|
In article ilgate.org, "Hans
Kohb" writes: "Dick Carroll;" wrote http://www.qsl.net/n1ea/FIST_FCC_Petition_8-30-303.pdf Perhaps FISTS should consider sending this in as a comment to be considered with RM-10787, rather than a separate petition. I think it's better as a separate petition. If FCC grants the "no Morse test" petition, then it is unlikely to roll back that decision at a later date. Which is why a separate petition is a better idea. The most likely scenario now is that FCC will continue to receive petitions, assign them RM numbers, and take comments. Doing so takes almost no FCC resources and allows lots of time for ideas to percolate through the process. Perhaps FCC hopes some sort of consensus will be forthcoming. There are also a couple of petitions from as far back as 2001 or so that are still hanging fire. For example, FCC has not ruled on the ARRL petition to "refarm" the Novice bands. At some point, the flurry of petitions will slow down, comments taper off, and FC can do one of two things: 1) Create an NPRM (most likely) 2) Change the rules without an NPRM. I think a lot depends on whether a clear consnesus surfaces from the comments. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What the heck is "Memozizing"?
I wondered how long it would take you fools to catch that. |
There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing,
saying the Tech test is too hard. 73 de Jim, N2EY The whole plan is rather simple, there main goal is to turn it into the license in the Box Concept. Once Cw Testing is gone, the rest is easy. |
I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE. Dan/W4NTI "Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:31:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized for the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made that the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas. All of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great. Kim W5TIT What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based. There's nothing at all wrong with having some part of the test be based on something related to performance--other than CW; comment on that in a moment--if there could be a generally agreed upon topic. I think establishing something like a digital station would be more appropriate than building an antenna, because I think what should be tested is something everyone will do at one point or another. While not everyone may dabble in digital, APRS, SSTV, or whatever, everyone will have to establish a radio set up at some point or another. The best would be a sucessful mobile installation, but doing testing outside just wouldn't be feasible. On your latter comment, be careful how you word things in this debate: the test is performance based right now. It baseed on one's ability to understand CW, and that is performance. Only if they know how to connect the antenna to the radio. ;-) |
I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE. Dan/W4NTI Dan dont tell them that, if they keeping using a Quarter Wave Dipole we will never have to listen to them |
Maybe if they all use 1/4 wave DIPOLEs, they will be hard to hear. So it
won't matter. Dan/W4NTI Exactly, better yet tell them to use an 1/8 Wave Ant, they will not know the difference. |
Nor is you lack of basic knowledge regarding antennas.
Are you now suggesting TITs, TITs Draggin on the ground are some kind of ANT? |
|
So, when HF goes codless, are you going
to stay there or are you going back to 11 Meters. Oh no problem, I allready sold all my CBHam Stuff. As far as I am concerned you CBers can have it, cant wait to see how you New CBHAMS deal with BPL. |
|
No, I'm just telling you that you are ignorant about radio.
Well explain how TITS, TITS draggin on the Ground have anything to do with radio |
Typical freebander you are.
Sorry never been on FREEBAND, is that some Band you CBplussers use? |
|
|
You posted it, you justify how it falls within the charter of the ng.
So now your trying to tell me that TITs,TITS draggin on the Ground has nothing to do with Radio or Ants. Do you know anything about TITs, TITS draggin on the Ground? |
|
Don't lie to me now. It's evident in every post that you make.
Now how would you know? |
No actually I don't. Keep going, I'm forwarding all of this to
so that they can get a good laugh out of it too. Oh I see, when someone gets the best of you, you go crying, Im going to report you. Do you usually Whine and cry for everything you have ever gotten in life, you little WIMP. Tak your little WIMPY ASS Report and stick it. |
|
ROTFLMAO....
Go ahead and LYAO WIMP |
|
|
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On 07 Sep 2003 23:03:13 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: 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 Your TITs Draggin on the ground are not humorous Nor is you lack of basic knowledge regarding antennas. Hey, Bob? Just a suggestion. Just filter out this nitwit. Also, I've got it set so that anything with WA8ULX@aol, WA8ULX, ULX, Brucie, or Bruce doesn't come through. So, I miss most of whatever it is he posts. Can't say I miss most of whatever it is he "says" because he doesn't say anything...LOL Anyway, just a suggestion. I've also done that with Dan, now, too. He's another one that isn't even fun to play with and I hate take advantage of anyone but Larry and DICK. Kim W5TIT |
Why do you feel the sudden need to change the subject?
