|
Another License Idea
Reposted and updated slightly:
1) Three classes of license: Basic, Intermediate, Full (change the names if you don't like them - Third, Second, First, Novice, General, Extra, whatever) 2) HF/MF bands split into subbands by mode and split again by license class. Some bands (30 meters) may be split by mode only. Bottom of each band is CW only, middle is CW/digital, top is CW/phone/image. Percentage division about 20%/30%/50% (varies with band). "Digital" includes digital voice modes if bandwidth under 1 kHz. 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-50 watts on HF/MF and 25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level is below the point where RF exposure evaluation required). Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31, RTTY and many of the other common data modes like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum, including parts of all subbands-by-mode. Basic is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's still a reason to upgrade. 4) "Intermediate" license test is more complex 50-60 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Intermediates get 300-400 watts on all bands, all modes. Intermediates can be VEs after qualification (see below), control ops for repeaters, and club trustees. Intermediates get all VHF/UHF and about three quarters (or more) of HF/MF spectrum. 5) "Full" license test is quite complex 100-120 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Mostly technical, with some regs to cover expanded privs. Fulls get all privileges, modes, bands, etc. except that Fulls can be VEs only after qualification (see below). 6) All licenses are 10 year and fully renewable/modifiable. No age requirements or limits. 7) Basics have six-character calls, Intermediates have five- or six-character calls, and Fulls have four-, five-, or six-character calls. Nobody has to give up an existing callsign. 8) Separate 30-35 question test for VE qualification, open to Intermediates and Fulls, which allows them to be VEs. Existing VEs are grandfathered. 9) Existing Novices, Techs and Tech Pluses become Basics, existing Generals and Advanceds become Intermediates, and existing Extras become Fulls. Existing hams can continue to use their current privileges when they exceed privileges granted by the new system as long as they retain license documents showing their old license class. Existing Tech Pluses who can show proof of license before Mar 21, 1987 get Intermediates. 10) Change to new system is at least six months to one year after announcement to allow time for question pool reorganization and so existing hams can upgrade under present rules if they want. End result is a system that is easy to get into (Basic is envisioned as a 21st century version of the Novice) and has reasonable but meaningful steps to reach full privileges. Testing matches the privs granted. Power levels are set about one S-unit apart. Nobody loses any privileges. There are only three license classes and four written tests, so FCC doesn't have more work. Example of new privileges: 80/75 meters 3500-3575 CW only 3575-3750 CW/data 3750-4000 CW/analog phone/image Basic: 3525-3625 and 3900-4000 Intermediate: 3525-3750 and 3850-4000 Full: entire band 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Another License Idea
|
Another License Idea
wrote Basic: 3525-3625 and 3900-4000 Intermediate: 3525-3750 and 3850-4000 Full: entire band I missed where you explained why the bands needed to be divided by class. Is it more difficult to understand how to operate on 3524 than on 3526? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Another License Idea
KØHB wrote:
wrote Basic: 3525-3625 and 3900-4000 Intermediate: 3525-3750 and 3850-4000 Full: entire band I missed where you explained why the bands needed to be divided by class. It's to serve as an upgrade incentive. Not everyone aspires to run high power. Is it more difficult to understand how to operate on 3524 than on 3526? Of course not. Neither is it more difficult to understand how to operate a 100 watt transmitter than a 50 watt transmitter. But under your system, a Class B licensee could not legally operate a 100 watt transmitter. RF exposure, you say? The RF exposure hazard (in the high gain direction) from a 50 watt UHF transmitter with a high gain antenna is far more than that from a 100 watt HF transmitter with a low-gain antenna at the same distance. Yet under your system, a Class B licensee could legally operate a 50 watt UHF transmitter and high-gain antenna, but not not legally operate a 100 watt transmitter with low gain antenna. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Another License Idea
|
Another License Idea
wrote in message
