"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting
program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is
advancing the petition and what their agenda might be.

There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On
20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with
something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but
these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great
deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio
systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage.
This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally
3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz).

This operation, although it consists of only a small number of
enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only
one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many
complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary),
and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at
a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might
lead to FCC rule changes.

Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying
the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is
banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the
even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the
same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always
logical, however grin.)

So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?"
question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on
"enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many
more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be
that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the
facts?

Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code
users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more
CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon.

"Persistent demeaning language against morse code?!?"

That's quite biased, if not bigotted. If code-lovers want to be "in your
face" about their alleged "superiority in radio" for that singular ability,
and do so for years, and years before the Internet went public in 1991,
then I think your language use is both biased and quite "loaded."

The PCTA constantly want to equate elimination of the code test
with elimination of morse code as a mode. That shows two things:
unjustified paranoia by code-lovers; a necessity to claim an old
psychomotor skill in order to get them artificial status, rank, and
privilege in amateur radio.

Since NO OTHER RADIO SERVICE involved in communications has
retained morse codings as a primary mode of communications
interchange, long-time radio amateurs desiring retention of a code
test can only be seen in the light of demands that "others do as they
did" to love, honor, and obey morse code in order to have them
retain their rank, status, and privileges.

If a relatively small group of biased and bigotted old-timers insist
that elimination of a federal TEST for morse code ability is
"persistent demeaning language" in an open forum, publicly accessible,
then there isn't much hope of "consensus" among the whole and
certainly not conciliation.

There is only the capitulation of the majority to a minority's desire
to accept "persistent demeaning language" as truth.

That is a selfish demand by those no longer "superior."

LHA

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
. com...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote

Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so
the precedent exists.

Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark ;)

The ONLY way a "spark" transmitter could send anything called
communications information was by on-off keying.

Since "morse code" was already in practice and was totally
on-off keying, it was adopted as The "radio code."

The adoption of a long-existing (since 1844) LANDLINE code
says absolutely nothing about its efficacy in radio communications,
ability to "work through" or much else. On-off keying was
adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for
early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just
practical applied physics. Nothing else.

Doesn't settle your question, I know, but then I've not been shy
about making a particular subject point... :-)

LHA

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater.

Justify requireing a knowledge or profeciency test on using an old fashioned
buggy whip before giving out an modern day automobile driver's license.

Clint

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

What it tells me is that not many here care to have a "non-degraded
"discussion.


Uh, not many here are *capable* of having a real discussion.

Kim W5TIT

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

True.

Now explain why hams know how to use "other modes" when there isn't
a profeciency test to MAKE them do it in the first place.

Clint

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote

At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have
a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is
advancing the petition and what their agenda might be.

There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On
20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with
something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but
these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great
deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio
systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage.
This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally
3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz).


Hmmm, wouldn't Part 5 of Title 47 be the governing body for this? And, in
Part 5, there is the following:

PART 5--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE (OTHER THAN BROADCAST)--Table of Contents
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
Sec. 5.77 Change in equipment and emission characteristics.
(a) A change may be made in a licensed transmitter without specific
authorization from the Commission provided that the change does not
result in operations inconsistent with any term of the outstanding
authorization for the station involved.

Along with the above, this section goes on to define certain emission
standards, etc. I was just now trying to find the spec on emission
standards (rules?) as they apply to bandwidth. Correct me if I'm wrong--the
topic and rules of experimentation are way outta my league...no pun
intended. Would the above pertain to experimentation in the amateur bands?

By the way, someone might want to clue these folks in to the Clear Speech
speaker. I bought one for my darlin' a few Father's Days ago and--hey--it
is amazing!


This operation, although it consists of only a small number of
enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only
one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many
complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary),


Well, at least more bandwidth than those complaining want to allow, right?
I mean, the topic of bandwidth, or any rule that says "as necessary" is
pretty arbitrary, vague at worst.


and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at
a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might
lead to FCC rule changes.


I think Hollingsworth interjects with personal opinion on a great many
things and likes to "threaten" with FCC rule changes accordingly. But, your
point is noted.


Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying
the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is
banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the
even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the
same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always
logical, however grin.)


Well, no one is..."all" the time. :)


So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?"
question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on
"enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many
more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be
that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the
facts?


Gosh. That's a loaded question with lots of possiblities, including those
related to the culure and tradition of ham radio. Maybe folks feel better
about "attacking" something new than they do about "attacking" time-honored
traditions in ham radio? Then, there's what you said. Then, there's
personal differences.


Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code
users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more
CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon.


Absolutely true. I can understand why there would be the expectation of a
CW ban being petitioned for. And, I would even fully expect one to
surface--even soon. BUT, I really never thought that the FCC would
entertain the idea to any end where the actual ban would take place. I
would be so compelled on this issue that I would actually file a comment on
it. And, I haven't been stirred by much to actually follow-through with a
comment.


As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but
growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on
some peoples agenda.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Well, I agree that it may be on some peoples' agenda. But, I sure do hope
the FCC wouldn't authorize such a thing.

Kim W5TIT

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , "Kim"

writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
.com...
"Kim" wrote

Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so
the precedent exists.

Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark ;)

The ONLY way a "spark" transmitter could send anything called
communications information was by on-off keying.

While that's true, there were other types of transmitters on the air even
before WW1. Arc transmitters and Alexanderson alternators were two types.
Transmitters using tubes were in use well before 1920.

The practical transmission of voice and music by radio was demonstrated as
early as 1906.

Since "morse code" was already in practice and was totally
on-off keying, it was adopted as The "radio code."

Was that a bad thing?

The adoption of a long-existing (since 1844) LANDLINE code
says absolutely nothing about its efficacy in radio communications,
ability to "work through" or much else.

Actually, the code used in radio is different than the code used in landline
work.

The efficacy of Morse code when applied to radio has been demonstrated many,
many times over the past century-plus. Radio amateurs continue to demonstrate
it every day.

On-off keying was
adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for
early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just
practical applied physics. Nothing else.

And it works very well.

Even after the invention of other methods of transmission, the use of Morse
code continued.

Doesn't settle your question, I know, but then I've not been shy
about making a particular subject point... :-)

What point is that?

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

Sorry, that cannot "be asserted with equal logic."

First of all, that analogy is reduced to the absurd.

Amateur radio IS involved with electronics technology and ALL
radio amateurs are responsible for their amateur stations'
technical requirements. Ergo, the regulatory tool of licensing
MUST concern itself with radio-electronics technical knowledge
to prove competency and responsibility to the Commission.

Radio-electronics technical cognizance is NOT on any trial.
What IS on trial is a test for one MODE of transmission, on-off
keying morse code.

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Irrelevant as to the subject of retention or elimination of the code
test for an amateur radio license.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

Try stating your position instead of raising a number of questions
which do not take any side.

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

1953 to 1968 was 50 to 35 years ago. Approximately 2 generations.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

It was quite obvious to all that "incentive licensing" was really all
about gaining status, rank, privileges in an avocational, recreative
activity. THAT part of "incentive licensing" DID happen. It also
boosted the already-growing class distinction artificiality in U. S.
amateur radio.

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

Incomplete summation or example.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Did it or didn't it? Are you making a speech or are you posing as
a lecturer at some seminar involving avocations?

Nothing in current or past FCC regulations REQUIRES "building
radios." The Commission allows the OPTION of doing so while
nearly all other radio services require type-accepted radio
transmitters.

The Commission is NOT REQUIRED to be supportive or booster
of any particular past or present-day specific activity or mode.

The Commission's ONLY lawful actions are to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio and interstate electronic communications as well as to
mitigate interference matters.

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

If Hans kohb's proposal/petition is before the Commission, then ALL
are free to comment on it THERE.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If you wish "looney tunes" entertainment, then try to read RM-10808
seriously. It is proposed by none other than AH0A.

"Beginning to make noises" is a subjective observation of yours.

If you wish to have a written amateur test element set with more
difficulty, you are absolutely free to submit your proposal to the
Commission, have them issue an RM, and then cry in public
newsgroups later because your proposal does not meet enough
acceptance.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

Just say NO...and with some supporting evidence. That is what
the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System is for, senior.

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

The same as above.

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

What IS your problem, senior?

Do you NEED rank, status, privilege in a hobby activity to "prove"
yourself to the rest of the world?

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process.

Theory is not for everyone.

People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

Define "excellent hams" in terms other than your own standards
OR the emotionally-laden phraseology from Newington.

Amateur radio is an avocation, a recreational activity involving radio not
done for pecuniary reasons. There are NO federal regulations specifying
particular mindsets, imaginary group patriotism, or oaths of fealty to
certain organizations.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

Why do you ask? Get to the point, senior.

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests.

Unproven subjective supposition.