What subject you Dip Do you posts violate yous ISP's TOS? I dont know, and I dont care, do you? Would you be the same way about operation in the ham bands Of course |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. Sure Dan, come along and spoil the fun! And Bob thinks I'm a dummy! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
On 06 Sep 2003 11:22:30 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
In article , Bob Brock writes: On 5 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0700, (N2EY) wrote: Bob Brock wrote in message ... On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Bob Brock writes: On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: I think that they should know what all those nifty buttons actually do. That's a problem, because many rigs have so many features and menus that almost nobody knows *all* of them. But if you're talking about basic operation and operating practice, there's no reason it couldn't be done. They should know how to enter into a conversation. A list of "critical tasks" and "non-critical tasks" should be developed and a person not be licensed until they can actually show competence in those tasks. Those are the types of issues that I'd like to see the ham community discussing rather than the endless code/no-code debate that detracts from everything else. Actually, this very idea was discussed here over 5 years ago. Here's what I proposed: (BEGIN QUOTE): It seems to me that just dropping the code test would remove the last vestige of skills testing from the licensing process. Perhaps the code test should be replaced by a real practical operating test. Such a test could work like this: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs are connected to dummy loads which are located adjacent to each other. (The idea is to permit a "contact" from one rig to the other, without putting much of a signal on the air). The testee and a VE sit at one rig, and another VE sits at the other. The testee is given a sealed envelope and a few minutes to get familiar with the operation of the rig. (The operating instructions for the rig would be available at any time). When the actual test begins, the testee opens the sealed envelope and a timer is started. Inside the envelope are a set of instructions telling the testee to go to a specific frequency and call the VE at the other rig, make contact, and send the enclosed formal message. The VE at the other end has a similar sealed envelope, but with a different message, which is to be received by the testee. The idea is to test the actual radio operating skills of the testee under controlled conditions. There would be a time limit, too. (That's what the timer is for). The testee would have the choice of CW, voice or a digital mode for the test. Time limits and exact instructions would vary with the mode and the class of license being tested. Higher class tests could have shorter time limits, longer messages, and more complicated instructions, such as having to change frequency at a certain point in the contact, having to pick the frequency from a list that includes "wrong choices", etc. Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing or misspelled, that's a mistake. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are used, each deviation is a mistake. If the time limit is exceeded, each minute over the limit is a mistake. Exceed a certain number of mistakes and the test is failed. Asking for a repeat of a missed word would NOT be a mistake. Typical exams (but not the exact exams themselves) would be available as study guides. Audiotapes of typical tests could be used for study as well. Yes, it's a bit more complex than a straight code receiving test, and requires some equipment and two VEs to conduct it. (Perhaps the VE at the testee's position isn't really needed). But it could be done quite easily, and in such a way as to test real operating skills. The rigs used need not have lots of features, and QRP power levels would be more than adequate. Or a "rig simulator" that's really a gussied-up intercom could be used. Is there any real reason such testing could not be done? Is it expecting too much that a prospective ham be able to pass such a test? I think not! (END QUOTE) That description was part of a longer post from June 19, 1998. For the original, see: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...892%40ladder03. news.aol.com&output=gplain Note that one of the features of the test is that the person being tested gets to choose the mode used. Those who like Morse best can be tested using that mode, etc. I reposted the idea a few times but always got the same response from the nocodetest folks: Opposition to the idea of ANY form of practical skills test. Well, I guess I'm an exception to the rule. I'd support exactly something along those lines. Have them set up a very simple radio into dummy loads and actually have a conversation. All of the name calling and false accusations from both sides makes us look silly to those who read it. That's true. I'm really glad that it will be ending soon. You know something we don't? FCC has been extremely slow in acting on various proposals over the past few years. The 2000 restructuring took almost two years, start-to-finish. Frankly, given the FCC's words in the Report and Order to 98-143 (the restructuring), I'm surprised that Element 1 is still in place. FCC said there was "no regulatory purpose" for code testing *except* meeting