Dee D. Flint wrote:
"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.

I took the Technician test because it had the access that I wanted.
Until I went to a few club functions and started working contests with
the higher licensed hams, I was VHF-centric.

This is part of my thoughts on the natural divide between MF/HF and
VHF/UHF. I noted that divide before I ever took a test, and many of the
Technicians I know seem to have that impression also.

And finally, Exactly WHO is the Technician test too hard for? I hear
and see people talking about this, but I really want to know who it is
too hard for?

And with the Morse test going, who is the General or Extra test too
hard for?

I find it very interesting that the NCVEC does not produce one bit of
evidence for the failure rate among those tested. If the tests are too
hard, there should be a percentage of testees that fail the tests. That
might go a long way in convincing me that they are too hard. Instead, we
hear the tests are too hard, but no hard evidence whatsoever.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"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"?


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.


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.

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
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.

This is very important. New is very cool, and fun. But so is the
vintage stuff sometimes. Those old tube rigs are very cool, most perform
pretty well, and of course many are real bargains, and allow a new ham
to get on the air for very little money. The relative simplicity also
acts as a classroom for the new ham, in which s/he can learn some RF
basics. It would be sad to give the new licensees access to HF, and not
allow them to access some of the cooler (IMO) rigs out there.

Heh, guess I'm waxing a little technonostalgic here!

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.

Never though of that, but I agree.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

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.

I don't think that safety stops at the "station evaluation level.

One of the things that will probably happen if we get out of the mode
that makes us even think of doing safety evaluations is that the new
hams may not be thinking about RF safety at all.

"Remember, don't put the antenna of your handy talkie in the puppy's
mouth and press the talk button".

I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard
about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for
the introductory license.

If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power to
something like 5 watts or so.


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.

Sure. I'm just pretty bullish on the safety requirements.


... 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?

You know, I can't answer that question very easily. I don't believe
that more questions makes for a harder test. And although I wasn't
raised on hollow state, I figured out the questions you posed after a
little enjoyable study.


... 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 NCVEC proposal is just plain Dumb.

And I think it is also insulting toward the lowest license class.


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

Just like the weird thing I was supposed to sign when I bought that
C.B. rig right about the time they gave up on licensing.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:



I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard
about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for
the introductory license.

If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power
to something like 5 watts or so.


People are more at risk from RF exposure using their cell phones on a
daily basis, operating at very high frequencies, where the antenna is
less than an inch from their brain than they ever will be from any ham
radio transmissions.

Alun wrote:

"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.

Bad form, Alun. One petition I have seen is of the "old guard type".
The others are eliminating Morse code testing (or keeping it for the
highest class, making the testing regimen easier. Seems like most of
them are along the lines of what you want, not the old guard.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
"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.

Even with an Element 1 test, there would probably be a lot more novices
if there had been VHF access. Conjecture of course.

- mike KB3EIA -

JJ wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:



I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard
about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing
for the introductory license.

If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the
power to something like 5 watts or so.


People are more at risk from RF exposure using their cell phones on a
daily basis, operating at very high frequencies, where the antenna is
less than an inch from their brain than they ever will be from any ham
radio transmissions.


No argument there. I hope that newcomers won't try to use their HT's
like they do a cell phone, presses up against the ear.

Maybe *another* safety question?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 3/25/2004 9:33 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

Even with an Element 1 test, there would probably be a lot more novices

if there had been VHF access. Conjecture of course.


I dunno, Mike...

Novices were given 220MHz priviledges along with some (dubiously) adequate
10 meter phone priviledges and it sputtered to a halt almost as quickly as it
started.

I was in SoCal when "Novice Enhancement" took effect, and one can hardly
argue that there is a dearth of repeaters on that band in that region...even
that, very little additional activity was heard. I think I worked a half dozen
Novices on 220 in the year after it was implemented.

HF is the spectrum everyone wants to play on, all of the wizz-bang
technology that's sprouting up on V/UHF notwithstanding.

Any carrots we wish to put in front of the new-licensee cart are going to
have to be 1.8 to 29.7MHz flavored carrots, I think!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Alun wrote:

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

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.

The facts speak differently.

They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

Hardly "spurious". Hardly inevitable, either.

Bad form, Alun. One petition I have seen is of the "old guard type".
The others are eliminating Morse code testing (or keeping it for the
highest class, making the testing regimen easier. Seems like most of
them are along the lines of what you want, not the old guard.

In fact, some of them are either redundant or followups. Note that the
No Code International and NCVEC petitions that have closed are
virtually identical. Why didn't NCVEC wait until they had all their
ideas together and submit just one petition? That's what ARRL did ;-)

Hans, K0HB may yet submit a petition, too. It won't be an "old guard"
type.

It should be noted that there is plenty of precedent for this, too.
There were no less than *11* petitions that got RM numbers way back in
the 1960s, leading up to "incentive licensing".

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Back in the olden days before Bash published his books, I imagine that
some ham clubs
had compiled remembered questions from FCC tests.

Beginning in the early 1950s there were several hardcover
"Q & A" books published on ALL the FCC license exams
plus several other areas of licensing exams by other
agencies. Those had "typical" exam questions in them
including some "typical" schematics required to be drawn
during FCC exams.

A bookstore in my home town had amateur radio Q&A books
but not the Commercial radio license variety back in 1956.
I skimmed through one a friend had, saw enough to decide
that the theory part wasn't needed and didn't buy one. I
borrowed the loose-leaf-bound FCC rules from a nice person
at a broadcast station over a weekend and crammed,
memorizing the regulatory parts which were new to me.
Not a problem. Passed the two-hour test in one sitting
at the Chicago FCC field office. Four written examination
parts in successive order, a general sort of test first for
FCC organization and scope (rather short), followed by
successive parts for Third, Second, and finally First
Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator.
Radiotelegraph written test was about the same; three
in the office were taking that plus the annoying, audible
code cognition tests in the same room at the same time.

Back then all the FCC regulations came in loose-leaf form
with extra revision-subscriptions, all available from the
Government Printing Office. Took at least a week to get
a surface mail order back from DC. No Internet then, no
"free downloads" from GPO within seconds. No instant
test results forwarded direct to DC either...went by surface
mail from field offices and DC sent licenses back. Slow
movements in all directions.

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one). The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have. Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

LHA / WMD