|
Bowling for Ham Radio
"Keith" wrote in message nk.net... I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart and obtained guns at gun shows. The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, but to pick up a microphone to talk he needs to obtain a license from the federal government? I can understand for a vehicle, but isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought. -- Best Regards, Keith AOL IM:kilowattradio NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/ _Give SCO $699 for using Linux or the Penguin gets it._ Torvalds: _They are smoking crack._ Hey Keith...here is a box of oranges, and over there is a box of apples. See my point? Dan/W4NTI |
"Keith" wrote in message nk.net... I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart and obtained guns at gun shows. The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, but to pick up a microphone to talk he needs to obtain a license from the federal government? I can understand for a vehicle, but isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought. -- Best Regards, Keith AOL IM:kilowattradio NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/ _Give SCO $699 for using Linux or the Penguin gets it._ Torvalds: _They are smoking crack._ Another liberal mouthpiece opens his mouth and **** pours out. You and Michael Moore are both idiots. But anyone who visits your CB web page can see that. You are just another wanna-be Ham Radio operator. 10-73's! |
"Keith" wrote in message nk.net... [snip] ... isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought. To answer your question with a single word "No." Licensing is required by international agreements and federal law (and for good reason). However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c |
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:00:21 GMT, Keith
wrote: I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart and obtained guns at gun shows. The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, but to pick up a microphone to talk he needs to obtain a license from the federal government? I can understand for a vehicle, but isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought. Hmmm. That one didn't even budge the troll-ometer. You need to do better than that. Howard N3TNQ |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article et, Keith
writes: I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun for opening a CD account. Keith: I bought the DVD. Actually, it was a Winchester .270 cal. bolt-action rifle. In the documentary he discusses the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart and obtained guns at gun shows. Both perfectly legal activities, assuming they were old enough to legally do so, but I think Harris and Klebold had assistance from an older woman. What was illegal and immoral, however, is the manner in which that ammunition was used. How is K-Mart at fault for the misuse of a perfectly legal product which is otherwise safe (except to violent criminals) when utilized in it's intended manner, using the well-known safety practices associated with it's proper use? The fact that K-Mart was willing to acquiesce to the extortionist pressure placed upon them by Mr. Moore only serves to make one understand why their organization is going down the tubes. They were engaged in perfectly moral and legitimate commerce in the sale of firearms and ammunition, but chose instead, to allow themselves to be used as a scapegoat for the villainous actions of those who misused these products. I have personally purchased firearms and ammunition from K-Mart, and it has never occurred to me to shoot up a high school with them. Is K-Mart just lucky that I'm not a violent criminal, or was there something different about the Marlin Model 60 and 336 rifles and the .22 LR, .30-30 Winchester, and other ammo I bought from them that caused it not to be used to kill innocent people? The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, but to pick up a microphone to talk he needs to obtain a license from the federal government? The truth is, he doesn't. Bootlegging is a big problem in radio. However, like criminals who commit violent crimes with sporting firearms, it is not the inanimate objects (firearms or radios) at fault - but the responsible human agent who utilizes them in an improper manner. No amount of licensing can prevent the misuse of guns, cars, radios, aircraft, or any other potentially destructive item -- and the world is full of them. It is up to us intelligent human beings to use these things in a proper, moral manner. We can either decide to accept this challenge and take the responsibility for our actions, or simply sanitize our lives of anything that could possibly hurt us. The choice is ours. If you choose the latter, you can start by throwing away every bar of soap in your house. After all, if misused, a bar of Kirk's Coco Hardwater Castile can be just as dangerous as a .22 cal. rifle. I can understand for a vehicle, but isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought. What of the over 2 million people who are saved from violence each year by the legitimate use of firearms? Or the untold thousands who benefit from the emergency communications services provided by legal, licensed radio amateurs? In the case of guns, the liberal media, which has an agenda to remove the personal power given to the people to defend themselves from violence, never allows the truth to see the light of day. However, the benefits of amateur radio are well-known and occasionally given publicity which does it some good. The problem of the over 12,000 victims of violent gun crime can be readily addressed by simply enforcing existing laws, and treating criminals AS criminals and not using the inanimate object (the gun) as the scapegoat for human behaviour. In the true manner of a person with a liberal, socialist, freedom-hating agenda, Mr. Moore carefully left that truth out of his documentary. It is up to us to be intelligent enough to see through his lies of omission, and learn the truth. The same applies to code testing, or any other licensing requirements in the ARS. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? 73 de Larry, K3LT I agree, How about it Carl, let's do away with the outdated theory crap that's keeping a lot of engineers and kids out of out hobby. Why I know a Doctor who would love to be a Ham, but because of the stupid, outdated theory he can not get his license. Who would you rather have as a Ham, a Doctor who might save your life, or another know-it-all who knows out dated electronics theory. Will you lead Ham Radio out of the darkness and into the light Captain Carl? Break these shackles that bind us to the old ways! FREE RADIO FOR THE MASSES! 