the treaty requirement. Treaty requirement is gone. Based on its own logic, FCC now has no reason at all to keep Element 1. Yet they are going through the whole NPRM cycle again. Why? Could it be they have changed their minds? However the issue is decided, I doubt that all of the name calling and false accusations will stop. You should see some of the names I've been called for daring to disagree with some folks, and for pointing out their mistakes in fact, logic and math. Perhaps then, we can move on to more important issues. Maybe - but given the resistance to my idea of 5+ years ago, I doubt it. I don't know. Although the posts to the ng haven't changed over the years, people and positions do change. I've had a few people post dissatisfaction with the knowledge level of the current testing and they seem to agree that the current tests allow people to be licensed that don't know protocols or even how to set up and operate the equipment. Your proposal sounds like a step in the right direction. I'm sure that not everyone will agree with performance based testing in addition to a written test. That's an understatement. Google up the responses I got from the above post. Some of 'em aren't pretty. However, perhaps a consensus could be reached. Even if that happens, the FCC then has to be sold on the idea. If a consensus was reached in the ham coumunity that testing was inadequate at its current level, would selling the idea to them really be that hard? Afterall, it hams who would have to bear the burden of administering the additional test requirements. I don't think that anyone wants to see people licensed to operate radios who don't know the basics of setting them up and using them within established protocols. So, how would we go about starting a movement towards perfromance based testing? I would be willing to do what I could to help. |
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 09:12:21 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:43:32 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: To use Hans' spelling: for crying out phucking loud, Bob. Either you literally have just decided to pop in and don't read any other time; or you really are just trolling. This newsgroup runs several, *several* topics at any given time. You can choose whatever ones you would like and even create your own. But, you aren't going to change the debate on CW and no one ever will. I just laughed hysterically at another post of yours, where you said, "thank goodness it will all be ending soon." That's ludicrous. You're either young or blissful if you think the CW debate is going to end or go away. Anyone who can read the news knows which way code testing is going to go. The only real question is when. I see that Oz has decided that they don't have to wait until 2005 to dump it. Gee...what a suprise. Bob. You're young, aren't you? I can almost tell that by your optimistic attitude about the CW issue. You have to realize, Bob, that the CW issue for the drunken-type ramblers is not a CW issue at all. It's a value issue--that they value some mysterious talent they see in their ability and desire to use CW. It isn't about regulations, it isn't about the FCC, it isn't about whether it is a testing element or not. In their eyes, they will always be above anyone else not of their ilk. We know that's wrong. Others who have far more logic and brains and the capacity to think straight know that's wrong. But, they do not. So, their incessant whining and arguing and condemning and blaming will go on into eternity, while the rest of ham radio--the real part--moves on, has fun, helps out, and grows. I'm pushing 50, but I like to convince myself that I'm still young. Once the decision is made, all that will be left will those who reminice about the good ole days when you couldn't talk on HF if you didn't know how to not talk on HF. I have to be pretty darned "professional" during the day and getting down to another level sure is great fun! Oh, I come and go. I have many more parts to my life that are more pressing sometimes than ham radio or the newsgroup, but I won't go into them. It sounds like the serious hams who want to discuss real ham things have lives too. Absolutely. The only reason I happened upon the newsgroup again is I've been designing and building an MS Access application for use by a company. I am on the computer so much at work that it really isn't a draw here at home. When I was on before, we'd actually just gotten the internet connection, and a second computer so we didn't have to "share" :GRIN: and I would load up the newsgroup while I was cruising around. For this project that I did here, we went out and bought a new computer with Office XP Pro, Office Pro, TurboCAD, Dreamweaver, and Crystal Reports. This MS Access application turned into an all-out total package for the company and it's challenged some of my abilities--which I really dig because it's meant growing some new knowledge and that's never bad! At any rate, the project is now winding down, save some tweaks and mods. I don't know if I'll keep coming to the newsgroup. I don't have much to do on the computer at home; I'm much more an outside or home decorating person than I am a internet junkie (hubby's the internet junkie). And, heck--now we're looking at new homes so that's bound to keep me distracted. But, like I said, after the shock that there are people who act the way they do here in this newsgroup, it becomes nothing but fun