In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote


They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual
"homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen?


Realistic? Surreal-istic is more like it!

I assume you've read the KL7CC paper, Hans

This is the same mantra sung by NCI's ex Executive Director,
W5YI, and his fingerprints are all over this thing. He has
stated publicly that he feels that since people
who acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their
equipment assembled these days, and send them in for
repairs when broken, they no longer need to possess the
knowledge needed to build good "home-brew" stations, nor
the knowledge to determine if their repairs/adjustments result
in proper on-the-air signals.

Bingo.

Because of this fact, he thinks that
the majority of questions regarding math and theory (knowledge
mainly needed to build/repair/adjust equipment) should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with
questions on operating technique and regulations.

Or not replaced by anything.

If he had
his way, math and theory questions would only be part of
Amateur Extra examinations.

If at all.

While I can't remember the last "fully homebrew" shack I saw

I can. It's downstairs.... ;-)

Actually, it's not 100% homebrew - some nonhomebrew test gear, a little
surplus, and of course the K2. And I didn't build any of the telegraph keys.

But the main rig, power supplies, antenna tuner, antenna, table, shelves,
cables and control system are all homebrew. You and 366 others worked this
station during SS.

(probably KG6AIG
back in the 60's, and even Luis had *some* commercial test equipment items
lying
about), it is extremely uncommon to find a shack where every item is
commercial
(or in it's original commercial state.) Homebrewing and modification to
commercial designs is especially alive and well in the QRP, contesting,
satelite, and microwave communities.

'zactly. Also kits and semi-kits.

The QCAO (Quarter Century Appliance Operators club) and ASSOOBA (Amalgamated
Simple Shacks On Our Belt Association) would love it, but this idea would put
our service on an immediate slide into nothing more than another consumer
orientated Family Radio Service, and the consequent abolishment of Amateur
Radio.

The *single* unique element which differentiates our service from all the
other
radio services is our authority to experiment, build, modify, and generally
tinker around and operate equipment which is not type accepted.

There's also the widespread use of Morse code for communications purposes....

The
"technical"
aspect of our hobby comprises 3 of the 5 reasons (paragraph 97.1) for the
existence of the ARS, and removal of this requirement for licensing would
tear the heart and soul out of the hobby.

(devil's advocate mode=ON)

But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be "shoved
down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

If amateurs were to be licensed without any requirement for electronics
knowledge, then it follows that type acceptance of all amateur equipment
would
be a requirement for sale.

Not at all. Just certification that a design was sound. Canada has this
already, and so does the UK.

How many rigs made in the past 20 years would not qualify for certification?

Used equipment, if sold to "no-Tech" amateurs
would
need to be recertified and "mod-free", and repairs could only be accomplished
by
FCC-approved service facilities. The cost of new equipment would rise to
commercial-service price levels, because of type-acceptance issues, and most
vendors would probably leave the market.

Doesn't all new equipment have to be certified anyway?

Sorry, but you guys are out to lunch with this cockeyed notion.

(devil's advocate mode=OFF)

On that we are agreed 100%

Code-Free, then Tech-Free .... what next, license free? CU on eleven, good
buddy.

One of the proposed ideas for the "Communicator" license is to remove most of
the "radio law" questions from the test and instead simply require that
applicants certify that they have a copy of Part 97, read and understand it.
Where'd they get that idea?

You watch, Hans - those of us who resist these ideas will be called "elitist"
and "stuck in the past" etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be
"shoved
down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

Hans

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be
"shoved
down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

Of course I read it. But rather than fixate on it, I dismissed it as
unworkable and without sufficient weight to gain any traction.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

Of course I read it.

OK

But rather than fixate on it, I dismissed it as
unworkable and without sufficient weight to gain any traction.

I hope you're right about that, and that the FCC agrees with you.
Otherwise we could have quite a bit of a pool-pah to deal with.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote



But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be

"shoved

down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.


Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

The paper is a self-admitted strawman, for Christ's sake!!!! Have you read
it?

Here is a direct quote: "It is intended as a way to help fellow Amateur
Radio operators understand some of the thought processes that led
us to where we are today. It is not a statement of the way things will
end up, but rather it is simply a plan, subject to change and
improvement. It is, in a word, someplace to start."

If that isn't the classic definition of a strawman then I don't know what
is!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article .net,
"KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote



But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be

"shoved

down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...



Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service" ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting
that one.

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

In article .net,

"KØHB"

writes:



"N2EY" wrote




But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be

"shoved


down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.


I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...


Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -


The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service" ... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting
that one.

And that can change really quickly.

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.

Ahh, our very own Maginot line!


Imagine how much less work it would have been to get rid of the Morse
code requirements if we just would have kept our mouths shut.

If in the future, if perhaps something like the KL7CC plan is adopted,
do you think this will be the PCTA's fault because we said something
like that may happen? Because we said it may happen?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article .net,
"KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote



But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be

"shoved

down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests (I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...

Carl, this is no different than Larry or Bruce wishing to destroy the
ARS because they couldn't have things their way.

Brian