Jim,

Answer:
1) Click on 'Message'
2) Click on 'Block Sender'
3) Click on 'Yes' to confirm

Works wonders.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

There are currently 7 petitions for Rule Making at the FCC ECFS...RM-
10781 through RM-10787. As of 10 AM Pacific Time on 8 Sep 03,
those
seven RMs had a total of 1,101 documents.

The OVERWHELMING CLEAR CONSENSUS that comes from those
comments is the abolishment of the morse code test for a US amateur
radio license, any class.

Not to anyone who understands what the word "consensus" means. You
obviously
don't.

Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary,
Prentice-Hall
1989, defines "consensus" as follows:

"1 An opinion held by all or most 2 general agreement esp. in
opinion."

And the operative definition is #2.

An examination, observation, or random sampling of the six RMs that
have
Comments will show that MOST of the respondents favor eliminating the
code test. MOST to an overwhelming majority.

Have you tallied all of the comments into categories and computed
percentages of each category? I think not. You are simply relating
your impression of what you saw, and you are not an unbiased observer.

"Consensus" is not the same thing as "majority".

Feel free to go into denial of the obvious. Your choice.

I'll leave denial, whining and complaining to you. You're much better
at it. ;-)

However, FCC does not require a consensus in order to make a decision.
Nor
does FCC have to enact rules that agree with the majority opinion.

Not being an "insider" to the workings of the FCC as you imply,

I simply report what FCC has done in the past. FCC did not follow
majority opinion on 98-143. The majority wanted at least two code test
speeds.

I'll just go
along with the majority opinions on RM-10781 through RM-10787 as I
see
them on the public-access FCC ECFS database.

So if the majority want to keep code testing, you will shut up and go
away? ;-)

Sounds like a promise from you.

Oh wait, you wrote "opinions on RM-10781 through RM-10787 as I see
them". Which means you can simply deny seeing any opposing comments.
And you will. ;-)

Perhaps FCC will remove all code testing for amateur licenses. I would
not be
at all surprised if they did. Or perhaps FCC will retain some form of
code
testing for one or more license classes, as has been recommended by
W3BE and
others. One thing is clear, though: There is no "OVERWHELMING CLEAR
CONSENSUS" involved.

Yes there is.

No, there isn't.

You just can't stand it so you whine and carry on in denial.

I'll leave denial, whining and carrying on to you. You're much better
at it.
;-) ;-) ;-)

Don't make such a scene in public with your denial whining.

Your transference is showing.

It spoils your image as a long-time superior amateur radio person.

Why are you, who styles himself as a long-time superior nonamateur
radio person, so concerned? You get awfully upset when someone
disagrees with you. You just can't deal with diversity of opinion, or
strong opposition to your cherished views.

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:52:27 GMT, "charlesb"
wrote:


"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

The point is, Why would anyone deliberately construct a 1/4 wave
dipole?
Since they woiuldn't for obvious reasons, the fact that a dipole
designed
for a
certain frequency just happens to be 1/4 wavelength at half that
frequency
doesn't
automatically make it a 1/4 wave dipole. An antenna is what it was
designed to be, not
what some wag-troll declares.

Sure, anyone *could* construct a 1/4 wave dipole, if he was that
ignorant.
No one does. So
there aren't any around.


Well now you've let the cat out of the bag, Dick. Somebody had convinced
this Troll to use a 1/4 wave dipole, and now here you go, letting them
know
that they've been snookered.

They just couldn't understand why the radio kept frying its finals and
they
never could seem to get a good signal out, even when the radio did
work....
Now they know why! - And its all your fault!

Party pooper.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

What? Never heard of an antenna tuner?

Yep, I just don't get it at all. I think they're the ones that got
snookered.

Kim W5TIT

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


charlesb wrote:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

The point is, Why would anyone deliberately construct a 1/4 wave
dipole?
Since they woiuldn't for obvious reasons, the fact that a dipole
designed
for a
certain frequency just happens to be 1/4 wavelength at half that
frequency
doesn't
automatically make it a 1/4 wave dipole. An antenna is what it was
designed to be, not
what some wag-troll declares.

Sure, anyone *could* construct a 1/4 wave dipole, if he was that
ignorant.
No one does. So
there aren't any around.


Well now you've let the cat out of the bag, Dick. Somebody had convinced
this Troll to use a 1/4 wave dipole, and now here you go, letting them
know
that they've been snookered.

They just couldn't understand why the radio kept frying its finals and
they
never could seem to get a good signal out, even when the radio did
work....
Now they know why! - And its all your fault!

Party pooper.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Well Charlie, they probably think that an antenna tuner will solve their
ignorance. Heh
heh! Maybe they should read the specs on that tuner's
data sheet, then get into the books to see what they're actually
attempting to match!

With a little luck they'll get a signal to actually radiate, a little
sometimes, between
arcs inside that tuner.

Hope it's not the internal autotuner in their high$$ rig!

Dick



Well, DICK, hopefully you can get an antenna to radiate because I'm pretty
darned sure nothing else is radiating there.

I have used my DXCC antenna many, many times over the years on MARS nets,
with a Yaesu transceiver with automatic tuner. Now, maybe it's not a
"constructed" dipole, but it was used nevertheless. Also, what's the big
deal with a 1/4 wave dipole? Dipole simply means design of the
antenna...granted, usually for 1/2 wave, which, as you know, doesn't require
a groundplane. But there is no reason a 1/2 wave dipole could not be
constructed.

