I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY. No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY. No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

Yet the reality of today is that except for two VHF bands,
50.0 MHz to 50.1 and 144.0 MHz to 144.1, there are no
other exclusive CW segments at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

Yet the reality of today is that except for two VHF bands,
50.0 MHz to 50.1 and 144.0 MHz to 144.1, there are no
other exclusive CW segments at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Very true Bill. The gentlemans agreements worked....then. Not anymore.
The gentlemen have died off, and the CBers have replaced them. Think about
it.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan:

I know it may seem that way, but gentlemen have not died off, they are
just not found in radio anymore... frown

John

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 22:46:14 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

Yet the reality of today is that except for two VHF bands,
50.0 MHz to 50.1 and 144.0 MHz to 144.1, there are no
other exclusive CW segments at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Very true Bill. The gentlemans agreements worked....then. Not anymore.
The gentlemen have died off, and the CBers have replaced them. Think about
it.

Dan/W4NTI

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it


It seems true that many, if not most, CW fans fear that other modes will
"over-run" them if the ARRL's "plan" for regulation by bandwidth goes
forward in its present form. I have always stated truthfully here that I
would never support any proposal to ban or restrict the use of CW in any
way, shape, or form and that position still stands. I *also* firmly believe
that CW and other modes should NOT be "squeezed out of existence" or
"over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots" as many fear will happen if the
"plan" adopted by the ARRL BoD in July were to become FCC regulation.

As a candidate for the ARRL Atlantic Division director's position, I have
gone on record publicly (on the QRP-L reflector and on qrz.com and now here
on r.r.a.p) that, had I been on the ARRL BoD in July, I would NOT have voted
for "the plan" because I believe that the fact that virtually NOBODY seems
to like it indicates to me that it's broken and needs to be fixed if it's to
go forward at all.

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective needs
to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that
allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can accept
and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I
would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that
sort of result.

In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams, growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia, in-fighting,
and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with (or
don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL. ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating preferences.
Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and
helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some
inferior form of life.

As far as "dumbing down" goes - I don't buy it - as Ed Hare, W1RFI (someone
who I think most here respect), has recounted ... the "beginner's test
(novice)" in his day had a 3-1/2 page study guide, the general study guide
was 16 pages (I had mis-remembered and stated 12-14 pages in a couple of
presentations, but that was an honest mistake and doesn't really alter the
point). Today, the "Now You're Talking" - the study guide for the
"beginner's test (tech)" is on the order of 200 pages or slightly more and
covers MANY more topics than the study guides of Ed's test-taking days ever
covered.

The point is that things have NOT been "dumbed down" ... there is more to
study and learn than ever before - just to become a "beginner." I was
licensed long enough ago to have been a member of QCWA for some time, and I
am FIRMLY convinced that those who complain about "dumbing down" of the
testing are either being disingenuous, or more likely simply remember the
tests that they took many years ago as being MUCH harder than they actually
were. Besides, the test isn't a proof that you "know all there is to know,"
nor SHOULD it be.

I'd ask older hams with higher class licenses to think back to the mistakes
that they made when they first went on the air many years ago - and how the
more experienced hams of the time (generally) were patient, tolerant, and
helpful. Show the newcomers the way in polite, respectful, and constructive
ways, rather than slamming them and telling them they're no good!

If anyone (particularly from the Atlantic Division) wants to see information
on my background and qualifications and some issues material, it's available
on my personal website at http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c. Questions and comments
via direct e-mail are, of course, welcomed (again, particularly from ARRL
Atlantic Division members).

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it


It seems true that many, if not most, CW fans fear that other modes will
"over-run" them if the ARRL's "plan" for regulation by bandwidth goes
forward in its present form. I have always stated truthfully here that I
would never support any proposal to ban or restrict the use of CW in any
way, shape, or form and that position still stands. I *also* firmly
believe that CW and other modes should NOT be "squeezed out of existence"
or "over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots" as many fear will happen if the
"plan" adopted by the ARRL BoD in July were to become FCC regulation.

As a candidate for the ARRL Atlantic Division director's position, I have
gone on record publicly (on the QRP-L reflector and on qrz.com and now
here on r.r.a.p) that, had I been on the ARRL BoD in July, I would NOT
have voted for "the plan" because I believe that the fact that virtually
NOBODY seems to like it indicates to me that it's broken and needs to be
fixed if it's to go forward at all.

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective
needs to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises
that allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can
accept and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL
BoD I would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge
that sort of result.

In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams, growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia,
in-fighting, and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad
for the ARS as it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we
get along with (or don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL. ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating
preferences. Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of
patience and helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating
them as some inferior form of life.

