Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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


Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?


Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".


Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?


In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.


Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?


And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?


The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.


the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?


I'm a bit curious too...........


If I were to butt in here, I would say that aside from the obvious CW
transceiver, simple and easy to build, There are plenty of other
possibilities.

AM transmitters. - Yeah, groan.

Simple SSB transmitters. There appear to be a few out there that can be
homebrewed. If not, Jim should design one!

All these would be somewhat more complex than the classic CW
transmitter, but that brings me back to the point I like to make about
what hams "should know". Now that we are probably moving beyond the time
when a super simple transmitter is the rig of choice for the budding
homebrewer, it is more important than ever that the same should have a
well grounded knowledge of basic electronics.

Aside from homebrewing entire radios, the youngster can do things like
building interfaces to their computers from their radios. Note that
there is a PSK31 Transceiver that can be built from Rocky mountain Labs
IIRC that while it isn't quite a homebrew design, it isn't a bad start -
it's like building a modern da version of a Heathkit.

Antennas are another matter. There is a lot of quackery on the matter
of antennas these days, and some serious guidance is needed to keep the
kids from getting discouraged. And yaknow, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!


Someone oughta write a book. hmmmmmmm.


Discouraging homebrew is possibly the most damaging part of at least
one of the proposals out there as far as attracting young people.

I just don't think that there are that many youngsters that want to
simply mash the PTT button on their Yeacommwood transceiver and yak as
their primary activity in the ARS. We won't attract too many people that
way.

I'm firmly convinced that kids that might want to join the ARS want to
BUILD!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And ya know, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!


Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.


73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And ya know, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!



Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.

I thought a crutch was on a car!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


I thought a crutch was on a car!


My Cororra has no crutch. It has an automagic tlansmission, powel
blakes, powel steeling, and white warr tiles.

Sebentee tlee to you and the XYR,

de Hans, K0HB/4ID

KØHB wrote:





Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.




If you use low loss feedline and a tuner, it doesn't much matter how bad
the antenna's
SWR is. Low loss feedline means that you don't lose much RF energy as
it bounced
back off the bad antenna to the tuner, and then back to the antenna.
Actually, lossy
feedline can make your SWR look better. The propagation delays of
these bounces
are of little importance for the narrowband modes we use on HF (SSB, CW,
RTTY
and such). I use some old Ethernet cable (essentially foam RG8U) to run
the feed
from the shack upstairs down to the basement, and there I switch over to
coax
more weather resistant thru a small hole in the wall (caulked to keep
bugs out) to the
vertical in the back yard. It's a pre WARC multiband HF vertical.

A major reason for bad antennas is a lack of space or place to install a
good
antenna.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".

In amateur radio, anyway.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

The quote I posted here demonstrates that the realities of getting
"kids" into amateur radio are quite different from what Carl has
presented.

In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.

What ages are we talking about?

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

FCC makes that call. And note this: One of the arguments for dumping
Element 1 is the claim that when it was dumped for Tech, the whole ARS
didn't fall apart.
So if we get over 323,000 free upgrades to General with no testing and
the ARS
doesn't fall apart.....

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!

Nope. A person might think that 20 wpm code tests given by FCC
examiners are relevant and necessary to an Extra license, but they
will have a hard time finding them today..

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.

the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?


I'm a bit curious too...........

If I were to butt in here, I would say that aside from the obvious CW
transceiver, simple and easy to build, There are plenty of other
possibilities.

AM transmitters. - Yeah, groan.

Simple SSB transmitters. There appear to be a few out there that can be
homebrewed. If not, Jim should design one!

The reality of modern amateur HF SSB operation is transceivers, not
separate transmitters and receivers with the difficulties of
zero-beating - although it *can* be done...

All these would be somewhat more complex than the classic CW
transmitter, but that brings me back to the point I like to make about
what hams "should know". Now that we are probably moving beyond the time
when a super simple transmitter is the rig of choice for the budding
homebrewer, it is more important than ever that the same should have a
well grounded knowledge of basic electronics.

It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits. A rig doesn't
have to be SOTA to be useful.

Aside from homebrewing entire radios, the youngster can do things like
building interfaces to their computers from their radios.

Sure, but that misses the point.

Note that
there is a PSK31 Transceiver that can be built from Rocky mountain Labs
IIRC that while it isn't quite a homebrew design, it isn't a bad start -
it's like building a modern da version of a Heathkit.

Sort of. While the little PSK rigs are fascinating, they are QRP
monobanders that cover a tiny slice of one band each. And you have to
have a computer to use them. They're certainly an option, though.

Antennas are another matter. There is a lot of quackery on the matter
of antennas these days, and some serious guidance is needed to keep the
kids from getting discouraged. And yaknow, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!

Knowledgeable guidance is needed. That's in short supply sometimes.

Someone oughta write a book. hmmmmmmm.

ARRL used to put out a book called "Understanding Amateur Radio".
Great stuff. Lots of practical projects.

Discouraging homebrew is possibly the most damaging part of at least
one of the proposals out there as far as attracting young people.


Exactly.

I just don't think that there are that many youngsters that want to
simply mash the PTT button on their Yeacommwood transceiver and yak as
their primary activity in the ARS. We won't attract too many people that
way.

I agree 100%.


I'm firmly convinced that kids that might want to join the ARS want to
BUILD!

And since the most practical first projects are related to a certain
mode...

Boils down to this: Both the ARRL and NCVEC proposals are trying to
recapture the success of the old Novice license, although their
approaches are somewhat different. Yet they fail to see that said
success wasn't impeded in the least by a basic code skill test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits.


Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.


A rig doesn't have to be SOTA to be useful.


"Any sufficicently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
agic." -- A. C. Clarke

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
dvanced." -- K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
. net...

"N2EY" wrote

It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits.

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.

Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
. net...

"N2EY" wrote


It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits.

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.


Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.

hehe, now that sounds like fun! 8^0

- Mike KB3EIA -

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.



Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.



Now, if you used the soldering iron *as* the dummy load, ...... :-)