N2EY wrote:

today we lost a truly excitable boy - Warren Zevon. RIP.

Darn! 8^( I've heard his last album is pretty good.



- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

today we lost a truly excitable boy - Warren Zevon. RIP.

Darn! 8^( I've heard his last album is pretty good.

There all pretty good. Ya gotta respect a guy who, diagnosed with terminal lung
cancer and given 2 months to live, keeps going for over a year and releases
such tracks as a cover of Dylan's "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" and "I'll Sleep
When I'm Dead".

But my favorite is "Excitable Boy", which, besides the title track, includes
such classics as:

Werewolves of London
Nighttime in the Switching Yard
Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner

--

A great talent, gone but never forgotten.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
The following isn't exactly a new idea, but some may not have seen it
yet...

Maybe the way out of the mess is for a Smith Chart test to replace
the code test.

So you still want the Amateur Radio Service to be the exclusive domain
of the Electrical Engineer's?

Nope. One does not have to be an EE in order to understand, and use, the Smith
Chart. Many hams who are not EEs have Smithc Chart knowledge and skill. Many
EEs do not.

Name ONE school that teaches Smith Charts that is not an Engineering school.

Just ONE!


The ARRL Antenna Book Collitch of Antenna Knowledge. Oops . .

Ooops is right. Now name one.

I
forgot about your "relationship" with antennas . . .

You still trying to get me to put up an antenna at your house?

btw, the plural of "Electrical Engineer" is "Electrical Engineers" not
"Electrical Engineer's". "Electrical Engineer's" is the possessive

So Electrical Engineers want to posess all of Amatuer Radio?

I don't think that's what the FCC wants, but since the NCVEC can do
any damned thing they want, go ahead and put it to them.

NCVEC could not create a separate Smith Chart test without FCC approval.

Bull****!

And
they could not deviate from multiple-choice format.

Bull****!

Then explain just why it's bull**** Brainiac.

NCVEC has shown that they can do anything they want.

It's obvious that irony is not one of your strong points, Brian.

It is obvious that NCVEC reality is not one of yours.

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
" wrote in message news:mwM6b.383690$o%2.172280@sccrnsc02...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
. com...
The following isn't exactly a new idea, but some may not have seen it
yet...

Maybe the way out of the mess is for a Smith Chart test to replace
the code test.
So you still want the Amateur Radio Service to be the exclusive domain
of the Electrical Engineer's?

I don't think that's what the FCC wants, but since the NCVEC can do
any damned thing they want, go ahead and put it to them.


I am not an EE or, for that matter, an any-type-E. Majored in History, in
fact, with a useful minor in Comparative Religion. Work experience consisted
on sitting in an office, drinking bad coffee, attending boring meetings and
writing REALLY useful memos (I was high enough in the organization so that I
didn't have to read any memos). With that as background ...

If only more people had three hour work schedules...

I do no think I am brilliant, but I have not found Smith Charts all that
difficult. When I learned about them, I found them interesting and
potentially useful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the NCVEC thinks selecting for
people who find such things a Smith Charts interesting is a reasonable
filter for entrance to ham radio. If this be true, perhaps, just perhaps,
that's a reasonable filter?

FILTER? Who the hell thinks a FILTER is necessary or JUSTIFIABLE?

You're a perfect example of why filters absolutely are necessary.


You'se guys Socialists or what?

(N2EY) wrote in message om...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
The following isn't exactly a new idea, but some may not have seen it
yet...

Maybe the way out of the mess is for a Smith Chart test to replace
the code test.

So you still want the Amateur Radio Service to be the exclusive domain
of the Electrical Engineer's?

Nope. One does not have to be an EE in order to understand, and use, the Smith
Chart. Many hams who are not EEs have Smithc Chart knowledge and skill. Many
EEs do not.

Name ONE school that teaches Smith Charts that is not an Engineering school.

Just ONE!

Why?

Can't you?

Smith Chart use is not usually an enginnering school course.

Didn't say it was. Why does it have to be a course? Why can't it be
ancilliary training?

Did you use the Smith Chart while attending Engineering School?

It's
something those interested are expected to learn on their own,

Expected by whom?

So why suggest the FCC/VEC test it?

like
how to use a calculator today, or a slide rule in years gone by.

Or EZ-NEC?

I learned the Chart from the ARRL Antenna Book, not from EE school.

So EE schools don't even teach it, yet you promote it in the amateur
service?

btw, the plural of "Electrical Engineer" is "Electrical Engineers" not
"Electrical Engineer's". "Electrical Engineer's" is the possessive

So Electrical Engineers want to posess all of Amatuer Radio?

Ask vshah101, that's his mantra.

The argument is much older than Vipul, and you darned well know it.

I don't think that's what the FCC wants, but since the NCVEC can do
any damned thing they want, go ahead and put it to them.

NCVEC could not create a separate Smith Chart test without FCC approval.

Bull****!

Yes, that's what your posts are usually full of, Brian.

Part 97 specifically lists the tests for each class of license.

And what of the contents of those tests? Does the FCC mandate what
material is to be tested, or can the NCVEC slip in just about anything
they want, in any quantity they want?

