UCM:

The new surface mount technology will now require highly trained "Gnome
Technicians", the ones with the smallest of hands will be most suited,
with very, very small soldering irons... and BIG magnifying glasses...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:02:52 +0000, Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

wrote in part:



Would you eliminate the technical parts of the tests because hams
aren't required to build or fix their rigs?


No. But I would emphasize troubleshooting strategy, which would help
hams at all levels from the appliance operators to the
one-handed-behind-the-back surface-mount circuit homebrewers.


Would you eliminate all mode-specific and band-specific questions
because hams aren't required to use any specific band or mode?


Nope. But know the best operating procedures for each band and mode. And
why, from a basic radio science perpective.

Would you eliminate all technology-specific questions
because hams aren't required to use any specific technology?


No. Keep the introductory electronics, but strongly emphasize the
science behind the RADIO WAVES you're EMITTING and RECEIVING, and the
media in which they propagate. This means that even appliance operators,
so maligned on this group and elesewhere, will have as firm foundation
in the actual activity of communications as the electronics wizard.


*Besides* eliminating the code test, what would *you* change about
the license tests?

It's the Operator Techniques, stpuid. ($1) With fewer LIDS, people won't
care what electronics skill level you have when the mike is off. And ham
radio will be less of the circle jerk it has become.

And eliminate the swimsuit competition as stated in previous message. I
mean, the Huntsville Hamfest is coming up and man, I don't even want to
think about it.

73 Corry K4DOH

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a
morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has
never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF
phone.....

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
homebrewing to use manufactured radio sets.

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
voice modes to use Morse Code and data modes.

Apples vs oranges. No other mode requires a "skill"
test which is exactly what the current CW test is...a skill
test.

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on the
limits of VHF/UHF ham bands to operate on the HF/MF ham bands.

Ditto my last

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on RF
exposure and electrical safety to use low power battery-operated rigs.

Ditto my last

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
transistors and ICs to use vacuum tube rigs.

Ditto my last

Etc.

Suppose someone wanted to operate a low-power Morse Code amateur radio
transceiver on 7020 kHz. Just a simple 50 watt transceiver and dipole
antenna, with key and speaker.

To operate legally, such a person would need an Extra class license,
which requires passing tests that include all sorts of stuff that is
unnecessary for the legal and correct operation of the above station.

But not one of those subject areas stands alone as a pass/fail
gate as does the CW test. THAT is the difference. You
want some questions added to the pool regarding morse
as a mode, no problem. That is, however, not the same as
having a single stand-alone morse profficiency test.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Perhaps someone can clear up one issue for me.....why do we take a
morse code test to gain access to phone portions of the bands? It has
never made sense to me that you had to pass a code test to operate HF
phone.....

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
homebrewing to use manufactured radio sets.

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
voice modes to use Morse Code and data modes.

Apples vs oranges. No other mode requires a "skill"
test which is exactly what the current CW test is...a skill
test.

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on the
limits of VHF/UHF ham bands to operate on the HF/MF ham bands.

Ditto my last

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on RF
exposure and electrical safety to use low power battery-operated rigs.

Ditto my last

For the same reasons that you take tests which include questions on
transistors and ICs to use vacuum tube rigs.

Ditto my last

Etc.

Suppose someone wanted to operate a low-power Morse Code amateur radio
transceiver on 7020 kHz. Just a simple 50 watt transceiver and dipole
antenna, with key and speaker.

To operate legally, such a person would need an Extra class license,
which requires passing tests that include all sorts of stuff that is
unnecessary for the legal and correct operation of the above station.

But not one of those subject areas stands alone as a pass/fail
gate as does the CW test. THAT is the difference. You
want some questions added to the pool regarding morse
as a mode, no problem. That is, however, not the same as
having a single stand-alone morse profficiency test.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

Logic, it is a way of life!

YOUR way of life "John". Which obviously has nothing to do with normal
human logical processes.

.. . . are "they" still coming to get you "John" . . ?

John

w3rv

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Kelly:

Don't get upset with me, either the majority wants to dump the CW test,
and the FCC, or not, I am but one person... try to gain a perspective here
man, "CW religious zealot-ism" can be thought of as a way of life to, I
don't think anyone is going to hinder your member ship in "The
Brotherhood of the Dead Key", there is room for ya man, somewhere...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:56:24 -0700, kelly wrote:


John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

Logic, it is a way of life!

YOUR way of life "John". Which obviously has nothing to do with normal
human logical processes.

. . . are "they" still coming to get you "John" . . ?

John

w3rv

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one
looks at the comments already filed) appear to be
running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of
all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

K2EY:

I think the majoritys' will is what is occurring, and no, I don't think a
minority is going to be able to stop the majority here, perhaps if you got
a group together called "Gay Hams for Morse!" it might float, for some
reason the homosexuals are able to enforce their will on others
effectively, perhaps a study of their methods and their adoption could
lead to success.

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:21:19 -0700, Phil Kane wrote:

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

Bill:

Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed" with a slow typist there?

It sucks, yes, I would allow for having one come up to speed before using
IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed. That same
system would work well for Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a
"newbie frequency" until they get up to speed and have range of the whole
cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me!

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK