Bill Sohl wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message


some snippage


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT


While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
handle the limit already on the market.

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.

And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
power?

And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
advocate that.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I want added test material for the
advanced licenses to fill the vacuum left
by the departure of Morse Code testing.
I don't want the additions as a way of
keeping people out - indeed if there are
some more questions, it is just a matter
of studying a little more. I want it to show
that we are not just getting rid of things,
and thereby simply making things easier
to get a ticket. (snip)



Several have said that, but I just don't see what can be added that
wouldn't fundamentality change the nature of the Amateur Radio Service. As I
see it, this is an amateur activity designed with three basic goals in
mind - provide some radio services to others (public service), some benefit
to the participants (recreational radio activities), and a mild introduction
to the field of electronics. Since the first two (and international
goodwill) don't seem to be a consideration, I'll ignore those for now.

Could be simply some more questions added to the test.


This leaves the last and a question about how far that should be taken.
Most are not clear at all about that. Some seem to suggest we add content to
more closely fit a college degree program. If so, do we add science,
history, social studies, general math, politics, language, art, economics,
health, and the other things colleges require? If not, can we honestly claim
the license is comprehensive training? But if we add those things, what
happens to the avocational nature of this activity?

Wow, you slippery sloped that one pretty well, Dwight! I'm not looking
for the equivalent of an engineering degree, and would never suggest
such a thing. I don't think that the addition of some relevant questions
to the writtens is at all a bad thing. And even an EE degree is only
partly relevant to the ARS.

I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're
lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

This brings up something that I have wondered about for a while. What
is the basis for so many people avoiding education with a passion? It
isn't like even the Extra test is all that difficult. Takes some study
and time, but it isn't like the SAT's or the like.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And there it is. WHY?

Mike, I know it scares the bejeebers out of the professional-entry-level
licensees out there who have essentially zero interest in whatever
electrical thing happens when they mash the PPT switch, but by their license
grant they are responsible for a ensuring that their transmitted signal
meets a set of technical parameters beyond what the little blinky digits on
the faceplate read.

The current qualification process is woefully inadequate to ensure they can
fulfill that responsibility. The current rules have kept most of these QCAO
members in parts of the spectrum which have mostly local propagation, even
with 1.5KW output.

However, we can soon expect rules changes which may extend their turf to
parts of the spectrum where their ignorance can have worldwide visibility
and consequences. And that scares the bejeebers out of me.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Pee equals eye-squared are. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

Bert Craig wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where

they're

lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB


"Hammer, meet nail."

When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! 8^)


I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the published
Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it.

Big deal! There will have to be a study guide, which will have the
answers in it in text form. I'd read it and know it. Probably quicker
and better than the pools

BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?


Q. Do what?

A. Require just a hair more cerebral activity than rote memorization.


Maybe for some.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?

I think they would if the market existed. In JA there is a class of 10W HF
hams, and there are all sorts of nice 10W HF rigs available there.

But let's just suppose that the manufacturers continue to build only 100W HF
rigs for the US market. It's not the manufacturers responsibility to comply
with the power limits. That responsibility lies with each individual
licensee.

In my experience, hams are almost universally scrupulous in observing the
limitations that their license grant imposes on them.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.


Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.


(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she
wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things like signal purity, etc. 97.307(a) thru (e) come to
mind. Personally, I don't believe that your (misnamed) Technician
qualification examination is adequate to ensure that you can carry out that
mandate.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Wow, you slippery sloped that one pretty
well, Dwight! I'm not looking for the
equivalent of an engineering degree, and
would never suggest such a thing. I don't
think that the addition of some relevant
questions to the writtens (snip)


If you've been following the discussion in this thread, and in general
over the last couple of years, it wasn't slippery sloped that much. It was
only a very slight exaggeration of what some (I'm not saying you) seem to
want.


This brings up something that I have wondered
about for a while. What is the basis for so many
people avoiding education with a passion? It
isn't like even the Extra test is all that difficult.
Takes some study and time, but it isn't like the
SAT's or the like.


