| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#14
February 2nd 04, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article , writes: Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote: wrote in message ... The discussion was the the testing practices of an agency of the US government. Comparing the practices of another agency gives a reality check on the possibility of closed question pools. Yep - and there's ain't much chance! My position is that we are not going to completely (or even remotely) get the degree of "training" the FCC sets before us with open pools. We have far too many "Extra's" who can't calculate the length of a dipole or know the difference between peak-envelope-power and PeeWee Herman. That's a shame. I have mixed feelings on that. I think the perception of the ignorance level is skewed for those that spend a lot of time on USENET for the simple reason that those that do know how to calculate the length of a dipole are not going to post a message stating that. Only the ignorant are going to post things like that and the posts will stand out in your memory but you will never know how many read that post and just thought to their self "how did that guy get a license". If such questions were answered simply and correctly, and perhaps some references given as to where such things may be found (such as ARRL publications) without the usual derisive comments, maybe a goodly part of the training you hope for would take place. I believe the term for such actions is "elmering" and at one time it was a major part of the amateur training process. Yep. But there's also the aspect of "self-training", where the person with the question tries to find the information on their own *before* asking. I came to RF from the audio and computer end of things. I probably will ask questions that may elicit a few snickers from time to time. anyone that thinks I'm an idiot is free to not answer the question! ;^) Self training is a great thing. In fact I'll use a book and study before I ask another ham. The ignorance problem is hardly a new problem. I can remember being at a ham gathering circa 1965 where a guy didn't know the difference between a short and an open. To have had the license he had at that time he would have had to take the old essay style tests complete with diagrams. A closed test pool is no panacea. There's mo I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971. The study guides in those books are full of draw-a-diagram questions, power supply, filter and transmitter questions, plus all sorts of other stuff like magnetrons, neutralization, TV, RTTY, FM and SSB.. But there are very few questions on receivers and antennas, particularly in the lower license calsses and older versions. I wonder if having to draw something makes for a harder test? The length of a dipole question appears exactly once - in the 1971 manual only, for the Advanced class. In fact, if you read the study guides carefully, it becomes clear that they are heavily focused on transmitter design and operation to avoid interference, and regulations. Yup, that was a probably a priority in those days. What is your opinion, Jim? given the study guide as a reference, were the tests likely easier, harder, or not much difference? - Mike KB3EIA - |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
