"Len Over 21" wrote:

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. :-)


Well, since I missed it, you'll have to include me in that category also.
Since I was rushing through the messages, I wasn't paying attention enough
to catch fine details like that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Arnie Macy" wrote:
"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.


Well, I haven't openly tried to avoid it yet. I can get it done, but I
have to seriously think about it before I remember how to get where I need
to go.


But for some reason, the light came on when I entered
college. (snip)


That light never came on for me. Like I said, I still have to work at it.
And things are certainly not getting better as I grow older - I've clearly
forgotten a lot of what I once knew.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:

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. :-)


I never got an "A" in math. I did get an "F" once and had to take the
class over. However, the remainder of my math grades were "B" and "C," and I
was darn thrilled to get that "B" occasionally. I did just fine in all my
other classes.


(snip) 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. :-)


You won't get any argument from me. I probably wouldn't touch most math
today without a calculator (and most others wouldn't either). And code is a
primitive way of communicating. If that's one's cup of tea, there's
absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it is fairly absurd to continue to
require it of everyone else.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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.

Arnie -
KT4ST

I think that a lot of people who imagine themselves to be "poor" at
math are actually the result of poorly written math books and
less-than-stellar math teachers.

I had the good fortune to have an *exceptional* math teacher in high
school. He taught algebra and trigonometry. I was in his 9th and 11th
grade classes.

His attitude was simple: *Anyone* who could be in high school could
get an A in his class if they knew how to add, subtract, multiply and
divide. All the rest was practice and understanding a few definitions.
Most of all, he made you believe you could do it. "Can't" simply did
not exist in his classes.

Typical test: 40 to 60 problems in a 45 minute class. Sometimes as
many as 80. Problems like factoring polynomials, simplifying complex
trigonometric expressions, etc. And yes, some of us got perfect
scores. Not often, but often enough to know it was possible for us.

We thought he must have been some sort of math genius because he would
do things like multiplying two four-digit numbers in his head, and get
an answer that was either spot-on or very close. In a few seconds. But
when we researched his education, it turned out that he was an English
major! His real skill was not in math at all, but in communicating
clearly. And this was in a working-class school with 40-some teenage
kids.

One day he derived a rather odd looking formula on the board. "Lads",
he said, "this is the quadratic formula, which can be used to solve
any quadratic equation expressed in standard form. I expect all of you
to know it like your name. Can you do that?" We all nodded.

And the lesson continued with how to use the formula.

Next day he walks in, points to a kid and says "What's you're name?"

Kid stands up and says "Bill Gallagher"

"Sit down!" He points to another kid, same question, similar answer.

Finally a third kid gets the idea and kind of stammers through "umm,
negative b minus..."

"Sit down!"

Of course none of us could rattle it off - and he called on every
single one of us.

"Lads", he said "I'm shocked and disappointed. You were supposed to
know that formula like your name."

You can bet that the next day we all knew it.

And to this day, if anyone who had that teacher encounters another of
his students, we will be able to rattle off the formula *and use it*
with no problem. And that's not just those of us who went into
engineering or science or math, but the kids who became lawyers,
doctors, businessmen and policemen, etc.

That's the power of a good teacher. Imagine if they were all that
good.

Of course, I had a bit of an advantage. I'd learned the elements of
trigonometry (sines, cosines, and a few other things) and some very
basic algebra on my own, in order to understand what was in the ARRL
Radio Amateur's Handbook, build my radios and get my Advanced class
license at the age of 14 - before I ever set foot in high school.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

I live in texas where there is plenty of room to do anything
you want... and yes, my yard has plenty of room to stretch
a 160m dipole if I wanted to... but if somebody wanted
to get on 160m and hasn't the realestate, they could always
hang a loop sky wire that only require 1/4 wave on any
given side instead of 1/2 of horizontal space; i.e., half
the area needed.

Let's see - a 160 meter square loop is about 140 feet on a side. Many hams
don't have enough room for a full size 80 meter dipole......

The loop will also be a cloud-warmer unless it is very high up. Much better off
with an inverted L.

In article , (N2EY)
writes:


Learn to live with it graciously.

Set us an example

You first.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:


Learn to live with it graciously.

Set us an example

You first.

Don't you know how?

I thought you were the expert and professional, Len.

Show us poor ignorant amateurs how it's done. '-)

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

OK, fine. Now, then, precisely which OTHER radio
services currently require Morse code testing???


Already answered, Larry. I have no desire to talk in circles, repeating
everything I say because you fail to understand it the first time. And I
also have no desire to participate in your attempts to twist this (other
services and code testing) into something that doesn't fit the reality of
history or the truth.

Dwight:

Well, that's quite a roundabout way of admitting that you don't know
what you're talking about when you insist that other radio services
which don't use Morse/CW have some relevance to the ARS. And
since you can't logically support your position, it's easier for you to
bail out. I understand. Just keep in mind that you've single-handedly
demolished one of the NCTA's favourite arguments.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

OIC. So, you can't answer the question, then.


No, I've already answered the question and don't intend to waste time
doing so again. If your memory is really that bad, do a Google search for
our past discussion about this.

Not necessary, Dwight. I was right the first time.

73 de Larry, K3LT