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 -

"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

"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

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 -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
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^)


Actually, read over the Extra question pool, Mike. It doesn't extensively
cover RF exposure safety. Most of that is already covered in the Novice,
Tech, and General, and only lightly repeated in the Extra pools (with
perhaps one or two additions). Remember that each test builds onto the info
in the previous tests (Techs take both the Novice and Tech tests). All tests
now include some RF exposure safety questions to insure those who missed it
on earlier tests (a General that didn't get the latest info on tests taken
twenty years ago, for example) gets that info when they take the next test.
And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

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^)



Actually, read over the Extra question pool, Mike. It doesn't extensively
cover RF exposure safety. Most of that is already covered in the Novice,
Tech, and General, and only lightly repeated in the Extra pools (with
perhaps one or two additions). Remember that each test builds onto the info
in the previous tests (Techs take both the Novice and Tech tests). All tests
now include some RF exposure safety questions to insure those who missed it
on earlier tests (a General that didn't get the latest info on tests taken
twenty years ago, for example) gets that info when they take the next test.
And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.


I think that is what I was saying, Dwight. FR safety should be one of
the first things learned, not the final lesson! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

And, finally, remember that Hans' proposal would entirely drop the Novice,
Tech, and General (losing everything on those tests), making the Extra the
sole license test for full privileges.

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight. I'd also drop the Extra
examination, and institute a **new** Class A examination, similar in
difficulty (but with obviously different content) than the current Extra.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.


I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that. The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.
To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.



I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that. The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.
To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests?


Well said, Dwight. Everything is built on what went before it. So now
what sounded kind of easy is not so easy. Someone here, perhaps Jim,
pointed out how the Extra license tests did not address RF safety much
if at all. But wait! the Class B tests are apparently not going to
address RF safety either because the power is limited to a "safe"
amount. So now safety related learning is confined to the second test
for class A.

Dat's gonna be one big test!


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete it.

73, de Hans, K0HB