As far as "dumbing down" goes - I don't buy it - as Ed Hare, W1RFI
(someone who I think most here respect), has recounted ... the "beginner's
test (novice)" in his day had a 3-1/2 page study guide, the general study
guide was 16 pages (I had mis-remembered and stated 12-14 pages in a
couple of presentations, but that was an honest mistake and doesn't really
alter the point). Today, the "Now You're Talking" - the study guide for
the "beginner's test (tech)" is on the order of 200 pages or slightly more
and covers MANY more topics than the study guides of Ed's test-taking days
ever covered.

The point is that things have NOT been "dumbed down" ... there is more to
study and learn than ever before - just to become a "beginner." I was
licensed long enough ago to have been a member of QCWA for some time, and
I am FIRMLY convinced that those who complain about "dumbing down" of the
testing are either being disingenuous, or more likely simply remember the
tests that they took many years ago as being MUCH harder than they
actually were. Besides, the test isn't a proof that you "know all there
is to know," nor SHOULD it be.

I'd ask older hams with higher class licenses to think back to the
mistakes that they made when they first went on the air many years ago -
and how the more experienced hams of the time (generally) were patient,
tolerant, and helpful. Show the newcomers the way in polite, respectful,
and constructive ways, rather than slamming them and telling them they're
no good!

If anyone (particularly from the Atlantic Division) wants to see
information on my background and qualifications and some issues material,
it's available on my personal website at http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c.
Questions and comments via direct e-mail are, of course, welcomed (again,
particularly from ARRL Atlantic Division members).

73,
Carl - wk3c
Good luck to you Carl.

One parting shot ..... now a days the new comers are not like we used to
be. The new hams today are educated by using Cobra's and kickers, and all
the assorted crap that goes along with that mindset.

Dan/W4NTI

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
As far as "dumbing down" goes - I don't buy it - as Ed Hare, W1RFI (someone
who I think most here respect), has recounted ... the "beginner's test
(novice)" in his day had a 3-1/2 page study guide, the general study guide
was 16 pages (I had mis-remembered and stated 12-14 pages in a couple of
presentations, but that was an honest mistake and doesn't really alter the
point). Today, the "Now You're Talking" - the study guide for the
"beginner's test (tech)" is on the order of 200 pages or slightly more and
covers MANY more topics than the study guides of Ed's test-taking days ever
covered.

Except that's not the whole story. I've had this discussion with W1RFI
both
online and in person. There's a lot more to the old vs. new exams.

First off, the "3-1/2 page study guide" refers to the part of the old
ARRL License Manual that had the sample questions. These were
essay-type questions
meant to indicate subject areas that would be on the test. The old LM
was *not*
meant to be a stand-alone study guide, nor did it contain the exact
Q&A. One or two essay questions could cover an enormous amount of
ground, yet take up a small part of one page.

In addition, the prospective ham had to know the rules and regulations
(not part of those 3-1/2 pages) plus Morse Code sending and receiving.

Most of all, the old 1963 Novice was an extremely limited license. Good
for one
year, small parts of 4 bands bands, two modes and low power with
crystal control. Every US ham had a year to pass at least the General
written (same exam was used for Technician, General and Conditional) or
leave the ham bands.

The point is that things have NOT been "dumbed down" ... there is more to
study and learn than ever before - just to become a "beginner."

Yes and no.

If someone wants to really *understand* the material, there's lots to
learn. If they want to be able to practically apply it, there's even
more.

But if all they want to do is pass the test, all they need is to get
enough multiple choices right and the license is theirs. FCC doesn't
care if someone understands the material or not, or if they got a
perfect score or just enough for a passing mark. Same license is issued
either way.

This isn't meant as a put-down of newer hams - they don't control the
testing process or requirements!

I was
licensed long enough ago to have been a member of QCWA for some time, and I
am FIRMLY convinced that those who complain about "dumbing down" of the
testing are either being disingenuous, or more likely simply remember the
tests that they took many years ago as being MUCH harder than they actually
were.

Or maybe they're using a poor choice of words.

The old tests required some understanding and detailed knowledge in a
few well-defined areas. The new tests are more amenable to memorization
without much understanding, and treat a wide variety of subjects in a
very basic manner.

On top of all this is the fact that in the bad old days just getting to
an exam was a major effort for a lot of prospective hams. So we tended
to overprepare just to be sure.

Besides, the test isn't a proof that you "know all there is to know,"
nor SHOULD it be.

Of course not! At the same time, if the test is "too easy", the
newcomer has so much to learn that they can be frustrated to the point
of giving up.

I'd ask older hams with higher class licenses to think back to the mistakes
that they made when they first went on the air many years ago - and how the
more experienced hams of the time (generally) were patient, tolerant, and
helpful. Show the newcomers the way in polite, respectful, and constructive
ways, rather than slamming them and telling them they're no good!

Of course - but that's a two-way street! Being called "olde fartz",
"obsolete", "dinosaurs", "beepers", "key tappers", "elitists",
"one-by-twos who need a whack from a two-by-four" and such doesn't make
an experienced ham - *any* experienced ham - want to Elmer the name
caller.

