| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
February 6th 04, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Len Five Decades Over 21 but not acting a day over eleven wrote:
In article , Dave Heil snarly aka "Mr. Warmth" writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (William) writes: Larrah, at what age did you pass the Extra exam elements? Mental or physical age? :-) At which age did you pass an amateur radio license exam, Leonard? Never tried, snarly dave. Well, there you have it. Have what? I don't have any amateur license. Got several others. In the context of this newsgroup, that means just what? I passed my First Phone exam on the first try in Chicago at an FCC field office in March 1956. Never looked back. I don't care about your commercial ticket. I asked about your amateur radio license. Maybe you should look back. Snarly dave, I don't care about your amateur wonderfulness and vindictiveness and bigotry to non-amateurs. I'm a pro, like it or no. If you don't care, why are you still haunting a newsgroup dealing with amateur radio? It is clear that you are not a radio amateur and that you are not, after all these years, "getting into amateur radio". Haunt some radio professionals, using the endearing manner you've displayed here and see how long they put up with your condesent. I worked professionally in radio and electronics. A number of us here have done so or do so. What sets you apart is that you are a non-amateur who seems to get his jollies taking potshots at radio amateurs. You do NOT get to choose anything about what anyone is "supposed" to say, to reply to, or anydamnthingelse. You keep thinking you do every time you put on the SS uniform with the monocle. Try keeping the armband off, it's so 40-ish. Get it straight, Len. This is an open newsgroup dealing with amateur radio. You are in no way involved with amateur radio. I am free to choose to respond to anything posted here and shall do so as the spirit moves me. Shave the head and learn to smile. That will make you more like Colonel Klink. Lose several pounds too. As a last resort, you can always go to your strength and bring in the Nazi images. Now Larrah, the self-professed paragon of determination and moral virtue, once bragged and carried on that his "summa cum laude" standings in post-service college would get him any top spot job in human resources after graduation. He now drives a bus. What has that to do with his amateur radio license and why is it of concern to you? What have you to do with anything? :-) Let's see. Amateur radio newsgroup. I'm a radio amateur. Now, back to the question: What does your comment have to do with Larry's amateur radio license and of concern is his job to you? It seems to be karma that forces you to live up to the N2EY profile of your likely actions. Tsk, tsk, tsk, snarly dave, all you seem to do is try to fight with others who don't bow down and kiss your asterisk. Actually, old boy, you have quite the attitude toward radio amateurs. You're insulting, rude and immature. If you're waiting for radio amateurs to be impressed by your professional credentials, you're likely going to be disappointed. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. You bragged *four* years ago that you'd get "an Extra right out of the box". You still have not even the most basic amateur radio license. Q.E.D. Ah, so in "correct" amateurism, any statement anyone says in the past MUST be kept forever and ever? Even casual throwaway mentions? :-) It wasn't a casual, throwaway mention and your newsgroup statements of the past are here for a long, long time. If you wish to now retract your statement, I have no problem with that. I changed my mind, sweetums. Stuff it. :-) I haven't changed my mind about you, Len. You're a victim of your own inertia and braggadocio. To twist a phrase: If you haven't done it, it is most certainly bragging. You haven't obtained a license and aren't likely to do so. Consider yourself stuffed. I saw the way you acted in here and didn't want to become a snarly dave clone. Or a gunnery nurse. That "fox and grapes" routine of your is a classic. Please continue your civil debate on morse code elimination. As soon as you show the way, snarly dave. So far you haven't exhibited much civility in that regard. I didn't state that as my "only purpose" here, Leonard. You did. So, snarly dave, your purpose in here is to make nasty to everyone that doesn't agree with you and kiss your asterisk? I haven't stated a purpose here, Leonid. I'm very glad the State Department never had you on any official negotiating team. We would all be nuclear toast, clicking counters for a very long half-after life. Snarly dave, I'm just trying to discuss the morse code test issue. As Steve so often tells you, you're a liar, Leonora. Dave K8MN |
|
#3
February 6th 04, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:34:03 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: Len Five Decades Over 21 but not acting a day over eleven wrote: If you're waiting for radio amateurs to be impressed by your professional credentials, you're likely going to be disappointed. I must admit, I've taken a shot or three at Len over exactly the same issue - no Amateur callsign = no valid opinion on Amateur issues. However, a little research reveals that this distinction would be irrelevant in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: ================================================== ===== Persons holding any of the following Canadian certificates may be issued an authorization to operate in the amateur radio service with the same operating privileges as the holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic, Morse Code and Advanced Qualifications: (** NOTE: equivalent to US Amateur Extra license) - Radiocommunication Operator’s General Certificate (Maritime) - Radio Operator's First Class Certificate - Radio Operator's Second Class Certificate Persons holding any of the following Canadian certificates may be issued an authorization to operate in the amateur radio service with the same operating privileges as the holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic Qualification: (** NOTE - approximately equivalent to US Technician license) - Radiotelephone Operator’s General Certificate (Aeronautical) - Radiotelephone Operator’s General Certificate (Maritime) - Radiotelephone Operator’s General Certificate (Land) - First-class Radioelectronic Certificate The full text