oups.com... I missed where you explained why the bands needed to be divided by class. It's to serve as an upgrade incentive. Not everyone aspires to run high power. When I upgraded from Conditional to Extra (Advanced was closed) in 1963 I didn't need any spiffy new freqs or higher power to motivate me. Sounds like giving lollipops to children if they'll first eat their spinach. Is it more difficult to understand how to operate on 3524 than on 3526? Of course not. Good answer! 73, de Hans, K0HB Grand Exalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke |
Another License Idea
On 31 Dec 2005 05:52:25 -0800, wrote in
.com: KØHB wrote: wrote Basic: 3525-3625 and 3900-4000 Intermediate: 3525-3750 and 3850-4000 Full: entire band I missed where you explained why the bands needed to be divided by class. It's to serve as an upgrade incentive. Not everyone aspires to run high power. So what you're -really- talking about are low-power and a high-power license classes? ----== 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 =---- |
Another License Idea
Frank Gilliland wrote: On 31 Dec 2005 05:52:25 -0800, wrote in .com: KØHB wrote: wrote Basic: 3525-3625 and 3900-4000 Intermediate: 3525-3750 and 3850-4000 Full: entire band I missed where you explained why the bands needed to be divided by class. It's to serve as an upgrade incentive. Not everyone aspires to run high power. So what you're -really- talking about are low-power and a high-power license classes? No. If you look at K0HB's license-structure idea, the main (in fact the *only* difference in operating privileges between his Class A and Class B licenses is the power allowed. Class A gets full 1500 W Class B gets 50 W Hans' idea is that by limiting Class B to 50 W, the RF exposure questions can be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced. But the fact is that 50 W can still be an RF exposure hazard on some frequencies (UHF in particular) if a high gain antenna is used. Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. |
Another License Idea
"Frank Gilliland" wrote So what you're -really- talking about are low-power and a high-power license classes? Same like now, only more so....... Three power levels.... Three frequency sets.... Longer clunkier calls for lower grades.... Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
Another License Idea
From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm
wrote: Reposted and updated slightly: 1) Three classes of license: Basic, Intermediate, Full (change the names if you don't like them - Third, Second, First, Novice, General, Extra, whatever) Brian, the best Jimmie can come up with is just warmed-over EXISTING regulations with a slightly different bit of cosmetic changing. Note: There are only THREE license classes granted NOW. 2) HF/MF bands split into subbands by mode and split again by license class. Some bands (30 meters) may be split by mode only. Bottom of each band is CW only, middle is CW/digital, top is CW/phone/image. Percentage division about 20%/30%/50% (varies with band). "Digital" includes digital voice modes if bandwidth under 1 kHz. Farf. There's BANDPLANS now, splitting "the bands" by mode AND class. 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure 4) "Intermediate" license test is more complex 50-60 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Intermediates get 300-400 watts on all bands, all modes. Intermediates can be 5) "Full" license test is quite complex 100-120 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Mostly technical, More Farf. Cosmetic changes to classes that exist NOW. 6) All licenses are 10 year and fully renewable/modifiable. No age requirements or limits. NO change at all. Status quo-ism. 7) Basics have six-character calls, Intermediates have five- or six-character calls, and Fulls have four-, five-, or six-character calls. Nobody has to give up an existing callsign. Be absolutely SURE that the lowest class is readily identifiable as the LOWEST one. Tsk, can't have those nasty "beginners" messing up the playground! 8) Separate 30-35 question test for VE qualification, open to Intermediates and Fulls, which allows them to be VEs. Existing VEs are grandfathered. Oh my, something NEW! "Unbeliegable," said Arte Johnson. So, "what was WRONG with the present system" that it needs this spay-shull "test" to proctor a license exam...with the answers readily available to them and NO need to make any decisions such as on schematics or essay questions? Geez, privatization in testing has been going on a LONG time without any specific "testing of the VEs." End result is a system that is easy to get into (Basic is envisioned as a 21st century version of the Novice) and has reasonable but meaningful steps to reach full privileges. The Novice class was a numbers failure. That's apparent to most folks other than Jimmie. With a ONE-class license plus the ONCE-only "entry" license it is EASIER than the above regurgitated existing system. WHY is there a "privilege" system at all NOW? To keep "the bands" free of "interlopers" that mess up the olde-tymers' operations with "extraneous signals?" Testing matches the privs granted. It should, there is NO real change from the existing system. Power levels are set about one S-unit apart. Nobody loses any privileges. There are only three license classes and four written tests, so FCC doesn't have more work. I N C O R R E C T ! The FCC has to ADDITIOMALLY TEST Volunteer Examiners. More work for them. But, as in Latin ("who watches the watchers?") who will test the VE applicants? Other VEs? Not unless they have ALREADY been tested...which leads to an impossible condition. What's with this "power level" per "class" thing, anyway? If that were meaningful, there would be FCC field teams out there measuring field strengths and knocking on doors, etc. Obviously there aren't and any existing "RF power output" maximums in amateur radio operate on the honor system. Ain't no extensive "RF power output" checking being done. 73 de Jim, N2EY QP contains 10,000 questions. You take a test, 1 question at a time. Questions selected at random. You keep going til you miss one. No retakes, no upgrades. Each right question earns 10Hz of spectrum, your choice of frequency, but it must be made at the exam session. That is your lifetime allotment. HAR! :-) ------ Well, since Jimmie didn't come up with anything "new" other than doing a Max Factor Thing with the existing regulations (plus the NEW test for VEs), I'll just remind everyone of what is in the regulations NOW...and has been since at least 1995: The FCC states that each written test element Question Pool must contain a MINIMUM of 10 times the number of required questions. There is NO maximum on the Question Pool. [I don't think there ever was one] It's all up to the VE QPC on how many it wants to generate and distribute. Make it 20 times, 30 times, 50, even a 100 times the minimum in the QP...that will knock down all those charges of "memorization." Yawn. Nappy Hoo Year! |
Another License Idea
wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: Reposted and updated slightly: 1) Three classes of license: Basic, Intermediate, Full (change the names if you don't like them - Third, Second, First, Novice, General, Extra, whatever) Brian, the best Jimmie can come up with is just warmed-over EXISTING regulations with a slightly different bit of cosmetic changing. Maybe Jim didn't get any mental stimulation prior to age five. Note: There are only THREE license classes granted NOW. Precisely the number of license classes that Jim advocates! 2) HF/MF bands split into subbands by mode and split again by license class. Some bands (30 meters) may be split by mode only. Bottom of each band is CW only, middle is CW/digital, top is CW/phone/image. Percentage division about 20%/30%/50% (varies with band). "Digital" includes digital voice modes if bandwidth under 1 kHz. Farf. There's BANDPLANS now, splitting "the bands" by mode AND class. Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure 4) "Intermediate" license test is more complex 50-60 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Intermediates get 300-400 watts on all bands, all modes. Intermediates can be 5) "Full" license test is quite complex 100-120 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Mostly technical, More Farf. Cosmetic changes to classes that exist NOW. Quitefine advocates Quitecomplex questions. "We've got a bleeder!" 6) All licenses are 10 year and fully renewable/modifiable. No age requirements or limits. NO change at all. Status quo-ism. All we need now is no enforcement and it could be the 70's and 80's all over again. 7) Basics have six-character calls, Intermediates have five- or six-character calls, and Fulls have four-, five-, or six-character calls. Nobody has to give up an existing callsign. Be absolutely SURE that the lowest class is readily identifiable as the LOWEST one. Tsk, can't have those nasty "beginners" messing up the playground! 8) Separate 30-35 question test for VE qualification, open to Intermediates and Fulls, which allows them to be VEs. Existing VEs are grandfathered. Oh my, something NEW! "Unbeliegable," said Arte Johnson. So, "what was WRONG with the present system" that it needs this spay-shull "test" to proctor a license exam...with the answers readily available to them and NO need to make any decisions such as on schematics or essay questions? Geez, privatization in testing has been going on a LONG time without any specific "testing of the VEs." Odd, but the General could proctor Technician exams, and the Advanced could proctor General exams. The Extra Exam had loads of VE questions, the General and Advanced had none. As far as I'm concerned, since the VEC's are already disregarding FCC rules, we can dispense with the Extra Exam altogether and let the VEC's qualify "thier" examiners without any spay-shull FCC exam. End result is a system that is easy to get into (Basic is envisioned as a 21st century version of the Novice) and has reasonable but meaningful steps to reach full privileges. The Novice class was a numbers failure. That's apparent to most folks other than Jimmie. It did give us a bunch of Technicians (General incognito) who couldn't do 13WPM. With a ONE-class license plus the ONCE-only "entry" license it is EASIER than the above regurgitated existing system. It's easier for the FCC to maintain, and it's all that is necessary. WHY is there a "privilege" system at all NOW? To keep "the bands" free of "interlopers" that mess up the olde-tymers' operations with "extraneous signals?" That hurts my gall bladder to hear you say that. Testing matches the privs granted. It should, there is NO real change from the existing system. Which it what needs changing. Power levels are set about one S-unit apart. Nobody loses any privileges. There are only three license classes and four written tests, so FCC doesn't have more work. I N C O R R E C T ! The FCC has to ADDITIOMALLY TEST Volunteer Examiners. More work for them. But, as in Latin ("who watches the watchers?") who will test the VE applicants? Other VEs? Not unless they have ALREADY been tested...which leads to an impossible condition. Division by zero? What's with this "power level" per "class" thing, anyway? If that were meaningful, there would be FCC field teams out there measuring field strengths and knocking on doors, etc. Obviously there aren't and any existing "RF power output" maximums in amateur radio operate on the honor system. Ain't no extensive "RF power output" checking being done. Maybe Jim is an ARRL Official Observer, has a mobile van with precision measurement equipment on board... 73 de Jim, N2EY QP contains 10,000 questions. You take a test, 1 question at a time. Questions selected at random. You keep going til you miss one. No retakes, no upgrades. Each right question earns 10Hz of spectrum, your choice of frequency, but it must be made at the exam session. That is your lifetime allotment. HAR! :-) Har? I was serious. ------ Well, since Jimmie didn't come up with anything "new" other than doing a Max Factor Thing with the existing regulations (plus the NEW test for VEs), I'll just remind everyone of what is in the regulations NOW...and has been since at least 1995: The FCC states that each written test element Question Pool must contain a MINIMUM of 10 times the number of required questions. There is NO maximum on the Question Pool. [I don't think there ever was one] It's all up to the VE QPC on how many it wants to generate and distribute. Make it 20 times, 30 times, 50, even a 100 times the minimum in the QP...that will knock down all those charges of "memorization." Yawn. Nappy Hoo Year! Happy Happy |
Another License Idea
KØHB wrote: "Frank Gilliland" wrote So what you're -really- talking about are low-power and a high-power license classes? Same like now, only more so....... Three power levels.... Three frequency sets.... Longer clunkier calls for lower grades.... Not interested. |
Another License Idea
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:23:07 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in : snip BTW, I found the FCC regs the 1940 ARRL handbook. The only significant difference between Class A and Classes B & C was that Class A had the additional privilege of using A3 on 3.9-4.0 and 14.150-14.250 MHz. That's about it. Classes B & C were identical in priveliges; the only distinction was that Class C had looser requirements for testing purposes to accomodate military or CCC personel, people with disabilities or living in remote geographic locations, etc. Oh yeah..... if anyone wants a scan of an ad for the Hallicrafter's "Skyrider Diversity" let me know. Awesome looking radio! ----== 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 =---- |
Another License Idea
Frank Gilliland wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:23:07 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote in : snip BTW, I found the FCC regs the 1940 ARRL handbook. The only significant difference between Class A and Classes B & C was that Class A had the additional privilege of using A3 on 3.9-4.0 and 14.150-14.250 MHz. That's about it. Classes B & C were identical in priveliges; the only distinction was that Class C had looser requirements for testing purposes to accomodate military or CCC personel, people with disabilities or living in remote geographic locations, etc. just what is A3 beyond I suspect being a mode? Oh yeah..... if anyone wants a scan of an ad for the Hallicrafter's "Skyrider Diversity" let me know. Awesome looking radio! ----== 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 =---- |
