wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:18:18 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote in t:

wrote

You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because
there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence.

The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OETthinking.

If there were a 50W permit.......

Why even have a "learner's permit" at all? Looks to me like the hobby
got along just fine all these years without one, so why start now?

??

The current license structure is a direct descendant of the 1951
restructuring that
gave us a system with licenses called Novice, Technician, General,
Conditional, Advanced, and Extra.

desendent Jim

for the past 25 years If have the dates right we have an entry license
the tech that placed no limits on powerin the band it had that was
restricted in band in large measure by the treaty alone

why go a for limited license now

the only reason given is to allow a somewht simplier question pool

one that seem doomed to get these new Novices (or whatever we call
them) subjected to diatribes we see in another thrad derected against
the holder of the UK Fl license and in yet another grupop the same
abuse in AU

I see no need for the USA to repeat the mistakes of the Mother Coutry
or of our nephews in AU (AU being founded as derect result of the
revoluation I call them our nephews)

In
fact, I recently picked up a 1940 edition of the ARRL Handbook, and at
that time there was only one license with no learner's permit.
cut

KØHB wrote:
wrote

So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class
A hams with 2x3s....

Yup.

Some might object to that.

There are also people who might object to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight
sweaters, and no bra, but I ignore them.

Hans you proposals are well thought out they have some merit but one
have you read tany of the thread on the English Fl license holders or
the AU fellows

do you have in your bag of tricks some way of heading of such abuse? or
coments on why this propoasal will not endgender the same sort of
abuse?

73, de Hans, K0HB

On 29 Dec 2005 20:04:16 -0800, wrote in
.com:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:18:18 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote in t:

wrote

You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because
there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence.

The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OET thinking.

If there were a 50W permit.......

Why even have a "learner's permit" at all? Looks to me like the hobby
got along just fine all these years without one, so why start now?

??

The current license structure is a direct descendant of the 1951
restructuring that
gave us a system with licenses called Novice, Technician, General,
Conditional, Advanced, and Extra.


So the proposed "learner's permit" would be equivalent to..... what?


In
fact, I recently picked up a 1940 edition of the ARRL Handbook, and at
that time there was only one license with no learner's permit.

Read it some more. In 1940 there were three classes of US amateur radio

license - Class A, Class B and Class C. That system was in place from
1933 to 1951,


I browsed through it some more but I didn't see any mention of the
different classes of licenses. You may be right and it may be there,
but I haven't found it yet. Nor have I found any mention of a
"learner's permit".


The
concept (according to the second chapter) was to memorize the code
while building your first receiver, listen on your receiver to improve
your code while building your first transmitter, and all the while
studying for the written test. Sounds like a plan to me.

That's what I did.

The question is how much should be required to get the intitial
license.
In 1940, the minimum requirement for the Class B or C license was
13 wpm Morse Code, sending and receiving, plus a written test of about
50 questions that included multiple choice questions, drawing schematic
and block diagrams, and answering some essay questions.


Sounds fair to me. And if you're going to keep the code then 13wpm is
just about right. When I learned Morse I found that it's hard to learn
at a rate slower than 12wpm. Plus, that's about the minimum speed
needed for any practical use (from what I hear across the spectrum).


Since then, the requirements have changed somewhat...


I think the term is "dumbed down".

Still, I don't see any point in having a learner's permit. It's not
like driving a car........








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:

Still, I don't see any point in having a learner's permit. It's not
like driving a car........


when I had leaners permit long time ago, I steped on wrong pedal an
drove dady's car into church doors. momma always say I going to hell
for that when she drinking but sheok rest time.

an Old friend wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

Still, I don't see any point in having a learner's permit. It's not
like driving a car........


when I had leaners permit long time ago, I steped on wrong pedal an
drove dady's car into church doors. momma always say I going to hell
for that when she drinking but sheok rest time.

more forgery np stevei you can go one either being a PoS or inspiring
them after al nothing I can realy to stop you

KØHB wrote:
wrote

So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class
A hams with 2x3s....

Yup.

Some might object to that.

There are also people who might object to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight
sweaters, and no bra, but I ignore them.

I don't!

I pay lots of attention to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight
sweaters, and no bra....

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote

So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class
A hams with 2x3s....

Yup.

Some might object to that.

There are also people who might object to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight
sweaters, and no bra, but I ignore them.

I don't!

I pay lots of attention to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight
sweaters, and no bra....

WHERE !?!?!?!

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote
...... what is your specific proposal?

I propose that new license applications be available
in two classes, namely "Class B" and "Class A".

The "Class B" learners permit would have an entry-level test
(basic regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC
and AC electronics). This class would have full frequency and
mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The permit
would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable.

The "Class A" license test would be of a difficulty level
similar to the current Extra class test, and would have
full privileges at power levels up to 1500W, equivalent to
current Extra Class license holders. This license
would be issued "for life" without requirement for
renewal.

Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would
retain their current operating privileges.

Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class
licensees could upgrade to "Class A" at any time.

Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty
level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think
that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test
element. Today, even with 3 element steps
to Extra we see limited (i.e. about 15%) of today's hams
going to Extra. Once code is gone, some of that will increase, but
I suspect many people find their needs addressed at Tech or
General.

Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense
wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the
non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my
suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C.
Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be
renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to
todays General.

Just some more thoughts, what say you folks?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote


Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty
level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think
that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test
element.

My proposal gives you a generous 10 years to prepare.


Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense
wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the
non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my
suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C.
Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be
renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to
todays General.

Just some more thoughts, what say you folks?


Your proposal perpetuates the caste system currently in place which stratifies
and divides hams into arbitrary ranks. That mentality absolutely needs to be
destroyed.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:22:16 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote


Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty
level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think
that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test
element.

My proposal gives you a generous 10 years to prepare.


Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense
wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the
non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my
suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C.
Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be
renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to
todays General.

Just some more thoughts, what say you folks?


Your proposal perpetuates the caste system currently in place which stratifies
and divides hams into arbitrary ranks. That mentality absolutely needs to be
destroyed.

glad to see your ointerest in ending this problem

a question that needs to be answered

why does the uresulting "Ham class" have to the exactly the equal of
the extra? do you or anyone in fact think that you can keep the OT's
from claiming the new "A's" are just dumbed down anyway

just what do Ham needs to know anyway, to get on the air today anyway?
thatis what the test should cover to assume a number for the classes
of license is assume we need a question set ofsuch and such a size

perhaps we could serve the interest in Class with several tests each
could be studied and taken in sections with CSSE's for each

perhaps in that would would some some set of tests that if you pass
these 3 (out of say 5 test) or a given set on operating a class of
license could exist allow the new hams to use a set up staion (the
staionm ust be assemebled by the fulll ham)

but these sorts of changes would allow the ARS to all but eliate
seperate classes and yet preserve what ever level is NEEDED to assure
safe operation in the ARS

73, de Hans, K0HB





_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account