I can't speak for others, Mike. But, in our case, it's not avoiding
education per se. Education is a routine in this household. We're both
college graduates. Correspondence courses, college courses, and technical
seminars, are endless. We're both looking towards retirement and want to
change directions in our lives. To do that, we've both recently went back to
school. I just completed an associate degree in electronics (thought I'd
play around with it a little more seriously) and my wife just completed a BA
(math major/history minor) and will start her masters degree program in
January (secondary education). On top of that, we own several businesses,
have a full social life, and have several volunteer activities we're
involved in. Plus we like to have a little time for other things (like this
newsgroup, spending time together, and so on). That leaves very little time
for other things. Since we don't really have a place to fully exploit HF,
and don't want to waste time learning code, getting another license class is
just not that high on our list of things to do.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote:

Yes, it is required by 97.1(e).


Well, goodwill is certainly important. So, by all means, go. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote:

(snip) ...by their license grant they are
responsible for a ensuring that their
transmitted signal meets a set of technical
parameters beyond what the little blinky
digits on the faceplate read.

The current qualification process is
woefully inadequate to ensure they can
fulfill that responsibility. (snip)


Yet there are no widespread problems, reported by the FCC or other
organizations, relating to that. How can that be, Hans? Perhaps you're wrong
about your assessment of a large portion of this radio community.


The current rules have kept most... (snip)
...in parts of the spectrum which have
mostly local propagation, even with 1.5KW
output.


Out of band emissions, and so on, are not dependant on HF, Hans. Again, no
widespread problems relating to that.


However, we can soon expect rules changes
which may extend their turf to parts of the
spectrum where their ignorance can have
worldwide visibility and consequences. And
that scares the bejeebers out of me.


Yet that very thing is happening in many countries around the world, with
none yet reporting any problems whatsoever. Or is it just American operators
(their "ignorance") that scares the "bejeebers" out of you?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Or is it just American operators (their "ignorance") that scares the
"bejeebers" out of you?

I am not eligible to petition the regulators in other countries, so my
proposal will only affect license applicants under FCC jurisdiction.
Hopefully there are responsible hams in other countries who will attempt to
ensure adequate qualification levels are maintained in most countries.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Nice editing to fit an agenda, Hans.


I have no agenda.

But it was clever editing nonetheless.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote


Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.

You

have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.


The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote:

But there IS a mandate that each licensee
is directly responsible for the proper
adjustment and operation of their
equipment, (snip) ...like signal purity, etc.
97.307(a) thru (e) come to mind.
Personally, I don't believe that your
(misnamed) Technician qualification
examination is adequate to ensure that
you can carry out that mandate.


Really? The FCC does think it is adequate. Regardless, I only saw a few
questions in the Extra question pool (July, 2002) about signal purity
(measurements and so on), none having to with the actual adjustment of
equipment. That hardly makes someone with your license an expert in this
regard.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote


And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose.

Two points:

POINT A
------------

This "unenforceable" mantra is a weak argument, which does not gain strength
by the repetition.

Of course it's enforceable, or at least just as enforceable as power levels
have ever been. "Unenforceable" is a complete cop out. If power level is
not enforceable at 50W, then it's not enforceable at 2.5W, 25W, 50W ERP,
100W, 200W, or 1.5KW, all of which are power currently exist in FCC Amateur
Radio regulations.

POINT B
------------

That particular power level has a real purpose. The purpose is two-fold.

Purpose #1) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which we can limit power to a level which FCC has stated is safe for both
the user and unknowing passers-by.

Purpose #2) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which the power level minimizes the unwanted side-effects of granting
broad spectrum access to relatively underqualified operators. Now, before
you spin up your rotors about "but QRP operators work around the world",
bear in mind that most of the "bad" signals heard on HF are the result of
ignorant operators trying to run a lot of power, and the consequent
splatter, flat-topping, birdies, over-compression, etc. On the other hand,
I've never heard a distorted or crappy QRP station. In further support of
the idea is the fact that all these 100W-class rigs you keep harping on are
running at near their designed-in upper capability, making them more likely
to become purveyors of all the crappy-signal symptoms I just talked about.
At 50W they are much less likely to be straining their design specifications
and consequently radiating cleaner signals. In the hands of even a QCAO
life-member it would be hard to splatter/chirp/over-modulate when you're
running at half the design limit of the rig.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote


But it was clever editing nonetheless.


