|
That is a rather recent addition to part 61. I've got about 3000 hours in
taildraggers and not a checkout in the logbook. Jim "Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote in message ... RST Engineering wrote: nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes. But you will have to get checked out on a tail dragger before you can fly it. |
KØHB wrote
E=IR. It's not just a good idea; it's the LAW! "RST Engineering" wrote No, according to G. S. Ohm, R=E/I. The other two forms are merely algebraic manipulations. Somebody is always trying to twist the law to suit there own agenda! Damned lawyers! 73, de Hans, K0HB Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke |
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. Yes, they have. The anonymouse "John Smith" has claimed that repeatedly. He's wrong, of course. Obviously they haven't actually listened to the parts of the ham bands where Morse Code is used. Model Ts aren't dead. Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW. True enough. However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand- cranking Model T engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes. That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft. Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes. There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one. Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics. Agreed, but in terms of total vehicles sold new each year in the US, that is several hundred thousand vehicles with stick shifts every year. Out of total sales in the millions. A tiny niche market. In fact, almost all cars can be ordered with an automatic transmission, but many *cannot* be ordered with a manual transmission. Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio HF/MF operation. The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone) testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or subject area is so tested for an amateur license. Sure - because no other popular mode requires skills the average person does not already posess. How many hams would have to learn to talk in order to use voice modes? How many would have to learn to read and type to use keyboard modes? What's different about Morse Code is that most new hams today have to learn it just for amateur radio. And that, IMHO, is what bugs some folks so much. But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code is much, much higher. So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact using any mode at all. Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is required to do. Why? Read again the following: The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone) testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or subject area is so tested for an amateur license. The issue is and always has been the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge tested for any other modes. Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code. Wrong....you can ignore or not learn about several specific subject areas...one or more modes of operation, etc. and still get a passing test grade. That depends entirely on what you consider a "subject area". If you define "subject area" as "questions about SSB voice", one could probably get all the questions about SSB voice wrong and still pass - *if* almost all of the others were answered correctly. But if you define "subject area" as "questions about voice modes", it's doubtful that one could get all the questions about voice modes wrong and still pass - even if almost all of the others were answered correctly. However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably going away soon. Just a matter of time. Probably. Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode? "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? No separate test exists for only the electronics. Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge. It still isn't a separate exclusive test. Doesn't have to be. If you get all the other stuff (rules, regs, etc) 100%, you can miss a greater percentage of electronic questions then if it was a separate subject area test. But you can't miss all of them. The fact of the matter is that the current written tests involve a lot of subject areas, but not in a lot of depth. Morse Code testing involves one subject area, in somewhat more depth (although at 5 wpm, "depth" becomes somewhat questionable). It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask! The written is scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis. Add some CW questions (similar in format to existing questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then. What Canada has done solves that problem. Works for me. Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes. But there are special lanes on some roads for cars only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc. There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles are banned. Why are there special segments of the band for CW. The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and 144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with digital/data modes. Correct. So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands, Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band? Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a possibility every day that passes now. Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes six months to produce the R&O, coming out in early spring 2006...effective early summer 2006. You may be the winnah! The Pool is still ongoing. One thing I notice about FCC R&Os for the amateur service is that they almost never put changes into effect on the first of a month - always midmonth or something like that. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask! Since it serves no useful purpose, such a test would be ludicrous (and thus "too much to ask"). Couldn't have stated it better myself. So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands, Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band? There are no such subbands on MF/HF now. Why in heavens name would we establish them at this point? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
From: on Aug 27, 7:38 pm
RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. Yes, they have. Obviously they haven't actually listened to the parts of the ham bands where Morse Code is used. "Ham bands" on the HF spectrum are small in width. Listen to the OTHER 86 percent of HF bandspace to hear "all the morse code." Hear any? No? Well, then, to all those other radio services, morse code radiotelegraphy is DEAD. Model Ts aren't dead. Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW. True enough. However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand- cranking Model T engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes. That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft. But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code is much, much higher. Quantify "much, much higher." Give us a NUMBER, not the subjective wish-fulfillment of a radiotelegraphist lifestyler. However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably going away soon. Then why are you persisting? Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode? "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. What about the other 99% of allocated amateur bandspace? Is morse code radiotelegraphy "number two" there? Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Ask the VEC QPC. They make up the questions. Hint: The VEC are made up of licensed radio amateurs. Show us WHERE in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. where the FCC specifies the minimum number of various kinds of questions that are supposed to be on a license test. Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes. But there are special lanes on some roads for cars only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc. There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles are banned. You are confused. Hop on a Bombardier ATV and see how one can travel all those "banned" trails. Why are there special segments of the band for CW. The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and 144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with digital/data modes. Thank you, Capt. Oblivious. Now tell us WHY those VHF sub- bands are devoted to morse code radiotelegraphy? For moonbounce? How much "EME" have you done, Jimmie? Aren't those sub-bands a result of LOBBYING by codeaholics for "on-air practice morse code transmissions," put there in another effort to make all U.S. radio amateurs know and love the code? Why else is there such EXCLISIVITY in a singular mode at VHF? Please give us your renowned, learned experience at VHF and up... |
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:22:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote: John: From the following: John_Smith, lexicon says John_Smith, lexicon says: KNY2VS ) was last seen quitting #satcom 4 days 18 hours 53 minutes ago (22.08. 17:23) stating ""th y R .g"" after spending 1 hour 34 minutes there.: KNY2VS I take it, KNY2VS is it... On IRCnet, yes. On zIRC, I usually use KC2HMZ, but also have KNY2VS registered. It makes a good alternate nick in case I ping out and have to rejoin under another nick so I can kill my ghost. John Kasupski, Tonawanda, New York Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS) zIRC #monitor Admin |
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:14:02 -0700, John Smith
wrote: John: I entered #monitor though dalnet servers. The channel welcome notice states it is cross linked with zirc (if there isn't a split or other tech probs), what is your nick there? Usually KC2HMZ. The #monitor channel is linked across four networks - dalnet, StarChat, zirc, and ircnet. The usual tech problem that would cause a severance of the crosslink would be if one of the relay bots pings out, or if the server a linkbot is on gets lost in a netsplit. Otherwise you can join any of the four networks - though if you want to avail yourself of the NSA logbot you'll need to be on either ircnet or zirc. John Kasupski, Tonawanda, New York Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS) zIRC #monitor Admin |
From: "K=D8=88B" on Sun 28 Aug 2005 17:47
wrote So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands, Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band? There are no such subbands on MF/HF now. Why in heavens name would we est= ablish them at this point? Simple reason: To keep the MINORITY happy, the minority who still believe in the efficacy, the nobility of purpose ascribed to the morse code mode. The claimed efficacy is that "it will get through when nothing else will." In that case it will work THROUGH any QRM and therefore doesn't NEED any exclusivity. The claimed nobility of purpose ("first mode in radio" "must be treasured as traditional") is nothing but a rationalization on the PCTA's part to keep even a vestige of CONTROL over regulations that they've grown accustomed to having. THEY are the "nobility," not the mode and all must bow to THEIR wishes. THEY rule. Not. If morse code cognition is "so easy to learn, all can do it," then WHY MUST THERE BE A FEDERAL TEST REQUIRED FOR IT? Something so "easy" can be taught in code schools OUTSIDE of federal jurisdiction and supervision. NO FEDERAL TEST IS NEEDED FOR PRESERVATION. The PCTA want to retain CONTROL. They want to have their elite EXCLUSIVITY in the radio playground. It makes them feel "happy" to keep "undesireables" out of THEIR turf. They feel they somehow "own" the right to exclusive EM bandspace. They are the Radio Royals. Their blood is bluest of the blue. Blue blood is caused by oxygen deprivation. Oxygen deprivation leads to malfunctioning thinking. QED. Merde. |
K=D8HB wrote: wrote It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask! Since it serves no useful purpose, It would serve the useful purpose of making sure drivers had the basic skills required to drive a manual transmission car. such a test would be ludicrous (and thus "too much to ask"). Couldn't have stated it better myself. Apply that same logic to the written tests. Explain why it's necessary to learn all the stuff necessary to pass Elements 2, 3 and 4, just to operate QRP CW on 14.020 MHz. So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands, Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band? There are no such subbands on MF/HF now. There should be. Why in heavens name would we establish them at this point? Several reasons. One is that we're about to unleash a lot of hams with no Morse Code skill upon the bands where Morse Code is primarily used by hams. But the more important reason, IMHO, is that as amateur radio becomes more diverse and varied, the regulations of necessity become more complex. There was a time, a bit less than 60 years ago, when 99.99% of amateur radio operations used either Morse Code or AM voice. Almost all operations were "simplex" too - satellites, repeaters, and other automatic stations were in the future. The regulations back then were simpler, because the range of amateur activities were fewer. Then hams in considerable numbers began to use SSB voice. And RTTY, though the number of RTTY stations was limited by the cost, size and complexity of an RTTY setup. (Yes, we all know The Armed Forces used lots of RTTY, which they called RATT. They also had somewhat greater resources than the average ham). Then hams began to use SSTV, and FM, and satellites, and repeaters, and RTTY modes besides five-level Baudot. And packet and pactor and PSK and HELL and WSJT and all sorts of other stuff. Now we have a whole tower of babel of modes. That complexity would benefit from some rules changes. Like a protected space for good old Morse Code. Hans, I know you think the best system would be to simply allow all authorized modes anywhere in the ham bands, by any licensed radio amateur. The reality of such a system might be very different from your imagined nirvana. btw, FCC doesn't go for that system either.=20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
The computer has made most everything simple, hassle free and even children can do it. If you have a ham right and a computer with a sound card this page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...s/4477/?200528 will get you started. There is no need for expensive equip. A SW receiver, homebrew transmitter and a homebrew linear with you computer and you are off into the ether. Old hams trying to scare everyone off is ridiculous... it is childs' play... John On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:03:39 -0700, N2EY wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask! Since it serves no useful purpose, It would serve the useful purpose of making sure drivers had the basic skills required to drive a manual transmission car. such a test would be ludicrous (and thus "too much to ask"). Couldn't have stated it better myself. Apply that same logic to the written tests. Explain why it's necessary to learn all the stuff necessary to pass Elements 2, 3 and 4, just to operate QRP CW on 14.020 MHz. So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands, Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band? There are no such subbands on MF/HF now. There should be. Why in heavens name would we establish them at this point? Several reasons. One is that we're about to unleash a lot of hams with no Morse Code skill upon the bands where Morse Code is primarily used by hams. But the more important reason, IMHO, is that as amateur radio becomes more diverse and varied, the regulations of necessity become more complex. There was a time, a bit less than 60 years ago, when 99.99% of amateur radio operations used either Morse Code or AM voice. Almost all operations were "simplex" too - satellites, repeaters, and other automatic stations were in the future. The regulations back then were simpler, because the range of amateur activities were fewer. Then hams in considerable numbers began to use SSB voice. And RTTY, though the number of RTTY stations was limited by the cost, size and complexity of an RTTY setup. (Yes, we all know The Armed Forces used lots of RTTY, which they called RATT. They also had somewhat greater resources than the average ham). Then hams began to use SSTV, and FM, and satellites, and repeaters, and RTTY modes besides five-level Baudot. And packet and pactor and PSK and HELL and WSJT and all sorts of other stuff. Now we have a whole tower of babel of modes. That complexity would benefit from some rules changes. Like a protected space for good old Morse Code. Hans, I know you think the best system would be to simply allow all authorized modes anywhere in the ham bands, by any licensed radio amateur. The reality of such a system might be very different from your imagined nirvana. btw, FCC doesn't go for that system either. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
And if your CW rig "Chirps" it drives a DSP notch filter NUTS.
Dan/W4NTI "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "RST Engineering" wrote in message ... Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. Model Ts aren't dead. Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW. However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-cranking Model T engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes. Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode? Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes. Why are there special segments of the band for CW. Makes no sense to me. Jim Well, that sounds like a good deal (eliminate the cw only bands) for the no-codes, but it would end up a very *good* deal for the cw enthusiasts. Believe me, ssb would get clobbered from one end to the other by cw stations simply because of the wide spectrum that ssb occupies (compared to cw, that is). I have a feeling that if the cw bands were eliminated, a lot of phone folks would be screaming to bring them back. I'm not sure, but based upon my 75 watts being able to cut through a kilowatt station trying to clobber me and another station ..... both of us maintained a solid qso for half an hour at 35 to 45 words per minute cw whilst Mike, W2OY, was trying to jam us with a kilowatt of am. Didn't work then and I doubt it would work now. You're talking a 6 kHz wide am signal vs cw signals needing only a couple hundred of Hertz. You're talking at least a 14 dB or so advantage for the cw based upon bandwidth of the receiver. For the protection of the phone stations, I believe you will want to keep the cw bands intact. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
wrote in message oups.com... From: "K?B" on Sun 28 Aug 2005 17:47 Idiotic diatribe deleted. plonk Dang not much else left is there? Dan/W4NTI |
wrote Hans, I know you think the best system would be to simply allow all authorized modes anywhere in the ham bands, by any licensed radio amateur. Now that's a STRETCH! I do believe that the FCC over-manages our allocations on most bands with their arbitrary slicing/dicing by mode/license class, without any obvious regard to "market forces". I'd like to see that cumbersome system replaced with a bandplanning model similar to many UHF/VHF bands where the users (that'd be guys like you and me) work out band plans which can be dynamically adjusted to meet our changing needs. The current US plan which allocates virtually 100% of our spectrum (less some minor slices near 5MHz and 219MHz) to narrowband CW, yet restricts every other mode regardless of popularity to smaller segments, is so backwards as to be spherical in its backwardness (backward from every possible viewing angle). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
wrote It would serve the useful purpose of making sure drivers had the basic skills required to drive a manual transmission car. There currently is no such test, but drivers who decide to use manual transmissions seem to learn that skill without a government test. Similarly if there is no Morse skill test, hams who decide to use that mode will take it upon themselves to learn that skill without the need for government testing. That complexity would benefit from some rules changes. Like a protected space for good old Morse Code. Morse code currently enjoys free access to essentially every Hz of amateur spectrum. Since CW is your (and my) favorite mode, that's what Martha Stewart might call "a good thing®" Would you support removal of that free access in exchange for "protected space" pro-rated by bandwidth relative to "protected space" for other popular modes? For example, a good fast CW signal might require "protection" for 150Hz and a properly operated SSB station might require "protection" for 2400Hz. Based on that ratio and your notion of "protected space" for each mode, for each 10KHz protected segment of CW spectrum, SSB operators should have a protected segment of 160KHz. Be careful what you wish for. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
John Smith wrote:
Jim: It is only necessary to create the association between any spoken word and the series of characters you wish to generate when that word is spoken, into a library of such associations... In other words, if I speak "the" and make the association to the characters "t-h-e" the speech to text engine will always generate those characters when I speak that specific word--I could just as easily associate the spoken "the" with any other series of characters. Now, while you and I might not go to that trouble if we are fast typists, others who do not type will... those who are blind will... companies and corps will (and especially those employing disabled workers.) I have seen such libraries on the net for specific uses, such as programming, before. You most likely can download one for the speech engine in question... There are groups devoted to the blind who could easily supply you with them, I am sure... John Too many words in the English language that are pronounced the same but spelled differently for speech-to-text to work very well. Know-no, new-knew, see-sea, I-eye, nose-knows, sail-sale, to-two-too-tu tu, seem-seam, Sue-sue (name vs litigation), cheep-cheap, but-butt, ect., ect., ect. A speech-to-text probgram would have to be able to put the words into context. Probably doable to some level. |