of IC RIC-3 is available at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/ric3.pdf/$FILE/ric3.pdf ================================================== ====== It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, and the Pros have made a career of it - and invested considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than would be possible for most hobbyists. After all, it would be pretty silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards! After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy to pass, even without a formal education in electronics. Too easy, I'd say, but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2 syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....) A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the US? With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas? I'm not sure if Len's First Class license is equal to any of the Canadian ones listed in RIC-3 above - but if they are, the Canadian equivalent to his license would be sufficient to acquire a VEx callsign absolutely free upon request. Well, for a 49-cent stamp, anyway  Dave K8MN 73, Leo |
|
#4
February 6th 04, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer required). An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so. and the Pros have made a career of it All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of something most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession). Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their profession, don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-) - and invested considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than would be possible for most hobbyists. Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back when the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most to be at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone. But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of the amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't. And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters and put them on the air without any certification? After all, it would be pretty silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards! After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy to pass, even without a formal education in electronics. Agreed! But at least it still exists. Too easy, I'd say, The FCC disagrees. but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2 syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....) And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public info, too. Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether or not she's qualified or knows how to do the required math? A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the US? No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited because they were essentially the same in both services. The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in the USA that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge of amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license test alone. And that's still the case. With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas? No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests include the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact. For the USA to make the same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were changed. Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the amateur-radio-related questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
February 6th 04, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 06 Feb 2004 14:54:40 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer required). An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so. Of course not - operating RTTY on the Amateur bands is dead easy - connect the transmitter to your sound card, install a software program, make a couple of tests and adjustments, and away you go! Are those "tests and adjustments" covered in the "professional" license tests? Are the amateur frequencies where RTTY is allowed, and what types of RTTY are allowed, covered in the professional license tests? And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week to get it running, so what? Depends on the mistake. You're experimenting, and that's what amateur radio is all about. Then why have any ham radio tests or licenses at all? You're arguing for the end of all testing for a ham license, Leo. Now, make a couple of mistakes and knock WNEP-TV off the air for a couple of minutes - you might be an unemployed professional! Which acts as an incentive to know what you're doing. Does WNEP-TV change frequency, or have to listen first before transmitting? and the Pros have made a career of it All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of something most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession). Politicians? Some say politicians are a subset of the oldest profession. ;-) Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their profession, don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-) I'll take your word for it, having no personal experience with the profession that you are referring to. If you say they're good, Jim, then they're good! I wouldn't know - I'm only an amateur in that field too. Generally speaking, though, professionals are more knowledgable than lay people because they are involved in their field full time, and are held to standards of conduct and proficiency set by not only the regulators but by their employers. Generally speaking. However, commercial radio and amateur radio are different fields. Being a "professional in radio", by itself, is no indication of qualification to operate an amateur radio station, and even less of an indication of qualification to determine amateur radio policy. And, rather than just sounding like experts, they are expected to demonstrate their proficiency - that's what they get paid for! 'Stay current or move out' is the rule of the technically-oriented workplace. Current with what? Most TV stations are still broadcasting NTSC signals, based on a mode that's at least 50 years old. If you don't care about color, a 1946 NTSC TV (if you can find one that works) is still usable. Then there's FM broadcasting which is about as old and good old MW AM, which goes back to the 1920s. - and invested considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than would be possible for most hobbyists. Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back when the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most to be at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone. But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of the amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't. Of course not - they don't teach professional photographers how to take amateur pictures either.... Then they are not qualified. But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily Then there's no problem with requiring them to take a test for an amateur license. And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters and put them on the air without any certification? Nope - this is what the Amateur bands are for (type approval not required, unlike the commercial frequencies). Then the "pros" aren't necessarily qualified in that area, either. In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim, even though our bands permit it. I can, and have. Passing any one of the current ARS tests does not require that sort of undestanding of electronics anymore. Not like when you first got involved - it has changed a lot since then. It was not required when I got started either. The US tests went to all-multiple-choice in 1960. Pick enough right answers on the written tests and you pass, regardless of whether you understand the material or not. Canada may be different. But I don't live there. After all, it would be pretty silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards! After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy to pass, even without a formal education in electronics. Agreed! But at least it still exists. Sort of, in vestigial format. You seem to be arguing that such licenses aren't really needed anymore. Too easy, I'd say, The FCC disagrees. Unfortunately. They're PROFESSIONALS, Leo! They have to "keep current or move out", right? It's their JOB to know what's needed, right? Who are we poor dumb old broken down amateurs to question them? ;-) Must not question the professionals. Their egos can't take it. IC has been advised of this under the recommendations that the RAC made to them following WRC-03 - I sincerely hope that they listen! Me too. but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2 syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....) And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public info, too. True, but if one did that, they'd have a tough time staying employed with it - employers have a nasty habit of asking their staff to demonstrate their abilities empirically, on a frequent basis! How often does the average employee at WNEP have to demonstrate knowledge of calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers? Rote memorization was what my point was about, though - and I'm sure that was the case. How do you know for sure? Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether or not she's qualified or knows how to do the required math? Well, if she can, she certainly is a prodigy alright. Grade 11 math in Grade 2 - that is impressive! I'd say highly unlikely. Not Grade 11 stuff. Squares are 4th grade stuff around here. Logs maybe 6th grade. Complex numbers probably 9th or 10th. The 7 year old in question is homeschooled, btw. Ever talk to a 7-year old kid, Jim? At least daily. They just don't operate at that level. Some of them do. It depends on the child and the environment. Ever had a barely-7-year-old read "Watership Down" to you, and not miss a single word? I have. Good memories, though - like a sponge! Much of what's on the test (band edges, regs) is pure memory stuff. She is an Extra, though - I'll just bet she could build her own transmitter from scratch (forgetting for a moment that 7-year olds generally have enough trouble making neat letters with a pencil, let alone operating a soldering iron....) The 7 year olds I know write and draw quite well. Also use computers and do math. In one local second grade class, one of the first week's assignments was to write what you did over the summer. Expectation was 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 pages after editing. (The kids are expected to do a rough draft, edit and final. By the end of third grade it's outline, rough draft, edit, final). One 7 year old turned in a 31 page story (after editing) in the required time. It was quite readable, legible, accurate and had all the required elements. I built my first transmitter at age 13. From junk parts. Worked quite well. Of course I had previously built a couple of receivers and used them to learn the Morse code off the air. Since then I've homebrewed-from-scratch at least 7 transmitters, 8 receivers, 3 transceivers, and their related power supplies, antenna tuners, control systems, accessories, test equipment, antennas and shack furniture. The above does not include kits built and rebuilt, old gear restored to operation, military surplus converted to ham use, repairs and adjustments, and stuff done for other hams. Of which I've done plenty... It's easy and fun. Too many hams don't know what they're missing. - unlike the chief engineer at your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field He probably doesn't have a license and probably never built a transmitter. You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great accomplishment for Amateur Radio. It points out that the tests aren't that hard. Which some of us have been saying for years. And I applaud the little girl's dedication to memorizing the material and passing all of the required tests. That took a lot of effort on her part. But it is a clear indication that the testing procedure is far too easy - IMHO. It can be memorized, which removes any requirement to comprehend the material. Do you believe that a 7-year old can comprehend the theories of complex numbers as they relate to impedance in a resonant circuit? I'm sure some can. Bull. Have you ever been around really bright children whose talents are recognized and supported, Leo? They're capable of far more than many adults give them credit for. Complex numbers are simply a way of dealing with a pair of related electrical quantities. There's no need to have a detailed understanding of that whole field of math just to do some LCR calculations. And there is *no* requirement that *any* ham understand complex numbers. A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the US? No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited because they were essentially the