Radio transmission IS a technological activity. The Commission does
NOT require any sort of high level of theoretical knowledge...and they
do NOT require a large number of questions on theory on any written
test. In fact, the Commission DOES NOT SPECIFY THE NUMBER
OF SPECIFIC QUESTION SUBJECTS on the written test.

Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Irrelevant and illogical. There is NO periodic "re-testing" for any
amateur radio license class. Pass it ONCE and it does not have
to be taken unless the decade-long renewal period has past.

You have NOT proved any "close interrelationships" since that is
not a subject, is not currently done, nor is it anything from "noises."


Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?

It is not a requirement or function of the Commission to take on a
role of encouragement in anything but legal compliance with
regulations insofar as amateur radio is concerned.

The thread subject contains the words "Code Test." Try to stay
somewhat closer than a geosynchronous orbit distance from it.

Try concentrating on "Code Test" instead of misdirecting into far-field
irrelevant subjects.

LHA

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote

Yet AM is still allowed.


Yes, it certainly is. But for how long?

Good question, but it has been some 40+ years since SSB
pretty much took over as the HF mode...and there's still no
call for any ban of AM.

Riley Hollingsworth told a Richmond, Virginia hamfest last spring
(speaking of "enhanced SSB") that deliberately operating a wideband
mode in a crowded spectrum is "shortsighted and rude," may be ignoring
the "minimum bandwidth necessary" rule. Now if 4.5KHz-wide signals are
shortsighted and rude, then it logically follows that 6KHz-wide AM
signals containing the same information are even more shortsighted and
rude.

He also hinted that continued complaints "WILL (my emphasis) lead to
pressure on the FCC to revise the Amateur Service rules." Would you
expect DSB AM to survive such revision?

Not if such DSB AM was in any way a significant percentage
of use on the air. That sure doesn't seem to be the case at
all, however.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

Yet no one has apparently made that pitch, and no
one is petitioning to end written tests either. Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference. Morse knowledge, on the other hand,
has no potential for harming others, causing interference,
etc.

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be
progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code
testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?


Jim,

If/when someone floats an RM to end written testing, then
I'll be one of the first in opposition. For today, the code test
is not, IMHO, in any way comparable. We'll just have to
agree to disagree on that because I ain't gonna waste any more
time arguing hypotheticals when those arguments aren't
even being made to the FCC.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference.

When will you guys ever admit the fact that the present written, does none of
the above.

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , "Kim"

writes:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
e.com...
"Kim" wrote

Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so
the precedent exists.

Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark ;)

The ONLY way a "spark" transmitter could send anything called
communications information was by on-off keying.

While that's true, there were other types of transmitters on the air even
before WW1. Arc transmitters and Alexanderson alternators were two types.
Transmitters using tubes were in use well before 1920.

Irrelevant. From ALL the available literature of old-time amateur radio
prior to 1920, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of amateur radio
transmitters were of the "spark" type.

"Spark" transmitters can be modulated SOLELY by ON-OFF KEYING.

The sole surviving Alexanderson Alternator VLF RF generator is in
Grimeton, Sweden, and used once each year for a brief period in a
ceremony for Televerket, the Swedish government's telecommunication
works. A ceremonial event, not one for any actual communication.

The practical transmission of voice and music by radio was demonstrated as
early as 1906.

ONLY with a rotary alternator with a WATER COOLED MICROPHONE.

Demonstration only, and then ONCE.

Since "morse code" was already in practice and was totally
on-off keying, it was adopted as The "radio code."

Was that a bad thing?

Point of fact only. Do NOT "rewrite" what I wrote.

Morse code was developed for ON-OFF KEYING...on land lines.

"Spark" transmitters could communicate ONLY by on-off keying.

Morse code was first used commercially for communications in
1844. The first demonstration of radio as a communications medium
was 1896. That is a 52 year period allowing maturing of the ON-OFF
keying of telegraphy. Telegraphy by the Morse-Vail telegraph
system had spread worldwide by 1896.

The adoption of a long-existing (since 1844) LANDLINE code
says absolutely nothing about its efficacy in radio communications,
ability to "work through" or much else.

Actually, the code used in radio is different than the code used in landline
work.

Totally irrelevant to the point. Early primitive radio could ONLY work
with an ON-OFF KEYING method.

Despite all the variant dialects of "morse codes," ALL work ONLY by
ON-OFF KEYING. ALL.

The efficacy of Morse code when applied to radio has been demonstrated many,
many times over the past century-plus. Radio amateurs continue to demonstrate
it every day.

Self-serving emotional exaggeration.

Radio amateurs worldwide continue to USE all the modes and modulations
allocated to them every day.

"Demonstration" refers to the first use of a method. That differs from USE.

On-off keying was
adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for
early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just
practical applied physics. Nothing else.

And it works very well.

It does NOT work optimally compared to OTHER modes.

Radio as a communications medium is 107 years old. ON-OFF
KEYING of a radio frequency carrier is NOT a new concept nor is it
the best for communications.

Even after the invention of other methods of transmission, the use of Morse
code continued.

Irrelevant. Refusal to change has many and varied reasons. Only some
of those refusals are relevant or applicable.

NO ONE is contending that ON-OFF KEYING was not the first.

Under the beginning subject thread, the subject was the CODE TEST.

You cannot explain or demonstrate or justify a reason for code test
retention JUST BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST MODE IN RADIO.

The first radio-as-a-communications means was 107 years ago.

All other radio services have either dropped morse code mode or
never considered its use when that radio service began.

Continued USE of morse code modes DOES NOT POSSIBLY ADVANCE
ANY STATE OF THE RADIO ARTS. In ANY radio service, including
amateur radio.

LHA

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater.

Justify requireing a knowledge or profeciency test on using an old fashioned
buggy whip before giving out an modern day automobile driver's license.

Clint, it seems to be wasted effort to lay out the technical reasons
for morse code mode communications disappearing on the world
radio scene.

The very first demonstrations of radio as a communications medium
was 107 years ago. In Russia and in Italy. Both demonstrators used
morse code mode with on-off keying. What was used 107 years ago
is NOT "state of the art" today.

USE of morse code mode is optional in the US radio amateur service.

Elimination of the morse code TEST for any amateur radio license is
not defacto elimination of its use, nor banning its use.

Retention of the morse code TEST only has validity as an EMOTIONAL
supplement to those already licensed in the amateur radio service who
are sufficiently proficient to use the mode.

Mike Coslo imagines himself as a sort of "devil's advocate" but is, by
all public evidence, little more than a PCTA who attempts to
masquerade his trolling and baiting by some odd self-defined role as
"arbiter" or "moderator."

This newsgroup is unmoderated.

LHA

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship
with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others
see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and
use
CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and
your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in
exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world
doesn't agree with you.)

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and
inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse
claims? Which of these do you find acceptable?



It's easy enough to accept that those of you who have never had any use
for radiotelegraphy would view its stated attributes as mythical, and
for the lot of you that is indeed a proper description. You couldn't
communciate your way out of an emergency using Morse if the fate of the
planet DID depend on it!


And, DICK, what modes would be your failure to communicate your way of an
emergency if the fate of the planet depends on it? I wish, for once, you'd
answer an honest question. I suspect it'll be the usual, though. Complete
silence because my question is not only one you can't answer (yeah, I'll
make the bet that you are *NOT* proficient in all available modes of ham
radio), and it's also one that makes a counter to the point you attempted to
illustrate, above.

So, DICK, what mode would be our shortcoming if we were all looking to you
to "save the planet?"

Kim W5TIT

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

Yet no one has apparently made that pitch,

Actually, some folks have made similar pitches.

Some time back, QCWA petitioned FCC to give full privs to all hams who held
General and Advanced licenses before Nov. 22, 1968 (the effective date of the
first phase of "incentive licensing". Hans, K0HB, has twice officially proposed
a simplified two-class system. The NCVEC folks are thinking of proposing
changes that go far beyond dumping Element 1 (see:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/

Second item in the Table of Contents.

and no
one is petitioning to end written tests either.

As I wrote elsewhere, some written testing is needed to insure hams know the
rules, including safety precautions. What I'm talking about is the whole
concept of multiple license levels and "jump through the hoop" written tests as
a "hazing ritual" for more privileges.

Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference.

Of course! That's why the written tests cannot be totally eliminated. As I have
written elsewhere.

BUT (and it's a very big but), FCC says that almost all of the technical
knowledge a ham needs to know is already adequately tested by the 35 question
Technician test. That conclusion is inescapable from the fact that Techs are
allowed to use all authorized amateur modes, frequencies, power levels and
technologies above 30 MHz.

The only technical knowledge things that may not be adequately tested on the
Tech written are some HF specific items of propagation, and some regulations.

There's nothing inherently different about a 6 meter rig and a 10 meter rig, is
there? In fact, many modern rigs cover all ham bands from 160 through VHF! Why
is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify and most
of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when it's
the same rig?

Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical incompetence are
very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any
particular license class.

So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech?

Morse knowledge, on the other hand,
has no potential for harming others, causing interference,
etc.

And that's a good thing! One more reason to learn the skills! ;-)

But we're not talking about Morse. We're talking about written testing beyond
the minimum needed to insure safe, legal operation of an amateur station.

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be
progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code
testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?


Jim,

If/when someone floats an RM to end written testing, then
I'll be one of the first in opposition.

It's already been done - see the QCWA petition. See the NCVEC thinkpiece linked
to, above. See Hans' proposal.

Waiting for an RM may be too late. Look at what happened with restructuring -
FCC proposed 4 classes of license but enacted 3. They proposed improved written
exams but instead cut back both the number and size of the written tests.

To be clear - I support a multi-level license structure and *better* written
tests at all levels - code test or no code test. But that's just my opinion.

The question remains - how can proposals like Hans' be refuted, other than "I
don't like it?"

What can be said in response to "You just want all hams to take a lot of
written tests because *you* had to take a lot of written tests"

For today, the code test
is not, IMHO, in any way comparable.

That's not the issue I'm talking about.

We'll just have to
agree to disagree on that because I ain't gonna waste any more
time arguing hypotheticals when those arguments aren't
even being made to the FCC.

But they are being made to FCC, as shown above. What reasonable, rational
arguments can we make to counter the above logic?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ...
Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

True.

Now explain why hams know how to use "other modes" when there isn't
a profeciency test to MAKE them do it in the first place.

Clint

Some forgot where they put their microphones.

But they are being made to FCC, as shown above. What reasonable, rational
arguments can we make to counter the above logic?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Thats been my point all along. There is nothing to stop this downward trend,
once we got started its just a matter of time.
Karl thinks hes going to jump up and scream that the Writtens have to stay and
the FCC is going to say OK. Karl I hate to be the barrier of Bad news, but all
your complaining and reasons you have used to stop CW testing, are about to be
thrown back in your face as far as the written. Then maybe you will see the
light.

Jim, you're talking to a post. NCI thinks they've got what they want
now and their heads are firmly buried in the sand to any issue beyond
killing off the code test. Nothing will dull their premature euphoria.
So now we'll see if the adage "be careful what you ask for" will apply.

Your so right, I cant wait till they start crying about what has happened. And
what is probably going to follow

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
So now we'll see if the adage "be careful what you ask for" will apply.

Careful, Dick. The last time I used that adage, I was accused of making a
"veiled threat." Although I doubt if we'll be hearing any NCTA's on the
bottom of 40 anytime soon. BTW, my desk mic's been packed away to make room
on my desktop for my log/notebook.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical
backwater.

Justify requireing a knowledge or profeciency test on using an old
fashioned
buggy whip before giving out an modern day automobile driver's license.

Clint



What does 'technical' have to do with Morse Code testing and usage?

I do Morse Code on the air because it is FUN, and CHALLANGING, and
EFFICIENT.

Explain what this has to do with 'technical' please.

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

What it tells me is that not many here care to have a "non-degraded
"discussion.


Uh, not many here are *capable* of having a real discussion.

Kim W5TIT



Hug and Chalk included ??

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...


Absolutely true. I can understand why there would be the expectation of a
CW ban being petitioned for. And, I would even fully expect one to
surface--even soon. BUT, I really never thought that the FCC would
entertain the idea to any end where the actual ban would take place. I
would be so compelled on this issue that I would actually file a comment
on
it. And, I haven't been stirred by much to actually follow-through with a
comment.


Kim W5TIT



PLEASE DON'T Twit !!!!!!. If a FCC commissioner sees a comment from you
then ham radio will be banned.

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
I think Jim was stretching it a little far to decide to be offended by the
phrase "jump through the hoop" and "waste their valuable time." But, that's
my opinion...

Oh, my. Such language.

Kim, it's more important than ever before to be offended about
something, or by someone; anything at all.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

The ONLY way a "spark" transmitter could send anything called
communications information was by on-off keying.


Not entirely correct. From what I have read, in '200 meters and down', I
believe...it stated that a rudementary form of modulation was attempted by
using a loop inserted in the field of the synchronous spark and a carbon
microphone.

This is all from memory, so if Lenny has the facts and nothing but the facts
I'm sure he will jump in. And Herrrrrrrrrrs Lenny............

Dan/W4NTI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
By my review, it took 3 posts to have the slamming and insults begin. And,
DICK wins the prize:

This is the part where unbiased Stebe Robevson, the RRAP Avenging
Angel, starts a new thread and nails Dick to the Cross, calls him a
liar and/or a Putz/Dick,...

I wonder how many of you realise that when you are operating Single Sideband
Suppressed Carrier you are on Amplitude Modulation ??

Dan/W4NTI

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote

Yet AM is still allowed.


Yes, it certainly is. But for how long?

Good question, but it has been some 40+ years since SSB
pretty much took over as the HF mode...and there's still no
call for any ban of AM.

Riley Hollingsworth told a Richmond, Virginia hamfest last spring
(speaking of "enhanced SSB") that deliberately operating a wideband
mode in a crowded spectrum is "shortsighted and rude," may be ignoring
the "minimum bandwidth necessary" rule. Now if 4.5KHz-wide signals are
shortsighted and rude, then it logically follows that 6KHz-wide AM
signals containing the same information are even more shortsighted and
rude.

He also hinted that continued complaints "WILL (my emphasis) lead to
pressure on the FCC to revise the Amateur Service rules." Would you
expect DSB AM to survive such revision?

Not if such DSB AM was in any way a significant percentage
of use on the air. That sure doesn't seem to be the case at
all, however.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
But they are being made to FCC, as shown above. What reasonable, rational
arguments can we make to counter the above logic?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Thats been my point all along. There is nothing to stop this downward
trend,
once we got started its just a matter of time.
Karl thinks hes going to jump up and scream that the Writtens have to
stay and
the FCC is going to say OK. Karl I hate to be the barrier of Bad news, but
all
your complaining and reasons you have used to stop CW testing, are about
to be
thrown back in your face as far as the written. Then maybe you will see
the
light.

If that holds true, then we are privelidged to be witness to the last gasp
of ham radio, as we knew it.

Dan/W4NTI

If that holds true, then we are privelidged to be witness to the last gasp
of ham radio, as we knew it.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan you know its going to hold true. NCI has all ready layed the groung work
for the next batch of CBplussers.
The hardest part of Dumbing Down was to get rid of the CW. Once it falls the
rest is easy.

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote

The ONLY way a "spark" transmitter could send anything called
communications information was by on-off keying.

Damn, Old Timer, you got it wrong again! In Boston, on Christmas Eve
of 1906, modulating a spark transmitter, Reginald Fessenden made a
holiday broadcast of a short spoken introduction, some recorded
Chistmas music, and played "Oh Holy Night" on a violin.

Obviously a "spark" transmitter was not limited to ONLY (your
emphasis) on-off keying.

Sunuvagun! Good luck on this one now.

THE FOLLOWING IS A REPEAT OF AN OPEN LETTER TO THE
CONFUSED OFFSPRING OF MOTHER BRAKOB, REPEATED
HERE FOR PUBLIC EDIFICATION -

=================================================


Dear Mother Brakob,

Your offspring is once again confused, perhaps suffering from
dittybopper dementia from spending too much time listening to
beeping or seminarian studies of official documents from Newington.

The following is a direct quote from the Special Commemorative
Issue of McGraw-Hill's "Electronics" magazine of April 17, 1980,
page 75, section titled "History before 1930." That issue is 650
pages total, was printed in celebration of 50 years of "Electronics"
magazine.

"The broadcast television that followed two decades later, would,
of course, not have been possible without proper transmitters,
receivers, modulators, demodulars, etc. --or, in other words,
without proper radio. The world had been introduced in the potential
of such a radio system as far back as 1906, when on Christmas
Eve Prof. Reginal A. Fesenden of Harvard University made the first
documented radio broadcast of speech and music. For this feat, he
used a 50-KHz Alexanderson alternator, manufactured by the
General Electric Co. Telegraph operators on ships crossing the
North Atlantic were surprised on the historic night to hear music
coming out of earphones that previously had emitted nothing but
dots and dashes. Fessenden modulated the alternator's 1-KW
output simply by putting a microphone in series with the antenna of
his experimental station at Brant Rock, Mass. It is likely, but not
certain, that the microphone was water-cooled."

Mother Brakob, please point out, highlight if necessary with a yellow
marker pen, that the transmitter was an ALTERNATOR, not the
damped-wave "spark" type your son scribbled in angry crayon.
Specifically, an ALEXANDERSON ALTERNATOR. ONE
KILOWATT output.

You may wish to give your son a primer on electricity explaining
power losses in resistive conductors. That is important considering
the microphone used by Fessenden was IN SERIES WITH THE
ANTENNA CARRYING CURRENT SUFFICIENT FOR ONE
KILOWATT RADIO FREQUENCY POWER OUTPUT.

Best of good luck on that one, Mother Brakob. [you are going to
need it]

LHA

================================================== =

Additionally, there are some basic technical matters which have
been totally ignored, such as the "sound" produced by attempting
to amplitude modulate a low-audio-frequency-range damped-wave
oscillation by speech or music frequencies. That might be quite
similar to attempting to amplitude modulate a doorbell buzzer and
expect intelligibility from the result.

I would suggest searching a large bookstore for a primer on
electricity and elementary radio, such as "Radio For Dummies."
That does not appear to be in the ARRL list of approved, official
documents but another publisher (possibly 73?) might have it.

Extreme amounts of good fortune on this one now!!!

LHA

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote

On-off keying was
adopted simply because it was the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE for
early, primitive radio to allow communications. It's just
practical applied physics. Nothing else.

Oh ****, you got it wrong again!

In Boston, on Christmas Eve of 1906, modulating a spark transmitter,
Reginald Fessenden made a holiday broadcast of a short spoken
introduction, some recorded Christmas music, and played "Oh Holy
Night" on a violin.

Obviously on-off keying was not the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE (your emphasis)
for early ("spark") radio to allow communications.

"Dear Mother Anderson, your son Leonard is failing in practical
applied physics. Perhaps he would benefit from a stint in the Army to
learn a useful trade."

Sunuvagun! Good luck on this one now.

Dear Mother Brakob,

Your offspring is once again confused, perhaps suffering from
dittybopper dementia from spending too much time listening to
beeping or seminarian studies of official documents from Newington.

The following is a direct quote from the Special Commemorative
Issue of McGraw-Hill's "Electronics" magazine of April 17, 1980,
page 75, right-hand column, section titled "History before 1930."
That issue is 650 pages total, was printed in celebration of 50 years
of "Electronics" magazine existance.

"The broadcast television that followed two decades later, would,
of course, not have been possible without proper transmitters,
receivers, modulators, demodulars, etc. --or, in other words,
without proper radio. The world had been introduced in the potential
of such a radio system as far back as 1906, when on Christmas
Eve Prof. Reginal A. Fesenden of Harvard University made the first
documented radio broadcast of speech and music. For this feat, he
used a 50-KHz Alexanderson alternator, manufactured by the
General Electric Co. Telegraph operators on ships crossing the
North Atlantic were surprised on the historic night to hear music
coming out of earphones that previously had emitted nothing but
dots and dashes. Fessenden modulated the alternator's 1-KW
output simply by putting a microphone in series with the antenna of
his experimental station at Brant Rock, Mass. It is likely, but not
certain, that the microphone was water-cooled."

Mother Brakob, please point out, highlight if necessary with a yellow
marker pen, that the transmitter was an ALTERNATOR, not the
damped-wave "spark" type your son scribbled in angry crayon.
Specifically, an ALEXANDERSON ALTERNATOR. ONE
KILOWATT output.

You may wish to give your son a primer on electricity explaining
power losses in resistive conductors. That is important considering
the microphone used by Fessenden was IN SERIES WITH THE
ANTENNA CARRYING CURRENT SUFFICIENT FOR ONE
KILOWATT RADIO FREQUENCY POWER OUTPUT.

Best of good luck on that one, Mother Brakob. [you are going to
need it]

LHA


PS: You may wish to contact ARRL psychiatric services privately
for a list of competent mental health professionals in your area who
are specialists in the dementia of dittybopper data distortion attempted
on historical facts gathered by professional publishers.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

Hmmm, wouldn't Part 5 of Title 47 be the governing body for this? And, in
Part 5, there is the following:

PART 5--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE (OTHER THAN BROADCAST)--Table of Contents
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
Sec. 5.77 Change in equipment and emission characteristics.
(a) A change may be made in a licensed transmitter without specific
authorization from the Commission provided that the change does not
result in operations inconsistent with any term of the outstanding
authorization for the station involved.

Along with the above, this section goes on to define certain emission
standards, etc. I was just now trying to find the spec on emission
standards (rules?) as they apply to bandwidth. Correct me if I'm wrong--the
topic and rules of experimentation are way outta my league...no pun
intended. Would the above pertain to experimentation in the amateur bands?

Part 5 licenses are not "hobbiest" licenses, so the above does not
apply. These licenses are issued to manufacturers, inventors,
researchers, and students to experiment with new radio technologies,
new equipment designs, characteristics of radio wave propagation, or
new service concepts related to the use of the radio spectrum. Special
call signs (which look like amateur calls) are from the block K(or
W)x2Xyy. For example, KA2XYZ or WB2XYZ. The "call area" numeral is
always "2" and the letter following the 2 is always "X". My company
has 4 of these licenses related to 4 different products in
development. Rules regarding their use are very strict.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:


We'll just have to
agree to disagree on that because I ain't gonna waste any more
time arguing hypotheticals when those arguments aren't
even being made to the FCC.


But they are being made to FCC, as shown above. What reasonable, rational
arguments can we make to counter the above logic?


Jim, you're talking to a post.

I don't think so at all, Dick. K2UNK is one of the most interesting
folks to discuss things with here.

Bill and I are simply having a discussion. We disagree with each other
but there is mutual respect and civility on both sides. He's not
convinced by my arguments and I'm not convinced by his reassurances,
but I'm quite sure he read what I had to say and considered it
carefully.

Frankly, I hope Bill is right and I'm wrong on this, and that we don't
ever have to contend with folks wanting to drastically reduce written
testing.

NCI thinks they've got what they want
now and their heads are firmly buried in the sand to any issue beyond
killing off the code test.

That's the whole purpose of that organization - and we're promised
that it will simply cease to function in the USA if/when there's no
more code test.

When Bill or Carl or Ed or Jon write something here, I take it to be
their own personal view, not that of NCI (in the case of Bill or Carl)
or ARRL (in the case of Ed or Jon) *unless* they specifically state
"NCI policy is..."

Nothing will dull their premature euphoria.

The fat lady ain't sung yet.

So now we'll see if the adage "be careful what you ask for" will apply.

Who knows? My concern, however, is still the same:

What reasonable, rational arguments can we make to counter the above
logic (against more-than-the-barest-minimum-written-tests)?

Because I still think that sooner, rather than later, that issue will
come up. And we better be ready for it.

Everyone should read that KL7CC paper on the AL7FS website. Note what
it says about the writtens. Heck, the author is one of the top guys at
NCVEC, helping make their policy, and he says in public that he
couldn't pass the current *written* exam for the Extra without some
serious book study!

--

Who of us here was a ham before November 22, 1968? Let's see - there's
N2EY, W0EX, K2UNK, W3RV, K0HB, W4NTI, AA2QA. Apologies to anyone I
missed.

Back then, all it took for full privs was 13 wpm code and a ~50
question written test. Has 35 years of incentive licensing made hams
"more technical"? If not, why do we need all those written tests?

What say, folks?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Well, we are both in agreement on that Len.... it doesn't take
long to see what the PCTA crowd is *really* about and after;
just read some of thier posted reasons for keeping the test
around (if you can stand to put up with the intermixed vular
insults and name calling)... one that is just recently being
tabled in here is "if we don't force eveybody to do it, then
they won't want to"... that's a self defeating argument right
there; who would want to drink casteroil that doesn't want to,
and what's more, would forcing it down thier throad make
them become *warmer* to the idea??? And one recently
spouted, before thinking closely to what he was saying I
believe, that they want to "shape the ham community to
what *they* (read: PCTA crowd) WANT it to be.

*ahem*...

Clint
KB5ZHT
whipping the code test debate with EASE.....


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical
backwater.

Justify requireing a knowledge or profeciency test on using an old
fashioned
buggy whip before giving out an modern day automobile driver's license.

Clint, it seems to be wasted effort to lay out the technical reasons
for morse code mode communications disappearing on the world
radio scene.

The very first demonstrations of radio as a communications medium
was 107 years ago. In Russia and in Italy. Both demonstrators used
morse code mode with on-off keying. What was used 107 years ago
is NOT "state of the art" today.

USE of morse code mode is optional in the US radio amateur service.

Elimination of the morse code TEST for any amateur radio license is
not defacto elimination of its use, nor banning its use.

Retention of the morse code TEST only has validity as an EMOTIONAL
supplement to those already licensed in the amateur radio service who
are sufficiently proficient to use the mode.

Mike Coslo imagines himself as a sort of "devil's advocate" but is, by
all public evidence, little more than a PCTA who attempts to
masquerade his trolling and baiting by some odd self-defined role as
"arbiter" or "moderator."

This newsgroup is unmoderated.

LHA