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Obviously they haven't actually listened to the parts of the ham bands where Morse Code is used. Model Ts aren't dead. Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW. True enough. However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand- cranking Model T engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes. That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft. Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes. There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one. Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics. Agreed, but in terms of total vehicles sold new each year in the US, that is several hundred thousand vehicles with stick shifts every year. Out of total sales in the millions. A tiny niche market. In fact, almost all cars can be ordered with an automatic transmission, but many *cannot* be ordered with a manual transmission. Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio HF/MF operation. The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone) testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or subject area is so tested for an amateur license. Sure - because no other popular mode requires skills the average person does not already posess. Digital modes involve a certain skill level at typing. No one is tested to be sure they can operate at X wpm minimum speed. Additionally, what's wrong with a ham starting out at even 1 wpm on the air. Why must there be a minimum skill level. Two no-code techs can do that now on VHF. What's so special about HF vs VHF. Clearly the international community no longer sees the need for a morse skill test. How many hams would have to learn to talk in order to use voice modes? How many would have to learn to read and type to use keyboard modes? What's different about Morse Code is that most new hams today have to learn it just for amateur radio. And that, IMHO, is what bugs some folks so much. Probably so. But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code is much, much higher. So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact using any mode at all. Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is required to do. Why? Read again the following: The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone) testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or subject area is so tested for an amateur license. The issue is and always has been the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge tested for any other modes. Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code. Wrong....you can ignore or not learn about several specific subject areas...one or more modes of operation, etc. and still get a passing test grade. That depends entirely on what you consider a "subject area". If you define "subject area" as "questions about SSB voice", one could probably get all the questions about SSB voice wrong and still pass - *if* almost all of the others were answered correctly. But if you define "subject area" as "questions about voice modes", it's doubtful that one could get all the questions about voice modes wrong and still pass - even if almost all of the others were answered correctly. You assume ALL unknown questions would be answered wrong. Test taking 101 sez for ALL questions you don't know the answer to pick C. Doing so for 10 questions the test taker has no clue on is bound to net at least 2 or 3 correct answers. However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably going away soon. Just a matter of time. Probably. Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode? "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? No separate test exists for only the electronics. Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge. It still isn't a separate exclusive test. Doesn't have to be. If you get all the other stuff (rules, regs, etc) 100%, you can miss a greater percentage of electronic questions then if it was a separate subject area test. But you can't miss all of them. But let's say you get 50% of those. Then you may end up passing the test if all the other stuff (rules/regs) is answered correctly. That isn't the case for the stand-alone morse test. The fact of the matter is that the current written tests involve a lot of subject areas, but not in a lot of depth. Morse Code testing involves one subject area, in somewhat more depth (although at 5 wpm, "depth" becomes somewhat questionable). It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask! And the IARU plus the WRC have stated it isn't required. They have left the choice to each individual administration...and that's where we are today in USA regs. The FCC has said it will end all morse testing (NPRM 05-235). Commentors are now and have been submitting their views for a month or more already. I haven't seen even ONE persuasive new argument to save code testing. All the procode test support argumennts are the same ones as before which the FCC has already reviewed and dismissed. The written is scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis. Add some CW questions (similar in format to existing questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then. What Canada has done solves that problem. Works for me. Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes. But there are special lanes on some roads for cars only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc. There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles are banned. Why are there special segments of the band for CW. The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and 144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with digital/data modes. Correct. So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands, Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band? I've said before that I have no problem with doing so. Within the USA, we could do so via ARRL voluntary bandplans without ever involving the FCC. Doing so might actually serve as a good incentive for some folks to learn and use morse. Makes far more sense to me than trying to keep the test itself. Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a possibility every day that passes now. Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes six months to produce the R&O, coming out in early spring 2006...effective early summer 2006. You may be the winnah! The Pool is still ongoing. One thing I notice about FCC R&Os for the amateur service is that they almost never put changes into effect on the first of a month - always midmonth or something like that. We'll see. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote It would serve the useful purpose of making sure drivers had the basic skills required to drive a manual transmission car. There currently is no such test, but drivers who decide to use manual transmissions seem to learn that skill without a government test. And they appear to do so with no threat to anyone else. When my kids got their licenses they first learned and passed their test using an automatic transmission. They later then took on the task of learning manual transmissions at a point where they alraedy were comfortable with the basic driving skills and could then focus more on the additional skills needed to drive a manual gearbox vehicle. Similarly if there is no Morse skill test, hams who decide to use that mode will take it upon themselves to learn that skill without the need for government testing. That complexity would benefit from some rules changes. Like a protected space for good old Morse Code. Morse code currently enjoys free access to essentially every Hz of amateur spectrum. Since CW is your (and my) favorite mode, that's what Martha Stewart might call "a good thing®" Would you support removal of that free access in exchange for "protected space" pro-rated by bandwidth relative to "protected space" for other popular modes? For example, a good fast CW signal might require "protection" for 150Hz and a properly operated SSB station might require "protection" for 2400Hz. Based on that ratio and your notion of "protected space" for each mode, for each 10KHz protected segment of CW spectrum, SSB operators should have a protected segment of 160KHz. Excellent point. Be careful what you wish for. 73, de Hans, K0HB Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
From: Bill Sohl on Aug 29, 5:25 am
wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message snip of analogies into far-different activities Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio HF/MF operation. The U.S. amateur radio frequency allocations show that MF-HF accounts for only 1 percent (rounding to integers) of total bandspace. Manual radiotelegraphy ("CW") is optional for ANY amateur class (except the old Novice) on ANY amateur band above 30 MHz...yet, without taking any "official poll" on it, it is obvious that "CW" is LESS than 1 percent of all amateur operation above 30 MHz. One percent of one percent gets to be a tiny value. The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone) testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or subject area is so tested for an amateur license. Sure - because no other popular mode requires skills the average person does not already posess. Digital modes involve a certain skill level at typing. No one is tested to be sure they can operate at X wpm minimum speed. Additionally, what's wrong with a ham starting out at even 1 wpm on the air. Why must there be a minimum skill level. Two no-code techs can do that now on VHF. What's so special about HF vs VHF. Clearly the international community no longer sees the need for a morse skill test. Anyone with a communications receiver or scanner can find out that FEW "average hams" speak or enunciate well. :-) There has NEVER been a speaking test for ANY U.S. amateur radio license examination. FEW "average persons" can operate TV modes, slow or fast scan, without the automatic easy-to-use features found on all consumer grade motion-picture cameras on the market now. I've not only used an RCA studio TV camera WITHOUT those features but checked alignment/scanning and the electronics of same. NO SUCH TV mode MANUAL TEST is done in U.S. amateur radio licensing. NO Manual Data mode TEST has ever been required in U.S. amateur radio licensing EVER, yet the FCC allocates Data modes coexisting with "CW" on almost all amateur bands. Manual radiotelegraphy "proficiency" testing has ALWAYS been in U.S. amateur radio licensing, through the three predecessor radio regulating agencies before the FCC was created. It is an "artifact" of testing that has never been removed due to opposition from just enough lobbying efforts to keep it in place. That it has "always been there" is absolutely NO valid reason to keep it. The international community, as represented by the IARU, came out over a year before WRC-03 on eliminating the code test for any license...at the option of each administration. The ARRL was opposed to elimination on through the last day of WRC-03 and now are ambivilent on that. We have yet to see the ARRL's comments on NPRM 05-143 in WT Docket 05-235. The ARRL's "compromise" plan is to retain the code test for Amateur Extra only. That is clearly a sop to their core membership who favor radiotelegraphy. However, at only 145 thousand members, the total ARRL membership is only about 20% of all individual licensed radio amateurs in the USA (721,481 as of 26 August 2005). How many hams would have to learn to talk in order to use voice modes? More than you would believe to listen to them on the air. :-) How many would have to learn to read and type to use keyboard modes? "Data" modes are not restricted to just keyboard input. What's different about Morse Code is that most new hams today have to learn it just for amateur radio. And that, IMHO, is what bugs some folks so much. Probably so. Not "probably." MOST CERTAINLY. 52 years ago when I operated my first big HF transmitter, "CW" skills were NOT required to send TTY and Voice on HF over "DX" paths. Of course that was in the military and the morsemen's argument is "that isn't amateur radio!" :-) Well, neither is broadcasting (called "Mass Media" radio services now), private land mobile radio service, aircraft radio service, or personal radio services...but all those services operate by the very same physical laws as does amateur radio service. Broadcasting, PLMRS, aircraft, personal radio services do NOT use "CW" mode nor do they test for that. Probably what REALLY "bugs" the NCTA is the terrible arrogance of the PCTA that morse code is the heart and soul of amateur radio, or words to that effect...plus, "only 'real' amateurs know code," a terribly elitist, exclusionary bit of bigotry that grew stronger with the so-called "incentive plan" licensing (lobbied for by the ARRL). snip But if you define "subject area" as "questions about voice modes", it's doubtful that one could get all the questions about voice modes wrong and still pass - even if almost all of the others were answered correctly. You assume ALL unknown questions would be answered wrong. Test taking 101 sez for ALL questions you don't know the answer to pick C. Doing so for 10 questions the test taker has no clue on is bound to net at least 2 or 3 correct answers. Miccolis is trying to tap-dance around the plain, simple fact: Fail the code test on a General or Extra exam and one FAILS to get the General or Extra upgrade. NOT a question of "so many 'other' questions right/wrong," a matter of singular FAILURE. snip But you can't miss all of them. But let's say you get 50% of those. Then you may end up passing the test if all the other stuff (rules/regs) is answered correctly. That isn't the case for the stand-alone morse test. You said that before, I've said that before, lots of others have said that before, and the FCC says so in the regulations. Miccolis is trying to smokescreen the plain, simple fact that the manual radiotelegraphy test is stand-alone and NOT a part of the written test elements. The fact of the matter is that the current written tests involve a lot of subject areas, but not in a lot of depth. Morse Code testing involves one subject area, in somewhat more depth (although at 5 wpm, "depth" becomes somewhat questionable). It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask! Automotive