same in both services. The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in the USA that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge of amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license test alone. And that's still the case. With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas? No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests include the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact. IC disagrees. But I'll ask them to take your opinion under advisement Wrong is wrong. But the IC are professionals, aren't they? Personally I'd think, for example, that the guy who sits in a control tower accurately vectoring planes all over our busy airspace is far better equipped to carry on a two-way conversation on 2-meters than the average amateur who passed a relatively simple test! Maybe. But there's no requirement that he have any sort of radio operator's license. He doesn't need to know how the radios work. Complex numbers? He could learn all of the operating procedures that he needs by reading a couple of sections of the RAC study guide....a couple of nights would be all it would take. And, in a real emergency, that's the guy that I would want to see on the radio, coordinating things! maybe - if he knows the environment. Not the guy with the mag mount 2-meter antenna on his callsigned baseball cap at the local hamfest.....(I swear he goes to every hamfest in the world - you've seen him at yours, haven't you? )No. I'm too busy looking at rigs and parts. For the USA to make the same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were changed. Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the amateur-radio-related questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. ...unless they can find a 7-year old to elmer them, that is. That is some prettty tough material to master! LOL! Would you talk that way to a 7 year old, Leo? btw, when I was in EE school, I wound up elmering my faculty advisor. He was a PhD EE but didn't know much about radio, because radio is only a small part of EE. He knew *his* part of EE backwards and forwards, but needed *me* to help him figure out ham radio. I was glad to help, of course. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
February 7th 04, 12:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 6 Feb 2004 15:18:39 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
Leo wrote in message . .. On 06 Feb 2004 14:54:40 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer required). An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so. Of course not - operating RTTY on the Amateur bands is dead easy - connect the transmitter to your sound card, install a software program, make a couple of tests and adjustments, and away you go! Are those "tests and adjustments" covered in the "professional" license tests? Are the amateur frequencies where RTTY is allowed, and what types of RTTY are allowed, covered in the professional license tests? Well, the Canadian bandplans are not mandated by IC - they are voluntary, and developed by the amaueur community themselves. Therefore, not covered on the Amateur exam. Neither was RTTY, as I recall - that was learned later, after licensing! And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week to get it running, so what? Depends on the mistake. Well, other than operating out of band, there ain't much that a "sorry" wouldn't cover! You're experimenting, and that's what amateur radio is all about. Then why have any ham radio tests or licenses at all? You're arguing for the end of all testing for a ham license, Leo. Not at all - I'm suggesting that (many of) the radio skills acquired in the acquisition of a commercial license are directly applicable to the Amateur service. Transferrable skills. Now, make a couple of mistakes and knock WNEP-TV off the air for a couple of minutes - you might be an unemployed professional! Which acts as an incentive to know what you're doing. Yup! Does WNEP-TV change frequency, or have to listen first before transmitting? That is a pretty simple skill - I'm sure the broadcast engineers could figure it out rather quickly and the Pros have made a career of it All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of something most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession). Politicians? Some say politicians are a subset of the oldest profession. ;-) Fully agreed! Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their profession, don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-) I'll take your word for it, having no personal experience with the profession that you are referring to. If you say they're good, Jim, then they're good! I wouldn't know - I'm only an amateur in that field too. Generally speaking, though, professionals are more knowledgable than lay people because they are involved in their field full time, and are held to standards of conduct and proficiency set by not only the regulators but by their employers. Generally speaking. However, commercial radio and amateur radio are different fields. Being a "professional in radio", by itself, is no indication of qualification to operate an amateur radio station, and even less of an indication of qualification to determine amateur radio policy. Two different concepts. Being a licensed professional in radio implies a knowledge of radio theory and concepts - many of which are tranferrable from one area (commercial) to another (amateur). By nature, amateur activities have much greater margins for error than professional ones - they are hobby based, after all! Amateur radio policy, on the other hand, is made by legislators, none of whom require any knowledge of radio to carry out the responsibilities of their office. .. And, rather than just sounding like experts, they are expected to demonstrate their proficiency - that's what they get paid for! 'Stay current or move out' is the rule of the technically-oriented workplace. Current with what? Most TV stations are still broadcasting NTSC signals, based on a mode that's at least 50 years old. If you don't care about color, a 1946 NTSC TV (if you can find one that works) is still usable. Then there's FM broadcasting which is about as old and good old MW AM, which goes back to the 1920s. With equipment that is vastly more complex than what the average amateur is using, though. If you get the opportunity, have a look inside a cellular base station sometime - all of the equipment in there is computer controlled - nothing even resembling a piece of radio gear to be seen. The signal out, though, is Hertzian, and as old as the universe.... - and invested considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than would be possible for most hobbyists. Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back when the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most to be at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone. But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of the amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't. Of course not - they don't teach professional photographers how to take amateur pictures either.... Then they are not qualified. But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily Then there's no problem with requiring them to take a test for an amateur license. Sure, but according to IC, that isn't a concern! And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters and put them on the air without any certification? Nope - this is what the Amateur bands are for (type approval not required, unlike the commercial frequencies). Then the "pros" aren't necessarily qualified in that area, either. In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim, even though our bands permit it. I can, and have. I know - but they just ain't making them like you anymore! Passing any one of the current ARS tests does not require that sort of undestanding of electronics anymore. Not like when you first got involved - it has changed a lot since then. It was not required when I got started either. The US tests went to all-multiple-choice in 1960. Pick enough right answers on the written tests and you pass, regardless of whether you understand the material or not. Canada may be different. But I don't live there. Same, actually. 100 questions, 60 correct gets you a basic license. After all, it would be pretty silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards! After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy to pass, even without a formal education in electronics. Agreed! But at least it still exists. Sort of, in vestigial format. You seem to be arguing that such licenses aren't really needed anymore. No - I'm arguing that they are becoming meaningless - simple memory work that a child can do. Too easy, I'd say, The FCC disagrees. Unfortunately. They're PROFESSIONALS, Leo! They have to "keep current or move out", right? It's their JOB to know what's needed, right? Who are we poor dumb old broken down amateurs to question them? ;-) They are regulators and politicians, actually.... Must not question the professionals. Their egos can't take it. Well, I'm sure that if you asked a holder of a first class radio license who has worked in the field for years a radio theory question, they'd probably get it right! IC has been advised of this under the recommendations that the RAC made to them following WRC-03 - I sincerely hope that they listen! Me too. but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2 syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....) And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public info, too. True, but if one did that, they'd have a tough time staying employed with it - employers have a nasty habit of asking their staff to demonstrate their abilities empirically, on a frequent basis! How often does the average employee at WNEP have to demonstrate knowledge of calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers? The receptionist - never. The hands-on technical people - rarely - but they would need it to complete their formal education in radio theory, I'd reckon. Rote memorization was what my point was about, though - and I'm sure that was the case. How do you know for sure? I don't - but I'd say the odds are pretty heavily in my favour. Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether or not she's qualified or knows how to do the required math? Well, if she can, she certainly is a prodigy alright. Grade 11 math in Grade 2 - that is impressive! I'd say highly unlikely. Not Grade 11 stuff. Squares are 4th grade stuff around here. Logs maybe 6th grade. Complex numbers probably 9th or 10th. Not Grade 2, though As I recall, Grade 2 was time for "Fun With Dick And Jane", not "Fum With Maxerll And Hertz". The 7 year old in question is homeschooled, btw. Ever talk to a 7-year old kid, Jim? At least daily. Listen often too? They just don't operate at that level. Some of them do. It depends on the child and the environment. Ever had a barely-7-year-old read "Watership Down" to you, and not miss a single word? I have. Yup - I have yet to meet one who could read a schematic, or calculate impedance though - no wonder the watership went down! Good memories, though - like a sponge! Much of what's on the test (band edges, regs) is pure memory stuff. Thought the Extra was more theoretical than regulation based? She is an Extra, though - I'll just bet she could build her own transmitter from scratch (forgetting for a moment that 7-year olds generally have enough trouble making neat letters with a pencil, let alone operating a soldering iron....) The 7 year olds I know write and draw quite well. Also use computers and do math. In one local second grade class, one of the first week's assignments was to write what you did over the summer. Expectation was 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 pages after editing. (The kids are expected to do a rough draft, edit and final. By the end of third grade it's outline, rough draft, edit, final). One 7 year old turned in a 31 page story (after editing) in the required time. It was quite readable, legible, accurate and had all the required elements. I built my first transmitter at age 13. From junk parts. Worked quite well. Of course I had previously built a couple of receivers and used them to learn the Morse code off the air. There is a huge difference between 7 and 13, Jim. Big difference. Since then I've homebrewed-from-scratch at least 7 transmitters, 8 receivers, 3 transceivers, and their related power supplies, antenna tuners, control systems, accessories, test equipment, antennas and shack furniture. The above does not include kits built and rebuilt, old gear restored to operation, military surplus converted to ham use, repairs and adjustments, and stuff done for other hams. Of which I've done plenty... It's easy and fun. Too many hams don't know what they're missing. Absolutely. But you're not 7! - unlike the