Also, perhaps you could tell me the resonant frequency of a long-wire
antenna? Eh?

Kim W5TIT

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

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
m...
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.

That makes two of us.

Have them set up a very simple radio
into dummy loads and actually have a conversation.

Better yet, have them handle a simple message so there is something measurable
and related to public service communication.

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.

Maybe. From what I've seen, there's more change in the posts than in people's
positions.

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.

Agreed! But I have also seen lots of stuff in the other direction. Check out
the flak I'm getting from the irony-impaired over the "Smith Chart Test" post.

The people that need convincing are the FCC, and from their actions over the
past 25+ years it looks to me like they are not about to improve the written
tests.

Your proposal sounds like a step in the right direction.

Thanks - but I imagine that W5YI and NCVEC would oppose it even more bitterly
than the code test.

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?

Probably - but I doubt we'd ever get a consensus anyway. FCC is into
deregulation; their actions speak louder than words.

Afterall, it hams who would have to bear the burden of
administering the additional test requirements.

And they complain loudest of all. Look at the NCVEC petition - they talk about
the code tests being a burden on the VEs. Huh? Play the tape, check the answer
sheets for 7 or more correct fillins or 25 correct characters. If that's a
"burden", what do you think NCVEC will say about having to have an actual
simulated QSO?

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.

You'll get no argument from me on that idea, but you WILL get one from other
folks over whose protocols should be followed and what constitutes following
them.

So, how would we go about starting a movement towards perfromance
based testing? I would be willing to do what I could to help.

You could start by writing up a petition to the FCC suggesting replacement of
the code test with an operating skills test. Use my description if you want,
modiufy it, whatever. There are 8 petitions now, what could one more hurt?

The big stumbling blocks that I see a

- NCVEC will have a fit.
- Some hams will too.
- You need an objective testing and marking method that minimizes the need for
VE judgement
- You need to convince FCC that we really *need* this sort of test, and that
serious problems will result without it. (That's the toughest part.)

Good luck!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
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?


Both the pool AND answers are published.

Let's take a typical question:

What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?


Of what wavelength???? That is an important factor in the equation.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
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?


Both the pool AND answers are published.

Let's take a typical question:

What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?


Of what wavelength???? That is an important factor in the equation.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...








Congratulations you have just proven you have NO CONCEPT of what was asked.

Does 468 divided by Frequency in Mhz mean anything to you?

Dan/W4NTI

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?

Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I
posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked
"How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied,
"It doesn't matter..."

73, Jeff KH6O
--
Operations Specialist 1st, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

On 12 Sep 2003 05:23:52 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote:


"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such
thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE.

then

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about
39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds

So Bob, go ahead and build a "1/4 wave dipole" and tell us how it
performs!

"Dipole" *is* defined as half-wave, for within any half-wave segment,
there are two (di-) voltage/current poles. You cannot have a "1/4
wave dipole." When that term is used (such as in your Google search),
they're really refering to each of the two elements as being 1/4 wave-
length each, and 1/4 * 2 = 1/2.

73, Jeff KH6O

So, the 1/2 wave dipoles sold on the same pages are really full wave
dipoles, of are you saying that they use 1/4 and 1/2 wave
interchangeably when talking about the same antennas? Are you
really proposing that manufactuers don't know the difference between
1/4 wave and 1/2 wave dipole?

Or are you simply saying that your mind is so closed to the idea that
people would be making, selling, and buying something that you don't
know about, so it can't really be so?

I think it's the latter. However, since you say that when they talk
about a 1/4 wave antenna that they actually mean a 1/2 wave dipole,
I'm sure that with that very large database, you will have no problems
at all showing me some supporting documentation for your assertion.
Simply saying, "It ain't so." isn't enough.

I've already admitted that my use of 1/4 wave dipole in reference to
HF antennas was in error. Let's see how long it takes the, "there is
no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole" crowd to admit their mistake.

I find it amazing that I made a mistake in a post about license
testing/policy and have admitted my mistake, yet people continue to
spam the ng about it.

If you can't accept the fact that people build, sell, and buy 1/4 wave
dipoles for use in UHF, get over it. Just don't try to make stuff up
and post it.

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such
thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE.


then

"Bob Brock" wrote in message

Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about
39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds


So Bob, go ahead and build a "1/4 wave dipole" and tell us how it
performs!

"Dipole" *is* defined as half-wave, for within any half-wave segment,
there are two (di-) voltage/current poles. You cannot have a "1/4
wave dipole." When that term is used (such as in your Google search),
they're really refering to each of the two elements as being 1/4 wave-
length each, and 1/4 * 2 = 1/2.

I did the same search. You don't get anywhere as many hits (104) when
searching on 1/4 wave dipole. Interestingly enough, you get some where
people are asking if a poster *really* meant 1/2 wave dipole. If you
just type in 1/4 wave dipole, you'll get hits on 1/4 1/4 wave. 1/4 wave
dipole, wave, and dipole. I don't doubt that you could get around 39,000
hits with that broad a search.

At best, it is a misnomer, at worst, a pretty poor antenna.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I
posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked
"How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied,
"It doesn't matter..."



Jeffrey, the answer is "thousands, and growing every day."

It's too bad that a person that refuses to give out even the basic
numbers of devotees decides to ask for a numerical breakdown of a rival
groups numbers.

Assuming his accounting methods are acceptable, the answer is
thousands, and growing every day.

- Mike KB3EIA -