|
K=D8HB wrote: Uh oh...no "73"...And it was looking so promising for a few moments there... Steve, K4YZ Nope, no "73". That went away when you saw fit to personalize the conversation with disparaging ad hominem remarks unrelated to the topic, and to bring uninvolved family members into the conversation. Well...there YOU go stretching things for the sake of creating yet another adverse thread, Hans...Guess it's useless trying to give that which you feel others should take. Nothing "ad hominem" was intended...Just some friendly ribbing and a sincere "hello" to your other half since YOU have brought her up in at least three other on-going threads, Hans. But then I guess YOU are the only one who can be sincere, Hans...?!?! Sheeesh. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1113743129.236382.299700 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. This is based on what FCC has done in the past. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY You're being a Jonah again, Jim. Hello Alun, I'm not sure what you mean by "being a Jonah". Does it have anything to do with the bible story of Jonah and the whale - aka "You Can't Keep A Good Man Down"? the announcement guesstimates all done within a year, i.e. by spring '06. So they meant *next* summer (2006), not *this* summer (2005). Sounds about right to me. Granted that the comments about what the FCC might do (and the title of the post) were all the poster's own, and not Hamwave's. Exactly. My time estimates are based on what FCC has done in the past on a number of issues. FCC doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to change the rules - heck, it's been over 5 years since the last restructure, over 21 months since WRC 2003 ended, and yet there's no NPRM on the street yet. My own crystal ball guess is that the FCC will just delete the code test and rearrange some subbands around this time next year. That's still much longer than I originally thought. My guess is there will be some more-substantive changes, and that the code test deletion isn't a done deal - yet. I base the above on the fact that FCC could have simply dumped Element 1 back in summer 2003, without an NPRM, comments, or any of the rest. They received at least two proposals to do just that. All it would take is for FCC to say, in effect: "This subject was discussed thoroughly back in 1998-1999, and we kept Element 1 only because of the treaty. Now the treaty's gone, so we're dropping Element 1." Or some such verbiage - the basic idea is still the same. There's a procedure for such changes. Yet there have been no changes yet, just proposals *to* FCC, and comments. Last time FCC did a restructure, the comment period was what - six-seven months or more? Then it took about 11 months for the Report and Order, and another four months or so before the rules changed. That's over 20 months from NPRM to new rules in effect. 21 months from summer 2005 is spring 2007. Maybe FCC will say something at Dayton. Maybe not. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk. Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"! Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering (she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing it commercially). Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round. Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Well I've yet to find a "low fat" or "low/no sugar" food that tastes like the real thing. It always tastes a little different. So my choice is simply to bypass the desserts as much as I can discipline myself to do so (sometimes I fail miserably). Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane If Mike and Dee say it's junk, then don't you be goin' messin' up their conservative minds with any such heresy. Besides, if you haven't time to learn Morse, then you ain't got no time to be eating no sweetened food. Clean up those green beans too, before you go study your code. 73, de Hans, K0HB (My kids think I'm a real "mother"!) It's self preservation actually. I have a real weakness for sweets and can't stand the artificial stuff so my best bet is to bypass the stuff. That's why I never keep this stuff at home. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
KØHB wrote:
Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes per day, you don't have time to study the theory either. Was there anything incorrect or inaccurate in Dee's statement? Dave K8MN No, and of course neither did I say there was. It's a perfectly accurate statement, just like the following similar statements: Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes per day, you don't have time to take a shower either. Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes per day, you don't have time to bathe the dog either. Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes per day, you don't have time to mow the lawn either. Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes per day, you don't have time to snuggle with your spouse either. Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes per day, you don't have time to eat dessert either. Besides if you haven't time to study code 15 minutes per day, you don't have time to play baseball with the neighborhood kids either. Just think of all the things you'd have time to do, if you'd just have learned Morse code and gotten it out of the way! It's a wonder everyone doesn't know Morse code, so they'd have time to to the things they really WANTED to do! Those would all be swell if the object wasn't to obtain an HF amateur radio license. Dave K8MN |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:31:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:
Well I've yet to find a "low fat" or "low/no sugar" food that tastes like the real thing. It always tastes a little different. So my choice is simply to bypass the desserts as much as I can discipline myself to do so (sometimes I fail miserably). As the old Ross Bagdasarian/Rosemary Cloony song of the late '40s went: "C'mon a' my house, my house, I'm gonna' give you candy...." That's why she's a specialist......the "store-bought" stuff can't make it, and the sweetener used in most of those products (Sorbitol or Manitol) is colloquialy known as "Laxitol". Since the commercial sweetener Sucralose went "retail" under the name of "Splenda" it's a lot easier to get the right taste. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. How did "refined sugar" enter the conversation? Clearly you need to broaden your culinary horizons! Tell me of your desserts? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Tell me of your desserts? Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk. Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"! Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering (she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing it commercially). Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round. Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar. Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some sweets around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters. Kinda like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
K=D8HB wrote: Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane If Mike and Dee say it's junk, then don't you be goin' messin' up their conservative minds with any such heresy. Besides, if you haven't time to learn Morse, then you ain't got no time to be eating no sweetened food. Clean up those green beans too, before you go study your code. 73, de Hans, K0HB (My kids think I'm a real "mother"!) Or push back from the table a little earlier than usual before having a photo taken in a flight suit. |
K=D8HB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... I suppose, Hans, it's ludicrous to point out that we were talking about one set of requirements for an Amateur Radio license as opposed to another set of requirements for the same license...??? If you say it's ludicrous, then I certainly won't argue with you, so ..=2E.... "I agree, Steve. It's ludicrous to point that out. Thanks for bringing it up." 73, de Hans, K0HB Now that's telling him what he wants to hear. Hi! |
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how Dee would accomodate the disabled examinees for the Tower Climbing pass/fail exam. |
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? |
K4YZ wrote: K=D8HB wrote: Uh oh...no "73"...And it was looking so promising for a few moments there... Steve, K4YZ Nope, no "73". That went away when you saw fit to personalize the conversation with disparaging ad hominem remarks unrelated to the topic, and to bring uninvolved family members into the conversation. Well...there YOU go stretching things for the sake of creating yet another adverse thread, Hans... That was rich. We must still be on the dessert thread. |
KØHB wrote:
Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane If Mike and Dee say it's junk, then don't you be goin' messin' up their conservative minds with any such heresy. I don't recall saying dessert was junk. Besides, if you haven't time to learn Morse, then you ain't got no time to be eating no sweetened food. Clean up those green beans too, before you go study your code. I just finished up my dinner of Sausage and Green beans. Lots of green beans. No dessert, and didn't miss it either. Might have bit of sugar free gelatin later for a snack. 73, de Hans, K0HB (My kids think I'm a real "mother"!) I think you're ok... - Mike KB3EIA - |
K=D8HB wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... I can already read Steve's mind at 20WPM. ;^) Because you've memorized the answers. =20 dit dit From the entire Question Pool? |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:31:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: Well I've yet to find a "low fat" or "low/no sugar" food that tastes like the real thing. It always tastes a little different. So my choice is simply to bypass the desserts as much as I can discipline myself to do so (sometimes I fail miserably). As the old Ross Bagdasarian/Rosemary Cloony song of the late '40s went: "C'mon a' my house, my house, I'm gonna' give you candy...." That's why she's a specialist......the "store-bought" stuff can't make it, and the sweetener used in most of those products (Sorbitol or Manitol) is colloquialy known as "Laxitol". Since the commercial sweetener Sucralose went "retail" under the name of "Splenda" it's a lot easier to get the right taste. Splenda isn't too bad at all. In fact, I've used the artificial sweeteners for so long that I dislike the taste of "real" sugar. Leaves a unpleasnt after taste. - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Tell me of your desserts? Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes. Yup that works. Or my regular email addy. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Tell me of your desserts? Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes. 73, de Hans, K0HB Me too, PLEASE !! My husband is borderline diabetic so even if they don't suit me, I can still make use of them. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk. Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"! Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering (she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing it commercially). Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round. Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar. Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some sweets around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters. Kinda like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - I understand the feeling. When I was growing up, we had "meat, potatoes, and gravy" as our main staple. For a change, we had "potatoes, gravy, and meat!" Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk. Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"! Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering (she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing it commercially). Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round. Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar. Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some sweets around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters. Kinda like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - I understand the feeling. When I was growing up, we had "meat, potatoes, and gravy" as our main staple. For a change, we had "potatoes, gravy, and meat!" Dee D. Flint, N8UZE In the Army chow halls, you're actually allowed to tell them to "hold the gravy." Otherwise... |
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Not that Tower climbing will likely ever become an issue with the exam, but if it were, then I'd suggest there would be questions relating to the proper safety techniques of doing such a job, wherein "actual" "physical" demonstration is not needed nor required. Given that - a wheel chair bound person "could" pass those parts of an exam. I can't fathom tower climbing becoming a major issue. There is a question or so relating to wearing a "hard hat" when working "near" a tower in case someone drops a tool or other item. So, there ya go. Perhaps you can consider that as a step in the "tower" safety process. It would be only "questions" relating to such things, what's the big deal about pass/fail? You either answer the question correctly as you would be expected to with any other - or you don't! We have to count the number of correct answers given and see it they add up to a passing grade, if not - too bad! It won't matter if they're handicapped or not. We can accommodate them as to taking the exam, we don't accommodate them as to giving them the "answers". cl |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1114118689.984407.281600 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1113743129.236382.299700 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. This is based on what FCC has done in the past. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY You're being a Jonah again, Jim. Hello Alun, I'm not sure what you mean by "being a Jonah". Does it have anything to do with the bible story of Jonah and the whale - aka "You Can't Keep A Good Man Down"? It means someone preaching doom Well, I wasn't trying to do that! But the way FCC has worked in the past, I wouldn't count on fast changes. That's the reality of how the process works. 73 de Jim, N2EY the announcement guesstimates all done within a year, i.e. by spring '06. So they meant *next* summer (2006), not *this* summer (2005). Sounds about right to me. Granted that the comments about what the FCC might do (and the title of the post) were all the poster's own, and not Hamwave's. Exactly. My time estimates are based on what FCC has done in the past on a number of issues. FCC doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to change the rules - heck, it's been over 5 years since the last restructure, over 21 months since WRC 2003 ended, and yet there's no NPRM on the street yet. My own crystal ball guess is that the FCC will just delete the code test and rearrange some subbands around this time next year. That's still much longer than I originally thought. My guess is there will be some more-substantive changes, and that the code test deletion isn't a done deal - yet. I base the above on the fact that FCC could have simply dumped Element 1 back in summer 2003, without an NPRM, comments, or any of the rest. They received at least two proposals to do just that. All it would take is for FCC to say, in effect: "This subject was discussed thoroughly back in 1998-1999, and we kept Element 1 only because of the treaty. Now the treaty's gone, so we're dropping Element 1." Or some such verbiage - the basic idea is still the same. There's a procedure for such changes. Yet there have been no changes yet, just proposals *to* FCC, and comments. Last time FCC did a restructure, the comment period was what - six-seven months or more? Then it took about 11 months for the Report and Order, and another four months or so before the rules changed. That's over 20 months from NPRM to new rules in effect. 21 months from summer 2005 is spring 2007. Maybe FCC will say something at Dayton. Maybe not. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. I know someone who is going to bust my chops now!!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. But the skill demonstration should bear relationship to the privilege granted as a RESULT of that demonstration. In other words, USE of Morse should be restricted only to those who have successfully demonstrated their skill. Or to use your example, the USE of Morse should be the carrot offered as a result of passing a Morse test. But by FCC regulation, a code-free Technician is allowed to use Morse on the air WITHOUT a successful Morse demonstration, and the "demonstrate BEFORE privilege" model is disconnected; ergo the demonstration is not vital to the successful use of the mode and serves no rational regulatory purpose. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"cl" wrote in message o.verio.net... "bb" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Tower climbing is not a basic skill so there is no need to test for it. One can put up a wide variety of antennas without a tower. On the other hand, I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "cl" wrote in message o.verio.net... "bb" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Tower climbing is not a basic skill so there is no need to test for it. One can put up a wide variety of antennas without a tower. On the other hand, I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Blasphemy! Off with your head! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE w3rv |
cl wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Not that Tower climbing will likely ever become an issue with the exam, I'm going to advocate it during the next NPRM. but if it were, then I'd suggest there would be questions relating to the proper safety techniques of doing such a job, No questions. They need to climb a 60 foot tower, haul up the coax and an HF-tribander, fasten it, point it north, and make the connections. wherein "actual" "physical" demonstration is not needed nor required. But it is. Otherwise, how would we know they could do it? Given that - a wheel chair bound person "could" pass those parts of an exam. I can't fathom tower climbing becoming a major issue. Yet Morse Code has become a major issue. Just because not everyone is going to have a tower is no excuse for not being able to demonstrate the ability. |
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. But the skill demonstration should bear relationship to the privilege granted as a RESULT of that demonstration. In other words, USE of Morse should be restricted only to those who have successfully demonstrated their skill. Or to use your example, the USE of Morse should be the carrot offered as a result of passing a Morse test. But by FCC regulation, a code-free Technician is allowed to use Morse on the air WITHOUT a successful Morse demonstration, and the "demonstrate BEFORE privilege" model is disconnected; ergo the demonstration is not vital to the successful use of the mode and serves no rational regulatory purpose. =20 73, de Hans, K0HB We deserve logical regulations. |
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Brad VK2QQ |
"bb" wrote I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? The Somolian judges gave this a 9.8 on the Olympic Troll-O-Meter, but they were over-ruled by the umpires in instant replay, who award it a 2.6 The Somolian judges lodged a formal protest! It was sufficiently trollish, of course, but way too obvious. It was poorly written, poorly executed, and was so incredibly lame as to lack the true drawing power of a really masterful troll. Maybe as high as a 3.3 for the intense stupidity of the premise, but a 9.8? Never! The Somolian judges tear their hair out, throw their balalaikas down in dismay, and perform the traditional Somolian Dismay Chant! They demand a recount! Recount denied. |
Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Extra credit if they can do it without melting the dielectric insulation of the coax. More points if they can get the solder to actually flow onto the connector body where the shield solder holes are located (helps if you use a small file to remove the plating first). And more points if they remember to put the shell on the cable in the correct direction before doing any soldering ;-) |
I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. What does the FCC and the government get out of it today? I know someone who is going to bust my chops now!!! 8^) This wouldn't be rrap otherwise ;-) |
"robert casey" wrote in message hlink.net... Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Extra credit if they can do it without melting the dielectric insulation of the coax. More points if they can get the solder to actually flow onto the connector body where the shield solder holes are located (helps if you use a small file to remove the plating first). And more points if they remember to put the shell on the cable in the correct direction before doing any soldering ;-) Or they could demonstrate extra skills and just use crimp on PL259's like I do. These are much easier and more reliable. They are more expensive but their construction is superior. My original comment was directed at Dee offering points for something called a "PL256". Brad |
robert casey wrote:
Extra credit if they can do it without melting the dielectric insulation of the coax. More points if they can get the solder to actually flow onto the connector body where the shield solder holes are located (helps if you use a small file to remove the plating first). And more points if they remember to put the shell on the cable in the correct direction before doing any soldering ;-) I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. I also used my Sprague TO-6 to put a couple hundred volts across the cable to make sure there were no loose strands waiting to short out. I had Hams and CBers tell me my cables were too expensive but they kept coming back to buy more to replace other bad cables, and they started sending other people to me, as well. I had someone bring me a cable he bought somewhere else. He said it was "Kind of lossy" No wonder. It was a dead short at one end. He didn't want two new plugs so i walked out the door to my truck and raised the hood. I touched the center pin of one plug and the sleeve of the other plug across the battery. Smoke and flames came out of one plug. A true "Quick & Dirty" test that never fails to find the shorted plug. -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
|
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... robert casey wrote: I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. That's a hell of a lot of messing about and time consuming too. A crimp on PL259 for RG58 series or RG213 series cables would take about 2 minutes to install, no soldering, no chance of heat damage, no shorts and they can be fitted in the field. Brad. |
Brad wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... robert casey wrote: I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. That's a hell of a lot of messing about and time consuming too. A crimp on PL259 for RG58 series or RG213 series cables would take about 2 minutes to install, no soldering, no chance of heat damage, no shorts and they can be fitted in the field. Brad. Solderless connectors for RF applications? A quick fix for sure but not a lasting one! The only crimped connector I've ever seen work is the cable TV connectors and the center conductor us used directly. Hey Mike, Don't rule all Hams. I will agree that most look down their noses and anyone with a lesser class of ticket and none at all is even worse but there are some that are helpful and knowledgeable in their field. I would guess that most hams don't know sqat anymore. Store bought radios and cables and antennas really are the problem here. Everyone operates and yaks about the weather and their latest hemmroid attack but no one know how to fix a broken radio. Heck, I even saw a post from a Canadian Ham that wanted some one to align his Heath stuff, How easy can you get and yet he can't do it or won't even learn how to do it. My mentor in the 60's in Ham radio is now long dead but when that man taught you something it stuck and we built some of the most God awful transmitters and regen receivers but they worked and the knowledge stuck. His motto was "Why buy it when you can build it" and he built everything he used on the air too. People looked down on him too as he held a Conditional class back then. noyk in Ocala |
"Da udder one ya dont know" wrote in message oups.com... Solderless connectors for RF applications? A quick fix for sure but not a lasting one! The only crimped connector I've ever seen work is the cable TV connectors and the center conductor us used directly. Crimp on RF connectors have been used for decades, BNC, TNC and N connectors, good to 1.5GHz, UHF connectors to 500MHz. Used in most avionic and military applications. (many of the connectors have a mil p/n) The crimp forms a cold weld which is better than solder and more reliable considering that the crimp tools are calibrated. http://www.radiall.com/vdocportal/po...egoryId=382831 Download the BNC catalog, go to Page 12 for a sample of BNC crimp on connectors. The UHF's are similar. Brad. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com