vehicle operation IS NOT A PART OF NPRM 05-143 OR WT DOCKET 05-235. Geez... And the IARU plus the WRC have stated it isn't required. They have left the choice to each individual administration...and that's where we are today in USA regs. The FCC has said it will end all morse testing (NPRM 05-235). Commentors are now and have been submitting their views for a month or more already. I haven't seen even ONE persuasive new argument to save code testing. Excuse me? Morse code will be extremely valuable in coordinating communications to counter-attacking alien invaders; the will never understand morse code so they will be caught be surprise. That has been amply documented in the film "Independence Day." :-) All the procode test support argumennts are the same ones as before which the FCC has already reviewed and dismissed. Deja vu all over again. yawn So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands, Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band? I've said before that I have no problem with doing so. Within the USA, we could do so via ARRL voluntary bandplans without ever involving the FCC. Doing so might actually serve as a good incentive for some folks to learn and use morse. Makes far more sense to me than trying to keep the test itself. NPRM 05-143 is NOT about "bandplans." It is SOLEY concerned with elimination or retention of Test Element 1, the manual radiotelegraphy skill test. snip One thing I notice about FCC R&Os for the amateur service is that they almost never put changes into effect on the first of a month - always midmonth or something like that. We'll see. Hello? WHEN was R&O 99-412 issued? [it was on "restructuring"] Good grief, all these "insiders" haven't been making notes... |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... KØHB wrote E=IR. It's not just a good idea; it's the LAW! "RST Engineering" wrote No, according to G. S. Ohm, R=E/I. The other two forms are merely algebraic manipulations. Somebody is always trying to twist the law to suit there own agenda! Damned lawyers! 73, de Hans, K0HB Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke Hello, Hans If there *is* any difference, for heaven's sake, please, someone prove it. It is all relative or mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter ;) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. cut "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. When are you going ENGLISH Obsolete is not useless, ask the marines from Leyte about the uselessness of the obseltete Batteships tat rendered gunfire support Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bill Sohl wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. cut "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. When are you going ENGLISH Obsolete is not useless, ask the marines from Leyte about the uselessness of the obseltete Batteships tat rendered gunfire support Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. cut "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. When are you going ENGLISH Obsolete is not useless, ask the marines from Leyte about the uselessness of the obseltete Batteships tat rendered gunfire support Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. It is only valid if the point is made with the FCC. So far I don't see that being a valid question to the FCC. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. You appear to be the champion of the idea/question in this RRAP forum. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. The future I can't be responsible for. As you properly point out...it is NOT an issue now because the FCC has dismissed the ide. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... Gang of Four??? But in any case, your analogy hasn't had any effect on the FCC and they are the only ones that count. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
From: on Wed 31 Aug 2005 08:23
Bill Sohl wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. Paranoia loves company... PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. Hello? Who ya gonna call? Test Busters? The VEC Question Pool Committee, all licensed radio amateurs, make up ALL the questions and answers. Nasty evil FCC doesn't make them up, they only approve the Pools. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Paranoia NEEDS company? Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Nasty old VECs! What do they know? :-) Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). "What evil lurks in the hearts of men...it is the VEC!" Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Run for office at the ARRL! Get a political appointment as Commissioner at the FCC! Show 'em who's Boss! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. Not from Jimmie, Mighty Macho Morseman! Mount the barricades, the Enemy are approaching! I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. "Come with us now to the days of yesteryear, before RF exposure and NO BANDPLANS!" - intro to "The Lone Stranger" of the wild, wild east when real men were morsemen, feared throughout all radioland. "Hi-yo Silverplate!" but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... Only "four?" :-) Count again, using both hands' fingers... |
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. no it isn't but no you are not the only one using this red herring Except it's not a red herring. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. WHY? Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. why does anyone need to memorized what Inductor do? or how caps ad in paralell? Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Elcetronics is the only thing techinal? Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). and there is not enough Pratical stuff Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to agree on what the rules say. But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear limited power etc That's what NCVEC wanted... Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. no it isn't we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door and the keep em out with hard tests Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point! For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written, code, practical, whatever. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed rebuttal. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... That's what they called themselves in the "21st Century" thing... There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a "red herring" and "something FCC would never consider". Now look where we are. The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less testing overall. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. no it isn't but no you are not the only one using this red herring Except it's not a red herring. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. WHY? Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. No why should we all be tested a=on more electronics why does anyone need to memorized what Inductor do? or how caps ad in paralell? Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Elcetronics is the only thing techinal? Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). and there is not enough Pratical stuff Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to agree on what the rules say. But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear limited power etc That's what NCVEC wanted... Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. no it isn't we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door and the keep em out with hard tests Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point! For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written, code, practical, whatever. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed rebuttal. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... That's what they called themselves in the "21st Century" thing... There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a "red herring" and "something FCC would never consider". Now look where we are. The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less testing overall. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. You know, I'd object to a ham trying to read charts and bandplans while they are driving. It's just as bad as reading a newspaper or trying to shave. So I say yes they should at least be required to know from memory where at least the regulations allow them to be. The read the chart/bandplan concept has the underlying assumption that one will be operating from a fixed location with access to reference materials. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee, it's nice to know you don't shave while driving to work... :-)
|
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. You know, I'd object to a ham trying to read charts and bandplans while they are driving. It's just as bad as reading a newspaper or trying to shave. So I say yes they should at least be required to know from memory where at least the regulations allow them to be. why when they can program there rigs to know it in many cases The read the chart/bandplan concept has the underlying assumption that one will be operating from a fixed location with access to reference materials. You are simply wrong there nothing about a fixed location is assumed that one prepares for operation is assumed Most hams would assume the would carry a log book with them and the rig so a page or 5 is charts Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
From: on Wed 31 Aug 2005 13:23
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. no it isn't but no you are not the only one using this red herring Except it's not a red herring. True, and gutted and scaled, tossed into a frying pan with potatoes, it makes a TERRIBLE "sill och potatis" for Scandinavians. Totally tasteless. :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk, all that paranoic mumbling about "WE GONNA LOSE THE WRITTEN TESTS!" is really only bullsnit MISDIRECTION to avoid discussing the ONLY subject of NPRM 05-143, the elimination of the morse code test. TRY to stay focussed. Show a good image. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. WHY? Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. Congratulations on joining the NEC Question Pool Committee! What a wonderful surprise for all. I'm sure you've gone and taken every single new written test as it was generated by the VEC QPC and passed by the FCC! Er, you HAVE taken each new written test element as it has come out, haven't you? Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to agree on what the rules say. But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear limited power etc That's what NCVEC wanted... The NCVEC didn't get ALL it wanted, did it? Neither did eight other Petitions which were GRANTED IN PART. Seven other Peitioners were just DENIED. Denied as in Defunct. :-) The NCVEC Petition is RM-10870. Did you Comment on it? [it didn't take down my CD which has all of that to look] If you didn't Comment on it, that's your tough luck. The Commission left open plenty of time to file your Comment. The Commission doesn't leave everything open to re-argue and re-re-argue and re-re-re-argue matters which you love to do. we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door and the keep em out with hard tests Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point! What "point" are you tring to push into folks? For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written, code, practical, whatever. For most of the morsemen, they reach into their creels, yank out those smelly red herrings and yell, "SEE? I told you!" as if it were some "new discovery." There are only TWO kinds of tests required by the FCC: Manual International Morse Code proficiency (test element 1) and the written, multiple-choice tests (test elements 2 through 4). There haven't been any others in the FCC regulations...no "practical" (whatever they are) and no "whatever" (whatever the whatevers were). Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed rebuttal. I'm sure it will be regarded as a Landmark Paper, right up there with Shannon, Nyquist, and others...? snip There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a "red herring" and "something FCC would never consider". How about in 1912? Before the FRC added the code test? :-) Note: The FCC would never have considered it in 1912. Not only that the FCC was never considered in 1912! Now look where we are! :-) Now look where we are. We are in the year 2005, 71 years after the FCC was created and - FINALLY - seeing the very distinct possibility of ending the old, archaic, outmoded, unneccessary code test for the U.S. amateur radio service (a HOBBY activity done for personal recreation). The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less testing overall. Nah. It's a "trend" to more and more very sour whine pressed from old grapes by morsemen. Grapes old and whithered on the vine, ones that should have been picked and processed as raisins long ago...with all the other dried fruit. Of course, you are free as anyone to FILE YOUR OWN PETITION with the FCC...to make written testing waaayyyyy tough to match YOUR CONCEPT of the amateur radio service licensing. BTASE (But That's Another Subject Entirely). It isn't part of NPRM 05-143, never was. |
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: cut Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point! For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written, code, practical, whatever. Now you are simply lying Jim I want a test that covers the need of the FCC and US Govt need for there purposes wether that is harder or easier I don't realy care But No I don't believe the test should amout to S&M as advocated by Stevie and to some extent by you |
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. You know, I'd object to a ham trying to read charts and bandplans while they are driving. It's just as bad as reading a newspaper or trying to shave. Shaving can be done by touch. Reading can't. So I say yes they should at least be required to know from memory where at least the regulations allow them to be. You make a valid point, Dee. The read the chart/bandplan concept has the underlying assumption that one will be operating from a fixed location with access to reference materials. Not necessarily. But it does assume you'll have the info with you when you need it. Or at least a close approximation. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote:
Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS... I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand where I stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or betters... If I took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of others--I could end up rather lonely... I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license... John |
John Smith wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS... They are open to all who can pass the required tests. In fact a nonresident noncitizen can get an FCC amateur radio license. I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand where I stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or betters... All an IQ test shows is how well you take IQ tests. There are many different kinds of intelligence, and trying to describe them with a single number is ludicrous. If I took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of others--I could end up rather lonely... The amateur radio tests I've taken, and others I've seen, are nowhere near a full test of my abilities. I don't know about yours... I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license... Why? And when you say "95% of all [Americans]" - does that include those under the age of, say, 5 years? How about those with severe developmental delays and deficits? Does it include those Americans with dementia or Alzheimer's disease? How about those who are illiterate or barely literate, those for whom English is a foreign language, and those with all sorts of other problems and limitations? Or do you mean 95% of all healthy, educated, "average" Americans over the age of, say, 10 years? More important, how much are you willing to water down the written tests to reach that goal? |
wrote Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. The very best idea ever to come out of FCC, bar none, was the original Novice license. The "technical content" consisted of very low-tech questions like "What is Ohms Law?" and "What is the purpose of a key-click filter?". No formulas to calculate, no schematics to interpret, just the simplest "familiarization" topics. While I am passionately interested in INCREASING the techical content of the Technician, General, and Extra examinations, I also believe that a very "un-technical" non-renewable entry class license (with power limits similar to the original Novice) is an excellent idea. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm
John Smith wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote: Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS... They are open to all who can pass the required tests. In fact a nonresident noncitizen can get an FCC amateur radio license. Don't forget cute little 6-year-olds who passed their WRITTENS. I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand where I stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or betters... All an IQ test shows is how well you take IQ tests. There are many different kinds of intelligence, and trying to describe them with a single number is ludicrous. OK, so now we all know that Jimmie didn't score high on a Stanford-Binet IQ test! :-) If I took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of others--I could end up rather lonely... The amateur radio tests I've taken, and others I've seen, are nowhere near a full test of my abilities. I don't know about yours... Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Federal Communications Commission is NOT chartered as an "academic institution" for testing anyone to their "full test of abilities." Never was, not in 71 years. A license test is for the Commission's purpose...to determine if, TO THE COMMISSION, an applicant is considered worthy of a license grant. I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license... Why? And when you say "95% of all [Americans]" - does that include those under the age of, say, 5 years? How about those with severe developmental delays and deficits? Does it include those Americans with dementia or Alzheimer's disease? How about those who are illiterate or barely literate, those for whom English is a foreign language, and those with all sorts of other problems and limitations? Or do you mean 95% of all healthy, educated, "average" Americans over the age of, say, 10 years? The present written tests are simple enough for two SIX YEAR OLDS to pass their license tests under the watchful eye of kindly, grandfatherly-looking VEs. Imagine, two SIX YEAR OLDS with perfect understanding of all regulations and the MATURITY to act responsibly on their own! More important, how much are you willing to water down the written tests to reach that goal? Why have YOU already accepted and passed "watered-down" written tests sufficient that some kindly VEs could pass two SIX YEAR OLDS so that they could - legally - operate radios all by them- selves? But, on that matter, you challenge any challenger on their "expertise" of knowing SIX YEAR OLDS' capability. However, YOU have NEVER stated YOUR "qualifications" in regard to grading SIX YEAR OLDS on their "maturity" to be responsible, federally- licensed radio amateurs. You could do us all a great service by revealing your "expertise" in rating childrens' "maturity." |
|
John Smith wrote: Len: ahhhhh.... I like to build antennas... I like to experiment with them... But, I am a software engineer, not a hardware engineer (some of the math interests me) and frankly, anyone who will pay attention to my rants about the either consider me a loon frown... something has to seem like "magic" to me--or I will lose faith altogether! grin WHATEVER you do, don't ask for any antenna advice from these "higher" hams on RRAP. I made that mistake. Once! |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. The very best idea ever to come out of FCC, bar none, was the original Novice license. Except I don't think it came out of FCC. I think it was an idea from hams (maybe ARRL, but maybe not). The "technical content" consisted of very low-tech questions like "What is Ohms Law?" and "What is the purpose of a key-click filter?". No formulas to calculate, no schematics to interpret, just the simplest "familiarization" topics. Not really "low-tech" to a beginner, though. The old Novice test also contained questions on regulations and operating practices, so it wasn't just technical. Also required 5 wpm Morse Code, sending and receiving. At least, the original Novice was like that. By its 25th anniversary, the Novice written was more technical.... While I am passionately interested in INCREASING the techical content of the Technician, General, and Extra examinations, I also believe that a very "un-technical" non-renewable entry class license (with power limits similar to the original Novice) is an excellent idea. Perhaps - but that's not what NCVEC wanted. Their proposal included things like no homebrewing allowed and that incredible "30 volt" rule. For the first 20 or so years of its existence, the Novice was a one-shot license. No renewals. A prospective Novice could not have ever held any class of amateur license, and once the Novice expired, it was gone. One year until 1967, then two years until the mid 1970s. But it's all really moot for now. FCC specifically denied all of the suggestions for changes to the entry-level license class. Your comments are specifically mentioned in the NPRM, Hans - but FCC didn't act on any of them besides proposing to drop Element 1. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com