point is that the level of UNDERSTANDING required to pass the writtens
today is a lot less than it would be if the actual Q&A were not made public.

I used to train people at a nuclear power plant. The way I did it was
to provide the students with a list of objectives, which were usually
in the form of questions. I told them up front that when I was
finished with the class, I expected to have covered those objectives
and that they needed to know the answers. When I wrote the test, you
know where the questions came from? Yup, they came from those
objectives word for word because that was what I wanted them to learn.
So, if they would study those objectives and know the answers to those
objectives, they could pass the tests with no problems.

OK, fine.

Did they KNOW, from Day 1, that the test they would be taking would consist of
the exact questions and answers you gave them on Day 1?

Was the passing grade 74%?

Was there a penalty for wrong answers?

We didn't
play games with them and train them on objectives and test them on
something unrelated. We taught them, they learned what we wanted them
to learn and we validated that they had learned it without playing
mind games with them by extending the tests beyond the objectives.

Nobody's saying the tests should go beyond the stated objectives.

That worked very well in a nuclear environment.

I imagine that the class has a lot of motivation towards safety.

We maintained a SALP
1 from the NRC during the time frame I was there and I was there for
quite a while.

Were the employees tested once at the beginning of their employment at the
plant, and never again? Or was continuing education an integral part of that
environment?

Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,
but that's simply not true and anyone who is rational would know that.

Not a question of complexity.

In both cases, the material is taught and the student learns it or
they don't pass the test.

Not all hams take formal classes - in fact, most probably don't.

In the bad old days, the FCC published a study guide that listed, in essay
form, the type of questions and typical solutions that would be found on the
tests. For example, there were questions about Ohm's Law for a DC circuit and
how to solve them. Any prospective ham knew he/she would be expected to know
how to solve E = I/R and P = IE problems, resistors in series, parallel and
series-parallel, etc. And anybody who had a basic UNDERSTANDING of that stuff
would have no problem on those test questions.

But the actual Q&A were not made public. Today, with the actual Q&A in hand,
less understanding is required.

That's what bothers some folks.

Consider this: Today, the test for Tech is 35 questions from a published pool.
Most of those questions are on regulations, with some operating practices,
theory and safety stuff. Yet the license granted for passing that test gives
alla amateur privileges above 30 MHz, including the authorization to design,
build, repair, align, modify and most of all operate transmitters of up to 1500
W power output on 'meat cooking frequencies' as WK3C puts it. There is no
separate safety testing nor ongoing education - someone can get all of the RF
exposure questions wrong and still pass.

Do you think that the test and its methods are really adequate for the
privileges granted?

FCC does. In fact, back in 2000 they lowered the written requirement for the
Tech license by almost half.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:15:41 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 4 Sep 2003 05:25:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...

On a related question, is it pro coders intention to boycott QSO's
with countries that have already dropped the code requirement for
HF
work? Do you guys refuse to talk to Australians now?

In the event they have that country confirmed for DXCC, they will
boycott.

I was asking about you guys, not what they will do.

I don't boycott any ham who follows the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Exactly. And, I hadn't heard of any attempt to boycott a "country" due
to
its position on CW. That seems like something that would only get
thought
up right here in this newsgroup, though! GRIN

Anyway, that's taking the whole CW debate just way too far, IMNSHO.

I simply asked if anyone would consider boycotting no code HF
operators from other countries. Oz is already issuing licenses.
Asking a question is not proposing anything. However, making that
jump in logic is typical of usenet in general.

Well, excuse the observation he but you asked and was answered, at least
by N2EY and by me. Both answers were succinct and without merit for the
return you have above--which seems quite defensive and I'm puzzled by why.

So, you simply asked and were quite simply answered.

And, since you were the one who asked the question of such a weird concept
you would be observing your own actions with regard to your last sentance.

Kim W5TIT

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On 05 Sep 2003 02:58:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

No, the writen exams have a basis in the real world.

And what Value is that? The present writtens dont test for knowledge

Then what do you think that they test for?

Whether someone can remember correct answers to known questions.

Kim W5TIT

Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
On 04 Sep 2003 01:29:46 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.

Carl - wk3c


[expeletive deleted]
Prove it.

See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.

No number has been claimed, Bob.

Now, someone wants proof and the only way to proove it is to publish a
list of members which NCI won't do.

Then that one person doesn't get his proof.

It was like watching two trains
going opposite directions on the same track, you guys knew it was
going to happen, yet you did everything possible to make it happen.

What ARE you talking about? Ever hear of railroad signal systems?

The question then becomes, why? One possibility is that you thought
that a number could be published and no one would say, "Proove it."
We all know better than that though. Another possiblity was that it's
what you wanted to happen, because when it did happen you could all
jump on the "the number is BS bandwagon". The advantage of the "BS
bandwagon" is that it moves you away from just how untenable the code
requriement position really is and it makes you feel somehow stronger.

Nope. None of the above.

Here's the background:

NCI has been around since about 1996. Some of its staff and supporters
have claimed that the procodetest position is a minority position -
which makes them the majority position. But no proof of same has ever
been offered. There have also been claims that NCI "represents" ham
radio, and that ARRL does not, etc.

Check out this post from the executive director:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

Here's the part I like best:

(Carl, WK3C, writes in an earlier post):
And
are you going to grouse about "restructuring" for the next 50 years?

(I replied):

Not me. But isn't it the right of all Americans to complain about their
government and petition for changes?

(Carl answers):

Yes ... of course ...

Or is that right reserved only for those who agree with NCI's opinions?

Of course not, but at *some* point, folks in the minority should take
"No." for an answer and get on with life ...

(end of quotes)

Gotta love that addytood..."at *some* point, folks in the minority
should take "No." for an answer and get on with life ..."

Did NCI "take no for an answer and get on with life" when they turned
out to be in the minority of those who commented to FCC on the 2000
restructuring?

Suppose the FCC puts up an NPRM proposing to dump Element 1. And
suppose the majority of comments received on the issue say "Keep it".
Will NCI "take no for an answer and get on with life"?

Naturally some of us asked how big NCI is, and how fast it was
growing, and all we ever got was evasive answers such as "lots and
lots", "growing by leaps and bounds", etc.

The only indication those of us on the outside have of NCI's size is
the member numbers we've seen. The highest numbers I've seen are below
5000, which means there cannot be more than 5000 members, right?

But there's more! NCI started out with member number #1001, not #0001,
so the real size cannot be more than 4000. Why did they start with
#1001 instead of #0001? Please don't tell me their computers could not
handle low numbers...

On top of that, membership costs nothing and all members are
considered "active" unless they specifically request being removed
from membership. Which has happened in a few cases that I know of
personally. So anyone who joined is carried on NCI's books as a
member, no matter what their interest and activity today. FISTS and
most other groups like ARRL will drop you from their rolls if you
don't send in your renewal, but not NCI.

Despite repeated requests over at least 6 years, NCI refuses to give
an actual number of members. Why? All we've asked for is a statement
like "As of September 1, 2003, there were XXXX active members of NCI.
Of those, YYYY are licensed US hams". We did not ask for a list of
names or calls.

All of this makes an NCI-outsider a bit skeptical. If the number of
members isn't that big a deal, why all the secrecy about it all these
years?

I'm sure that there are other reasons that you guys were so adamant
about wanting a number that you knew you would disagree with.

You're taking Bruce's demand for proof and applying it generally. Why?

I'd
like to hear them. What are they?

See above.


73 de Jim, N2EY

How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the
correct answer then?


Its called memorizing, no knowledge. If question about the material most
wouldnt have a Clue.

You weren't provided with an answer sheet where you only had to
memorize the correct sequence were you?

No I wasnt, I knew the Info.



Perhaps it's you contention that getting a license to
operate a radio is somehow more complex than the nuclear environment,

No not really, anymore its a waste of time the way the present written is
setup.

See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.
Now, someone wants proof

Of course someone wants proof . Hell anybody can say they have any number of
anything, but that doesnt make it so.
Karl and the nuts are going before the FCC claiming they have X number of
support, wheres the facts for your support. Or are they just throwing out any
number they hink will Impress the FCC.

On 05 Sep 2003 13:13:26 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.
Now, someone wants proof

Of course someone wants proof . Hell anybody can say they have any number of
anything, but that doesnt make it so.

I'm the one who told you that when you were asking for a number. He
told you in advance that he wouldn't publish a member list. Did that
slow you down? No...it didn't. You are your own worst enemy.

Karl and the nuts are going before the FCC claiming they have X number of
support, wheres the facts for your support. Or are they just throwing out any
number they hink will Impress the FCC.

Regulatory agencies are not democracies. They will listen to everyone
and then do as they please. You may not like it, but that's how it
is. I would say that, given some of the larger members of the EU
already dropping the code requrement, the the pro coders have an
uphill battle if they want to make us look like a backwards country
where ham radio is concerned.