Look at KB3EIA's experiences - see the problem? I had a similar one
here on rrap when I tried to help someone with an HF antenna problem,
then realized the person expected me to completely solve his problem
with incomplete information and a barrage of put-downs. Eventually I
realized it was a waste of my time - the person involved would not
accept any solution provided.

Of course a lot of Elmering *does* go on - via reflectors, in person,
on the air, with books, websites, etc. I've done a bit of that
myself....

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
As far as "dumbing down" goes - I don't buy it -

OK, here's some sample test questions:

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:
(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter.

Study Question #32:
From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
consumed
by the load be determined?

Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?

Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
following components:
(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank,
(c) high voltage source,
(d) plate-current meter,
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.

Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

Of course those questions seem simple if someone has reasonable
knowledge and experience with the radio technology of the times. The
last two questions are
still arguably somewhat relevant because there are still vacuum-tube
based amplifiers on the market and in wide use by hams.

But the most interesting thing about those questions is that they are
just *some* of the study questions for the *Novice* exam of 1976. Took
up less
than a page. How many pages of explanation would it take to
teach the above material in detail?

The actual exam did not use these questions. Instead, it might show,
for
example, a schematic of the amplifier circuit similar to, but not
exactly like
the one shown in the license manual, with 5 of the components labeled
"a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the
coupling
capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor

labelled ''d' in the circuit above?"

And that's at the *Novice* level. The raw beginner, with limited
privileges.

Does anyone think that the current entry-level exams are tougher than
that?

The breadth of material has increased but the depth has decreased. The
number of questions has decreased and the nature of the test has
changed.

Here's proof:

Written test requirements before April 15, 2000:

Novice: 1 test, 30 questions
Tech/Tech Plus: 2 tests, 30/35 questions (65 total)
General: 3 tests, 30/35/35 questions (100 total)
Advanced: 4 tests, 30/35/35/50 questions (150 total)
Extra: 5 tests, 30/35/35/50/40 questions (190 total)

Written test requirements after April 15, 2000:
Tech: 1 test, 35 questions
General: 2 tests, 35/35 questions (70 total)
Extra: 3 tests, 35/35/50 questions (120 total)

I did this from memory so the number of questions may not be perfect,
but the trend is very clear. Fewer tests and fewer questions across
the board.

Back when I took the exams (1967-1970) the Novice was about 20
questions, and all of the other classes about 50 questions each. About
170 total questions. The exact number of questions on the test was not
known in advance back then, nor were the exact Q&A.

Of course we're not going to see a return to 'secret' tests, because
FCC doesn't have the resources, nor do they see the need. And tests
alone are not the only indicator of knowledge and skill, of course.
There were folks who "tightened all the loose screws" in those days,
too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

It seems true that many, if not most, CW fans fear that other modes will
"over-run" them if the ARRL's "plan" for regulation by bandwidth goes
forward in its present form. I have always stated truthfully here that I
would never support any proposal to ban or restrict the use of CW in any
way, shape, or form and that position still stands. I *also* firmly believe
that CW and other modes should NOT be "squeezed out of existence" or
"over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots" as many fear will happen if the
"plan" adopted by the ARRL BoD in July were to become FCC regulation.

Works for me!

As a candidate for the ARRL Atlantic Division director's position, I have
gone on record publicly (on the QRP-L reflector and on qrz.com and now here
on r.r.a.p) that, had I been on the ARRL BoD in July, I would NOT have voted
for "the plan" because I believe that the fact that virtually NOBODY seems
to like it indicates to me that it's broken and needs to be fixed if it's to
go forward at all.

Or at least rewritten so that it's clear what is being proposed in the
first place.

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective needs
to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that
allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can accept
and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I
would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that
sort of result.

With all due respect, that's what everybody says. The trouble is with
the specifics. You've given us some good specifics, like support of a
'reasonable' subband for Morse Code only, and a similar 'reasonable'
subband for 'robots'.
The devil is in "what's reasonable"?

In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams,

That was a prime reason for "incentive licensing" 40 years ago!

growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia, in-fighting,
and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with (or
don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL.

The trouble is that ham radio covers such a wide range of activities
that
there's trouble finding common ground in some cases.

For example, you have folks who want to use equipment and modes that
are
decades old, and folks who think anything less than their concept of
SOTA is "obsolete". Folks who want more room for SSB (and even "hi-fi
SSB") and folks who want more room for digital. Folks who don't even
have a computer in the shack and folks who never actually listen to a
signal (they watch it on the waterfall display).

Appliance ops and homebrew-from-scratch folks. DXers, contesters,
ragchewers, emcomm folks. Those who are stuck with compromise and
stealth antennas and those with tons of aluminum aloft.

How do you get all those folks to see that there is value in what each
of them brings to the table?

ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating preferences.
Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and
helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some
inferior form of life.

As mentioned before - that goes both ways.

73 de Jim, N2EY