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