Ah, another "calm, rational, civilized" PCTA heard from... :-)

In other posts he has requested that people "bend over..."

Fairly typical of a faction that doesn't hold itself to very high
standards (obviously) when it comes to anything outside of
morse code.

"Len Over 21" wrote:

That's really not the point. I think both of you realize
this. :-)

Roll's constant repetitions of old Maxims in here and
the few personal barbs he throws in are just his way of
trolling for those to respond to in the newsgroup. He
seems to live by such "responses" which are little more
than cut and paste from five years ago.


Ah, but there is the old maxim about a lie repeated often enough. At some
point, Larry's messages must have a response, if for no other reason other
than to address the false impressions he leaves. As for the rest of your
(fairly accurate) message, I usually (though not always) tend to keep any
opinions, formed as a result of psychoanalyzing Larry, to myself. The poor
boy is in bad enough shape without all of us adding to his obvious mental
anguish. In fact, I probably wouldn't even have said that if the anguish was
not so obvious. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Tsk, tsk, tsk..."tangents?" I was handling sines, cosines,
and tangents back in high school of 1950. Trigonometry
not a problem...always got maximum marks in such subjects.


Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Clint" wrote ...

Thanks for the admission to your hypocrisy.
______________________________________________

I take it from your response that you are just too busy writing witty
retorts to do a simple search? Doesn't surprise me a bit. After all, you
are the same person that called Dee D. Flint a guy in at least two posts,
right? A true 'Master' of the facts we have here, folks.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 23 Sep 2003 05:34:27 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Dwight:

I hate to sound like a scratched CD, but that reply is unresponsive. If the
above were true, then the very second radio amateurs started using modes
other than CW, the code testing requirement should have been dropped,
for all the same reasons given by the NCTA today. However, it wasn't.
In fact, in the late '60's, over a half-century after the need for military and
commercial stations to be able to shoo-off "those damn hams" from
their frequencies, the Morse code testing requirement was increased
as part of the now lamented "Incentive Licensing" scheme.

Obviously a mistake, then...so what is your rationale for compounding
that mistake by continuing to perpetuate it any longer?

Some history on "incentive licensing" is in order here...

Before 1951, there were three classes of license, two written tests
and one code test speed - 13 wpm. All hams had all privileges except
that you needed a Class A to work HF 'phone on the ham bands between 3
and 25 MHz. Class A required a years' experience and another written
test, but no additional code speed.

In 1951, FCC reorganized the whole system into 6 classes - Novice,
Technician, General, Conditional, Advanced, and Extra. Old Class B
became General old Class A became Advanced. Old Class C became
Conditional.

The new Extra required 2 years experience as Conditional or higher, 20
wpm code and a written that was even more advanced than the old Class
A/Advanced.

FCC also announced that at the end of 1952 they would stop issuing new
Advanceds. And it would take an Extra or Advanced to work HF 'phone on
the ham bands between 3 and 25 MHz.

You can imagine the rush to get an Advanced before Dec. 31 1952.

But at the last minute FCC reversed themselves and gave all operating
privileges to all hams except Novices and Techs.

FCC figured that hams would go for the Extra "because it was there"
and because one could get a 1x2 call after 25 years as an Extra, or
some such.

But by 1963 there were only about 4000 Extras out of a quarter-million
US hams.

So FCC asked ARRL for a plan to get more hams to upgrade. ARRL
responded with a simple plan: reopen the Advanced to new issues and
require an Advanced or Extra in order to work HF 'phone on the ham
bands between 3 and 25 MHz.

Simple, huh? No more code test unless you wanted the 1x2.

Then FCC asked for comments, got a big pile (over 6000 letters) and
incorporated all sorts of things that made the whole thing much more
complicated.

Incentive
Licensing was an ARRL initiative,

No, it wasn't. It was FCC's idea.

and it was done to ensure that the
Morse/CW mode would continue to be used in spite of the increasing
popularity of SSB and digital modes.

Wrong again. The main concern of FCC was their perceived stagnation in
amateur technical matters. They were unhappy that so few hams had gone
for the Extra, and also that homebrewing had declined sharply and
"appliance operating" increased. Personally, I think it was also
partly "Sputnik fever".

Another obvious mistake...let's deliberately restrict progress in the
ARS by clinging to archaic technology like koala bears. Real astute
leadership from the League there...NOT!

The League did not propose more code testing - just more written
testing. FCC was hot for the 20 wpm code test.

In fact, at one point (1965), FCC proposed demoting all 40,000
then-existing Advanceds to General, and creating a new "Amateur First
Class" license that would require 16 wpm code and a new written test.
(imagine - 5, 13, 16 and 20 wpm code tests). ARRL and others fought
*against* that move, and it was eventually abandoned.

It was actually a very brilliant plan,

Actually it was a very stupid plan, as shown by the test of time.

Depends on what you expected the plan to do, and which plan you look
at.

but was spoiled by the resentment caused by the lack of full
"grandfathering" of the existing Generals to the new Amateur Extra
class. If only that had been done, we may not be having this debate
today.

That was proposed but FCC would have none of it.

To say nothing of the resentment caused by deciding in the face of
rapidly advancing communications technology to remain rooted in an
anachronism left over from before the dawn of the 20th century.

You mean voice communications? How old is the wired telephone?

If
only that had not been done, the brightest young technological minds
of two full generations might have been drawn to amateur radio instead
of computers and the landline BBSes and finally the Internet, and
there would be no need for this silly debate because the ARS would
have stayed on the cutting ege of communications technology instead of
having made the decision to allow itself to be left in the dust.

HOW?

As far back as 40 years ago, US hams were buying instead of building.
Even EE hams. As affluence increased, equipment miniaturized and
became more complex, fewer hams felt qualified to build their gear.


During the last ARRL 10-Meter Contest, I worked over 160 QSO's on
10-meters, using only CW. This is on 10-meters, a band famous as a
repository for the 5 WPM Novice/Techs exercising the whole of their HF
phone privileges! During contests covering all HF bands, such as the
November Sweepstakes (CW), it is not possible to work all of the CW
stations participating.

It is not possible to work all of the phone stations participating in
the phone portion of Sweepstakes, either. The question is, did you
work a Clean Sweep?

The ultimate question is "what are the trends in participation"? Check
out the scores in the ARRL 160 meter contest - and then realize it is
all CW.

Well, at least not for me, with my minimal station
in a highly antenna-compromised apartment QTH. However, in spite
of my operating challenges, the CW mode provides endless potential
to make points. During the November SS (Phone) last year, my
club station (W3DOV) was also operating under "marginal" conditions
at the QTH of Mark, KE3UY. Using literally the same power and
antennas as I would at my home QTH, we worked a lot fewer stations
than we could have on CW.

That's what you get for wasting all that time pounding brass instead
of learning some phone operating skills. :-)

HAW!

It's as simple as that. And, excluding
contests, the CW segments are very alive and full of stations all the
time, largely thanks to FISTS and the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper.

Excluding contests, the phone segments are also very alive and full of
stations - no thanks to FISTS or to the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper....and no thanks to the code test, for that matter.

Partly because most new hams already know how to talk...

And while we're developing radio operators who have proficiency with
an operating mode that nobody but hams uses, we're failing to devlop
operators proficient in the skills that might actually be useful out
there in the real world.

Like what?

And how could that development be encouraged?

Yet, old-timers lament the fact that these
days, having a ham license won't get you a job bagging groceries, let
alone any meaningful work in a communications-related field. Small
wonder, when the ARS itself decided to stay rooted in 19th century
technology, eh?

All we have left is a 5 wpm code test. Is that such a problem?

The FCC has stated repeatedly that whether or not it will have an
interesting in the "continued use of this mode" depends upon a
consensus of the amateur radio community itself.

They tossed that idea out five years ago.

Half of which, as no-code Techs, has already voted, by deciding not to
join the PCTAs in deluding themselves about the usefulness of an
anachronistic, 19th-century operating mode.

You mean the telephone?

As far as the FCC is concerned, it is now
just one more operating mode among the many used within the Amateur Radio
Service. There is no sufficient argument to support the continued existence
of a code testing requirement. As such, the code testing requirement should
be eliminated.

As already stated by N2EY, this particular logic could then be applied to
testing for knowledge of any of the requirements for technical knowledge,
since radio amateurs no longer have the ability to design, build, and repair
state-of-the art communications gear unless they possess professional-
grade technical knowledge, skills, and facilities.

That's NOT what I wrote, however.


Interesting, isn't it, to note that this separation between
professional-grade technical knowledge and that available in the ARS
started shortly after the ARS decided to remain in the Dark Ages while
the rest of the world took off on the Technology Boom. We stayed in
the Morse age while the rest of the world entered the Information Age.
Yeah, incentive licensing was a great idea. Personally, I'd rank it
right up there with sending troops to Vietnam.

First get the story straight about what incentive licensing was all
about and whose idea it was.

And, since this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service, that is an unreasonable expectation.

Of course it is! Now, an example of a *reasonable* expectation would
be to expect proficiency in a method of communications that is about
150 years old and that nobody else uses anymore.

How old is talking?

All we have is a 5 wpm code test. That's not proficiency, it's basic
entry-level skill.

That *really*
encourages people to become part of the ARS and be a part of the
supposed advancement of the radio art that the Basis & Purpose portion
of Part 97 says we're supposed to be all about, doesn't it?

Guess when those B&P got added to Part 97?

Therefore,
if code testing *is* eliminated, then we may as well also go to a simple
license application process, with, at most, an open-book test on rules and
regulations. That would then serve the needs of the dumbed-down
licensing process you would seem to prefer.

Come on, Larry. There are guys who can do 30, 40, or 50 wpm that can't
even *program* a modern transciever, let alone fix the damned thing
when one of the surface-mount components fails that is too small for
many of us to even *see* let alone solder one onto a PC board.

Exactly.

And the same thing can be said of many amateurs of any license class.
Including the techno-types that the nocodetest Tech was supposed to
attract.

These
rigs have been designed so the owners *can't* fix them, so that they
have to be dragged back to the dealer or shipped to the factory for
service, with appropriate outlay of cash since naturally the component
isn't going to fail until, oh, I dunno, about 6.2 seconds after the
warranty expires. Chances are that the "factory service" involves
removing the board the failed component is on and replacing it with a
brand new one because it isn't cost--effective to do component-level
repairs on mass-produced PC boards.

Exactly. So why have all that theory stuff in the writtens? It's
keeping out the doctors and lawyers and regular folks who just want to
talk on the radio, not build one.

Following this, the rig gets packed up and shipped back to its owner,
who opens the package, curses a blue streak when he sees the bottom
line on the invoice, makes a New Years' Resolution to become a boat
anchor fanatic, then unpacks the rig and puts it back on the desk in
his shack. It really doesn't matter if the guy doing the unpacking can
copy at 50 wpm or doesn't know a dit from a dah, the result is going
to be the same because that's how the manufacturer designed it. If you
must blame somebody for that, Larry, then I respectfully suggest that
you place the blame not on the NCTAs, but on the design engineers at
YaeComWood, where it rightfully belongs - and remember that some of
them are hams, who apparently have professional-grade technical
knowledge, skills, and facilities, whether they ever passed a code
test or not.

And some of us won't buy any rig we can't fix. Some of us still build
from scratch.

Guess what mode is most popular among the scratch-builders and
rig-repairers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

Ham radio simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't solidly based in
mathmatical principles.

Arnie -
KT4ST

w3rv

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

My college Calc II prof called math the ultimate religeon. He said it
was one of the very few things one could put all their faith in and
just about never be disappointed. "Obey the rules and it'll never let
you down."

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Tsk, tsk, tsk..."tangents?" I was handling sines, cosines,
and tangents back in high school of 1950. Trigonometry
not a problem...always got maximum marks in such subjects.

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.

Heh, I have to admit that, in undergraduate classes on Calculus I, II, and
III, my grades were A, B, and barely C, respectively. A problem with
night classes and working all day yet still trying to maintain contact with
other people. :-)

In looking back at all I was required to do in actual, working electronics
design details, I NEVER had to use any math more complicated than
simple algebra and trigonometry to get all the hardware data and parts
selection. Some low-level calculus was used LATER for project reports,
on a suggestion to make the determinations "look better" for higher-
level staff who never got their hands dirty on the hardware. That
suggestion was from another higher-level staff person who DID get his
hands on the hardware whenever he could.

There's an analogy to code testing ("back to basics") and the rampant
credentialism amongst the PCTA ("have to have the certificate to be
able to do 'complicated' things)...namely this: The PCTA's "back to
basics" is like looking up log and trig values in 5-place tables and
"doing things the hard way" (to "show" something to others apparently).
I got my HP-35 scientific calculator in 1971 so that I didn't have to
waste all that time on look-ups of only 5-place values; the HP-35 came
up with 10-place values in an eyeblink. Spot-checking against the NBS
AMS 55, "Handbook of Mathematical Functions," showed that the HP
values were indeed correct to 10 places.

That same NBS monograph also explained the mathematical
approximations used to derive the original 5-place numeric values as
well as many more places. Each modern CPU in a PC or Mac has a
numeric coprocessor section that uses one of those mathematical
approximations internally...and accurate to 14 decimal digit accuracy,
not just 3 (as on a slide rule) or 5 (in 5-place tables).

An ardent PCTA devotee will now make some half-assed comment about
"it doesn't apply to HAM radio." Not directly. Having to know morse
code for a hobby activity involving radio regulation by licensing is much
more PRIMITIVE than sitting down and doing a series equation to
obtain a logarithm or other transcendental numeric value.

No doubt the ardent Credentialists in here will come up with some kind of
BS about "needing degrees" to understand it all. :-)

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person
...and never needed to assume any fake identity in here to state an opinion

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

That's really not the point. I think both of you realize
this. :-)

Roll's constant repetitions of old Maxims in here and
the few personal barbs he throws in are just his way of
trolling for those to respond to in the newsgroup. He
seems to live by such "responses" which are little more
than cut and paste from five years ago.

Ah, but there is the old maxim about a lie repeated often enough. At some
point, Larry's messages must have a response, if for no other reason other
than to address the false impressions he leaves. As for the rest of your
(fairly accurate) message, I usually (though not always) tend to keep any
opinions, formed as a result of psychoanalyzing Larry, to myself. The poor
boy is in bad enough shape without all of us adding to his obvious mental
anguish. In fact, I probably wouldn't even have said that if the anguish was
not so obvious. ;-)

I think that many failed to note a subtle bit of wordplay I did.

Larrah apparently thinks he is a Hiram Percy Maxim reincarnate since
he drags out the 1920s boilerplate "Maxims" that St. Hiram wrote in
early issues of QST when Kode was King in New England.

Hence "Maxims" with a capital M.

Too subtle for most of the personality assassins in here. I'll have to
"dumb down" to their low level. :-)