Yes, it certainly was. Thank you for noticing.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

(snip) But I am also recommending, after
a generous period with 'training wheels',
a more strenuous qualification for
standard privileges than currently exists.
The QCAO and IOoDHW cries of "the
unfairness of it all" are deafening.


The only thing I've heard is cries for proof that your license proposal
actually addresses a real need within the Amateur Radio Service - something
that fits the goals and purposes of that. What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Or is it just American operators (their
"ignorance") that scares the "bejeebers"
out of you?

I am not eligible to petition the regulators in
other countries, so my proposal will only
affect license applicants under FCC
jurisdiction. (snip)


I'll leave that answer to speak for itself.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bert Craig wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where

they're

lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB


"Hammer, meet nail."

When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! 8^)

Lol.

I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the
published
Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it.

Big deal! There will have to be a study guide, which will have the
answers in it in text form. I'd read it and know it. Probably quicker
and better than the pools

I'd bet you would too. I had a slightly unfair advantage, a college avionics
curriculum that culminated in a GROL. However, in order to earn our
sheepskins, we had to pass screening exams...no published Q&A pools. Same
applied to our FAA exams.

BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?

Didn't really notice. Once you review the Q&A pool, the correct answer
stands out like a sore thumb. I reviewed the Q&A pool twice and drove and
hour so to Yonkers, NY...for approx. six minutes of actual exam time. (&
that gave me privies to 1500 Watts on 50 MHz and up?!)

Q. Do what?

A. Require just a hair more cerebral activity than rote memorization.


Maybe for some.

You're right, maybe.

- Mike KB3EIA -

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I presume there is evidence that
Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.


Of course there isn't any evidence of that, Mike. As I said earlier, Hans'
proposal appears to be a solution looking for a problem (an answer looking
for a question). Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message


some snippage


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more
dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT


While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
handle the limit already on the market.

I agree, see more below.

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.

And that's a logical threshold point in my opinion.

And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
power?

None I know of.

And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
advocate that.

Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the basics of RF,
RF hazards, etc

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda so
thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if
Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and
bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and
discredited here with elementary logic.

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you
anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC. ('Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't
thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. -- Douglas
Adams, THGttG)


With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative. That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.

With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Bert Craig wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bert Craig wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


"Dwight Stewart" wrote



I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where

they're


lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB


"Hammer, meet nail."

When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! 8^)


Lol.


I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the

published

Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it.

Big deal! There will have to be a study guide, which will have the
answers in it in text form. I'd read it and know it. Probably quicker
and better than the pools


I'd bet you would too. I had a slightly unfair advantage, a college avionics
curriculum that culminated in a GROL. However, in order to earn our
sheepskins, we had to pass screening exams...no published Q&A pools. Same
applied to our FAA exams.


BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?


Didn't really notice. Once you review the Q&A pool, the correct answer
stands out like a sore thumb. I reviewed the Q&A pool twice and drove and
hour so to Yonkers, NY...for approx. six minutes of actual exam time. (&
that gave me privies to 1500 Watts on 50 MHz and up?!)

Reminds me of the first time I took the General test. I got up early
and drove to the Hamfest in Butler PA from State College PA. Drank
several cups of coffee on the way. I took the writtens first, and no
problem acing it. Then the combination of the trip and too much coffee
kicked in as I sat down for the Morse code test. As they say in the
Bronx fuggitaboudit! So I had to wait a while for my ticket.

Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message


some snippage


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more

dollars

and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT


While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
handle the limit already on the market.


I agree, see more below.


Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.


And that's a logical threshold point in my opinion.


And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
power?


None I know of.


And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
advocate that.


Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the basics of RF,
RF hazards, etc

Seems like we're pretty much on the same page here! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
handle the limit already on the market.

Exisitng equipment could still be used by LP licensees - they just have to turn
it down by 3 dB.

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.

When the Novice was created back in 1951, the power limit was 75 watts input.
Which works out to about 50 watts output.