chief engineer at your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field He probably doesn't have a license and probably never built a transmitter. Is that a requirement for an Amateur license? Wasn't on my test.... You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great accomplishment for Amateur Radio. It points out that the tests aren't that hard. Which some of us have been saying for years. Agreed. And I applaud the little girl's dedication to memorizing the material and passing all of the required tests. That took a lot of effort on her part. But it is a clear indication that the testing procedure is far too easy - IMHO. It can be memorized, which removes any requirement to comprehend the material. Do you believe that a 7-year old can comprehend the theories of complex numbers as they relate to impedance in a resonant circuit? I'm sure some can. Sure, Jim. The whole point of putting that on the test was to encourage people to learn technical material, not memory walk through it. Bull. Have you ever been around really bright children whose talents are recognized and supported, Leo? They're capable of far more than many adults give them credit for. Complex numbers are simply a way of dealing with a pair of related electrical quantities. There's no need to have a detailed understanding of that whole field of math just to do some LCR calculations. Agreed - and any idiot can learn to plug numbers into a formula. The idea was to learn the root concepts and theories! And there is *no* requirement that *any* ham understand complex numbers. There is, if he really wants to figure out why his 50 ohm antenna has an SWR of 2.6 to 1...... A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the US? No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited because they were essentially the same in both services. The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in the USA that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge of amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license test alone. And that's still the case. With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas? No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests include the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact. IC disagrees. But I'll ask them to take your opinion under advisement Wrong is wrong. But the IC are professionals, aren't they? Yep - professional regulators. Them who makes the rules! Personally I'd think, for example, that the guy who sits in a control tower accurately vectoring planes all over our busy airspace is far better equipped to carry on a two-way conversation on 2-meters than the average amateur who passed a relatively simple test! Maybe. But there's no requirement that he have any sort of radio operator's license. He doesn't need to know how the radios work. Complex numbers? They aren'r required - you just told me that.... He could learn all of the operating procedures that he needs by reading a couple of sections of the RAC study guide....a couple of nights would be all it would take. And, in a real emergency, that's the guy that I would want to see on the radio, coordinating things! maybe - if he knows the environment. Not the guy with the mag mount 2-meter antenna on his callsigned baseball cap at the local hamfest.....(I swear he goes to every hamfest in the world - you've seen him at yours, haven't you? )No. I'm too busy looking at rigs and parts. Look up - he's there, along with the guys who look like the local homeless shelter burnt down! For the USA to make the same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were changed. Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the amateur-radio-related questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. ...unless they can find a 7-year old to elmer them, that is. That is some prettty tough material to master! LOL! Would you talk that way to a 7 year old, Leo? Why not? btw, when I was in EE school, I wound up elmering my faculty advisor. He was a PhD EE but didn't know much about radio, because radio is only a small part of EE. He knew *his* part of EE backwards and forwards, but needed *me* to help him figure out ham radio. I was glad to help, of course. Yep, you're quite the guy alright! 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
|
#8
February 7th 04, 06:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
February 7th 04, 07:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , Leo writes: in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer required). Tsk, tsk, tsk...you should look again. But, that's not "amateur radio" is it? :-) An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so. I don't know of any TV transmitter sending RTTY. I don't know of any amateur sending live television of 160 meter wavelength either. Precisely. By golly, you might be getting the hang of things, Leonard. They must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-) Thank you for admitting some truth, however hollow it rings. Whoosh! Right over your head... But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of the amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't. Why in the world would professional engineer licenses in the USA have ANYTHING about amateur radio? Precisely. You ARE getting the hang of it. Agreed! But at least it still exists. Yes. Seven year olds can pass it. Leonard the Fox: "Those grapes are probably sour." What does that say about your vaunted federal merit badge? It says that a mere child is one up on you. She has the badge. You don't. Dave K8MN |
|
#10
February 8th 04, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: What does that say about your vaunted federal merit badge? It says that a mere child is one up on you. She has the badge. You don't. I'm not a SEVEN YEAR OLD Extra. If you think that a SEVEN YEAR OLD has anything "up" on me, I'd say you have the mentality of a seven year old. Now go out to the sandbox and play with your "fellow Extras" in the First Grade. That's a nice boy. Behave or Mama Dee will spank you for being naughty. LHA / WMD |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Extra class - question about the test | General | |||
| From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
| From the Extra question pool: The dipole | Policy | |||
| Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
| 1x2 Calls--automatic when upgrading to Extra? | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
