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

Both the pool AND answers are published.

And how do we convince FCC to change that?

Let's take a typical question:

What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?

I assume you mean "half wave"...

What kind of half wave dipole? Made of wire or tubing? Of uniform thickness or
tapering? In free space or near other objects?

The answer depends on a bunch of things!

Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test
taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn
the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the memorize
the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is unable
to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for operating

Exactly!

Now suppose we rewrite the question to:

"What is the formula for computing the length of a half-wave dipole for 14.240
MHz, if the dipole is made of #10 wire and is in free space?"

The person being tested then memorizes the formula from the choices in the pool
but doesn't necessarily know how to use it. Same problem.

For another example, knowing that E = IR and P = EI doesn't guarantee that
someone will have the sense to realize that they should not try to use 50 feet
of #18 zip cord to connect a 100 watt transceiver to its 13.8 volt power
supply.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

I'm
here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really
important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that
when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio,
set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are
authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe
levels.

The test pools are under constant revision. Anyone can submit proposed Q&A to
the QPC for consideration.

If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their
radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it.

Then we'd need rig-specific licenses.

And what would you do about homebrew rigs like mine?

If they don't know
enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they
shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency.

Now that makes sense! But such things are already addressed in the question
pools.

The problem is that what needs to change is the test methodology. By lumping
all of the subjects into a one-size-fits-all written test, prospective hams can
have huge holes in their knowledge and still pass because of strenghts in other
areas. One answer to that is subelements.

The big problem is convincing FCC that testing at such a level is needed. For
more than 25 years, FCC's view towards amateur radio testing is to reduce the
license requirements and make the licenses easier to get, not harder. That's
one of the reasons some folks defend the code test so diligently - they know
that if it goes, it will not be replaced by any other test, nor will the test
methods used for the written be improved.

It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham
community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it.

Morse will continue to be a major part of amateur radio with or without a test.
The test, however, is symbolic of the changes that have been ongoing for a long
time.

It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more
important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the
ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully,
with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips
with some real issues.

I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

I think you will find that the exact same problems will arise in connection
with any move to increase license requirements. The "Smith chart solution" post
in another thread is only half in jest.

There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing, saying
the Tech test is too hard.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

I weighed the benefit of HF against conforming
with a requirement that I didn't agree with. I felt that by
participating I was helping it to continue.

How is participating in the test helping the requirement to continue?

There are a lot of hoops
that I would be willing to jump through to get HF privileges. Code
isn't one of them.

To each his own.

Call it a matter of personal ethics. Upgrading would have been the
easy way out.

Or consider this:

Which do you think is more convincing to FCC as a reason to remove Element 1:

- The person who says "I won't upgrade until that test is removed"

or

- The person who says "I took the test, passed it, yet I think there is no
reason for that test to exist any more."

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:46:51 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


OK Kim, show me where I said that I would boycott someone because of
their code status and I'll get back with you. If you can't quote me
saying that, who made the jump in logic will be apparent.

The ball is in your court.


Hold up there, Bob Brock. SHOW ME where anyone has said you would
"boycott
someone because of their code status." No one has said a word about you
doing that. YOU copped the attitude with the return of Jim's answer to
you
and my remarks. No where in the above material has Jim or I said a word
about you boycotting anything. HOWEVER, in your earnest desire to be the
victim, you missed that all Jim or I have done is answer your question,
with
nothing but sideline remarks back and forth to each other on the topic.

I don't know what ball you've served to my court--I am not playing on a
court, I am submitting remarks to a discussion.

Kim W5TIT


From elsewhere in the thread...

[I said]

Show me where I said that anyone proposed it and I'll consider
documenting it. I'm not in the habit of trying to document things
that I never said and I won't start with you.

[Dick Carroll said]

Yep. Another one of "them". He proposed it but he didn't propose it.

--------------------------------------
I admit that you may not agree with the above accusation. If so, say
so now and I'll apologize.


Nope, I don't. But for goodness sake, don't apologize. Good grief. You've
nothing to be apologetic about--'least not the way I see it.

And, for goodness sake again--don't *even* be affected by anything Dick
Carroll, Waddles (WA8ULX or whatever), Larry Roll or even Dave Heil says.
They're humorous, at best. They all remind me of drunken old rambling men.

Kim W5TIT

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:21:53 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .

I'll tell you guys why I'm here shortly, but conversing with twits
like you sure isn't it.


Oh!! Hold me back!! Now he's getting suspenseful!

