|
Hmmm, construct a HERF... that'll keep the neighbors busy...
Warmest regards, John "Landshark" wrote in message ... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... I hope they enjoy my tunes: LOL!!!, the 60's 70 are over big guy ;) 1) Washington Post March 2) Anchors aweigh 3) The Thunderer 4) The Stars and Stripes Forever (my favorite) I've got others on CDs. From all of the services. Funny, but I have a feeling that they will be clamoring for "regulation" all of a sudden :)) With all due regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA Oh Yeah................ Go to hear from You Jim. Landshark Hello, Sharkie My bad. I meant 700 watt system - not something from the 70s LOL. All Bose speakers. A couple hundred watts on the bass alone (and it does shake, although I keep the volume down). Good to hear from you too. I'm not really mad, just disappointed that folks don't understand the need for regulation. I have a dog and she stays in the house for the most part. When I have her out, if she barks more than a few times, I bring her in. The neighbors don't need to hear a dog barking for 20 minutes or more. I know the feeling. I also know, neighbors should work things out rather than call the police over such trivial things. Same thing with the stereo system. Heck, I've made a mistake in the past. Had a party with the Hammond turned up pretty well (as well as the Leslies) and the cops showed up. I apologized and shut it off. Never done that since (and that was 25 years ago). No biggie; anyone can make a mistake. Know the feeling :) I had my cousins out last year, Thursday night and was out in my backyard 2 minutes past 10, started heading into the house and they came a running out and said the music was keeping their kid awake. Went over the next morning, Six pack & bottle of wine in hand as an apology, the wife says "oh you were keeping me awake". I mean, it's not like I do this but once every 3 years, show a little patience., I do when they start firing off fireworks into the air, midweek after 10pm. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA Landshark -- Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. |
John Smith wrote:
By the ARRL own statistics, ham radio is dying Well, shrinking, anyway. The total number of US hams is down slightly from the peak of a few years ago, while the total US population continues to grow. But I would note that the shrinkage occurred *after* the April 2000 reductions in both Morse Code and written testing for all available license classes. IOW, making the licenses easier to get in 2000 did not result in sustained growth. Looking further back, examine the growth from 1990 or 1991 to 2000. (1990 is when medical waivers made it possible to get any amateur license with a 5 wpm test, and 1991 is when the Technician lost its code test. Then compare the growth in that 9 year period to the growth in an equal period of time before 1990 or 1991. You'll find that the overall increase in the '80s was *greater* than in the '90s. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote But I would note that the shrinkage occurred *after* the April 2000 reductions in both Morse Code and written testing for all available license classes. IOW, making the licenses easier to get in 2000 did not result in sustained growth. Two questions: 1) Is this shrinkage due to... a. Less new applicants b. Increased attrition 2) Are easier tests the cause of the shrinkage... a. Yes b. No dit dit (Note Farnsworth spacing) de Hans, K0HB |
|
It is obvious there is a decline in interest in amateur radio, I think the
reasons are many, since the gear is constructed for such a small "nitch" of users--the equip is expensive--this is only one more reason for the decline. I have never heard anyone complain the exams were too difficult (of course, I am mainly around college age kids who go for a license), it is always the code--they hate it--some can be pushed to complete the code to get the license--after, they simply never use the code again...most of these young fellows are interested in GHz freqs and above...and how a computer can be interfaced with the radio... Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: By the ARRL own statistics, ham radio is dying Well, shrinking, anyway. The total number of US hams is down slightly from the peak of a few years ago, while the total US population continues to grow. But I would note that the shrinkage occurred *after* the April 2000 reductions in both Morse Code and written testing for all available license classes. IOW, making the licenses easier to get in 2000 did not result in sustained growth. Looking further back, examine the growth from 1990 or 1991 to 2000. (1990 is when medical waivers made it possible to get any amateur license with a 5 wpm test, and 1991 is when the Technician lost its code test. Then compare the growth in that 9 year period to the growth in an equal period of time before 1990 or 1991. You'll find that the overall increase in the '80s was *greater* than in the '90s. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:22:40 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote: Hmmm, I could record a long QSO on cw and play it for the truckers... give 'em something to appreciate... grin So the hams didn't feel left, could record the truckers and play that for them... evil'er grin Warmest regards, John "Steveo" wrote in message ... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: John Smith wrote: Dan: You will never find me using cw... Well, you don't need it on CB. It's been done, JJ. You can eat **** and die too for all I care, you top posting freak. Steveo: You name is almost as cute as a girls, you sound gay... there is nothing wrong with gay people yanno, but better if you stay with your own kind... grin Top posters bother gays yanno... Warmest regards, John Could be worse, after all your name could be Brett??? Now that would really suck.. |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote But I would note that the shrinkage occurred *after* the April 2000 reductions in both Morse Code and written testing for all available license classes. IOW, making the licenses easier to get in 2000 did not result in sustained growth. Two questions: 1) Is this shrinkage due to... a. Less new applicants b. Increased attrition From what I can see at hamdata.com and AH0A.org, it seems to me that the number of new hams has been slowly increasing since at least 1997 (which is as far back as AH0A.org goes) but attrition has been rising even faster. How much of the attrition increase is due to "involuntary" causes (SKs, hams in nursing homes, etc.) vs. "voluntary" causes (loss of interest) is a matter of pure speculation. I don't have good data on that one way or the other. It does seem to me, however, that when a survey says 22% of recently-licensed new hams interviewed have *never* set up their own station and gotten on the air with it, something's amiss in the "interest" department. We sometimes see statistics about the "average age of US hams today is XX" and predictions of doom for the future as today's hams become SKs. What we don't see are statistics on how the "average age" was computed (mean? median? mode?) nor the age distribution (bell curve? exponential?). Nor do we see stats on what the "average age" was 10, 20, 30 years ago. Looking around at club meetings and hamfests isn't a good sample because a lot of us don't go to those things very often. 2) Are easier tests the cause of the shrinkage... a. Yes b. No No good way to tell. One thing is certain: The test reductions have not resulted in a flood of new hams compared to before the test reductions. One possible explanation is that the real problem is publicity and image, not license requirements. If people don't know what ham radio is, the license requirements have no effect on them. Another factor is that if the license requirements are made "too easy", what you may have are some folks who have a license but no station because it's "too difficult" for them to set one up. Then they forget about ham radio and go on to something else. --- One thing I remember clearly from my newcomer days as a 12-13 year old is that once I found out what amateur radio was, and how to get started, the license requirements were "not a problem". They were simply a challenge. If there had not been a Novice license, I simply would have gone for General right out of the box. A lot of the kids I knew then, and know now, are the same way when they are interested in something. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: John Smith wrote: ... the "anateur exams" are certainly no hinderence, they always have been as simple as pie--a college grad trained in the art of "test taking" could study for a day and pass the most challenging I think you need to go back and look at the early exams. There was a time when an applicant was required to actually draw a schematic of various circuits and explaine how they worked. Is that supposed to be hard? Depends on the person. For someone who knows a little radio theory and the regulations of the amateur radio service, none of the tests were very hard. Heck, I passed the old General and Advanced class tests in 1968 - at the age of 14. That was the summer between 8th and 9th grade for me. No big deal, there were younger hams than me with Extras back then. The difference between then and now is the test *method* more than the content. And even after the exams became multiple choice type, (about 1960 for the General) one had to know the material to get the correct answer as the answers to the acutal questions were not available. Yeah. You'll find that question pool bugaboo in a lot of fields thesedays, including fields where if a person makes a mistake because of not knowing the material, lives may be lost. Good or bad, I don't think FCC will go back to the old way. Nope. So it's really immaterial what the old exams were like, other than to point out the differences. Newer hams have no choice in the matter - they can't take the old tests even if they wanted to. One more difference about the old tests, though: Judging by the study guides, the old tests focused on a few subject areas in depth, while the new tests cover more subject areas but in much less detail. There were study guides with sample questions, but no questions pools with the exact answer available for memorization. Now if you want *really* hard, make it no study guide, no question pool, and the applicant has to do all the learning research with NO idea of what is on the test! 8^) The old study guides were essay-type Q&A that outlined the general area of knowledge. One question could cover a *lot* of ground. The old Extra study guide was as much as 279 questions at one point. If you did not know the theory, then you probably weren't going to pass. Again john smith knows not of what he speaks. I took the tests from the question pools. For me, they were all pretty easy. They were not easy because of the question pools. They were easy because they were fairly basic material. But you had seen the exact Q&A before, right? Weell, the key word is "exact". I noticed that when I took my Extra exam, many of the answers appeared in a different order than they were in the question pool. I came away convinced that the person who memorized the question pool was actually doing things the hard way. The way most people would set out to "memorize" the Q&A is to simply learn to associate the right answer with the question by any means possible. You don't need a verbatim memorization nor any info about the distractors. That's a lot different than actually understanding the material. For the Extra, I spent a week taking the on-line tests. Questions that I knew the answer to, I got right of course. Those that I got wrong earned me a trip to the books