Right now there are three written tests, all multiple choice. And one
code test. No Smith Chart test.

Then why must you promote the idea of "No Charts International?"

And
they could not deviate from multiple-choice format.

Bull****!

You really should read Part 97.

Not a problem. You should suggest the NCVEC read it.

It's obvious that irony is not one of your strong points, Brian.

It is obvious that NCVEC reality is not one of yours.

That's just plain wrong. NCVEC cannot add a Smith Chart test for the
reasons I listed. Read Part 97.

They can slide it in to any existing exam. No questions asked. With
the QP loaded with Smith Chart questions, they could deny access to
any of the 3 license classes.

Besides, NCVEC complains that the code test requires too much work
from the VEs and is too stressful on those being tested. I can imagine
what they'd say if they had to supervise and grade a Smith Chart test.

It would have to be multiple choice, remember???

And I can imagine how much you'd complain and argue if a Smith Chart
test were substituted for the code test.

How much?

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


today we lost a truly excitable boy - Warren Zevon. RIP.

Darn! 8^( I've heard his last album is pretty good.


There all pretty good. Ya gotta respect a guy who, diagnosed with terminal lung
cancer and given 2 months to live, keeps going for over a year and releases
such tracks as a cover of Dylan's "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" and "I'll Sleep
When I'm Dead".

But my favorite is "Excitable Boy", which, besides the title track, includes
such classics as:

Werewolves of London
Nighttime in the Switching Yard
Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner


They played a cut from his new album. Good stuff, though pretty soft
edged for him. You could play it on a folk music show. Understandable
under the circumstances. It's gonna be my next buy.

The only thing I'm surprised about is that no one has mentioned my
favorite Warren Zevon song, "Lawyers, Guns, and Money".

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Brian) wrote in
om:

(N2EY) wrote in message
om...
(Brian) wrote in message
. com...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
The following isn't exactly a new idea, but some may not have
seen it yet...

Maybe the way out of the mess is for a Smith Chart test to
replace the code test.

So you still want the Amateur Radio Service to be the exclusive
domain of the Electrical Engineer's?

Nope. One does not have to be an EE in order to understand, and
use, the Smith Chart. Many hams who are not EEs have Smithc Chart
knowledge and skill. Many EEs do not.

Name ONE school that teaches Smith Charts that is not an Engineering
school.

Just ONE!

Why?

Can't you?

Smith Chart use is not usually an enginnering school course.

Didn't say it was. Why does it have to be a course? Why can't it be
ancilliary training?

Did you use the Smith Chart while attending Engineering School?

It's
something those interested are expected to learn on their own,

Expected by whom?

So why suggest the FCC/VEC test it?

like
how to use a calculator today, or a slide rule in years gone by.

Or EZ-NEC?

I learned the Chart from the ARRL Antenna Book, not from EE school.

So EE schools don't even teach it, yet you promote it in the amateur
service?

btw, the plural of "Electrical Engineer" is "Electrical Engineers"
not "Electrical Engineer's". "Electrical Engineer's" is the
possessive

So Electrical Engineers want to posess all of Amatuer Radio?

Ask vshah101, that's his mantra.

The argument is much older than Vipul, and you darned well know it.

I don't think that's what the FCC wants, but since the NCVEC can
do any damned thing they want, go ahead and put it to them.

NCVEC could not create a separate Smith Chart test without FCC
approval.

Bull****!

Yes, that's what your posts are usually full of, Brian.

Part 97 specifically lists the tests for each class of license.

And what of the contents of those tests? Does the FCC mandate what
material is to be tested, or can the NCVEC slip in just about anything
they want, in any quantity they want?

Right now there are three written tests, all multiple choice. And one
code test. No Smith Chart test.

Then why must you promote the idea of "No Charts International?"

And
they could not deviate from multiple-choice format.

Bull****!

You really should read Part 97.

Not a problem. You should suggest the NCVEC read it.

It's obvious that irony is not one of your strong points, Brian.

It is obvious that NCVEC reality is not one of yours.

That's just plain wrong. NCVEC cannot add a Smith Chart test for the
reasons I listed. Read Part 97.

They can slide it in to any existing exam. No questions asked. With
the QP loaded with Smith Chart questions, they could deny access to
any of the 3 license classes.

Besides, NCVEC complains that the code test requires too much work
from the VEs and is too stressful on those being tested. I can imagine
what they'd say if they had to supervise and grade a Smith Chart test.

It would have to be multiple choice, remember???

And I can imagine how much you'd complain and argue if a Smith Chart
test were substituted for the code test.

How much?


I was certainly taught how to use a Smith chart in engineering school. Not
only that, but how to derive the axes mathematically. The latter I have
forgotten, but I will never forget how to use one. There again, I went to
engineering school in Emgland, where you don't have to do 'English 101' or
'Western Civilization' if you study engineering, hence sufficient time to
learn about Smith Charts!

73 de N3KIP

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
I was certainly taught how to use a Smith chart in engineering school. Not
only that, but how to derive the axes mathematically. The latter I have
forgotten, but I will never forget how to use one. There again, I went to
engineering school in England, where you don't have to do 'English 101' or
'Western Civilization' if you study engineering, hence sufficient time to
learn about Smith Charts!