Another License Idea
wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: On 31 Dec 2005 05:52:25 -0800, wrote in .com: KØHB wrote: wrote Basic: 3525-3625 and 3900-4000 Intermediate: 3525-3750 and 3850-4000 Full: entire band I missed where you explained why the bands needed to be divided by class. It's to serve as an upgrade incentive. Not everyone aspires to run high power. So what you're -really- talking about are low-power and a high-power license classes? No. If you look at K0HB's license-structure idea, the main (in fact the *only* difference in operating privileges between his Class A and Class B licenses is the power allowed. Class A gets full 1500 W Class B gets 50 W Hans' idea is that by limiting Class B to 50 W, the RF exposure questions can be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced. But the fact is that 50 W can still be an RF exposure hazard on some frequencies (UHF in particular) if a high gain antenna is used. ERP. Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. No, it's not. The word you're looking for is "arbitrary" and Hans presented anything but arbitrary reasons for such a license. |
Another License Idea
Frank Gilliland wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:23:07 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote in : snip BTW, I found the FCC regs the 1940 ARRL handbook. The only significant difference between Class A and Classes B & C was that Class A had the additional privilege of using A3 on 3.9-4.0 and 14.150-14.250 MHz. That's about it. That's right. But you have to understand "the rest of the story"... In 1940, the HF/MF amateur bands in the US were 160, 80/75, 40, 20 and 10 meters. 30, 17, 15, and 12 meters were not allocated to amateurs. On top of that, the 40 meter band was all-Morse Code. No 'phone allowed at all. So a Class B or C amateur's 'phone options were 160 meters, 10 meters, and VHF/UHF (5 meters, 2-1/2 meters, 1-1/4 meters....) Classes B & C were identical in priveliges; the only distinction was that Class C had looser requirements for testing purposes to accomodate military or CCC personel, people with disabilities or living in remote geographic locations, etc. Yep - a Class C was just a Class B given by mail. A volunteer examiner gave the code test and proctored the written test (but FCC marked the written test). However, again there's "the rest of the story": Class C was issued conditionally. If the holder of a Class C license moved to within the required distance of an FCC exam point, left the military or CCC, or recovered from the disability, s/he had 90 days to be retested by FCC - or lose the license. Class A testing was only available from an FCC examiner or certain specially-designated FCC representatives. Class A also required at least one year experience as a Class B or C If a Class C ham went for the Class A license, s/he first had to retake and pass the Class B exam (code and written) at an FCC exam session before being allowed to try the Class A. --- The "ABC" system was in place from 1933 to 1951, including WW2. (Although FCC suspended all amateur station licenses during WW2, they still conducted operator license test sessions, and you could get an amateur radio license all through the war. There just weren't any legal amateur radio stations for you to operate). -- A piece of amateur radio history that few recall nowadays is how the ABC system came to be replaced by the Novice/Technician/General/Conditional/Advanced/Extra system in 1951. That 1951 multiclass system is the basis of the current license system. Oh yeah..... if anyone wants a scan of an ad for the Hallicrafter's "Skyrider Diversity" let me know. Awesome looking radio! Awesome price, too! |
Another License Idea
|
Another License Idea
From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm
wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: Reposted and updated slightly: 1) Three classes of license: Basic, Intermediate, Full (change the names if you don't like them - Third, Second, First, Novice, General, Extra, whatever) Brian, the best Jimmie can come up with is just warmed-over EXISTING regulations with a slightly different bit of cosmetic changing. Maybe Jim didn't get any mental stimulation prior to age five. Oh, I think he was "motivated" to speak Morse Code as early as that... Note: There are only THREE license classes granted NOW. Precisely the number of license classes that Jim advocates! Amazing, isn't it? :-) 2) HF/MF bands split into subbands by mode and split again by license class. Some bands (30 meters) may be split by mode only. Bottom of each band is CW only, middle is CW/digital, top is CW/phone/image. Percentage division about 20%/30%/50% (varies with band). "Digital" includes digital voice modes if bandwidth under 1 kHz. Farf. There's BANDPLANS now, splitting "the bands" by mode AND class. Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure 4) "Intermediate" license test is more complex 50-60 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Intermediates get 300-400 watts on all bands, all modes. Intermediates can be 5) "Full" license test is quite complex 100-120 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Mostly technical, More Farf. Cosmetic changes to classes that exist NOW. Quitefine advocates Quitecomplex questions. "We've got a bleeder!" In amateurspeak, he's got a "ham-morage!" 6) All licenses are 10 year and fully renewable/modifiable. No age requirements or limits. NO change at all. Status quo-ism. All we need now is no enforcement and it could be the 70's and 80's all over again. Whatever. Except for the following, Jimmie's "idea" is all just warmed-over deja vu. Right now U.S. amateurs have licenses of 10 year periods, are renewable/modifiable, and there are NO age requirements. Item (6) on Jimmie's list is just a repeat of what already exists. 8) Separate 30-35 question test for VE qualification, open to Intermediates and Fulls, which allows them to be VEs. Existing VEs are grandfathered. Oh my, something NEW! "Unbeliegable," said Arte Johnson. So, "what was WRONG with the present system" that it needs this spay-shull "test" to proctor a license exam...with the answers readily available to them and NO need to make any decisions such as on schematics or essay questions? Geez, privatization in testing has been going on a LONG time without any specific "testing of the VEs." Odd, but the General could proctor Technician exams, and the Advanced could proctor General exams. The Extra Exam had loads of VE questions, the General and Advanced had none. As far as I'm concerned, since the VEC's are already disregarding FCC rules, we can dispense with the Extra Exam altogether and let the VEC's qualify "thier" examiners without any spay-shull FCC exam. They do that anyway... End result is a system that is easy to get into (Basic is envisioned as a 21st century version of the Novice) and has reasonable but meaningful steps to reach full privileges. The Novice class was a numbers failure. That's apparent to most folks other than Jimmie. It did give us a bunch of Technicians (General incognito) who couldn't do 13WPM. As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. With a ONE-class license plus the ONCE-only "entry" license it is EASIER than the above regurgitated existing system. It's easier for the FCC to maintain, and it's all that is necessary. True enough, but it HURTS the spay-shull "high class" hams who NEED that super-extra-special federal certificate to show how good they are (above others of "lesser" rank). WHY is there a "privilege" system at all NOW? To keep "the bands" free of "interlopers" that mess up the olde-tymers' operations with "extraneous signals?" That hurts my gall bladder to hear you say that. Sorry about that, chief. [Maxwell Smart phrase, Hans, has nothing to do with USN] Testing matches the privs granted. It should, there is NO real change from the existing system. Which it what needs changing. A long time ago. Bad case of diaper rash in regs now... The FCC has to ADDITIOMALLY TEST Volunteer Examiners. More work for them. But, as in Latin ("who watches the watchers?") who will test the VE applicants? Other VEs? Not unless they have ALREADY been tested...which leads to an impossible condition. Division by zero? Program crash! What's with this "power level" per "class" thing, anyway? If that were meaningful, there would be FCC field teams out there measuring field strengths and knocking on doors, etc. Obviously there aren't and any existing "RF power output" maximums in amateur radio operate on the honor system. Ain't no extensive "RF power output" checking being done. Maybe Jim is an ARRL Official Observer, has a mobile van with precision measurement equipment on board... ...in which case he totally neglected that "QRP" rig for sale on E-bay for $9,500! :-) [the one "used on 80m" and having that large air exhaust ducting to carry off excess heat...] QP contains 10,000 questions. You take a test, 1 question at a time. Questions selected at random. You keep going til you miss one. No retakes, no upgrades. Each right question earns 10Hz of spectrum, your choice of frequency, but it must be made at the exam session. That is your lifetime allotment. HAR! :-) Har? I was serious. Sorry I am. Well, in retrospect, it was in the same spirit as Jimmie's regurgitated regulation set... Yappy New Hear! |
Another License Idea
wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: cut Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class proposal cut It did give us a bunch of Technicians (General incognito) who couldn't do 13WPM. As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. after the origial reason to know morse was stated as the need for the govt to be able to warn Ham off their trnasmsittion but even that "need" was bogus after if the Voice ham could hear the Morse signal and could not understand it then he could just qsy somewhere else if he did not hear the morse signal it not matter if he could understand it or not We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice cut |
Another License Idea
From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm
wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class proposal I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or could do best. There is no quantitative "factual" accounting of that opinion other than the obvious private-party exchanges (mostly off-line). The league can't admit that it does what it did and merely "sin by omission" of NOT saying anything bad about itself. [they will not since they are the self-styled "representative" of amateur radio and cannot keep memberships by being self-negative] As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice Not possible for the administration committed to honoring the USA membership in the ITU and its radio regulations. The first widely-heard AM radio transmission was in 1906, hardly a time for AM to become universal. Forget about FM and PM then until the vacuum tube was perfected; the first triode was created in 1906. AM broadcasting did not become practical until the 1920s. The change in amateur radio regulations COULD have been broached at WARC-79 but - as far as amateur radio was concerned - the year 1979 at WARC was the matter of the "40m issue" between amateurs and SW BC people. That didn't get any firm resolution for 24 more years (WRC-03). However, BY 2003, the IARU had swung around to eliminate the compulsory radio regulation (S25.5) requiring manual morse code testing for any license having below-30-MHz privileges. That was a change that was LONG overdue. Those that control the influences in amateur radio are generally the olde-tymers who were grounded in the older traditions...such as the "need" to demonstrate morse skill vital to a much earlier era. The league is a good example of extreme conservatism insofar as amateur radio licensing is concerned. The IARU has swung around from such extreme conservatism despite being composed of the (generally) same lot of olde-tymers. They CAN see the future more clearly than the American league (of self-distinguished gentlemen). At one time in the PAST there was a need to demonstrate manual radiotelegraphy skills. The problem with so many is that they keep on venerating the past with a passion, a nostalgia for times before they existed. Tradition is a fine thing but it loses value when it is codified into law as a requirement for all. |
Another License Idea
wrote: From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class proposal I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or could do best. well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to people LIKE jim oh well but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in the USSR near the end There is no quantitative "factual" accounting of that opinion other than the obvious private-party exchanges (mostly off-line). The league can't admit that it does what it did and merely "sin by omission" of NOT saying anything bad about itself. [they will not since they are the self-styled "representative" of amateur radio and cannot keep memberships by being self-negative] As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice Not possible for the administration committed to honoring the USA membership in the ITU and its radio regulations. The first widely-heard AM radio transmission was in 1906, hardly a time for AM to become universal. Forget about FM and PM then until the vacuum tube was perfected; the first triode was created in 1906. AM broadcasting did not become practical until the 1920s. we could strutured oh so very different with the magic wand that sweeps all problem out of the way you rightly point the 1906 a 100 years in the past The change in amateur radio regulations COULD have been broached at WARC-79 but - as far as amateur radio was concerned - the year 1979 at WARC was the matter of the "40m issue" between amateurs and SW BC people. That didn't get any firm resolution for 24 more years (WRC-03). However, BY 2003, the IARU had swung around to eliminate the compulsory radio regulation (S25.5) requiring manual morse code testing for any license having below-30-MHz privileges. That was a change that was LONG overdue. painfully long