| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 27th 03, 03:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Oct 2003 01:30:02 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
snipped at various parts below... Pretty much the same here - block diagrams and 'fill in the blanks'schematics, with multiple choice answers. It could be argued that having to identify what a particular component in a schematic actually does is at least as much an indication of knowledge about that schematic as is simply being able to draw it. True enough - although the exam I took centered almost exclusively on tank circuits and calculation of resonant component values.. snip I've been doing it since Novice days back in 1967. Not that hard if you start off with simple projects and work towards more complex ones. What mode permits the most results from the simplest equipment? Hint: It's not SSB. Well, the Heath SSB transceiver was the most complicated piece of radio equipment that I've tackled so far for restoration. Which one? SB-400. Cosmetically OK, but a disaster inside - corroded rotary switches, poor solder joints, wiring errors (17 of them - including one which shorted out the LSB crystal - somebody must have been less than happy with this set ...) and of course a complete set of high-ESR electrolytics. Almost 50 hours on the bench to get it up and running.... If I was going to try a 'designed by me' homebrew project, it would be a QRP tansmitter - fairly simple to construct and troubleshoot...comparatively, anyway! And it would be a transmitter for which mode? CW, most likely - I would prefer to start with something relatively simple. Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in and take the Advanced exam straightaway? No experience requirements (they were dropped years ago) - it is possible to write the Basic and Advanced exams concurrently on the same day. So we have almost exactly 50-50 split Basic/Advanced. Interesting to know. And VE amateur radio licenses total a little more than 8% of those in the USA. (Of course the populations are different too). 33 Million in Canada, approximately 1/10 of the US, I believe... In addition, the total number of Canadian hams with Morse endorsements on their licence is 31,557 - approximately 55%.. let's see - in the USA before the recent changes it was 470,000 out of 675,000 - just under 70%. Looks like Canada may be the next to simply drop Morse testing, though. Haven't heard much on this so far! I posted the results of the survey condusted by the Radio Amateurs of Canada a while back - it has been submitted to Industry Canada (the FCC equivalent), but nothing since then. No idea how long a decision will take - we have a system of NPRMs here as well, and we're waiting for some indication one way or the other. I'm not "conservative" - I do the radical thing of saying "noise" or "interference". No disrespect intended, Jim - poor choice of words on my part here. None taken! Glad to hear that! There was also a column in the late '40s and early '50s called "Phone Band Phunnies" that described and decried certain bad habits some 'phone ops tended to acquire. Have a look at the following web site - a humourous view of this sort of thing gone wild....entitled "How To Sound Like A Lid"... http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/search...D=1750&ID=1750 Some of us, however, still design and build our own rigs. Note how we are sometimes met (not by you, Leo) with disbelief and ridicule for doing so....... And I really am incapable of understanding this behaviour. The ability to visualise, design and implement amateur radio equipment is a gift - one that the amateur community should hold in the highest regard. Anyone could purchase and operate a modern HT, with minimal training - it takes a great deal of skill to create something from nothing. And, for those who enjoy the traditions of the hobby, homebrewing harkens right back to day one! If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people still take the time to learn it? Good question - but removal of the theoretical questions would likely have a much more dramatic effect on the overall technical competence level within the hobby than the removal of code testing would. Is that really true? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of Advanced vs. Basic hams in Canada? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of the various license classes in the USA? Not as much as there was years ago, I suspect - testing has become very much simplified over the last 40 years... The Advanced level, like the Extra, does require a fair amount of additional radio knowledge to pass. Is it enough? It depends - I'm not aware of a study that would indicate whether the goals of the testing were being met! Without an understanding of radio theory, operators would be limited in their potential to grow into new areas of the hobby! Sure - but is it the function of the license exams to force that understanding on everyone? In the Canadian system, if I understand it correctly, a ham who wants to homebrew has to learn more theory, and a ham who only wants to use manufactured gear can stick with the Basic. Or are there more privileges than the ability to homebrew granted with the Advanced? In the USA, every ham can homebrew, but to get access to more HF spectrum, one must jump through the hoop of additional written testing, even if one has no intention of building anything. Here, an amateur with a Basic licence has access to all bands above 30 MHz. Add on a Morse Code test, and full access to the bands under 30 MHz is granted. The Advanced kicence, aside from providing the ability to homebrew transmitting equipment, provides a couple of other perks - high power TX operation, the ability to operate a repeater, and the ability to apply to become a volunteer examiner. There are a couple of other minor ones as well, but I don't recall them at the moment! No annual renewal fees are due (these were dropped in 2000). Those with a Basic licence are encouraged to homebrew as well - only transmitters are legally excluded from that licence class. Modems, receivers, antennas - no problem. I suppose that a basic requirement for entry into this hobby is, and always has been, an interest in the technical aspects of radio communications. And, for the level of freedom to experiment that this hobby provides, I don't feel that it is unrealistic to expect new licencees to be required to demonstrate technical competency, in the form of written exams. I would assume that those whose desire to become a ham is strong enough would also be the type of folks who would want to continue to learn and grow. Perhaps I'm wrong - but the people that I have met so far (for the most part) follow this model. Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this - the regulators would be out of business..... Agreed! But experience has shown otherwise. Very true, unfortunately. One can only imagine a world free of regulators and lawyers......  They would arise again out of necessity. They sure would.... All regulations start out simple. Then real life gets hold of them. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
|
#2
October 27th 03, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: On 27 Oct 2003 01:30:02 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: It could be argued that having to identify what a particular component in a schematic actually does is at least as much an indication of knowledge about that schematic as is simply being able to draw it. True enough - although the exam I took centered almost exclusively on tank circuits and calculation of resonant component values.. The ones I took 30+ years ago were as described. snip I've been doing it since Novice days back in 1967. Not that hard if you start off with simple projects and work towards more complex ones. What mode permits the most results from the simplest equipment? Hint: It's not SSB. Well, the Heath SSB transceiver was the most complicated piece of radio equipment that I've tackled so far for restoration. Which one? SB-400. That's a transmitter, not a transceiver. ;-) Cosmetically OK, but a disaster inside - corroded rotary switches, poor solder joints, wiring errors (17 of them - including one which shorted out the LSB crystal - somebody must have been less than happy with this set ...) and of course a complete set of high-ESR electrolytics. Almost 50 hours on the bench to get it up and running.... That's probably more time than it took to build it in the first place! If I was going to try a 'designed by me' homebrew project, it would be a QRP tansmitter - fairly simple to construct and troubleshoot...comparatively, anyway! And it would be a transmitter for which mode? CW, most likely - I would prefer to start with something relatively simple. And *there's* the connection between CW skill and technological development and self education in the ARS. Without code skill, that transmitter would be almost useless to you. With code skill, you could use it to work the world. For hams, code skill *is* another tool in the toolbox. Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in and take the Advanced exam straightaway? No experience requirements (they were dropped years ago) - it is possible to write the Basic and Advanced exams concurrently on the same day. Same thing happened to Extra 25+ years ago. So we have almost exactly 50-50 split Basic/Advanced. Interesting to know. And VE amateur radio licenses total a little more than 8% of those in the USA. (Of course the populations are different too). 33 Million in Canada, approximately 1/10 of the US, I believe... More like 1/8 of US, but fairly close correlation. In addition, the total number of Canadian hams with Morse endorsements on their licence is 31,557 - approximately 55%.. let's see - in the USA before the recent changes it was 470,000 out of 675,000 - just under 70%. Looks like Canada may be the next to simply drop Morse testing, though. Haven't heard much on this so far! I posted the results of the survey condusted by the Radio Amateurs of Canada a while back - it has been submitted to Industry Canada (the FCC equivalent), but nothing since then. No idea how long a decision will take - we have a system of NPRMs here as well, and we're waiting for some indication one way or the other. Check out the RAC website.. There was also a column in the late '40s and early '50s called "Phone Band Phunnies" that described and decried certain bad habits some 'phone ops tended to acquire. Have a look at the following web site - a humourous view of this sort of thing gone wild....entitled "How To Sound Like A Lid"... http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/search...http://www.dxz one.com/cgi-bin/search/jump.cgi?ID=1750&ID=1750 I'll take a look.. Some of us, however, still design and build our own rigs. Note how we are sometimes met (not by you, Leo) with disbelief and ridicule for doing so....... And I really am incapable of understanding this behaviour. Perhaps it's because I'm also in favor of code tests. You'll have to ask Len and Brian why they do it. The ability to visualise, design and implement amateur radio equipment is a gift - one that the amateur community should hold in the highest regard. I don't see it as a gift, just a set of skills built up over the years. There are others much better at it than I. Anyone could purchase and operate a modern HT, with minimal training - it takes a great deal of skill to create something from nothing. And, for those who enjoy the traditions of the hobby, homebrewing harkens right back to day one! Perhaps that's why they criticize it so much. It's old, it's traditional... If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people still take the time to learn it? Good question - but removal of the theoretical questions would likely have a much more dramatic effect on the overall technical competence level within the hobby than the removal of code testing would. Is that really true? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of Advanced vs. Basic hams in Canada? Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of the various license classes in the USA? Not as much as there was years ago, I suspect - testing has become very much simplified over the last 40 years... Same down here. The Advanced level, like the Extra, does require a fair amount of additional radio knowledge to pass. Is it enough? It depends - I'm not aware of a study that would indicate whether the goals of the testing were being met! Exactly Without an understanding of radio theory, operators would be limited in their potential to grow into new areas of the hobby! Sure - but is it the function of the license exams to force that understanding on everyone? In the Canadian system, if I understand it correctly, a ham who wants to homebrew has to learn more theory, and a ham who only wants to use manufactured gear can stick with the Basic. Or are there more privileges than the ability to homebrew granted with the Advanced? In the USA, every ham can homebrew, but to get access to more HF spectrum, one must jump through the hoop of additional written testing, even if one has no intention of building anything. Here, an amateur with a Basic licence has access to all bands above 30 MHz. Add on a Morse Code test, and full access to the bands under 30 MHz is granted. That was necessary because of old S25.5. The Advanced kicence, aside from providing the ability to homebrew transmitting equipment, provides a couple of other perks - high power TX operation, the ability to operate a repeater, and the ability to apply to become a volunteer examiner. There are a couple of other minor ones as well, but I don't recall them at the moment! OK - thanks No annual renewal fees are due (these were dropped in 2000). Annual fees? Wow! Amateur license fees here were dropped in the '70s. VE fees are for testing only. One fee can, in principle, be used to go from no license to Extra. Those with a Basic licence are encouraged to homebrew as well - only transmitters are legally excluded from that licence class. Modems, receivers, antennas - no problem. Interesting concept! I suppose a Basic could homebrew a transmitter, but not use it until the Advanced license was in hand... I suppose that a basic requirement for entry into this hobby is, and always has been, an interest in the technical aspects of radio communications. For some, yes, but for others the public service and communications aspects are dominant. Should someone be excluded from amateur radio because they're more interested in what the radios can do rather than how they work? And, for the level of freedom to experiment that this hobby provides, I don't feel that it is unrealistic to expect new licencees to be required to demonstrate technical competency, in the form of written exams. I agree - but what level of competency is reasonable? And why isn't it reasonable to require a very basic level of Morse competency, given how popular Morse is in amateur radio vs. how popularity homebrewing is? I would assume that those whose desire to become a ham is strong enough would also be the type of folks who would want to continue to learn and grow. Perhaps I'm wrong - but the people that I have met so far (for the most part) follow this model. Same here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#3
October 27th 03, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