or online to find out why I got it wrong. By the time I was finished, I aced the test just about every time on line, and then in the actual test. And I knew the material. Elapsed time, one week. For you. Absolutely. But I bet you had more than a little electrical/radio knowledge before you ever looked at a ham radio study guide. Yup. I think that my level of expertise was just a little skewed. I got sidelined onto computers fairly early in the 1970's. Then I worked mostly in digital, then changed careers, going into photography, videography, and 3-d animation (waaayy too many hats to wear, but whatever) But I did have a good bit of electrical experience So you knew most of the material already! And what you didn't know was more of an extension to your existing knowledge base in the electricity area, rather than a completely new field. Now the Morse code was another thing entirely. That was hard. Besides your auditory situation, it was hard for another reason: It was new, and did not represent an extension of your existing knowledge base the way learning some more electronic/radio theory did. But then I'm just a dum nickel extra! ;^) I bet it says the same thing on your license as it does on mine. With no mention of dumb or nickles, Mike. Each of us met the requirements in force at the time of being licensed. That the requirements changed over time isn't usually due to the people taking the new tests. Yup. My comment was mostly sarcasm. The only way that anyone knows my "vintage" is by my callsign Sort of. I know hams with 2x3 callsigns who have been Extras for 30+ years. They just never went for a vanity call. Looking down on somebody today because they didn't take the same tests you took years ago is kind of like getting mad at someone who paid less for a VCR last week than you paid 20 years ago.... HAR! But isn't that true? Back in 1997 I paid over $2k for a new Dell system. 200 MHz 32 MB Pentium II, 17" Trinitron monitor, HP 820 printer, etc. Today you couldn't get $50 for it (if you could even find someone to buy it!) - in part because for $500 you could buy a new Dell system that was an order of magnitude more computer in almost every way. Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today because s/he got a new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Can you draw the schematic for a push-pull RF amplifier using link coupling and explain how it works? Can you draw an AM transmitter using Heising modulation and explain how it works? Given a little bit of studying, yes. Ah, there is the key, "studying", not just memorizing. Once you study it and know it, it isn't hard. I studied for my extra test. A person would have to be an idiot to memorize *especially* the Extra test. You have some 800 questions to memorize. Not real smart to memorize that many questions for all that appear on the actual test. Especially when the actual test answers are juggled from the pool answers. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
wrote: One possible explanation is that the real problem is publicity and image, not license requirements. If people don't know what ham radio is, the license requirements have no effect on them. Ham radio just isn't very appealing to the current generation. There are too many other things to compete, computers, the Internet, vidoe games. Kids had rather be skilled at playing the latest video game than have technical skills in some outdated (to them) mode of communication. They had much rather build a computer than a radio. Who needs a ham radio station to talk to someone in another state or even in another country, just whip out the cell phone. Almost every teenager now has one. That's true of most of the population - but most of that has been true for decades now. I was high school class of 1972. In a school of over 2400 boys, with a curriculum that emphasized math and science, we had no more than a half-dozen hams. Back then ham radio had "competition" (in no particular order) from sports, school activities, music, counterculture events, antiwar protests, CB, TV, radio, music, cars and girls. Also family chores, schoolwork and after-school jobs. We didn't have cell phones or the internet but we had the telephone and we could get around pretty well, with or without cars. In those days the #1 technical hobby for teenage boys was working on cars. For less than the price of most ham rigs, you could buy a $100 used car and fix it up well enough to get around. Some lucky rich kids got 10-year-old hand-me-down cars from the parental units, which they then worked on to keep on the road. Cars were simpler then, and a mechanically-minded kid knew all about how they worked long before driving age. So "competition" for kids' time is nothing new. The most-often-asked questions about ham radio, then and now, a "Who do you talk to?" "What do you talk about?" and "Why go to all that trouble to talk to strangers?" Most people back then "didn't get it". A few did. Same as today. IMHO the prime time to attract kids to ham radio is middle school or earlier. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith wrote:
It is obvious there is a decline in interest in amateur radio, I think the reasons are many, since the gear is constructed for such a small "nitch" of users--the equip is expensive--this is only one more reason for the decline. The equipment *is* expensive if you buy it new. That's always been a problem. But it's cheaper now (relative to inflation) than ever before. I have never heard anyone complain the exams were too difficult (of course, I am mainly around college age kids who go for a license), Of course - they have plenty of math and science background, I bet. And they're used to taking tests. I got the Advanced in the summer before I entered high school - 1968. it is always the code--they hate it--some can be pushed to complete the code to get the license--after, they simply never use the code again... I think a lot depends on how something is presented. If the code is presented as some sort of difficult thing you "have to do", then of course it's going to be resented. IMHO the prime time to attract kids to ham radio is middle school and earlier. most of these young fellows are interested in GHz freqs and above... They don't need to pass a code test to get all amateur radio privileges above 30 MHz. Just a 35 question written test. and how a computer can be interfaced with the radio... If that's what they're really into, the code test isn't involved at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: By the ARRL own statistics, ham radio is dying Well, shrinking, anyway. The total number of US hams is down slightly from the peak of a few years ago, while the total US population continues to grow. But I would note that the shrinkage occurred *after* the April 2000 reductions in both Morse Code and written testing for all available license classes. IOW, making the licenses easier to get in 2000 did not result in sustained growth. Looking further back, examine the growth from 1990 or 1991 to 2000. (1990 is when medical waivers made it possible to get any amateur license with a 5 wpm test, and 1991 is when the Technician lost its code test. Then compare the growth in that 9 year period to the growth in an equal period of time before 1990 or 1991. You'll find that the overall increase in the '80s was *greater* than in the '90s. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... It is obvious there is a decline in interest in amateur radio, I think the reasons are many, since the gear is constructed for such a small "nitch" of users--the equip is expensive--this is only one more reason for the decline. I have never heard anyone complain the exams were too difficult (of course, I am mainly around college age kids who go for a license), it is always the code--they hate it--some can be pushed to complete the code to get the license--after, they simply never use the code again...most of these young fellows are interested in GHz freqs and above...and how a computer can be interfaced with the radio... Warmest regards, John If all they are interested in is the GHz frequencies and up, they never need to bother with code for the license. The codeless Technician license gives them full privileges, full power levels, and all modes for all frequencies above 30 MHz. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
You suggest that to them... they will take it as personal slur on their intelligence... if they don't have the top licence--they don't want any--it is akin to getting an "A" in the class--you would never get the under-achievers to even bother--they'll just fire up IRC or P2P phone and chat to Australia all night long... or, whip out the cell phone their company internship is furnishing... grin Warmest regards, John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... It is obvious there is a decline in interest in amateur radio, I think the reasons are many, since the gear is constructed for such a small "nitch" of users--the equip is expensive--this is only one more reason for the decline. I have never heard anyone complain the exams were too difficult (of course, I am mainly around college age kids who go for a license), it is always the code--they hate it--some can be pushed to complete the code to get the license--after, they simply never use the code again...most of these young fellows are interested in GHz freqs and above...and how a computer can be interfaced with the radio... Warmest regards, John If all they are interested in is the GHz frequencies and up, they never need to bother with code for the license. The codeless Technician license gives them full privileges, full power levels, and all modes for all frequencies above 30 MHz. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: You suggest that to them... they will take it as personal slur on their intelligence... if they don't have the top licence--they don't want any--it is akin to getting an "A" in the class--you would never get the under-achievers to even bother--they'll just fire up IRC or P2P phone and chat to Australia all night long... or, whip out the cell phone their company internship is furnishing... grin Warmest regards, John Hello, John Are you suggesting just giving away the license? Heck, I learned grade 1.5 Braille in under two weeks (and I can see). I decided I wanted to as a friend is blind and he provided me a Braille slate (that was many decades ago). It was not a big deal; in fact my friend then got on my case asking if I could learn Braille in two weeks, what was the big deal with the code. The reality was that I was lazy. One week later, I was copying 18 words per minute. A few years later, I put 40 words per minute, perfect copy, on paper. It is all a matter of what you want. As to the cell phone, heck - I can talk to someone anywhere anytime using a land-line telephone. Or my HT (yes, even Australia, thanks to the 10 meter repeater). Of course, amateur radio is not designed to replace the telephone. I just had some good information from someone via the Internet on fixing a big Hammond X-66 from the 60s. I've repaired a lot of 'em, but this one had me bugged. The guy is in Mexico. The telephone would be of no use as I had to locate someone who knew something about it. When folks start arguing against amateur radio, they usually bring up a subject that amateur radio is not ideally designed for. Heck, do you want to build a house using only a saw? Perhaps only a hammer? No, you choose the tools you need at the time you need them. In the case of getting help with the Hammond (gawd, I hated the thought of pouring paint thinner down into the scanner - but it worked!), how are you going to locate someone knowledgeable in the subject? Organ repair? No, the organ service guy in this area has referred a few folks with old Hammonds to me. I've always been able to fix 'em even if he can't. But this time I was stuck. Calling the organ repair guy would have yielded no help as I have more knowledge than he. I did call organ repair service in Chicago as that is all that is left of the original Hammond company (it was sold to Ford and then Suzuki) as the new owners didn't want to handle the old stuff. They didn't know, so the telephone was no longer of any use. Despite the failure of the telephone, I would not suggest that the telephone has no use. Amateur radio has far to many facets to try and pinpoint exactly what it is. As far as someone not wanting the code, fine. It will go away, but when is unknown. Had I waited for a codeless tech license, I would have delayed 30 some years waiting for a ticket that didn't require cw. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
I am saying, it really doesn't matter, it is too late, possibly if the exams
were made twice as difficult so the intellectuals felt challenged and the code was dropped--perhaps it would appeal to more... however, I think there is little chance of any changes which will save it, ancient old men keep reciting the same mantras, are in denial that the methods they think will work, WON'T and keep trying to find answers reading tea leaves... .... truth is, there is not a large enough group of people in their teens and twentys to breath life into it... and I don't see anyway of getting them in... other than what I have already suggested... we need some of the brightest minds comming from college right now--I teach a course at a Jr. college... I have found the WILL NOT bother with the code... they would have no problem passing an exam ten times as tough... I have seen this in action... A lot of people worry about their kids cell phone use and would like to limit it... I say put a code exam on the damn thing... problem would be cured overnight! Well, they would probably just switch to IRC and instant messaging--if they are not already there--so put a damn code exam on those too!!! grin Warmest regards, John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: You suggest that to them... they will take it as personal slur on their intelligence... if they don't have the top licence--they don't want any--it is akin to getting an "A" in the class--you would never get the under-achievers to even bother--they'll just fire up IRC or P2P phone and chat to Australia all night long... or, whip out the cell phone their company internship is furnishing... grin Warmest regards, John Hello, John Are you suggesting just giving away the license? Heck, I learned grade 1.5 Braille in under two weeks (and I can see). I decided I wanted to as a friend is blind and he provided me a Braille slate (that was many decades ago). It was not a big deal; in fact my friend then got on my case asking if I could learn Braille in two weeks, what was the big deal with the code. The reality was that I was lazy. One week later, I was copying 18 words per minute. A few years later, I put 40 words per minute, perfect copy, on paper. It is all a matter of what you want. As to the cell phone, heck - I can talk to someone anywhere anytime using a land-line telephone. Or my HT (yes, even Australia, thanks to the 10 meter repeater). Of course, amateur radio is not designed to replace the telephone. I just had some good information from someone via the Internet on fixing a big Hammond X-66 from the 60s. I've repaired a lot of 'em, but this one had me bugged. The guy is in Mexico. The telephone would be of no use as I had to locate someone who knew something about it. When folks start arguing against amateur radio, they usually bring up a subject that amateur radio is not ideally designed for. Heck, do you want to build a house using only a saw? Perhaps only a hammer? No, you choose the tools you need at the time you need them. In the case of getting help with the Hammond (gawd, I hated the thought of pouring paint thinner down into the scanner - but it worked!), how are you going to locate someone knowledgeable in the subject? Organ repair? No, the organ service guy in this area has referred a few folks with old Hammonds to me. I've always been able to fix 'em even if he can't. But this time I was stuck. Calling the organ repair guy would have yielded no help as I have more knowledge than he. I did call organ repair service in Chicago as that is all that is left of the original Hammond company (it was sold to Ford and then Suzuki) as the new owners didn't want to handle the old stuff. They didn't know, so the telephone was no longer of any use. Despite the failure of the telephone, I would not suggest that the telephone has no use. Amateur radio has far to many facets to try and pinpoint exactly what it is. As far as someone not wanting the code, fine. It will go away, but when is unknown. Had I waited for a codeless tech license, I would have delayed 30 some years waiting for a ticket that didn't require cw. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
|
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
wrote: One possible explanation is that the real problem is publicity and image, not license requirements. If people don't know what ham radio is, the license requirements have no effect on them. Ham radio just isn't very appealing to the current generation. There are too many other things to compete, computers, the Internet, vidoe games. Kids had rather be skilled at playing the latest video game than have technical skills in some outdated (to them) mode of communication. They had much rather build a computer than a radio. Who needs a ham radio station to talk to someone in another state or even in another country, just whip out the cell phone. Almost every teenager now has one. Probably be a good idea to get rid of the idea that ham radio is just about talking to people in different countries. - Mike KB3EIA - |
-.-. --.- ?
Jim Hampton wrote: Hi gang! Just for some grins, check this out: http://www.lildobe.net/video/ It will take a bit of time for the folks on dial-up, but it is worth remembering that those two guys were not setting any speed records. It sounded about like the commercial CW circuits on the marine bands I listened to about 37 years ago .... The more things change, the more they stay the same. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
From: Mike Coslo on Thurs 26 May 2005 22:04
Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today because s/he got a new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago? Obviously some do! I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the hams of old were so superior. As time goes on, I hear of old time 20 meter and 80 meter shenanigans, and there was no no-coders to blame it on, just people who passed their difficult tests in front of a steely eyed F.C.C agent, after having to travel 5000 miles in a blizzard or monsoon or dust storm or whatever with cardboard tied to their feet and two hot potatoes in their pockets for sustenance... ;^) [don't forget uphill both ways... :-) ] Things like that are for the most part just examples of how time has changed. Ah, but some PEOPLE don't change that much, Mike! :-) Everything has to be to THEIR WAY when they "made their mark" as valiant Radio Pioneers of HF the "hard way," they thought they were the only ones who "worked for it!" [all others got it "free" or something, never ever actually working for anything] In 1945 a young "unknown" writer got an article published in Wireless World magazine about a revolutionary new idea of using three satellites in geosynchronous orbits to relay communications around the globe. Of course, nobody had yet put any satellites UP there, much less develop rockets that could place them there. "Experts" in radio of that time generally thought it too "blue sky" to be practical, a few saying it was "preposterous." About 1998 (give or take) there was a lot of argument about who could be alloted the LAST of the equatorial orbits for communications satellites...the spaces had been FILLED. 24/7 communications satellites have been a common thing for over two decades now, none of them bothered by the vagaries of the ionosphere. The young writer had worked for the RAF during WW2 developing GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) or "blind landing system." He was a junior "boffin" or technical engineer, had never built such a communications system before, never even worked on rockets. He sort of dropped out of the electronics field and became a novelist, concentrating on science-fiction. He's still living, in Sri Lanka, still writing, still active. His name is Arthur C. Clarke, author of dozens of best-selling novels. If Clarke had such an "interest" in radio and communications, then he should have become a licensed radio amateur in the UK FIRST according to the Political Correctness of some in here. Can't have any of that speculative nonsense about the future! Everything "best" can only be done on HF bands and the "best" way to do that is by morse code! [that's why all the other radio services on HF still use morse code? :-) ] I guess it is VITAL and IMPORTANT that ALL amateurs KEEP all the anachronisms of the past alive, as A Living Museum of Radio, doing EXACTLY as the pioneers did it over a half century ago. NO deviations, everything according to Procedure, By the Book, Tradition held to the nth degree, Marching In Ranks to the Morse Drumbeat, etc., just as these other expert gurus of amateur radio did in Their youth. All that for a HOBBY...? bit, bit |
wrote: I guess it is VITAL and IMPORTANT that ALL amateurs KEEP all the anachronisms of the past alive, as A Living Museum of Radio, doing EXACTLY as the pioneers did it over a half century ago. NO deviations, everything according to Procedure, By the Book, Tradition held to the nth degree, Marching In Ranks to the Morse Drumbeat, etc., just as these other expert gurus of amateur radio did in Their youth. You keep making this assertion, Lennie, and it's just stone cold proof of MY assertion that you're an unrelenting liar without one bit of fact, substantiation or corroboration. Thanks for proving me right...again... Steve, K4YZ |
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: John Smith wrote: So it's really immaterial what the old exams were like, other than to point out the differences. Newer hams have no choice in the matter - they can't take the old tests even if they wanted to. Indeed, what would be the reason? Those old tests aren't really relevant today. The subject matter, maybe. Replace questions about mercury-vapor rectifiers with ones about silicon diodes, for example. One poster asked questions about push-pull amps and obscure modulation schemes. (except to a few AM'ers) While all this is very interesting - it isn't relevant to most of hamming today. The point is that, in the opinion of a number of people, the old exams - actually the old exam *methods* - required a different sort of understanding of the material covered than today's exams. One more difference about the old tests, though: Judging by the study guides, the old tests focused on a few subject areas in depth, while the new tests cover more subject areas but in much less detail. Take the subject of, say, Ohm's Law for DC circuits. With the exam methods used today, we know the exact form and content of each question that could appear on the test. No surprises. If someone can get the right answer to the Ohm's Law problems in the pool, they're all set, regardless of their understanding. But in the old test methods, we did not know the exact form of the Ohm's Law questions. We only knew there would be some. So most prospective hams learned how to solve all sorts of problems with Ohm's Law. There were study guides with sample questions, but no questions pools with the exact answer available for memorization. Now if you want *really* hard, make it no study guide, no question pool, and the applicant has to do all the learning research with NO idea of what is on the test! 8^) The old study guides were essay-type Q&A that outlined the general area of knowledge. One question could cover a *lot* of ground. The old Extra study guide was as much as 279 questions at one point. If you did not know the theory, then you probably weren't going to pass. Again john smith knows not of what he speaks. I took the tests from the question pools. For me, they were all pretty easy. They were not easy because of the question pools. They were easy because they were fairly basic material. But you had seen the exact Q&A before, right? Weell, the key word is "exact". I noticed that when I took my Extra exam, many of the answers appeared in a different order than they were in the question pool. I came away convinced that the person who memorized the question pool was actually doing things the hard way. The way most people would set out to "memorize" the Q&A is to simply learn to associate the right answer with the question by any means possible. You don't need a verbatim memorization nor any info about the distractors. That's a lot different than actually understanding the material. Do you really think "most" people would do that? If they want to memorize the pool, yes. I don't know how many people want to do that. I would expect that I have something in common with most who want to become a ham, which is to say an abiding interest in the subject. As a person who came up through the pool system, it didn't take much time to figure out that I was going to spend a lot more time memorizing the test than I would just learning the material. Memorizing in this context doesn't mean being able to regenerate the questions and answers verbatim. It just means remembering enough to connect the right answer to the question, after having seen both before. For the Extra, I spent a week taking the on-line tests. Questions that I knew the answer to, I got right of course. Those that I got wrong earned me a trip to the books or online to find out why I got it wrong. By the time I was finished, I aced the test just about every time on line, and then in the actual test. And I knew the material. Elapsed time, one week. For you. Absolutely. But I bet you had more than a little electrical/radio knowledge before you ever looked at a ham radio study guide. Yup. I think that my level of expertise was just a little skewed. I got sidelined onto computers fairly early in the 1970's. Then I worked mostly in digital, then changed careers, going into photography, videography, and 3-d animation (waaayy too many hats to wear, but whatever) But I did have a good bit of electrical experience So you knew most of the material already! And what you didn't know was more of an extension to your existing knowledge base in the electricity area, rather than a completely new field. Now the Morse code was another thing entirely. That was hard. Besides your auditory situation, it was hard for another reason: It was new, and did not represent an extension of your existing knowledge base the way learning some more electronic/radio theory did. But then I'm just a dum nickel extra! ;^) I bet it says the same thing on your license as it does on mine. With no mention of dumb or nickles, Mike. Each of us met the requirements in force at the time of being licensed. That the requirements changed over time isn't usually due to the people taking the new tests. Yup. My comment was mostly sarcasm. The only way that anyone knows my "vintage" is by my callsign Sort of. I know hams with 2x3 callsigns who have been Extras for 30+ years. They just never went for a vanity call. Looking down on somebody today because they didn't take the same tests you took years ago is kind of like getting mad at someone who paid less for a VCR last week than you paid 20 years ago.... HAR! But isn't that true? Back in 1997 I paid over $2k for a new Dell system. 200 MHz 32 MB Pentium II, 17" Trinitron monitor, HP 820 printer, etc. Today you couldn't get $50 for it (if you could even find someone to buy it!) - in part because for $500 you could buy a new Dell system that was an order of magnitude more computer in almost every way. Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today because s/he got a new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago? Obviously some do! But not me. I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the hams of old were so superior. Some were, some weren't. As time goes on, I hear of old time 20 meter and 80 meter shenanigans, and there was no no-coders to blame it on, just people who passed their difficult tests in front of a steely eyed F.C.C agent, after having to travel 5000 miles in a blizzard or monsoon or dust storm or whatever with cardboard tied to their feet and two hot potatoes in their pockets for sustenance... ;^) I recall a time when it was extremely rare to hear an intentional violation on the ham bands. Things like the "L1berty Net", W6NUT and 14.313 simply did not exist. There was nothing on the ham bands that wasn't "G rated". A very large part of the reason was that hams had a culture - a tradition - of keeping it that way. PArt of that tradition was that the license was valued as an achievement and an investment of time and effort. Things like that are for the most part just examples of how time has changed. Here's another way to look at it: Suppose you trained (like I did) to run a 26.22 mile marathon. And suppose you completed a couple of them, earning the right to describe yourself as a marathon runner. Now suppose some people complained that the marathon distance was too long, and kept out too many. So they get the marathon distance changed to 5 miles, and call themselves marathon runners too. How would that make you feel? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Scott in Baltimore" wrote in message ... -.-. --.- ? Hello, Scott Where the heck have you been of late? I gotta laugh, I have to make the sounds to copy the -.-. stuff on the computer. Dots and dashes make little sense to me - sounds, however, are something else. I'm back on a DSL account again. Whew! Dial-up was a killer. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: I guess it is VITAL and IMPORTANT that ALL amateurs KEEP all the anachronisms of the past alive, as A Living Museum of Radio, doing EXACTLY as the pioneers did it over a half century ago. NO deviations, everything according to Procedure, By the Book, Tradition held to the nth degree, Marching In Ranks to the Morse Drumbeat, etc., just as these other expert gurus of amateur radio did in Their youth. You keep making this assertion, Lennie, and it's just stone cold proof of MY assertion that you're an unrelenting liar without one bit of fact, substantiation or corroboration. Thanks for proving me right...again... Steve, K4YZ Steve, Where does Lennie come up with all this tripe? I read most of what is going on here with the knife fighting. But I certainly don't see where those that enjoy CW and HF are "stuck in the mud" so to speak. This is a sincere question. I guess I just don't understand his mindset. Dan/W4NTI |
Jim Hampton wrote:
-.-. --.- ? Where the heck have you been of late? I gotta laugh, I have to make the sounds to copy the -.-. stuff on the computer. Dots and dashes make little sense to me - sounds, however, are something else. I'm around, just not here. I can't believe that alpha-hotel is still at it! I'm back on a DSL account again. Whew! Dial-up was a killer. Dial-up is like connecting a piece of fish tank airhose to a fire hydrant and trying to get a glass of water when you're really thirsty! |
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: John Smith wrote: So it's really immaterial what the old exams were like, other than to point out the differences. Newer hams have no choice in the matter - they can't take the old tests even if they wanted to. Indeed, what would be the reason? Those old tests aren't really relevant today. The subject matter, maybe. Replace questions about mercury-vapor rectifiers with ones about silicon diodes, for example. No argument there. That sort of replacement has been going on continuously. One poster asked questions about push-pull amps and obscure modulation schemes. (except to a few AM'ers) While all this is very interesting - it isn't relevant to most of hamming today. The point is that, in the opinion of a number of people, the old exams - actually the old exam *methods* - required a different sort of understanding of the material covered than today's exams. Yes. That's really the crux of the whole issue. One more difference about the old tests, though: Judging by the study guides, the old tests focused on a few subject areas in depth, while the new tests cover more subject areas but in much less detail. Take the subject of, say, Ohm's Law for DC circuits. With the exam methods used today, we know the exact form and content of each question that could appear on the test. No surprises. If someone can get the right answer to the Ohm's Law problems in the pool, they're all set, regardless of their understanding. But in the old test methods, we did not know the exact form of the Ohm's Law questions. We only knew there would be some. So most prospective hams learned how to solve all sorts of problems with Ohm's Law. Okay. Now comes the question of how to reconcile the in-depth questioning of the old tests with the large amount of new material that would be needed to accommodate what has transpired since the good old days. Part of the solution is the replacement mentioned above. Another is to enlarge the question pools, not just in quantity but in variety of questions. About the only way I can think of to accomplish this would be to add a LOT of questions to the test. FCC policy disagrees. Consider the written testing required to step from General to Extra. In the really bad old days (before 1967, when the Advanced was closed off) a prospective Extra had to take a written test of ~100 questions. After 1967, that test was split into two tests (Advanced and Extra) totalling about the same number of questions. Before the 2000 restructuring, the step took two tests totalling 90 questions. Now it takes one 50 question test. See the pattern? Right. I think that most people that want to learn above the Technician level *want* to know the material. Depends entirely on the person. And the point is what the *system* tends to reward. And frankly, there were enough bad eggs let in under the old system, that I think that those who tout the superior Hams produced by the old system might want to consider the subject before yapping about folks like me. How many bad eggs? And what kind? I was there - nothing like W6NUT, 3950 or 14.313 existed back then. Nothing like ex-KG6IRO and the guy on the West Coast who sent false distress signals on the marine VHF band. Yes, some hams back then did break the rules. But compare the violations of those days to the violations of today, in both number and quantity. *No* test, code or written, can be a perfect "bad egg filter". Particularly not a one-shot test that confers privileges that are renewable indefinitely. But that doesn't mean there's no difference between tests and test methods. Back in 1997 I paid over $2k for a new Dell system. 200 MHz 32 MB Pentium II, 17" Trinitron monitor, HP 820 printer, etc. Today you couldn't get $50 for it (if you could even find someone to buy it!) - in part because for $500 you could buy a new Dell system that was an order of magnitude more computer in almost every way. Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today because s/he got a new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago? Obviously some do! But not me. I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the hams of old were so superior. Some were, some weren't. I recall a time when it was extremely rare to hear an intentional violation on the ham bands. Things like the "L1berty Net", W6NUT and 14.313 simply did not exist. There was nothing on the ham bands that wasn't "G rated". A very large part of the reason was that hams had a culture - a tradition - of keeping it that way. PArt of that tradition was that the license was valued as an achievement and an investment of time and effort. Things like that are for the most part just examples of how time has changed. Here's another way to look at it: Suppose you trained (like I did) to run a 26.22 mile marathon. And suppose you completed a couple of them, earning the right to describe yourself as a marathon runner. Now suppose some people complained that the marathon distance was too long, and kept out too many. So they get the marathon distance changed to 5 miles, and call themselves marathon runners too. How would that make you feel? Well, of course there are many different distances that can be run. How would it make you *feel*, Mike? But your point as I see it is that things have been made so much easier that people such as myself can just step in easily, following in the footsteps of people who had to really *earn* their licenses. No, that's not the point. The point is that such a change would breed resentment in those who had met the old standard. The problem is that the resentment should be against the *system*, not the people, unless they had something to do with changing the system. Those who came before are therefore justified in resenting the newcomers because we didn't have to prove ourselves (take the harder test) They may be justified in resenting the *system*, but not the *people*. Big difference. That there are people out there that feel that way is of no doubt. Personally, I think they are a much greater threat to the health of the ARS than us nickel types. I've watched them belittle the new guys to their face. That's just wrong. Thats no way to encourage folks. Agreed. But at the same time it's important to understand how the system has changed. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com