"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in news:4221EBFE.2A406BF0
@earthlink.net:

bb wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
qualifications.

Actually, that would be Jim Miccolis, N2EY.

He is the one who proposed "No Test International."

Actually, you're just acting silly. Jim made no such proposal.

Dave K8MN


He did. Of coutse he was being a devil's advocate, but he was indeed the
one to suggest this.

It might have seemed that way to you. It isn't evidenced below. In
fact,
someone else suggested it:

__________________________________________________ ________________________
In article .net,
"Bill Sohl"

writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
to anything else.....

Yes, it is.

First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air.

Come on Jim. that's a self fullfilling argument.

It's a plain and simple fact.

My point, and I know
you know this, is that morse knowledge is not needed in any manner as
a foundation, stepping stone, or whatever to any body or radio
knowledge
or concepts.

It's not an *absolute* need. But it is a big help for amateurs who want
to
learn about radio. That's my point.

Although other
services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it
extensivley,
and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station,
not a
station in another service. Note that the Morse Code tests are at a
very
basic level. They're entry-level, nothing more.

Are you afraid that without a code test, people will "pollute the HF
airwaves" with bad morse?

Nope, not at all.

Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio
equipment,
having
skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very
simple
to
very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a
newcomer to
radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project?

They can build whatever they want.

Doesn't answer the question.

If they want to start with a simple
morse
Xmitter then they will learn at least enough morse to be able to use
it.
If they don't self train themselves, the rig will be useless to them.
As
another
point of reference, when I was going for my AAS in electricl
technology we
built a 10 watt CW rig as part of the lab work. We tested it using a
dummy
load and no one had to know even one character of morse to do the lab
work.

And without Morse skill, that project had no practical use once the lab
was
over. With Morse skill, it could have been a very useful transmitter.

There's a big difference between a lab experiment that is done purely
as a
learning tool, and a practical project that not only helps someone
learn *and*
results in a useful radio device.

now, the electrical principals of what a CW
transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
that's comparing apples and oranges.

Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person
wants to
do is
operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig,
why
should
they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?

IF that's what you believe then go start NTI (No Theory Int'l).

I'm asking a question. *All* license requirements have to justify
themselves,
don't they? Or is that only true for Morse code tests?

I think most of the PCTA
is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
to keep CW testing alive;

Why?

Actually, they haven't scored even a single point in the arguments
made to the FCC now or in the past.

Has nothing to do with "disingenous".

I think the true deeper reason lies
somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
as i've stated before.

You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account.

Exactly what is it that the PCTAs fear if there is NO morse test
at all?

I don't "fear" anything from code test removal. My *concern* is the
continuing
downward trend in requirements and qualifications.

73 de Jim, N2EY.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

It isn't here, though someone else mentions it:

__________________________________________________ _______________________



In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just
WHY
should there be testing for a ham license?

Because we already know what happens with no testing.

Isn't limiting access to the Airwaves to only those who pass some
kind
of test Elitist?

Nope.

What of those who simply aren't smart enough to pass a test? are
they
not human and have rights?

Everyone has the right to take the test. Nobody has the right to a
guaranteed
pass on the test.

As for RF safety, I would point to the successful efforts of
Motorcycle
riders to abolish helmet rules. It should be the individual's
responsibility to decide if RF safety matters are important to him or
her.

Actually, that makes sense IF the effects can be contained to just the
person
making the decision. But that's rarely the case.

As for mode specific questions, they have no business asking me
about
modes of operation that I am not interested in.

I learned about televison screen aspect ratio and interlaced scanning
because
it was in the Extra study guide back when. I've never operated ATV.

No Test International could be born now!

Thoughts?

See my rant on replacing the code test with a Smith Chart test.

73 de Jim, N2EY
__________________________________________________ _______________________

I think that perhaps you're mistaken. Perhaps you can come up with a
statement by Jim advocating such.

Dave K8MN