In a short time there were many manufacturers making transmitters for the
Novice market. Their resale value was good because there were always new
Novices coming along looking for a bargain.

And those manufacturers had to compete with homebrew and surplus rigs which
were in abundance back then. (One of the reasons Novices were limited to 75 w
xtal control was so that homebrew rigs used by Novices would be kept simple).

In fact many Novices used less than the full power allowed.

Let's see...there was the Ameco AC-1, the Heath AT-1, DX-20, DX-35, DX-40, d
DX-60 and HW-16, the Johnson Adventurer, Challenger, Navigator and Ranger, the
Drake 2-NT, the Hallicrafters HT-40.......to name just a few.

And this was when the amateur radio market was a lot smaller than it is today.


And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
power?

Under Hans' plan, no existing hams would lose any privileges. So they don't
have to worry.

And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
advocate that.

Until a few years ago there were no questions about RF exposure at all in the
pools.

One question is being overlooked, though: Why are most manufactured rigs rated
100 watts? Why not 50 watts, or 250 watts, or something else? (A very few are
rated at other power levels). Why 100.

The answer is about 50 years old.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Bert Craig wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bert Craig wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


"Dwight Stewart" wrote



I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where

they're


lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize
a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB


"Hammer, meet nail."

When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! 8^)


Lol.


I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the

published

Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it.

Big deal! There will have to be a study guide, which will have the
answers in it in text form. I'd read it and know it. Probably quicker
and better than the pools


I'd bet you would too. I had a slightly unfair advantage, a college
avionics
curriculum that culminated in a GROL. However, in order to earn our
sheepskins, we had to pass screening exams...no published Q&A pools.
Same
applied to our FAA exams.


BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?


Didn't really notice. Once you review the Q&A pool, the correct answer
stands out like a sore thumb. I reviewed the Q&A pool twice and drove
and
hour so to Yonkers, NY...for approx. six minutes of actual exam time. (&
that gave me privies to 1500 Watts on 50 MHz and up?!)

Reminds me of the first time I took the General test. I got up early
and drove to the Hamfest in Butler PA from State College PA. Drank
several cups of coffee on the way. I took the writtens first, and no
problem acing it. Then the combination of the trip and too much coffee
kicked in as I sat down for the Morse code test. As they say in the
Bronx fuggitaboudit! So I had to wait a while for my ticket.

Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I actually had a pretty good experience with Element 1...once it began. I
had actually kinda over-prepped and was getting pretty nervous. Dick, N0BK
(God rest his soul.) told me to stop practicing, get off my ar$e, and just
give it a whirl.

When I arrived, it was all I could do NOT to throw up, until the code
characters started flowing. I had practiced with the ARRL CD's and they
turned out to be a tad faster than the actual exam. It was like gettin'
ready to bat in the world series only to have the pitcher throw cantaloupe
sized balls in slow-motion...underhand. I went into immediate $hit-eating
grin mode.

Then there's gettin' OTA...whole 'nutha story. ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote


Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.

You

have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.


The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits
because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she
wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things like signal purity, etc. 97.307(a) thru (e) come to
mind. Personally, I don't believe that your (misnamed) Technician
qualification examination is adequate to ensure that you can carry out that
mandate.

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.


Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.


(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:54:25 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote:

Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.

I was at a hearing once where a shipboard operator was accused of
slugging the captain in the radio room. The other operator on duty
was being questioned as a witness, and was asked "did you see or hear
Mr. X have a fist-fight with the captain?". His reply: "when I sit
and copy the telegraph code that's all I concentrate on".

Not being a "morseman" as others call it, I admire someone who can
do that sort of concentration. (I've done it on 'phone, though.)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

Tell that to the regulars. :-) :-) :-)

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative.

Gosh yes, heap big chief. :-)

That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.

Tsk, tsk, the nerve of some who wish to defy a radio god. :-)

LHA

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative. That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I presume there is evidence that
Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

Of course there isn't any evidence of that, Mike. As I said earlier, Hans'
proposal appears to be a solution looking for a problem (an answer looking
for a question). Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

...that's how the incentive license plan got started... :-)

LHA

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda so
thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if
Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and
bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and
discredited here with elementary logic.