and entertainment to draw them out--well, except for DICK who can't directly respond to anyone who's smarter than he--into a tirade of emotion. The occasional half-serious-to-serious discussion is great. BTW, the last time that I read anything is this ng was when you posted your goodbye to the group way back when. You see, this is a newsgroup that you can leave for months or years and come back exactly where you left off because the same things are being said over and over again. Oh yeah. You got that right. For those folks whom you depict above, all one need do is imagine the local bar-and-grill/pub, where Johnny and Drake and Chuck have hung forever. One walks in, could be 15 years later, and there they a still on the same stool, slumped over, arguing the same damned things they've argued for years. Pathetic, I know, but it's no different than watching a car race, not for the winner but to see what accidents we can see. Personally, I kinda like your callsign. I hope that you can live up to it. I couldn't care less whether you like it or not, Bob. I don't care if anyone else likes it or not. It's personal between and a group of friends and the rest of the world be damned. And that debate has been had and made many times here; and it's coming up again--Winter is coming. Kim W5TIT So, basically you're saying that the ng is stuck and useless except for a distraction. Absolutely. The only folks you'll ever see in any half-way decent debates in this newsgroup are Jim/N2EY; Brian Kelley; Hans--once in a while; and the occasional visitors who'll bring up something happenstance into this newsgroup and figure out real quick that there's so few serious participants that it's just not worth it. That's a shame, but I tend to agree with you. Oh, I don't think it's a shame...'least not any more. I kinda like it. I don't know where you work or what have to do for a living but I get plenty of serious, mentally challenging, stressful distractions at work. I think the transition I used to look for here was a seriuos-but-not-mentally-challenging exchange. Well, that's not going to happen ;) so I just shed all the "stuff" and decide to be as basal as I can possibly be--unless there's something that I can contribute to an intellectual discussion. And, let's face it, I'm just not into ham radio for the intellectualism of it so most of those discussions go way up over my head and I am bored to tears with the idea of learning enough about whatever is that's being discussed...!! Reading those discussions is like just looking at the cover of that mag that ARRL puts out--the Techie one. Still though, I think that if a few hams wanted to discuss stuff that is actually policy related with regards to enforcement, policy, etc. it could become a useful group with a lot of filtering. That possibility is insidiously redundant, i.e., can happen anywhere. There's nothing stopping you from doing that right here--a new thread--and completely ignoring the posts to it that have nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with one's being on top of their imaginative mountain. You could also start it--well, anywhere. I think I'll thy here for awhile. |
No, but you may...
Oh I see you have the day off. |
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:38:34 -0400, Bob Brock
wrote: On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:49:04 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Hey, Bob? Just a suggestion. Just filter out this nitwit. Also, I've got it set so that anything with WA8ULX@aol, WA8ULX, ULX, Brucie, or Bruce doesn't come through. So, I miss most of whatever it is he posts. Can't say I miss most of whatever it is he "says" because he doesn't say anything...LOL Anyway, just a suggestion. I've also done that with Dan, now, too. He's another one that isn't even fun to play with and I hate take advantage of anyone but Larry and DICK. Kim W5TIT If I get the feeling that he and his ISP thrive on attention, I'll filter him. I'm not there yet though. OK...I've changed my mind about wa8... I may have to go to a plonk with prejuduce mode for awhild. So far there seem to be less than a dozen posters here that I would care to talk to on radio. As I said, I've got the kid to take to school, animals to feed, and I'm in the middle of a move, so I really don't have a lot of time to play with twits who have nothing productive to say about radio within the confines for the ng charter. I've been in rougher ng's and I've found that with proper filtering, one can usually talk to those who want to carry on sincere conversation with proper filtering. |
Len Over 21 wrote: Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] A dipole ANTENNA refers to a wire type having two elements of wires, balanced-fed from the center with RF voltage in opposition. The length of this dipole antenna may be ANY length, from near-infinitesimal (fractional wavelength) to many wavelengths. The radiation pattern of the dipole antenna will vary based on many factors: length relative to wavelength, distance above ground or other imperfect conductor being the two most affecting patterns. Len is correct, dipole simply means two separate elements (di means two). A dipole of a certain length will be a half wavelength at xx frequency, a quarter wavelength at yy frequency and a full wavelength at zz frequency and so on. |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 23:10:08 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. Dan/W4NTI