|
.. . n2ey & Brainiac go at it. "Entertainment is where ya find it" . .
n2ey sez: Some folks wonder about the claim of overcrowding. In order to appreciate what amateur radio was like back then, it's necessary to understand what technologies and operating practices were in use by average hams. w3rv jumps in he I basically agree with your contention but it needs to be expanded (particularly sincs Brainiac is on the freq). The reason the bands were "crowded" back then was simply because of the absolutely ferschtink selectivity even the state-of-the-art superhet rcvrs of those days provided. On top of the problems those folk had with their wandering oscillators. I daresay that if the 1931 hams had any of today's cheapest consumer-level MF/HF xcvrs they would have, on average, found a *whole* lot of dead space between signals in the ham bands. Consider this: The bands were crowded enough back then that as early as 1931 some enterprising hams (W6DEI, Ray Moore, and others) built and operated single-sideband transmitters and receivers. Here comes me again: The big trick SSB brought to the game had nothing to do with bandwidth and/or "interfernce reduction". It had and has everything to do with the abilty of SSB to eliminate the AM carrier which sucks up power, equipment space and money and conveys no intelligence to the listener whatsoever. Brainiac responds to n2ey: But that was some 72 years ago. Cop's invention was only 40 years ago and you discount it. Jim, I'm beginning to see a pattern of untruths and inconsistency in your postings. And I'll not ever refer to you as Rev. Jim again, no matter how many swear words you snip out of other peoples posts. You are unworthy, and definitely bear watching. w3rv sez pffft! Pot calling kettle black again. .. . T5 logs. Gonna toss 'em into the LoW are ya Burke? Hmmm?? w3rv |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Brian wrote: The key word is "implemented" - not increased. You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big secret. Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10 wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that) test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented* orginally for that purpose. At the time, the thing which was thought would do the task of reducing, even eleminating the amatures would be to relegate them to 200 meters. Those wavelengths were thought to be of no use for communications and the amatures would not be able to get a signal out of their back yards, thus in time the amateurs would loose interest and amateur radio would, for all practical purposes, die away. What's your callsign, JJ? Just wondering... Kim W5TIT |
JJ wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: The key word is "implemented" - not increased. You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big secret. Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10 wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that) test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented* orginally for that purpose. He could have said as much in his earlier post. Instead he played it off as if he had -never- heard of such a thing. That is dishonest. I cannot trust what he says anymore. |
|
I cannot trust what he says anymore.
BIG DEAL, no one cares what you think. |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article et, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. Bill, Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968? Jim, The "When incentive licensing was re-est...." was not my statement. If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. But, as you and I have agreed before, the privileges gained do NOT relate to the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class. FCC disagrees, Bill. True for now. But if anyone is serious about a new license structure, I'd like to see rational relationship between the license class knowledge test requirements and whatever additional privileges are associated with that license. What is the technical competency difference between an Extra operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a General operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz? Not much! Not any as I see it. But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional technical knowledge with more privileges. I don't oppose the concept, I oppose the illogical implementation. For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between operating CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I wrote *technical*) None and that point has been made by myself as well. The only two truly CW only sub-bands do NOT require passing any code test to be able to use them. This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g. Extra vs General, General vs Tech. It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter. It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doiesn't flow or relate at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license. Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter, what about the General? Did I even hint at that. The answer is basically no...although I have NO preference for or against changing license structure to a more rational basis for added privileges. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Good question. My point exactly. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? -Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop. There is nothing more to be learned! Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. True under the current scheme of licensing for the USA. It could be changed and that is the point raised in this discussion. Should it be changed and if so, how? I wrote up a suggested three-tiered system some time back and reposted it recently. I think it's the best compromise between all the various considerations. YMMV. Please note the following sentence. I'm *not* saying I want one class of license! I'm simply describing how to do it. You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it: First, put aside the code test issue and concentrate on the writtens. Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues. Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Never happen. I hope you're right, Bill. But I learned long ago to "never say never". I hope I'm right too :-) :-) Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. Never happen. You want a way to kill ham radio, then that'd do it in a heartbeat...a 10 year heartbeat at the longest. Exactly! But the hams who remained would all have passed the same test so there's be no more license-based "class distinctions". That's the point. But, again, not at all a probable possibility. At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. At the end of 10 years we'd have no ham service of any consequence. Sure we would. Just not the one you or I want. But it would be more like what Brian wants. IF the numbers of hams dropped considerably because of the proposal, I seriously doubt the service as well as ham organizations would survive. Calling for all retesting of existing hams would play right into the hands of the commercial interests that would love to get us off the air completely. Retesting does NOT get any support at all. A handful of people propose retesting (I oppose retesting)...but that is all. If 1968 incentive licensing drove some folks away, you can bet the "all existing hams would need to be retested" will certainly do it. I think most active hams would just take the %^&#$% test and be done with it. The problem is that many semi-active or inactive hams wouldn't, and we'd see a drastic reduction in numbers. Bad news.Very bad news. Exactly my point. To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing out where such a system would lead. I believe we both believe, if imlemented as you proposed above, the end result would be disastor. Why not? Please tell me any example of something you do in life that requires anyone to be knowledge retested...other than something in the medical field such as CPR recertification. In my line of work, (no, I'm not going to say what it is here), employees are constantly retested on safety and procedures. The last time I took a safety test, the passing grade was 100%. Get *one* question wrong and you fail. And in a year or less you have to do it all over again. But if you get one wrong do you lose your job...or just take it again until you pass? The last time I took any test that actually might have impacted my career was when I was first hired and tested by the personel office back in 1970. Cheers and happy new year. All the best in '04, Bill Mega dittos to you and everyone else in RRAP Bill K2UNK |
You may not be aware but HAMS operate on SHORTWAVE, so do CB
operators. Doesn't matter HF, VHF, UHF. Still shortwave. Gray Shockley wrote in message s.com... On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 4:25:03 -0600, JEP wrote (in message ) : Check your local newstand or magazine rack in stores, many carry QST. You can purchase it without membership, or check you local library, they may carry it and you can read it for free. Popular Communications (Never met a radio they didn't like) CQ QST Monitoring Times These should be easily found at any decent newstand. Don't you have any bookstores there?? Borders? BDalton? BDK Better check your local book seller your self. Barnes & Noble and Books a Million around here and no QST. NO QST anywhere. CQ always did suck. Pop Comm--ditto--SUCKS. Monitoring Times is kinda OK. 73 & Ham Radio are gone. Guess Mother Earth News it is ;-( If I were interested in ham radio, I'd have a ham radio license. But I'm a SWL and so I could care less about QST, CQ, 73 and Ham Radio. It's "interesting" to see so many x-posts to r.r.s about ham radio. About 45 years ago I used ta listen to hams and decided that I didn't want to be one nor continue listening to them. Most of my closest friends are hams but they've given up on "converting" me (even when I help them with tech "stuff"). The great majority of hams are nice people and they sure do justify more than their hobby when there's an emergency. But why they think that SWLer's are interested in /their/ hobby still puzzles me. There are times when there are mutual interests. When a ham goes feral and starts broadcasting as a pirate and a felon, this can connect both hobbies and such as that makes me not want to just automatically killfool all the ham newsgroups. But look at this SUBJ: "Why you don't like the ARRL". And - of the four newsgroups - two are for SWLers and CBers. May I ask for as little more care when deciding to what many newsgroups one posts to? Thanks, Gray Shockley ----------------------- DX-392 DX-398 RX-320 DX-399 CCradio w/RS Loop Torus Tuner (3-13 MHz) Select-A-Tenna ----------------------- Vicksburg, MS US |
Gray Shockley wrote:
The great majority of hams are nice people and they sure do justify more than their hobby when there's an emergency. But why they think that SWLer's are interested in /their/ hobby still puzzles me. And then he includes this. Gray Shockley ----------------------- DX-392 DX-398 RX-320 DX-399 CCradio w/RS Loop Torus Tuner (3-13 MHz) Select-A-Tenna ----------------------- Vicksburg, MS US Why you think hams are interested in what radios and antennas you use to SWL with is beyond me. |
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL From: (Brian) Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you really want? One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain. It is a "TIRED" radio structure. Not at all! It's a "tried and true" license structure. When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000. But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not grow the number. Where did you get that idea? Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the quarter-million mark. A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years back. It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I don't think Aaron posted it, though. If you want Merit Badges, join the BSA (or CAP). License class is not a merit badge. Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm Extra!" When have I done that? Not necessarily you. You wrote: "Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm Extra!"" Fourth word in that sentence is... Can you say that others don't do it? Fourth word in that sentence.... Besides, 20 wpm isn't that fast. I can do at least 35 wpm. Do I detect a little swelling of your shirt? Nope. Just fact. It seems to really bother you that others have learned radio operating skills that you have not. There is no need to have class distinctions between hams artificially created by the FCC. License class is not about class distinctions. Are you positively sure abaout that? Yep. I'm not. I am. Enough RRAPpers have abused their status to convince me otherwise. That's you. Others think differently. It's about qualification for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges. Is that like when the General licence holder had all priveleges? 1953 to 1968. Then FCC decided that it wasn't enough. But didn't the FCC first decide that it was enough? Nope. From the FCC's/FRC's origins in the early 1930s until 1951, there was effectively a two-level system (Class A/B/C, but a C was just a B by mail). Class A was required for full privileges, and it required an advanced written test (with essay questions and diagrams) plus a year as a Class B or C. From 1951 to 1953, an Advanced or Extra was required for full privileges. From 1968 until the present, an Extra has been required for full privileges. So out of about 70 years of FRC/FCC regulation of amateur radio, the period of "Generals get it all" was a bit less than 16 years. And even then it was a three-level system (Novice, Tech, General-and-above). Some would call this era the golden years of amateur radio. Which era? I'd call the present era the golden years. We have all sorts of wonderful equipment and modes never dreamed of before, at lower prices (adjusted for inflation) than could have been imagined at any time in the past. More hams, more DX, more opportunities. And when the Tech (General written w/o 13wpm Code) had VHF only. This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges. Then tell Steve about self-training. He knows. You don't. Apparently he doesn't. Nor do you. Sure I do. I never attended any amateur radio classes as a student. Allow the ham to distinguish himself or herself, based upon actual achievements. Such as? Cop McDonald - SSTV. 45+ years ago. I've read the original articles. That work is so old that 11 meters was a ham band. So Cop didn't distinguish himself because he hasn't done anything lately? He did, both back then and more recently. Maybe the press that ran the original articles you read is now defunct? Nope. Still puts out a mag every month. Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of "self-training". I do. Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF? Oh, I have. I don't think so. Then you simply don't know. Do you have an HF amateur radio station ready to go at your home now, Brian? What I haven't done is train myself on EVERY practical antenna for HF, especially those antennas applicable to low visual impact in a restricted neighborhood, and cannot (or rather shouldn't be placed against) a house sheathed in aluminum siding. So I looked outside my personal breadth of knowledge for something new, and ran into you and Brian Kelly. What a pair. You wanted to be spoon-fed antenna theory and practice instead of self-training. I pointed you to several websites. It's clear you didn't even look. How so? By your obvious ignorance of the resources available with a simple google search. Some would call that self-training, seeking information and knowledge outside ones own experience. Then why didn't you find the information on your own? It became clear to me that you hadn't even tried googling. You wanted others to do the work for you, then you'd insult those who tried to help you out. Kelly was abusive. So are you. You get far more respect here than you give. And because something worked in his backyard he knew it would work in everyone elses back yard. Even when I put the limitations up front. You did not even try it, did you? He is mentally deficient and emotionally immature. And yet you call others "abusive". You've personally refused to answer any questions on some alleged DX operations. Most of your questions have been answered. No, they haven't. You said they were "too hard". You're not really interested in what I have to say, only interested character assassination. I'm interested in the facts. You're not. Once you discredit me, you think you can discredit what I say. Your own words discredit you far better than I ever could. I've built HF and VHF antennas, some from a box, some from a reel of wire and bamboo poles. And I've operated on HF from Nebraska, ROK, Guam, Illinois, Somalia, Florida, and Ohio, in that order. Who is puffing out his chest now? Not based on license class. Remember, achievements, not FCC Merit Badges. So you don't think passing the license tests is an achievement. Many snicker at working huge pileups with a mere Technician license while operating SSB on the "kiddie band." I have no idea what you mean by the "kiddie band". Maybe you've distinguished yourself professionally? Some people think so. But I'm not going to say anything about that because you'd call it puffery or some such. How many JOTA stations haveyou hosted? None. How many have you hosted? Three. That's good! How many intro-license classes have you hosted? A few. Code and theory. Plus upgrade study groups. Plus online help to many amateurs. I've seen your on-line help. Do you subscribe to the reflectors where I give most of it? You and Kelly make a great tag-team. He knows far more about practical HF antennas than I. I'm EE, he's ME, practical amateur radio antennas are about 10% EE and 90% ME. And that's probably exaggerating the EE part. How many have you taught? Two. Technician. It was tough answering a lot of the theory questions. It would have been nice if more Extra's had been interested enough to help out. There you go, bashing by license class. Self-training, remember? Certainly you've done something other than DX and belittle you fellow hams. I'm not a DXer. You should. Why? You can actually earn waards based upon actual achievements, not just FCC Merit Badges. Don't need any "waards" Where have I belittled any other hams? Good grief!!! You just belittled my antenna knowledge again, Where? and you tag-teamed with Kelly on it a little more than a year ago. You label any disagreement as belittling and abuse, then. Not all hams will distinguish themselves - you certainly haven't. So let them just be hams, like 99% of all the other Extra class licensees. And like you? I've done nothing out of the ordinary. I don't claim to. I've had lots of fun being just an ordinary ham. Same here - so what's the problem. I don't deserve ridicule because of my license class, Neither do Extras. or because someone else thinks that my fun could have been greater if my license class had been higher. Your choice. Note the following sentence: You want one class of license, fine. See what it says? I was writing about what *YOU* say you want. Here's how to do it: First, put aside the code test issue and concentrate on the writtens. Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues. What? No learners permit? Nope. You said you want one class of license, no class distinctions, no merit badges. A learner's permit would mean a two-tiered structure. Nope. Do you want one class of license or not? One class means one class. A person expresses and interest, get a learners permit and has access to other amateurs for mentoring. No license is needed for "access to other amateurs for mentoring". And what happened to "self training"? Then becomes an amateur with the "Amateur License." No renewals. That's a two-class system. By definition. Would those with "learner's permits" be allowed to be control operators and have their own stations? If so, then it's a license, not a learner's permit. If not, and they need a control op, there's no need for it. You said one license. That means one class of license - no learner's permit. Learners permit is fatally temporary. How temporary? Could a person get another one after the first one runs out? Does NOT create an underclass of Amateurs. Two classes is two classes. Either you want one class or you don't. Or were you lying about wanting one class of license? Not lying. Then why do you want two classes of license now? Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more. Such as operating priveleges? Exactly. If there's to be one license class, it would have to be for all operating priviliges, so there's no need to test on where the old subbands-by-license-class used to be. But that's about all that would be removed. OK so far. Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges. Just leave out "Class" and call it "Amateur License." Whatever. You wanted a one license ARS, didn't you? Not me. You're the one that's been yammering on and on about "class distinctions" and "underclass of amateurs" and "merit badges". Remember these two sentences that I wrote at the beginning of the discussion: "You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:" Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals. Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air. You could even ask to have the pools FOUO, and/or increase the size to 12,000 questions. Just make the subject matter relavent. What subject matter in the combined question pool that was just described is not relevant? Example: How many minutes it takes to send a FAX image? That's nonsense. No, it's bad grammar. Good grammar would be "How many minutes does it take to send a FAX image?" Why is it nonsense? Hams use FAX and similar modes. Shouldn't the test cover something about those modes? Or should it only cover modes *you* use? At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed the same test to get it. Why not? Why not, Indeed? Two reasons: 1) All newcomers would have to pass a written test about equivalent to the Extra just to get on the air. It was your suggestion. No, it was my explanation of what your demand for a one-class system would require. I just went along with it. You've been beating the drum for a one-class system for quite a while but you're short on the details. Why did you drop the code discussion out of the equation? Because you'd never agree to a code test. 2) Existing hams would have to retest at that level or leave the air. Basis and purpose is fufilled. How many US hams do you think would be left in 10 years under such a system? Only the ones who really worked hard. Deal. You run it up the flag No. It's your idea. No, its your idea. I don't want it. I simply outlined how to do it. Remember these two sentences that I wrote at the beginning of the discussion: "You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:" You want it, you do the work. Self-training, remember? Learn how to write and submit a proposal to the FCC and get an RM number assigned. Then see what the amateur community thinks of your ideas in their comments. I don't want such a system - I just described what would logically be the structure of such a system. I did it to point out exactly what such a system would require, and some of the foreseeable consequences. Ah, you ran up a straw man that you really don't support. Not at all. I simply outlined how to do something so that all the ramifications would be clear. You've been doing a lot of that lately, i.e., no written exams. It's called thinking before acting. Welp, I guess I'll never be able to take you at your word again. Why? You're the one who has been pounding the drum for a one-class license system, not me. But you won't do the work to even figure out the details, let alone write a proposal. Now you're saying you want a two class system. Here are those two sentences again: "You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:" and I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but not mode. No. You said one class of license. That means no learner's permits, no easy-to-get licenses, just one class of license. Unless you support "dumbing down", such a license would have to require roughly the equivalent written test knowledge as an Extra. Some regulations questions could be eliminated but that's all. Or were you lying about wanting one class of license? You certainly were. No, I was not. Nowhere did I say I wanted one class of amateur license. Your behavior makes it clear why people don't want to help you, Brian. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com