Kim W5TIT

OK Kim, I'll keep you in suspense no more. Whether some like to admit
it or not, the senseless Morse Code debate will soon be history. I'm
here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really
important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that
when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio,
set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are
authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe
levels. If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their
radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it. If they don't know
enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they
shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency.

It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham
community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it.
It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more
important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the
ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully,
with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips
with some real issues.

I'm hopeful, but not expectant.


This newsgroup is not the place to find intellectual, even-handed debate,
Bob. You're way off base with your concept if you think it is. It just
isn't. QRZ, eHam.net, or others maybe, but not this one...

And, lose the idea that the CW thing is going to die--it's not. If you are
that serious about wanting to change the wheel, then get involved heavily in
the ARRL and W5YI. Use those venues to affect change; but you'd better be
willing to take giant baby steps at a time--and I don't think you're that
serious. That's not an insult--few people have the fortitude, time, and
stamina it takes to turn a wheel. I tried for four years--and most of my
free time. Didn't work. Giant baby steps=hugely small steps at a time.

Kim W5TIT

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:08:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
BTW, here is why I learned Morse. Ironic isn't it?


http://www.google.com/groups?q=code+...icy+autho r:b
ob+author:brock&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&a
s_miny=1981&as_maxd=5&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2001&selm =34c35790.2985325%40news.hi
s.com&rnum=2

Over the last couple of years, I have made a few posts about my
feelings that code should not be a requirement for access to HF
frequencies. While I have not changed my mind on that position, I do
have a question/request from the pro-coders in the NG.

Recently an amature radio operator in my area was operated on for a
growth in his throat. The operation left him without a voice and he
has been using Morse Code on one of the local repeaters at about 5
WPM. Because of this, I now want to learn code so that I can
understand what he is saying.

So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade?
I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I
will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access.
This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all
that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio
and this is the only way that he can do it.

Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This
is very confusing.

I would be more than happy to help anyone upgrade but no one has ever taken
me up on the offer.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If you had looked at the google link, you would have seen that was a
copy of a post from about 6 years ago. You're a little late.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:53:04 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message


some snippage


So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade?
I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I
will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access.
This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all
that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio
and this is the only way that he can do it.


Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code. This
is very confusing.


Hey Dee


(church lady voice here)

Why.... could it be........a TROLL?

(church lady voice off)

You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of
people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and
don't forget to change the story whenver possible.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Damn, a pair so dummies when I don't have anyone to paly cards with.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

Both the pool AND answers are published.

And how do we convince FCC to change that?

Let's take a typical question:

What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?

I assume you mean "half wave"...

What kind of half wave dipole? Made of wire or tubing? Of uniform
thickness or
tapering? In free space or near other objects?

The answer depends on a bunch of things!

That is of course true but at least knowing the basic formula gives the new
ham a place to start even though there are additional factors that should be
considered.


Now since the questions AND answers are published, the prospective test
taker can simply memorize the numerical answer instead of having to learn
the appropriate equation and how to use that equation. Using the
memorize
the numerical answer approach, the new ham has passed the test but is
unable
to calculate the dipole that he/she may actually want to build for
operating

Exactly!

Now suppose we rewrite the question to:

"What is the formula for computing the length of a half-wave dipole for
14.240
MHz, if the dipole is made of #10 wire and is in free space?"

The person being tested then memorizes the formula from the choices in the
pool
but doesn't necessarily know how to use it. Same problem.

As above, at least the new ham has a place to start. With the "just
memorize the specific answer" approach, he/she has no place to begin.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

Call it a matter of personal ethics. Upgrading would have been the
easy way out.

Or consider this:

Which do you think is more convincing to FCC as a reason to remove Element
1:

- The person who says "I won't upgrade until that test is removed"

or

- The person who says "I took the test, passed it, yet I think there is no
reason for that test to exist any more."

73 de Jim, N2EY

I'd certainly give a lot more credence to the guy that's done it rather than
the one who hasn't.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message


some snippage


So, would any of you pro-coders like to help a no-code tech upgrade?
I have to warn you in advance that, even after I learn the code, I
will still not support code testing as a requirement for HF access.
This is a personal decison that I am making because I want to do all
that I can to accomadate another person who wants to use amature radio
and this is the only way that he can do it.


Ok, here you've said you already know code but now want to learn code.
This
is very confusing.


Hey Dee


(church lady voice here)

Why.... could it be........a TROLL?

(church lady voice off)

You have to admit, its a great way to get a response out of a lot of
people - for a while at least. Just disagree with most everybody, and
don't forget to change the story whenver possible.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Yes but changing it within the same posting would signify that the troll is
of very low quality. Ought send him back to troll school.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE