JJ wrote in message ...

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.


Cell on VHF? Must be something new.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]

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


Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to
the
vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital
modes, etc.

Carl - wk3c

William wrote:





Cell on VHF? Must be something new.


Some company wanted to do that with low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites a few
years ago. They were eyeing 2m and 222 and 70cm, as well as other spectra.

On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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?

I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Agee 100%

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.

As a novice in the late 50s, RF safety wasn't very much a part
of my understanding...beyong the concept of not touching
electrical or RF conductors. The "unseen" RF in the air wasn't
really the focus of the Novice syllabus either. But then too,
Novice was limited then to 75w as measured by plate power.

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

Yet we put that antenna within less than an inch of our own brain
when we transmit.

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.

I agree and also believ that safety (electrical, RF and mechanical)
should be a fundamental part of novice understanding.

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

Better to keep testing on safety.

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.

I agree.

... 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.

Well certain aspects certainly are. There are, however,
a number of identical proposals in NCVEC to the ARRL
with which I agree.

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.

I agree also. I would favor three aspects to the Novice (and all other
tets too): 1 - Some basic electrical/electronic/RF knowledge,
2 - Safety knowledge and 3 - Rules/regs. Each part should be
a separately scored subsection with a passing score required
in each subsection. This is a point I think Jim N2EY and I
have agreed on for a long time.

One aspect of the rules/regs questions could deal with operating
privileges...BUT I'd suggest that be done with a frequency chart
being provided to each test taker to then use to answer specific
questions. I see no need to memorize band slots by license
class. I sure couldn't parrot what the exclusive Extra sub-bands are
for HF if I was asked. Better to know the person can read
and use the frequency chart because it does change over time.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

But when transmitting with an HT, the antenna IS right in front of
the ham's forehead...unless one is using a separate microphone.
And many HTs have power output above 5w
In contrast, cellphones automatically adjust their power
output as needed depending on signaling
protocols between the cellphone and the cell site.
Most cellphones aren't operating anywhere
near their full power which, is below 5w.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Alun wrote in message . ..
"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!

Exactly!

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.

That depends on what is in those tests.

Anyone
who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be
offended by the class name Novice.

But what if they are? You're telling other people how they should
feel, what they should like...

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

Some other countries have a beginner class called Basic.

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

Me too. It's an embarassing name for a license.

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.

I'm not asking that anyone know everything from day one, just that
they be tested on the rules for the license they are granted. That's
reasonable.

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.

From the experience of Phil Kane and others, it's just not a good idea
at all. Anyone who is a newbie to amateur radio regulations should not
have any trouble passing a few questions on the regulations.

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.

Why? If they can look up the rules, why can't they look up the other
things as well?

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.

I agree with Alun 100%. The rules are the one thing that every
licensee *HAS* to know *BEFORE* the license is granted.

Look at the enforcement letters of FCC, and you'll see that the vast
majority of alleged violations by hams are violations of operating
rules, not technical violations.

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.

Izzat the one that gives CW and digital about 10-15% of the available
HF amateur spectrum?

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

Only after it covers the rules.

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

Ditto.

We're not talking a lot, here. The "old" Novice covered all that. No
reason the new one can't.

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

It adds an unnecessary level of regs and no real benefits.

Instead, just do this:

1) Basic/Novice: Six-character callsigns (including vanity) in 2x3
format.

2) General: Six- or five-character callsigns (including vanity) in
2x3, 1x3, or 2x2 format.

3) Extra: Six-, five- or four-character callsigns (including vanity)
in 2x3, 1x3, 2x2, 1x2 or 2x1 format.

Nobody in any license class has to give up a callsign they hold now.
Closed-off license classes can choose future vanity calls from the
groups for the next-lowest license class.

Simple, universal, gives an incentive and no "mark".

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]

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


Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to
the
vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital
modes, etc.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another:

After 1991, newcomers had a choice of two entry licenses (meaning (obtainable
with the minimum amount of testing).

They could choose the Novice, which required a written test and a 5 wpm code
test. This license gave them some HF privileges (mostly but not exclusively
Morse Code) and some privileges on VHF/UHF. But they were kept off the most
popular amateur VHF/UHF bands (2 meters, 6 meters and 440 MHz) and got
six-character callsigns.

OR

They could choose the Technician, which required two similar written tests but
no code test. This license gave them no HF privileges but *all* privileges on
VHF/UHF. In many areas they got five-character callsigns, or could get them via
the vanity program. And if/when they passed the 5 wpm code test, the HF
privileges of the Novice class would be added on.

Which is easier to study for: two multiple-choice written tests that are highly
similar to each other, or two tests that require completely different study
methods?

Even before 1987, many if not most new hams bypassed the Novice and went
straight for Tech - in large part because they wanted VHF/UHF privileges right
off. Particularly 2 meters and/or 440.

It should be noted that in the past 4 years the number of new hams has not
increased dramatically, even though the code test has been reduced to 5 wpm for
all classes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]

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


Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to
the
vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital
modes, etc.

Carl - wk3c

I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental
waste of time learning the Morse Code and become.

Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired.

"William" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]

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


Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much
to
the
vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with
digital
modes, etc.

Carl - wk3c

I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental
waste of time learning the Morse Code and become.

Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired.

Boy you certainly know how to jump to erroneous conclusions. I work a full
time job, which also entails travel further limiting my time. I found
learning Morse to be no more of a waste of time than studying theory. They
both take time and both are worthwhile.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE