|
"Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote So wouldn't it make sense for FCC to conclude that there are *not* a lot of people who are "being kept out" by the code test? I don't think the code test keeps anyone out of the Amateur Radio service. Agreed! The people who disagree are those who say the code test must go to "foster and insure growth", that it is a "barrier", etc. On a somewhat related matter, I also don't think that we need a code test to prove anyone's worthiness to operate on amateur frequencies below 30MHz. I agree partially - if it were up to me, all amateur licenses would require a code test, not just those with privileges below 30 MHz. (But it's not up to me). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB uh-oh, Hans, now you've done it...... You've used historical fact to prove that Lenover21 is mistaken about something. I'll 'draw fire' with some more historical facts: - Hams were responsible for and successful at staying inside their allocated bands and subbands (phone-image vs. cw-data) long before 1968 or "modern frequency synthesizers". - The concept of "subbands by license class" was proposed no later than 1964 and accepted in principle by FCC no later than 1965 - without "modern frequency synthesizers". - Some HF ham band and subband edges are/were not multiples of 100 kHz (top end of 20 and 15, for example, or the edges of the old 11 meter amateur band). Many have been that way since long before 1968 or "modern frequency synthesizers". - With the exceptions of beacon and repeater operation, hams are not required by regulation to operate on specific spot frequencies or channels. Nor are they required to know their precise operating frequency other than that it is inside the allocated band or subband. Nor are they required to use "modern frequency synthesizers" or crystal control. - Inexpensive, stable, precise, accurate self-controlled variable frequency oscillators have been available for hams to build or buy since long before 1968. - The concept of "subbands by license class" is intended to reward the passing of more-advanced written tests. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something (Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may never use. One can't "sell" the hobby while imposing things no longer necessary to it. Who decides what is "necessary"? What happens when (not if) that same argument is applied to the written exams? Most of what is in the written exams is no longer necessary for the legal operation of an amateur radio station. Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve. Remember the Regents! People have been saying that since day one. So what else is new... The result is bad ideas like NCVEC's "Communicator" license. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Alun
writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. They are a good idea because they act as an incentive. Of course if there were only one class of license, they would no longer exist. Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. How restricted, and which bands? I think that an ideal entry level license would include parts or all of *all* HF/MF amateur bands. Here's why: 1) Propagation on the various bands varies widely with time of day, time of year and sunspot cycle. Having the widest possible selection of bands would allow an entry-level amateur to use the best band for a given set of conditions and resources, and also affords an opportunity to learn about the various bands, propagation, etc. 2) One of the biggest problems facing many amateurs is antenna restrictions. Another is equipment cost. Often an amateur has to make do with compromise antennas and equipment which limit the choice of bands. Having the widest possible selection of bands would allow an entry-level amateur to use the best band for a given antenna/rig combination, and also affords an incentive to upgrade so more space on most bands could be earned. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. Not at all! All that would be required would be: 1) Existing license classes other than Extra closed off to new licenses after a certain date. They keep their existing privileges and can renew/modify indefinitely. 2) Existing license holders could upgrade to Extra by passing the required written tests. 3) The new entry-level license class has its own privilege set. 4) Existing license holders other than Extra get the combined privileges of their existing license and the new entry level license. Eventually everyone in the closed-off license classes will either upgrade or leave by attrition, and the rules governing them can be removed without an NPRM. For example, we're down to about 30,000 Novices now, and dropping every month. When the last Novice is gone from the database, the rules about that license class can be removed from Part 97. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Alun" wrote in message ... [snip] I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. It's not a matter of propagation. It's simply that band restrictions are far easier to enforce. With a quick lookup of the call sign, you can tell if the operator is staying within his privileges. Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. Enforcement issues make this idea impractical not the "vested interests" of those already licensed. It is impossible to determine if a person is staying within his/her power restrictions unless you are right next to the transmitter to make measurements. I've worked QRP stations that nearly pegged my meter and other times could not pull a kilowatt station out of the mud. Power limits would rely solely on the honor system. This has worked reasonably well so far for two reasons: 1) the majority of hams are decent people and 2) the basic radio comes out of the box with 100 watts, which works reasonably well so there is not a lot of temptation to hook up an amplifier and work illegally. However you say "very restricted power". I'm assuming that you mean something substantially less than today. So then you would have a situation where the beginner has purchased a radio that significantly exceeds his power privileges with no one being able to detect that he/she is exceeding those privileges if they choose to operate it at full power. Or are you going to propose that they cannot purchase or own a radio that exceeds their power privileges?? This would be a very bad proposal. That would require mandating that hams show their licenses to purchase equipment. It would have to also be illegal for a non-ham to purchase such equipment even for a gift. It would be illegal for a beginner to purchase almost all used equipment on the market. He'd, by law, have to take the expensive, new equipment route. Or the manufacturers might respond with cheap, low quality equipment that would be unsuitable to connect to an amplifier (once the beginner upgraded) as it would have the same problems as amplified CBs do now. There may even be other ramifications of "very limited power" privileges. It is far better to select easily enforced requirements (i.e. band limits) than items that are not easily enforced or items that require creating an entire hierarchy of new regulations to support it. Most of the rewards and privileges we get in life often have little relationship to what we did to get them. Just look at our jobs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test. Need? I doubt that the one classer's want the test level at the Extra level to begin with, and might go apoplectic if the Tech and General tests were included! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Need? I doubt that the one classer's want the test level at the Extra level to begin with, and might go apoplectic if the Tech and General tests were included! My proposal to FCC asks for a one-term, privilege-rich beginners permit, and a "full-privilege" standard license with an exam including the material currently covered on the Tech/General/Extra written examinations. Current licensees could continue to renew in their existing class, or upgrade to the new "standard" license class. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
: "Alun" wrote in message ... [snip] I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. It's not a matter of propagation. It's simply that band restrictions are far easier to enforce. With a quick lookup of the call sign, you can tell if the operator is staying within his privileges. I agree that is why the FCC like it. It would work just as well with whole bands, though, and actually offer a better incentive, e.g. there would be a real incentive to get the bands inbetween the entry level ones to fill in when propagation doesn't work on those ones for where you want to talk to. Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. Enforcement issues make this idea impractical not the "vested interests" of those already licensed. It is impossible to determine if a person is staying within his/her power restrictions unless you are right next to the transmitter to make measurements. I've worked QRP stations that nearly pegged my meter and other times could not pull a kilowatt station out of the mud. Power limits would rely solely on the honor system. This has worked reasonably well so far for two reasons: 1) the majority of hams are decent people and 2) the basic radio comes out of the box with 100 watts, which works reasonably well so there is not a lot of temptation to hook up an amplifier and work illegally. However you say "very restricted power". I'm assuming that you mean something substantially less than today. So then you would have a situation where the beginner has purchased a radio that significantly exceeds his power privileges with no one being able to detect that he/she is exceeding those privileges if they choose to operate it at full power. Or are you going to propose that they cannot purchase or own a radio that exceeds their power privileges?? This would be a very bad proposal. That would require mandating that hams show their licenses to purchase equipment. It would have to also be illegal for a non-ham to purchase such equipment even for a gift. It would be illegal for a beginner to purchase almost all used equipment on the market. He'd, by law, have to take the expensive, new equipment route. Or the manufacturers might respond with cheap, low quality equipment that would be unsuitable to connect to an amplifier (once the beginner upgraded) as it would have the same problems as amplified CBs do now. There may even be other ramifications of "very limited power" privileges. It is far better to select easily enforced requirements (i.e. band limits) than items that are not easily enforced or items that require creating an entire hierarchy of new regulations to support it. Most of the rewards and privileges we get in life often have little relationship to what we did to get them. Just look at our jobs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE You are sure right about jobs, Dee! And I admit power limits have their difficulties, although I still think they are appropriate for less qualified hams, whether they can really be enforced or not. I still think that a real incentive is to get more bands, not just more bits of the same ones. Alun, N3KIP |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test. Right you are, Dee. That would mean an exam of at least 100 questions, allowing for overlap and the simplification of some rules. And the prospective ham would have to pass it all in one shot. Would that *really* be optimum for the ARS? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