73 de N3KIP

While attending school for aeronautical engineering, one of the prerequisite
courses was English literature...and we were made to suffer! hihi

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
The following isn't exactly a new idea, but some may not have seen it
yet...

Maybe the way out of the mess is for a Smith Chart test to replace
the code test.

So you still want the Amateur Radio Service to be the exclusive domain
of the Electrical Engineer's?

Nope. One does not have to be an EE in order to understand, and use, the Smith
Chart. Many hams who are not EEs have Smithc Chart knowledge and skill. Many
EEs do not.

Name ONE school that teaches Smith Charts that is not an Engineering school.

Just ONE!

Why?

Can't you?

Of course I can.

Smith Chart use is not usually an engineering school course.

Didn't say it was. Why does it have to be a course? Why can't it be
ancilliary training?

You are full of questions but short on answers.

Did you use the Smith Chart while attending Engineering School?

Why is that important?

It's
something those interested are expected to learn on their own,

Expected by whom?

So why suggest the FCC/VEC test it?

Why not? Are you "Smith Chart impaired"? Do you think it would be too
much of a "burden"?

like
how to use a calculator today, or a slide rule in years gone by.

Or EZ-NEC?

I've used both EZNEC and the Smith Chart. I don't think you have.

I learned the Chart from the ARRL Antenna Book, not from EE school.

So EE schools don't even teach it, yet you promote it in the amateur
service?

Antennas and RF transmission lines are not dealt with by every EE.
Every ham that gets on the air deals with antennas.

btw, the plural of "Electrical Engineer" is "Electrical Engineers" not
"Electrical Engineer's". "Electrical Engineer's" is the possessive

So Electrical Engineers want to posess all of Amatuer Radio?

Ask vshah101, that's his mantra.

The argument is much older than Vipul, and you darned well know it.

I have no idea what argument you mean. And you darned well know it.

I don't think that's what the FCC wants, but since the NCVEC can do
any damned thing they want, go ahead and put it to them.

NCVEC could not create a separate Smith Chart test without FCC approval.

Bull****!

Yes, that's what your posts are usually full of, Brian.

And you darned well know it.

Part 97 specifically lists the tests for each class of license.

And what of the contents of those tests? Does the FCC mandate what
material is to be tested, or can the NCVEC slip in just about anything
they want, in any quantity they want?

You are full of questions and short of answers. Read Part 97.

Right now there are three written tests, all multiple choice. And one
code test. No Smith Chart test.

Then why must you promote the idea of "No Charts International?"

Obviously, you are humor- and irony-impaired, Brian Burke.

And
they could not deviate from multiple-choice format.

Bull****!

You really should read Part 97.

Not a problem. You should suggest the NCVEC read it.

You're the one with all the questions and all the time. You ask 'em.

It's obvious that irony is not one of your strong points, Brian.

It is obvious that NCVEC reality is not one of yours.

That's just plain wrong. NCVEC cannot add a Smith Chart test for the
reasons I listed. Read Part 97.

They can slide it in to any existing exam.

Not the test I described.

No questions asked.

FCC must approve every question in the pool.

With
the QP loaded with Smith Chart questions, they could deny access to
any of the 3 license classes.

How? The Smith Chart is not very hard to learn.

Besides, NCVEC complains that the code test requires too much work
from the VEs and is too stressful on those being tested. I can imagine
what they'd say if they had to supervise and grade a Smith Chart test.

It would have to be multiple choice, remember???

So it cannot be that hard.

And I can imagine how much you'd complain and argue if a Smith Chart
test were substituted for the code test.

How much?

You demonstrate how much with every post.

You aked why, then you can't deal with the answer.

You say EE schools don't teach the Smith Chart, then you cay you can
name one that does, but then won't.

You say that Smith Charts are easy to learn, and won't keep anyone out
of the Amateur Service, but there are far far fewer Smith Chart users
than Morse Code users, and Morse Code keeps people out of the ARS.

You're acting obtuse. Are you Dave in drag?

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

You aked why, then you can't deal with the answer.

You did not answer the questions I asked, so there's no reason for me to answer
the questions you asked.

You are full of questions and short of answers.

You say EE schools don't teach the Smith Chart, then you cay you can
name one that does, but then won't.

You did not answer the questions I asked, so there's no reason for me to answer
the questions you asked.

You are full of questions and short of answers.

You say that Smith Charts are easy to learn,

How do you know they are not?

Antennas and RF transmission lines are not dealt with by every EE.
Every ham that gets on the air deals with antennas.

and won't keep anyone out of the Amateur Service,

Show me where I claimed that.

but there are far far fewer Smith Chart users
than Morse Code users,

How do you know?

and Morse Code keeps people out of the ARS.

How does it do that? How does a code keep people from becoming hams?

You're acting obtuse.

Obviously, you are humor- and irony-impaired, Brian Burke.

Are you Dave in drag?

You are full of questions and short of answers.

You're just getting back what you give.

Got that end fed antenna up yet?