In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

There may still need to be *some* evaluation done even at the 100/50W power
level, but they are simplified compared to what needs to be known for the whole
raneg of amateur power/frequencies.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air

I agree 100%! That's the whole point of multiple license classes. It's not in
the best interests of amateur radio to require all newcomers to pass the Extra
just to get started.

... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests
that I and many others took those many years ago

No it's not clear at all! In fact, it's an apples and oranges comparison.
Here's why:

Books like "Now You're Talking" are meant to be stand-alone study guides. They
contain the entire question pool, with explanations of each question and how to
get the answer. And much more.

The old License Manuals were not meant to be "one stop" books. They focused on
the license process only - where the tests were held, the process, etc. The
"study guides" were *not* the actual Q&A, but rather *essay* questions intended
to indicate the areas to be tested.

If you really want to make a comparison, take an old ARRL License Manual, add
on "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning The Radiotelegraph Code" and
"Understanding Amateur Radio" and you'll begin to have an apples-to-apples
comparison.

Or consider these questions from the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:
(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter.

Study Question #32:
From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed
by the load be determined?

Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?

Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
following components:
(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank,
(c) high voltage source,
(d) plate-current meter,
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.

Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

The above were just *some* of the study questions for the *Novice* exam of
1976. Took up less than a page. How many pages of explanation would it take to
teach the above material?

The actual exam did not use these questions. Instead, it might show, for
example, a schematic of the amplifier circuit similar to, but not exactly like
the one shown in the license manual, with 5 of the components labeled
"a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling
capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor
labelled ''d' in the circuit above?"

And that's at the *Novice* level.

Does anyone think that the current entry-level exams are tougher than that?

... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ...

The NCVEC proposal definitely *is* a dumbing down. The ARRL proposal is much
better because it does not set a precedent of no homebrewing, etc.

The "signed statement" thing of the NCVEC proposal is really, really bad.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level
tests
that
I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize
beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an
incentive
(gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to
Morse
proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance.

[snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement]

The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code
technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of
studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the
much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners
themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to
bypass
the Novice. People are strange.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

They didn't bypass Novice since they had to pass the written before
2000. The testing to get to tech was divided into two written elements.
What many bypassed was the code test. If Novice was nocode with
VHF access, especially to 2m, I'd bet there wouldn't have been anywhere
near the number of techs we have today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people
realize that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates a lack of consensus in the ham community, which could
cause the FCC to do exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do. They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

There may still need to be *some* evaluation done even at the 100/50W
power
level, but they are simplified compared to what needs to be known for the
whole
raneg of amateur power/frequencies.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air

I agree 100%! That's the whole point of multiple license classes. It's not
in
the best interests of amateur radio to require all newcomers to pass the
Extra
just to get started.

... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests
that I and many others took those many years ago

No it's not clear at all! In fact, it's an apples and oranges comparison.
Here's why:

Books like "Now You're Talking" are meant to be stand-alone study guides.
They
contain the entire question pool, with explanations of each question and h
ow to
get the answer. And much more.

The old License Manuals were not meant to be "one stop" books. They
focused on
the license process only - where the tests were held, the process, etc.
The
"study guides" were *not* the actual Q&A, but rather *essay* questions
intended
to indicate the areas to be tested.

Wrong...see below.

If you really want to make a comparison, take an old ARRL License Manual,

The "old ARRL License Manual" was all anyone needed to pass the
tests in the late 50s. Novice material was covered in 4 or 5 pages and
General/Tech was about 12/16 pages. NO other info or books
were needed.

add
on "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning The Radiotelegraph Code" and
"Understanding Amateur Radio" and you'll begin to have an apples-to-apples
comparison.

Or consider these questions from the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following
components:
(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter.

AND the study guide included the diagram. I memorized all 15 "draw a
diagram"
answers for the General written. 5 of those EXACT questions were on the
General written I took in 1958.

Study Question #32:
From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed
by the load be determined?

All you needed to know was the formula...and that was in the study guide.

Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?

Anyway...you get the picture.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snipped stuff where we seem to be in agreement]
I also dislike the entry level class name proposed by the NCVEC
proposal - "communicator" - I prefer retaining the traditional
"novice" name, which is recognized around the world (and has been
used in other countries as well).

How about "Basic"?

Why not? It's good enough for the Canadians, eh!


I still prefer "Novice" ... anyone who's more than a beginner
technically will
probably go straight through to General, or even Extra, in one sitting.
Anyone
who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be
offended
by the class name Novice.

It's been around a long time, still fits, and is recognized worldwide -
some other
countries even have a beginner class called Novice.

The word Novice still makes me think of nuns before I think of amateur
radio!


What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than
have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that
they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that
they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by
it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool can
be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

It's clearly a "learn as you go" proposition any way you look at it ...
NOBODY knows
everything there is to know from day one.

Since the rules can be looked up (just as one can use a "crib sheet" to
remember sub-band
edges) it seems to me that its not an unreasonable proposition. I'd
rather have someone
know a bit more about radio and operating and have to refer to the
rules as they learn to
make sure they did things "by the book" than to shortcut the *basic*
theory and operating
practices.

Sorry, but I think they should have to learn both. If you have a ham
licence you should _know_ the rules at least for your own class of licence,
period.


However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal
to the NCVEC one
for the following reasons:

1) less conversion of CW/data space to SSB

But it still falls well short of the amount of phone allowed in the IARU
Region 2 (North and South America) bandplan. Try reading that particular
document. You may find that it's an eye opener.

2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition
because it unnecessarily
discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have
*always* been allowed (and
encouraged by 97.1) to do.

Agreed, but the test needs to cover basic electronics theory accordingly

3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition,
because it precludes the new
ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101,
TS-520/820, etc. for no good
reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC
or 220VAC on the
*primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal.
and,

Agreed, but the appropriate safety guidelines should be in the test

4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with
a special, never-used
callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are
disgruntled with ANY change.


Agreed, but _only_ if they don't get to take a new ultra-lame theory test

73,
Carl - wk3c


73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe
they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should
have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of
RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the
evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with
their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level
tests
that
I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize
beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an
incentive
(gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to
Morse
proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance.

[snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement]

The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code
technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of
studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than
the
much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners
themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to
bypass
the Novice. People are strange.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

They didn't bypass Novice since they had to pass the written before
2000. The testing to get to tech was divided into two written elements.
What many bypassed was the code test. If Novice was nocode with
VHF access, especially to 2m, I'd bet there wouldn't have been anywhere
near the number of techs we have today.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


I said they elected to use the no-code Technician as their entry to ham
radio rather than the Novice license. Yes they took the Novice written but
not the code. Thus they "bypassed" the Novice license in the sense that
they never held a Novice license. They had basically two choices to enter
ham radio (unless of course they chose to do additional study and sit for
higher class tests at the same time).

1) They could take (and pass) the Novice written plus 5wpm and get a Novice
license.
2) They could take (and pass) the Novice written and Tech written and get a
no-code Tech license.

The prospective ham generally took the route 2 to enter ham radio rather
than route 1. Thus by that choice, the people themselves made the Tech
no-code the entry level license despite the fact that it was more difficult
than earning the Novice license. The restructuring in 2000 merely
formalized what had already occurred.

Having earned my initial license in 1992 (Tech with HF), I'm quite familiar
with what was going on. The majority of people sitting for their first
license took the Tech no-code route to put off learning the code not because
of its two meter and VHF access. Prior to on-air experience, they simply
were not personally familiar enough with various ham activities to select
their entry route on the basis of the desireability of having 2m access.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people
realize that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates a lack of consensus in the ham community, which could
cause the FCC to do exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do. They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

Oh I doubt that. It's more likely that everyone knows a change is coming
one way or another and views this as an opportunity to shape the
requirements to their own individual visions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do. They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

Oh I doubt that. It's more likely that everyone knows a change is coming
one way or another and views this as an opportunity to shape the
requirements to their own individual visions.

Yes, isn't that strange?

Some folks just don't like to be tied down to 1930s standards and
practices, wanting to live in this new millenium rather than the old.

LHA / WMD

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests
that
I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize
beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an
incentive
(gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to
Morse
proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance.

[snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement]


The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code
technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of
studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the
much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners
themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to bypass
the Novice. People are strange.

Yes. For decades I've worked with people who were interested in
electronics and radio, so interested that they made that their
career choice and never once tried to get an amateur license.

Isn't that strange to you? I'm sure it is...


LHA / WMD

It's clearly a "learn as you go" proposition any way you look at it ...
NOBODY knows
everything there is to know from day one.

Since the rules can be looked up (just as one can use a "crib sheet" to
remember sub-band
edges) it seems to me that its not an unreasonable proposition. I'd rather
have someone
know a bit more about radio and operating and have to refer to the rules as
they learn to
make sure they did things "by the book" than to shortcut the *basic* theory
and operating
practices.

Back in the olden days before Bash published his books, I imagine that
some ham clubs
had compiled remembered questions from FCC tests. To help members
upgrade. And
I suppose someone had snuck a peek at those mail in novice and tech
tests before the FCC
said everyone had to test at a field office (Early 1976 they decreed
that, so I had to test
at the FCC).


However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal to the
NCVEC one
for the following reasons:


2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition
because it unnecessarily
discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have *always*
been allowed (and
encouraged by 97.1) to do.
3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition, because
it precludes the new
ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101,
TS-520/820, etc. for no good
reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC or
220VAC on the
*primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal.

A few questions on electrical safety and procedures on the test should
address this issue.
Besides, other than an FCC inspector paying a visit, how could be
enforced? The FCC
doesn't have the budget for that. Output power can be limited to say
100W. Easier to
enforce, as signal strength can be measured remotely (not foolproof,
maybe his beam is
aimed right at you). The power limit would avoid the RF exposure issue.

and,
4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with a
special, never-used
callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are
disgruntled with ANY change.

The old Novice licensees got WN#XXX callsigns to designate them as
novices. Other than a
few bozos, everyone accepted them as legit hams. When you upgraded to
general, the FCC
replaced the N with A or B in your callsign. The FCC must have had an
internal use only
note as to which you'd get when they issued your novice call. Today, you
could get a vanity callsign with the
WN if you want, even if you're an extra. Wonder if WN2ISE was ever
issued? Someone did
have WA2ISE before I was issued it in 1976, as a tech (general written
and 5wpm).