On 23 Sep 2004 19:44:05 GMT, Alun wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in : SNIP - The concept of "subbands by license class" is intended to reward the passing of more-advanced written tests. 73 de Jim, N2EY I know what it's intended to do, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. Consider our neighbours to the North who have to get an Advanced to access 40 and the WARC bands. That makes more sense than subbands. (That's only an example - I'm not suggesting adopting the Canadian system wholesale). Not quite correct, Alun - under the current license structure, access to the Amateur bands in Canada is as follows: Basic license - access to all Amateur bands over 30 MHz. Advanced license only - same band access as Basic license only. Basic license plus Morse Code - full access to all Amateur bands. Advanced plus Morse Code - same band access as Basic plus Morse Code. The Advanced allows more privileges - high power operation, ability to sponsor a Club station, act as control operator for a repeater, become a designated Examiner, build and / or repair your own transmitting equipment, and a few others. A Basic ticket (which uses a 100 question exam, and covers the same material as the US Tech and General exams combined, more or less) plus Morse is all you currently need for an "all access" Amateur Radio pass up here! Source: http://www.rac.ca/regulatory/allband.htm 73 de Alun, N3KIP 73, Leo |
In article , Alun
writes: (N2EY) wrote in : SNIP - The concept of "subbands by license class" is intended to reward the passing of more-advanced written tests. 73 de Jim, N2EY I know what it's intended to do, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. It makes perfect sense. Consider our neighbours to the North who have to get an Advanced to access 40 and the WARC bands. That makes more sense than subbands. No, it doesn't. What that does is to crowd certain bands and empty others. (That's only an example - I'm not suggesting adopting the Canadian system wholesale). So which bands would you give to entry-level? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Dee D. Flint wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test. Need? I doubt that the one classer's want the test level at the Extra level to begin with, and might go apoplectic if the Tech and General tests were included! Then they're asking for wholesale downgrading of the written testing standards. Bad idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Alun" wrote in message .. . [snip] I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for the whole band. It's not a matter of propagation. It's simply that band restrictions are far easier to enforce. With a quick lookup of the call sign, you can tell if the operator is staying within his privileges. Exactly! Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this idea impracticable. Enforcement issues make this idea impractical not the "vested interests" of those already licensed. It is impossible to determine if a person is staying within his/her power restrictions unless you are right next to the transmitter to make measurements. I've worked QRP stations that nearly pegged my meter and other times could not pull a kilowatt station out of the mud. And the vagaries of antenna installation make it even less clear. I'd rather have QRP and an excellent antenna than high power and a mediocre one. Power limits would rely solely on the honor system. This has worked reasonably well so far for two reasons: 1) the majority of hams are decent people and 2) the basic radio comes out of the box with 100 watts, which works reasonably well so there is not a lot of temptation to hook up an amplifier and work illegally. Also, amplifiers are fairly expensive, and the dBs per dollar can be steep. However you say "very restricted power". I'm assuming that you mean something substantially less than today. So then you would have a situation where the beginner has purchased a radio that significantly exceeds his power privileges with no one being able to detect that he/she is exceeding those privileges if they choose to operate it at full power. That's exactly the situation in Japan. Or are you going to propose that they cannot purchase or own a radio that exceeds their power privileges?? This would be a very bad proposal. That would require mandating that hams show their licenses to purchase equipment. It would have to also be illegal for a non-ham to purchase such equipment even for a gift. It would be illegal for a beginner to purchase almost all used equipment on the market. He'd, by law, have to take the expensive, new equipment route. Unless he/she bought used QRP stuff. On top of that is the fact that a newcomer couldn't buy a transceiver until the license was earned. So how is a newbie supposed to get a hands-on feel for the ham bands? In the bad old days of separate rx/tx, it was common for a would be ham to buy or build a receiver and become familiar with ham radio before getting a license. That's how many of us learned the code, too. Still a good idea, only now the new ham now gets a transceiver in most cases. "No gear without a license" would end that. Or the manufacturers might respond with cheap, low quality equipment that would be unsuitable to connect to an amplifier (once the beginner upgraded) as it would have the same problems as amplified CBs do now. There may even be other ramifications of "very limited power" privileges. New operator + compromise antenna + very low power = frustration. It is far better to select easily enforced requirements (i.e. band limits) than items that are not easily enforced or items that require creating an entire hierarchy of new regulations to support it. Yep. Most of the rewards and privileges we get in life often have little relationship to what we did to get them. Just look at our jobs. In the case of subbands-by-license-class, there's another angle. The restricted parts of the bands are usually less crowded. And they're where the DX often hangs out, and where the contest overflow goes first. So they're "prime real estate". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Wow! I just looked at the responses from my original post ... I didn't
mean to start a War. Still looking for the basic question of WHEN will licensing restructuring happen? Thanks to all for the heated responses. "Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. |
"Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... Wow! I just looked at the responses from my original post ... I didn't mean to start a War. Still looking for the basic question of WHEN will licensing restructuring happen? Thanks to all for the heated responses. That question has already been answered. The answer: no one can reliably predict when or even if it will happen. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
KØHB wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote Need? I doubt that the one classer's want the test level at the Extra level to begin with, and might go apoplectic if the Tech and General tests were included! My proposal to FCC asks for a one-term, privilege-rich beginners permit, and a "full-privilege" standard license with an exam including the material currently covered on the Tech/General/Extra written examinations. Current licensees could continue to renew in their existing class, or upgrade to the new "standard" license class. Two classes there. I do like your full privelige license, but we've had the discussions about the learners permit that I'm uncomfortable with. It beats the bejabbers out of the NCVEC proposal tho'! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Joe Guthart wrote:
Wow! I just looked at the responses from my original post ... I didn't mean to start a War. Hehe, not to worry, Joe. This is a permanent war zone, and all new questions are potential battlefields. Still looking for the basic question of WHEN will licensing restructuring happen? I don't know if you saw the poll results posted by Jim N2EY? THe best we can do is make predictions. I had predicted 2007, or at least 4 years from the change in the treaty. I might extend that if the republicans are in power at that time. It isn't a diss, it is just that republican administrations are *much* less likely to participate in international treaties. In fact, I would bet a six pack that as long as we have republicans in the White House, there is little chance of Element 1 being dropped. Not because they like Morse code, but because they hate treaties. Some good advice: Get the license now, regardless of the Morse code test. the ARS is simply too much FUN to miss time on. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Joe Guthart"
writes: Wow! I just looked at the responses from my original post ... I didn't mean to start a War. Sorry, Joe, but you didn't start one. It was already in full swing. :-) Still looking for the basic question of WHEN will licensing restructuring happen? No one knows. Many have "answers" just the same... :-) Thanks to all for the heated responses. The family joules in here are red-hot! :-) |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Tsk. But, you DO have to be "judgemental," don't you? :-) [by the way, the Review Committee rules against the Armenians so don't pull that old saw through the wood again...] With all kindest of regards, |
"Joe Guthart" wrote in
: Wow! I just looked at the responses from my original post ... I didn't mean to start a War. Still looking for the basic question of WHEN will licensing restructuring happen? Thanks to all for the heated responses. "Joe Guthart" wrote in message ... What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF. Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled. The war was only temporarily suspended while the FCC sits on it's hands. |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Alun" wrote in message .. . (N2EY) wrote in om: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea, although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more than two licences, though. Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose written test would at least be equivalent to the current written requirements for Extra - all in one go. It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test. Right you are, Dee. That would mean an exam of at least 100 questions, allowing for overlap and the simplification of some rules. And the prospective ham would have to pass it all in one shot. Would that *really* be optimum for the ARS? 73 de Jim, N2EY When the UK had a single theory test it had 95 questions of all levels of difficulty. I thought that was optimum, so, of course, they did away with it! Perhaps optimum for demonstrating the competency of the prospective ham but probably not optimum in encouraging people to get into the hobby. People would be put off by the amount of material that they would be required to study and simply quit after a few days. Good point! Plus I'm pretty sure both the test format wasn't an open-pool of multiple-choice questions, and the technical level of the questions was somewhat higher than in the US exams. How does the number of hams-per-capita in the UK compare to the USA? How is the growth? Could it be that the *written* test is/was a "barrier" there? Although those who lost privileges with the introduction of the 5 step licensing system were rightfully upset by this, still the data shows that amateur radio had its largest and longest lasting sustained growth after this was implemented. People want to take it in "bite size" chunks rather that swallowing the whole ham (pun intended) at once. Exactly. With the elimination of the waiting period for Extra more than a quarter century ago, anyone who wants to do the whole thing in one go can do so. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote .. Sounds like socialism. One of the most effective* amateur-radio-license-qualification systems known was the ex-USS(ocialist)R's. de Hans, K0HB *effective: Licensees were acknowledged among the most competent (technically and operationally) anywhere. |
Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: "KØHB" Date: 9/24/2004 8:44 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote . Sounds like socialism. One of the most effective* amateur-radio-license-qualification systems known was the ex-USS(ocialist)R's. de Hans, K0HB *effective: Licensees were acknowledged among the most competent (technically and operationally) anywhere. And thier licensing system was not a "once size fits all", which is what you suggested and what socialism bascially professes. Try again, Hans. Ya came up short...Again. Steve, K4YZ |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote And thier licensing system was not a "once size fits all" Nope, it was a "two sizes fits all", including an enforced "apprentice" permit, sort of like my proposal. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote And thier licensing system was not a "once size fits all" Nope, it was a "two sizes fits all", including an enforced "apprentice" permit, sort of like my proposal. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB Socialism likes lots of government oversight - like a lot of tests to make sure that you really, really, really want to be a ham. |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote . Sounds like socialism. One of the most effective* amateur-radio-license-qualification systems known was the ex-USS(ocialist)R's. de Hans, K0HB *effective: Licensees were acknowledged among the most competent (technically and operationally) anywhere. Yep. Part of that was their license system, which required things like demonstrated ability as an SWL before getting a transmitting license, and *required* the construction of equipment of a certain complexity from scratch. Another part was economic - homebrewing was effectively the only way many Soviet hams could get on the air. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote And thier licensing system was not a "once size fits all" Nope, it was a "two sizes fits all", including an enforced "apprentice" permit, sort of like my proposal. Uh huh...enforced. Just a month ago you were all over my case about a suggest VOLUNTARY "learner's permit" kind of license. Now you're praising the idea. Sunuvagun! Sunnuvagun indeed. Usual two-faced, It's OK as long as I think about it rhetoric, Hans. You really ought to work a bit ahrder to keep your stories straight. Sheeesh. Steve, K4YZ |
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote Just a month ago you were all over my case about a suggest VOLUNTARY "learner's permit" kind of license. Damn, Steve, you're taking on the habits of Len in getting your facts all muddled up! For years I've been arguing for a learners permit similar to the old Novice one-term permit. Point your browser to http://tinyurl.com/wce9 for the proposal I've sent to FCC. "Just a month ago" I was "all over your case" not about the notion of a lerners permit, but about your dump huck "can't operate without a supervisor" license proposal. Good luck on this one now! 72, de Hans, K0HB |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Ohhhhhhhh--many radio services! They weren't at all common in amateur radio, Leonard. Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) Do you mean if he wants to nit-pick over the fact that you were wrong? You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Super. What were you doing in amateur radio during the years mentioned? Tsk. But, you DO have to be "judgemental," don't you? :-) Did you mean "correct"? Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil mother inferior
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Ohhhhhhhh--many radio services! They weren't at all common in amateur radio, Leonard. Well, if that's true then it shows that amateurs were indeed Behind The Times insofar as ready-made radios goes... :-) Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) Do you mean if he wants to nit-pick over the fact that you were wrong? Who was wrong? Not I. Are you the walter ego of Hans Brakob? You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Super. What were you doing in amateur radio during the years mentioned? Working alongside a few hams also gainfully employed in the electronics industry. :-) Was there anything else? If you want to take pot-shots at folks, best get some ammunition. So far, all you've got is short rounds or blanks... |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil mother inferior writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Ohhhhhhhh--many radio services! They weren't at all common in amateur radio, Leonard. Well, if that's true then it shows that amateurs were indeed Behind The Times insofar as ready-made radios goes... :-) Then that wasn't the point, was it? Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) Do you mean if he wants to nit-pick over the fact that you were wrong? Who was wrong? Not I. Yes, you--beyond the shadow of a doubt. Radio amateurs were quite capable of staying within the sub-bands authorized them prior to the period mentioned by you. Deal with it. Are you the walter ego of Hans Brakob? Did I post as such? You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Super. What were you doing in amateur radio during the years mentioned? Working alongside a few hams also gainfully employed in the electronics industry. :-) You should have taken some time to ask them what was going on in amateur radio :-) Was there anything else? Not for now. If you want to take pot-shots at folks, best get some ammunition. Pot shots? You were simply in error. If you are sticking to your claim, you are still in error. So far, all you've got is short rounds or blanks... They seem to have gotten your attention, kindly, old, uninformed gent. Dave Heil |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil mother inferior writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers .... Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968. Hans is correct about amateur HF gear. Len is completely mistaken on the subject. Tsk, tsk, crusty old sea salt. Frequency synthesizers began appearing in many radio services in the early 1960s. Yet they were not at all common in amateur radio. More important, those that existed were not "modern" frequency synthesizers. The claim made by Len was: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers ...." which is clearly false because the "subdivision" existed any synthesizers as a necessary condition. All it took for a ham to stay inside the subbands was a frequency standard of known accuracy. This could take the form of an accurately-calibrated receiver, transmitter or transceiver, an external frequency meter (WW2 surplus BC-221 and LM units were relatively inexpensive in the 1960s) or a 100 kHz oscillator with suitable dividers. It should be remembered, too, that in the early 1950s the amateur 160 meter band was subdivided into eight 25 kHz subbands. There was a complex system of subbands, showing allowed use by hams depending on location, frequency and time of day. It was by far the most complex system of "subdivision" in amateur radio, it required hams to stay within 25 kHz subbands, and it predated the 1960s by almost a decade. In amateur radio they began with homebuilts since the offshore manufacturers hadn't gotten around to putting those into amateur transceivers until the late 70s. :-) Incorrect on many points. There were homebrew amateur synthesizers in use as early as 1962 (see QST for October, 1962, "The Ultimate Exciter", by Clifford Harvey, W1RF, and December, 1964 "A Crystal VFO With Full-Band Coverage" by Frank Noble, W3QLV, to name just two). These units were "analog" synthesizers using heterodyne techniques. They were very complex, physically large and required a large number of quartz crystals on exact frequencies. The W1RF unit uses 30 crystals, four oscillators, three mixers and elaborate bandswitching in the synthesizer section alone. The W3QLV unit (which I owned from about 1985 to 1995) was less complex but still required 35 crystals on exact frequencies just to cover the 80 meter amateur band. While within the capabilites of the advanced homebrewing amateur, they never became popular for reasons explained below. In 1963, the manufactured B&W 6100 transmitter appeared on the market, with a heterodyne-type frequency synthesizer built in. It was not a commercial success, due in part to its high cost and lack of a matching receiver. Besides cost, size and complexity considerations, those 1960s-era synthesizers were unpopular with hams for a very fundamental reason: They did not reflect the way hams operate on HF/MF. Most "other services" are channelized or operate on specific predetermined frequencies. They need equipment that can be set to a specific frequency, and stay there, without the need to interpret a dial. Being able to tune through a band is not an important consideration. The "user interface" for these synthesizers (such as found in the military R-1051 receiver, the B&W 6100 transmitter, and the above homebrew units) is a set of switches for each digit of the frequency. Which works fine for operating on predetermined frequencies but very inferior to a simple mechanical "one knob" dial for tuning through a band looking for a clear spot or other QSOs. This user interface issue was resolved by making synthesizers that could emulate a mechanical "one knob" dial. Additionally, the stability, precision and accuracy of self-controlled variable-frequency oscillators in quality 1960s amateur equipment such as Drake and Collins was more than adequate for amateur purposes when used by a skilled operator. One more point: Frequency synthesizers *did* become popular in amateur *VHF FM* gear in the early-mid 1970s. This was driven by the channelized nature of repeater operation. US manufacturers such as Heath with the HW-2036 produced amateur transceivers with true modern PLL synthesizers. Ohhhhhhhh--many radio services! They weren't at all common in amateur radio, Leonard. For the precise reasons mentioned above. Well, if that's true then it shows that amateurs were indeed Behind The Times insofar as ready-made radios goes... :-) Not at all. The available 1960s frequency synthesizers simply did not meet amateur requirements. Then that wasn't the point, was it? The claim made by Len was: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers ...." which has clearly been proved to be false. Len was wrong, mistaken, in error, out in left field. He won't admit it, of course, but it is a clear fact nonetheless. Now if you are going to make a great big federal case out of this little thing, then feel free. :-) Do you mean if he wants to nit-pick over the fact that you were wrong? It's not nit-picking. Just plain facts. Who was wrong? Not I. Yes, you--beyond the shadow of a doubt. As proved here. Radio amateurs were quite capable of staying within the sub-bands authorized them prior to the period mentioned by you. Deal with it. Exactly. A 100/50/25 kHz frequency standard could be built with three tubes in the early 1960s. By the late 1960s it could be done with a few ICs. There was no need for synthesizers just to stay in the band. You seem to need an argument subject and want to go many rounds on this? Not for me. Waste of time for me. Then Len should just admit he was wrong and move on. I was in the lab and in the field regarding frequency synthesizers long ago, know their theory and know both their good things and bad things of their internals. Completely irrelevant to the claim that: "None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without the modern frequency synthesizers ...." which has been shown to be false. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: I don't know if you saw the poll results posted by Jim N2EY? Maybe it's time for a new pool because so many of us predicted dates that are now in the past! THe best we can do is make predictions. I had predicted 2007, or at least 4 years from the change in the treaty. I might extend that if the republicans are in power at that time. It isn't a diss, it is just that republican administrations are *much* less likely to participate in international treaties. Interesting thought! In fact, I would bet a six pack that as long as we have republicans in the White House, there is little chance of Element 1 being dropped. Not because they like Morse code, but because they hate treaties. Or at least the current administration seems to. Some good advice: Get the license now, regardless of the Morse code test. the ARS is simply too much FUN to miss time on. Not only that, but you may discover that Morse Code itself is a lot of fun and a very useful mode in amateur radio. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com