10-73's! (Of course I'm kidding, but this will be coming real soon AND YOU KNOW THIS!) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, With all due respect to Jim, just because he said it doesn't make it true. (no matter how many words he used :-) that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, That's absurd ... just as those who want to (and don't have a legitimate physical limitation that prevents it) *could* learn Morse at some arbitrary speed, anyone who wants to (except, someone who's truly mentally deficient) can learn the skills necessary to design, build, and service equipment comparable in performance to (or better than) off the shelf commercial equipment. Even "custom ASICs" can be affordably created in the ham's home workshop with free or inexpensive software tools that run on any reasonable PC, using FPGAs and other programable logic devices ... and they can do significant signal processing at rates higher than can be done in software on a PC (though using the PC to do some signal processing is useful and practical in some applications). Some of the fancy LCD displays require special manufacturing techniques and equipment and would be prohibitively expensive for "one off" and small quantities, but they can be replaced by a "soft" display on a computer screen if those sorts of bells and whistles are desired ... check out "Ham Radio Deluxe" ... one hell of a slick control program, that's free by the way, from Simon Brown, HB9DRV, and Peter Halpin, PE1MHO, (NCI Director Emeritus, holder of the 1st 6m QRP (=5W) DXCC, and other awards and omgosh ... a no-coder) at: http://www.kns.ch/sysgem/hb9drv/HamRadioDeluxe.htm Building and servicing are simply a matter of technique. SMT parts can be soldered by hand with a small, low wattage iron (even 200 pin QFPs ... I've done it many times) or with a simple hot air reflow soldering system (you can buy one, or could build one ... I've reflowed modest sized PCBs with a heat gun and some care. The techniques are different than the old "thru-hole" methods, but they are really no more difficult and are certainly within reach of anyone who cares to learn. (and, amateur radio is *supposed* to encourage the learning of useful technical skills, advancing the art, etc.) that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. So, you would prefer that the amateur ranks be centered on appliance operators (as long as they can beep fast)??? That's the death warrant for amateur radio if it ever becomes totally that way. Reducing the technical skill of amateurs to your level and keeping "Morse as king" may make you FEEL superior, Larry, but it's really the TRUE "dumbing down" of the amateur radio service ... Other than as a recreational activity in the ARS (which is fine), the world has passed Morse by. What's needed in the "pool of trained operators" is no longer a cadre of Morseists, but folks who have the technical knowledge and skill to build, field, and maintain systems that can meet the communications needs of EMS agencies ... and that's at a level of technology far beyond OOK Morse. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? Ohm's Law is a tool that can be used for many things ... biasing circuits, figuring out what size wire gauge is necessary to carry a given current with what voltage drop, and on and on ... and it's a simple equation, whose permutations can be learned in about 10 minutes ... equally useful are the formulae for inductive and capacitive reactance, resonance, etc., etc. These are all basic things that every amateur should know and understand. (Do they all? No. Should they? Yes!!!) I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. That's absurd ... After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. Certain chemicals are "useful" in agriculture ... should everyone who wants to eat a salad be required to be sprayed with them ("exposed to them") against his/her will before being allowed to do so? (Yes, it's an extreme and contrived example, but the principle is EXACTLY the same.) If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. Larry ... most folks don't WANT to communicate via Morse. Nothing prevents you from doing so, but to assert that everyone must prove they can before they can do anything on HF is pointless and counter to the interests of the future of ham radio. (The governments of the world and even the IARU have come to realize this ... that YOU "don't get it" is irrelevant.) I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? The sensible option ... no code testing. Adequate written testing. That answer is obvious. Carl - wk3c |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:00:21 GMT, Keith wrote: I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun for opening a CD account. And if the same shotgun is later used to rob that bank, who's fault would you say that is? In the documentary he discusses the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart and obtained guns at gun shows. Thousands of hunters, law enforcement officers, and other legitimate, law-abiding gun owners also buy guns at gun shows and ammo at K-Mart. The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, but to pick up a microphone to talk he needs to obtain a license from the federal government? No he doesn't. There are several radio services in which no licenses are required, or which are licensed by rule. Examples include CB, FRS, Marine VHF, parts of the 49 mhz band where operation of 2-way radio devices is covered under Part 15, and the experimenter's band down below the AM broadcast band. I can understand for a vehicle, but isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought. Your question provides its own answer since, unlike the 12,000 murderers, ham radio operators are not untested and not unlicensed. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On 23 Sep 2003 00:40:54 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote: Far better to concentrate testing on operating - to include as many modes as feasable. INCLUDING radiotelegraphy, **the second most used mode in ham radio**. It occurs to me that, after "making a legitimate withdrawal" as number one, the second most used method of obtaining money from the bank happens to be a felony. It also occurs to me that in sports, they refer to the player(s) who finish anywhere below #1 as the LOSERS. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:00:21 GMT, Keith wrote: I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart and obtained guns at gun shows. The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, A shotgun is not a weapon of mass destruction. Chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons are weapons of mass destruction. A shotgun is classified as "small arms" - even fully automatic small arms are not weapons of mass destruction. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** On 23 Sep 2003 00:40:54 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote: Far better to concentrate testing on operating - to include as many modes as feasable. INCLUDING radiotelegraphy, **the second most used mode in ham radio**. It occurs to me that, after "making a legitimate withdrawal" as number one, the second most used method of obtaining money from the bank happens to be a felony. It also occurs to me that in sports, they refer to the player(s) who finish anywhere below #1 as the LOSERS. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York John, I like the way you think. |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety testing. There's "the future". 73 de Jim, N2EY Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on rules and regs. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating practices for the licenses classes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Good idea. When I passed the Basic test (Canadian licence, same type
of questions and format as the entry-level US one - Technician, I think...?), I walked out of the room with two things: A licence. And no real practical idea on how to operate a radio station. I had the theory, and legally what not to do, but how to set up a station and initiate a QSO? On-air procedures and etiquette? Missing details galore.... I bought a used 2M HT and the RAC Operating Guide, downloaded a repeater list, listened on-air for a while, and figured out how to get through the first few QSOs. From there, the kind folks on the air guided me through the process, overlooking my frequent errors. Trial by fire. No I=E/R stuff to help me through here! Going on HF was worse - passed the morse test, then...learning curve again (and still - 6 months later) - some of the VHF knowledge worked, but new skills were required. And the equipment is more complex to set up and use than my HT....had to build an antenna (a Big Antenna !), and go from there. And a dummy load. And an SWR meter. Etcetera. Still learning, but the folks on 40M have been great, and got me up to speed pretty quickly. Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part of the licence procedure. Not for the sake of testing , or making the licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right now.....:). And the best possible resource for creating a syllabus like that - the experienced amateur user community. (not me - I'm still learning! Maybe later....) Just my .02.... 73, Leo On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:24:06 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety testing. There's "the future". 73 de Jim, N2EY Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on rules and regs. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating practices for the licenses classes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety testing. There's "the future". 73 de Jim, N2EY Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on rules and regs. Not really. All questions and answers are filtered through the QPC and again through the FCC. "Killer" Q&A can be rejected. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating practices for the licenses classes. Better yet - split the test into different subelements and require a passing grade in each. No getting all the regs questions wrong and all the theory questions right (or vice versa) and still passing. I suggested that in my comments to 98-143. FCC went the other way. Tells ya somethin'. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other radio) radio problem. If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50 questions, more like 100-250 range. As far as the question pool, I have no problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other radio) radio problem. Ryan, I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation. You may have read it already. My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but rather that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared to years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment. That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass written tests. If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50 questions, more like 100-250 range. I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that they're wrong. As far as the question pool, I have no problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well. Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other radio) radio problem. Ryan, I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation. You may have read it already. I was going more on Larry's interpretation for that particular message.... My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but rather that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared to years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment. Yes, the equipment has changed, but I still see the need for some knowledge in that direction. That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass written tests. I would honestly say a little bit of both. I have always been a tinkerer since almost back in the toddler days, which usually drove my parents completely nuts!!!!! I just gotta know how something works or I am not satisfied!! :) If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50 questions, more like 100-250 range. I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that they're wrong. Actually, the VE groups need to push the issue since they are (for the most part) the persons responsible for administering the tests etc. That needs to be a collective effort between the arrl, w5yi and any other VE groups out there, if they could get together and WORK TOGETHER in that respect at least. As far as the question pool, I have no problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well. Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers. Expand the size of the question pool maybe?? Or is there a better solution??? -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Jim: Like it or not, we're definitely heading in that direction. I'd like to think it's possible to hold the line somewhere, but in light of the fact that abolition of the code testing requirement is almost a sure thing, the rest of the dominoes will surely fall shortly thereafter. Once they do, we'll most likely experience a major loss of spectrum allocations in the ARS. Ironically, that will surely happen in the regions above 500 MHz, where there hasn't been any code testing at all for over a decade. Don't forget BPL and all that goes with. Just because Cmsr Powell may leave doesn't mean it goes too. The less ham radio is percieved to have full value the less important it is to protect it and where it lives. Dick Dick: I agree. And the best way to prove that the ARS has less than "full value" is to continue to reduce licensing standards. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
|
In article , Leo
writes: Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part of the licence procedure. There are a few questions about operating procedures in the US tests. I presume the Canadian tests are similar. But a new ham can get all those questions wrong and still pass the tests. Not for the sake of testing , or making the licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right now.....:). But if it's not actually part of the test, there's no guarantee that it will be learned. In the bad old days, almost all hams started out listening to the amateur bands - if for no other reason than to get code practice! Many hams were experienced SWLs before they got licensed. Others "discovered" ham radio by hearing AM ham stations, back when it was common for broadcast receivers to have SW bands. So they had a lot of "listen time" before the test. That's a lot less prevalent today. It is my understanding that in the UK, part of the licencing process is *mandatory* attendance and a passing grade at an approved training course. Doesn't matter if a prospective ham is a child or a grizzled graybeard witha Ph.D. in EE - the course is *required*. How about this approach: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs might be 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! Waddya think? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Jim,
As in the US tests, there are indeed a few station operating questions on the Canadian exams. Our Basic exam consists of 100 questions, with a pass mark of 60%. You're right - it is possible to miss all of the operating questions (and more!) and walk out with a licence. I'm told that the test requirements have gone from very difficult (drawing schematics and essay-type questions back in the Fifties ans Sixties) to multiple choice questions and published question pools today. Perhaps because the equipment has evolved to the point where it is more of an appliance today (my HT sure is - select a frequency and talk! Not much radio theory needed there...) Your proposed practical test is an excellent idea. It creates a real-world operating scenario to test the applicants' ability to operate a station, and would be a step in the right direction for ensuring that the new licencee has the skills, both theoretical and hands-on, to set up and properly use his or her radio equipment. Might increase the role of the local radio clubs too, as they could set up for both the hands on training and practice sessions to prepare folks for the tests. A definite improvement over the status quo, in my opinion anyway! 73, Leo On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part of the licence procedure. There are a few questions about operating procedures in the US tests. I presume the Canadian tests are similar. But a new ham can get all those questions wrong and still pass the tests. Not for the sake of testing , or making the licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right now.....:). But if it's not actually part of the test, there's no guarantee that it will be learned. In the bad old days, almost all hams started out listening to the amateur bands - if for no other reason than to get code practice! Many hams were experienced SWLs before they got licensed. Others "discovered" ham radio by hearing AM ham stations, back when it was common for broadcast receivers to have SW bands. So they had a lot of "listen time" before the test. That's a lot less prevalent today. It is my understanding that in the UK, part of the licencing process is *mandatory* attendance and a passing grade at an approved training course. Doesn't matter if a prospective ham is a child or a grizzled graybeard witha Ph.D. in EE - the course is *required*. How about this approach: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs might be 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! Waddya think? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: N2EY wrote: How about this approach: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs might be 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). Could be done using Part 15 rules levels with any type of gear. But the best way is to use real live ham gear. 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! Waddya think? What??? Make them *WORK* for a license??? Not about "WORK" at all. Doing radio the right way is fun! Whadda ya think this is, the old Soviet Union or something?? Not at all. It's about operating skills. For a fact applicants would have to spend some time around active hams first, instead of just on the CB band. Whatta concept, huh? It's probably no surorise that so many of htem show up on ham radio using CB operating procedures and lingo. In most cases that's because they don't know any better. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing or misspelled, that's a mistake. How does one misspell a word when using a voice mode? The messages would have a certain number of proper names and place names that would be uncommon enough to require phonetics. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are used, each deviation is a mistake. Welp...that lets out half the contesters I know. Kilowatt Five Texas Radio, please submit your license for cancellation. Is it really too much to ask that 'phone operators learn and be able to use 26 standard words for a test, even if they don't absolutely have to use them on the air? oh wait - somebody asked that question about the 43 morse code symbols... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing or misspelled, that's a mistake. How does one misspell a word when using a voice mode? If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are used, each deviation is a mistake. Welp...that lets out half the contesters I know. Kilowatt Five Texas Radio, please submit your license for cancellation. Agreed. Real phone contesters use ICAO phonetics. K5TR oughta be "Kilo Fife Tango Reddio". 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York Whiskey Thuree Romeo Viktor. Dewar's please and thankew. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com