WHAT "logic" heap big chief?

All you've done so far is to ISSUE ORDERS OF THE DAY. No "logic,"
simply a set of demands which are labeled "TRUTH."

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you
anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC.

Fine. Convince the Commission you are god.

I'll be waiting, heap big chief. :-)

LHA

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.

Sounds like Hans is promoting a "BAA" (Bachelor of Amateur Arts)
degree diploma in lieu of a license. :-)

BAA...say I. :-)

(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)

The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

Incorrect, Dwight. There MUST be a MANDATE to conform to the
wishes of the "QCAO" and their needs to be the CONTROLLING
elements in amateur radio activities.

In this case, "option IS a failure."

MANDATE. Control. Issue orders. Comply. Conform.

LHA

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose.

Two points:

POINT A
------------

This "unenforceable" mantra is a weak argument, which does not gain strength
by the repetition.

Of course it's enforceable, or at least just as enforceable as power levels
have ever been. "Unenforceable" is a complete cop out. If power level is
not enforceable at 50W, then it's not enforceable at 2.5W, 25W, 50W ERP,
100W, 200W, or 1.5KW, all of which are power currently exist in FCC Amateur
Radio regulations.

Then WHY have it?

Simply ISSUING ORDERS is a stupid idea without some reasoning
behind it.

So...why is the "maximum power" under your plan 50 W instead of
100 W?

Show your work.


POINT B
------------

That particular power level has a real purpose. The purpose is two-fold.

Well, if YOU said it, it must have a "real purpose." :-)

Purpose #1) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which we can limit power to a level which FCC has stated is safe for both
the user and unknowing passers-by.

What do you mean "we," white man?

I think you think you think more than the OET and the IEEE and the
USAF and the ANSI.

Purpose #2) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which the power level minimizes the unwanted side-effects of granting
broad spectrum access to relatively underqualified operators. Now, before
you spin up your rotors about "but QRP operators work around the world",
bear in mind that most of the "bad" signals heard on HF are the result of
ignorant operators trying to run a lot of power, and the consequent
splatter, flat-topping, birdies, over-compression, etc. On the other hand,
I've never heard a distorted or crappy QRP station. In further support of
the idea is the fact that all these 100W-class rigs you keep harping on are
running at near their designed-in upper capability, making them more likely
to become purveyors of all the crappy-signal symptoms I just talked about.
At 50W they are much less likely to be straining their design specifications
and consequently radiating cleaner signals. In the hands of even a QCAO
life-member it would be hard to splatter/chirp/over-modulate when you're
running at half the design limit of the rig.

Of course. A "learner's permit." As if the ONLY radio emitters in
the world came from amateur radio stations. :-)

Geez...for a work manager supposedly with a degree you sure don't
know much about equipment that can go wrong, be misadjusted, and
lots of other little nasties lurking inside electronics boxes. Tsk, tsk.

"In the hands of you QCAO members," the "expertise" in radio
matters went out the window if you think that RF power output is the
ONLY thing causing splatter/chirp/over-modulation (etc.).

Someone do something nasty in your wheaties this morning? :-)

LHA

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.

"Dramatic?" :-)

Okay, I'm sure there is great "drama" in having to get together the
requisite cash to go out and buy NEW equipment so as to meet
the the NEW RF power output levels.

Meanwhile, ol Hans can fire up his 2.5 KW rig (with higher drive
level input) and be as safe as a bug in a rug...

The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things like signal purity, etc. 97.307(a) thru (e) come to
mind. Personally, I don't believe that your (misnamed) Technician
qualification examination is adequate to ensure that you can carry out that
mandate.

Heaven forbid that anyone offend any "QCAO" members who hold
title, fief, and divine rule over amateurspace. :-)

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.

You

have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.


The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

"Technicians" are harming Hans' concept of what is "harmful." :-)

Hans hasn't shown his work proving that 50 W is okay while 100 W
is "harmful."

But...he still thinks the first recognized 1906 voice transmission was
done with a spark-gap transmitter...and that all modern cellphones
power-up by talking to cell sites automatically. :-)

LHA