http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...F4+wave+dipole Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about 39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds All are SHF/UHF antennas. Your comments below, relative to HF antennas: What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based. Then you build me a 1/4 wave HF dipole. Again, there is no such thing. A dipole is 1/2wavelength total length. Center fed with 50 to 75 ohm coaxial cable. Cut to resonance using the formula of 468/Frequency in Megahertz. I.E. 468 divided by 7 = 66.857 feet long. This is the NORMAL meaning of a dipole for the Amateur Radio Service. You can use all the other off the wall terms you choose. Above is correct for ARS and should be on the test. As to making it a performance test. Good idea. Dan/W4NTI |
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:55:38 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 23:10:08 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. Dan/W4NTI http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...F4+wave+dipole Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about 39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds All are SHF/UHF antennas. Your comments below, relative to HF antennas: OK, I'll give you that, although a blanket statement that there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave antenna is equally incorrect. What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based. Then you build me a 1/4 wave HF dipole. Again, there is no such thing. A dipole is 1/2wavelength total length. Center fed with 50 to 75 ohm coaxial cable. Cut to resonance using the formula of 468/Frequency in Megahertz. I.E. 468 divided by 7 = 66.857 feet long. This is the NORMAL meaning of a dipole for the Amateur Radio Service. You can use all the other off the wall terms you choose. Above is correct for ARS and should be on the test. As to making it a performance test. Good idea. I agree and my apologies. |
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:54:18 -0400, Bob Brock
wrote: OK, I'll give you that, although a blanket statement that there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave antenna is equally incorrect. Should have read, "1/4 wave dipole antenna." |
In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] A dipole ANTENNA refers to a wire type having two elements of wires, balanced-fed from the center with RF voltage in opposition. The length of this dipole antenna may be ANY length, from near-infinitesimal (fractional wavelength) to many wavelengths. The radiation pattern of the dipole antenna will vary based on many factors: length relative to wavelength, distance above ground or other imperfect conductor being the two most affecting patterns. LHA |
On 9 Sep 2003 04:55:04 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote: In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] Har har! What a joke The Jokester (still) is! Couldn't even get it right by looking it up! By his definition a 1/4 ground plane is a dipole! Whatta "Radio Man" he isn't !!! And, just to repeat the FACT of the matter, **There is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole!!!** Plonk. Enough of your lies. |
|
Maybe the FCC monitors this newsgroup, sees all the senseless bashing of ego
in the code vs. no code wars and will reassign all amateur frequencies to Clear Channel Communications, Inc for IBOC experiments ? |
Dick Carroll; wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , "Dick Carroll;" writes: JJ wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] A dipole ANTENNA refers to a wire type having two elements of wires, balanced-fed from the center with RF voltage in opposition. The length of this dipole antenna may be ANY length, from near-infinitesimal (fractional wavelength) to many wavelengths. The radiation pattern of the dipole antenna will vary based on many factors: length relative to wavelength, distance above ground or other imperfect conductor being the two most affecting patterns. Len is correct, dipole simply means two separate elements (di means two). A dipole of a certain length will be a half wavelength at xx frequency, a quarter wavelength at yy frequency and a full wavelength at zz frequency and so on. OK jj, kindly give us ONE example of a 1/4 wave dipole..... A 40m half-wave dipole used on 80m... :-) I rest my case.... Which means it is still a dipole but since it is being used on 80 meters it is now a 1/4 wavelength dipole. |
In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes: JJ wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] A dipole ANTENNA refers to a wire type having two elements of wires, balanced-fed from the center with RF voltage in opposition. The length of this dipole antenna may be ANY length, from near-infinitesimal (fractional wavelength) to many wavelengths. The radiation pattern of the dipole antenna will vary based on many factors: length relative to wavelength, distance above ground or other imperfect conductor being the two most affecting patterns. Len is correct, dipole simply means two separate elements (di means two). A dipole of a certain length will be a half wavelength at xx frequency, a quarter wavelength at yy frequency and a full wavelength at zz frequency and so on. OK jj, kindly give us ONE example of a 1/4 wave dipole..... A 40m half-wave dipole used on 80m... :-) LHA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com