Good points, Mike - my comments are below:

Well if you raise the skill level, it will just keep people out of Ham
radio. That has been one of the reasons cited for getting rid of the
code test. It won't do just to increase the entrance requirements, which
will partially defeat the purpose.

There are advantages to having more people in Amateur Radio - not the
least of which are more voices to oppose things like BPL. And, less
unused bandwidth, which could be taken away and reassigned to
commercial iterests if we don't utilize it.

On the other hand, bringing in large numbers of less-skilled operators
defeats the purpose of Amateur Radio, which I recall was to develop a
pool of skilled radio operators.

The concept of modifying the test is a middle ground - by adding
questions on actual practical HF operation, for example, we would
ensure that new amateurs could go and set up and operate their station
without undue interference to others. A good thing, I believe, and
one that would raise the level of 'professionalism' amongst the novice
Amateur operators.

Perhaps being knowledgeable about RF matters is also in the past, Leo. A
person can pick up a rig, a linear and an antenna without knowing
anything about RF electronics. He/she can pay someone to put it up, and
can be talking in no time. Given this, why should there be any
requirements at all?

There are legions of operators out there today who operate 'point and
shoot' equipment - the level of technical knowledge and ability has
most certainly deteriorated as a result. Not many construct their own
equipment any more, not even antennas. But, the price of admission to
the Amateur ranks is testing of theoretical knowledge - this keeps
those who are unwilling of making the commitment from oprating
(legally) on our frequencies. As it always has been, and should be.
Without this, we would become a variant of CB.

(suggested antenna is a 1/4 wave dipole) 8^)

....for some of the incognoscenti on the air, I'd recommend a 1/4 wave
stub


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Leo,

For more gain than that 1/4 wave stub, consider a 1 foot dish for 160
meters. With a 1/1000 wavelength dipole at the focal point, you should be
able to get some interesting results.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

...for some of the incognoscenti on the air, I'd recommend a 1/4 wave
stub

73, Leo



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/03

Leo wrote:
Good points, Mike - my comments are below:


Well if you raise the skill level, it will just keep people out of Ham
radio. That has been one of the reasons cited for getting rid of the
code test. It won't do just to increase the entrance requirements, which
will partially defeat the purpose.


There are advantages to having more people in Amateur Radio - not the
least of which are more voices to oppose things like BPL. And, less
unused bandwidth, which could be taken away and reassigned to
commercial iterests if we don't utilize it.

On the other hand, bringing in large numbers of less-skilled operators
defeats the purpose of Amateur Radio, which I recall was to develop a
pool of skilled radio operators.

Yup. Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here Leo - but with
a bite. The arguments that can be used against testing are good ones.

I'm a firm believer in a well educated ARS. I think we have to work on
and decide just how much rf savvy the average ham has. I like to be
surrounded by people who are both knowledgeable and those who are eager
to learn. Just like on my hockey team, where I recruit both decent
athletes and those who are working hard at becoming good hockey players.

I like being around savvy and hard working people. I think it improves
the situation.


The concept of modifying the test is a middle ground - by adding
questions on actual practical HF operation, for example, we would
ensure that new amateurs could go and set up and operate their station
without undue interference to others. A good thing, I believe, and
one that would raise the level of 'professionalism' amongst the novice
Amateur operators.

Yes indeed. I really hope that the new people coming into the ARS are
accepting of the occasional reminder of being out-of-band, or splatter
or all the other things that are often deficient in newcomers. I thank
goodness that there were people to correct me when I needed it.


Perhaps being knowledgeable about RF matters is also in the past, Leo. A
person can pick up a rig, a linear and an antenna without knowing
anything about RF electronics. He/she can pay someone to put it up, and
can be talking in no time. Given this, why should there be any
requirements at all?


There are legions of operators out there today who operate 'point and
shoot' equipment - the level of technical knowledge and ability has
most certainly deteriorated as a result. Not many construct their own
equipment any more, not even antennas. But, the price of admission to
the Amateur ranks is testing of theoretical knowledge - this keeps
those who are unwilling of making the commitment from oprating
(legally) on our frequencies. As it always has been, and should be.
Without this, we would become a variant of CB.

Yup, and that is my major point, even if I'm arguing it as devils
advocate. We are at a crossroads now. The removal of Morse Code if it
happens (and no doubt in my mind it will) is one of the major changes in
amateur radio to come along in a while. I want a savvy ARS, but if we
don't watch it, we can end up with relative anarchy.

Good posting Leo.

- Mike KB3EIA -