Those that control the influences in amateur radio are generally the olde-tymers who were grounded in the older traditions...such as the "need" to demonstrate morse skill vital to a much earlier era. The league is a good example of extreme conservatism insofar as amateur radio licensing is concerned. The IARU has swung around from such extreme conservatism despite being composed of the (generally) same lot of olde-tymers. They CAN see the future more clearly than the American league (of self-distinguished gentlemen). At one time in the PAST there was a need to demonstrate manual radiotelegraphy skills. The problem with so many is that they keep on venerating the past with a passion, a nostalgia for times before they existed. Tradition is a fine thing but it loses value when it is codified into law as a requirement for all. I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation but we could have done without it if had wanted to |
Another License Idea
From: an Old friend on Jan 1, 5:35 pm
wrote: From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or could do best. well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to people LIKE jim oh well No problem to me in understanding you, Mark. :-) but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in the USSR near the end Ahem...that's a bit drastic in comparison, but unfortunately apt. shrug I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all When it was the ONLY mode possible in radio, it made sense. Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation but we could have done without it if had wanted to Not TECHNICALLY. The first "radio transmitters" used by hams were the Spark jobbies. Easy enough to construct at the time of the first U.S. radio regulating agency created in 1912. A Spark transmitter - of the ham variety - could ONLY be turned on or off. Since that was the way the landline telegraph worked, morse code was adapted for radio. There weren't many other ways to communicate with those technically primitive "radios." ANY on-off code scheme would have worked. "Morse" happened to be a then-mature way to go so that was it. I doubt that any ham in 1906 tried putting a "high-power" carbon microphone in series with their antenna lead a la Reggie Fessenden...even after Fessenden proved it could be done. [no other AM broadcaster tried it for broadcasting service...har!] The vacuum tube was needed for "clean" CW generation. Once those were more perfected, damped wave oscillation ("spark") was declared forbidden for use. Rightly so since it took up many, many Kilocycles of bandwidth that only a galena crystal receiver could love. :-) MAYBE the code test could have been dropped from amateur radio licensing in 1934 when the FCC was created. Personally, I don't think so from the political situation brewing in radio and all of "electronic" communications through USA membership in the CCITT. [the CCITT morphed into the ITU once the UN was born] By 1960 the vast majority of message traffic around the world was being done by TTY. [yes, Hans, the USN DID use morse on ships] MAYBE the time was ripe then for a code-test-free license. No, said the olde-tymers of that time, they were (now generally retired) champions of morsemanship and weren't about to let go. They "knew what was best for (their) ham radio!" By 1970 the code-test-free license was an even greater possibility. Offshore-designed/built radios were showing up on the ham market and the VHF-and-up HT was a practical piece of radio goods. The olde-tyme morsemen were still adamant and getting more stern. NO #$%^!!! code-test-free license for ham radio, no sir! :-) By 1980 the code-test-free license now had supporters, even a few of the clearer-thinking olde-tyme morsemen (!)...but there were many against this (shocking) revolution. That didn't come to pass until 1990 and FCC 90-53...which resulted in the no- code-test Tech class beginning in 1991. The 1990s had the steamroller of streamlining going faster and faster...and the result being, of course, recent history in amateur regulations. |
Another License Idea
On 1 Jan 2006 19:59:18 -0800, wrote:
From: an Old friend on Jan 1, 5:35 pm wrote: From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or could do best. well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to people LIKE jim oh well No problem to me in understanding you, Mark. :-) but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in the USSR near the end Ahem...that's a bit drastic in comparison, but unfortunately apt. shrug agreed the states involed in choosing your allies and enemies unwisely were Much higher in that Now defunct body but the operationing mechiansisms show striking comparisions I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all When it was the ONLY mode possible in radio, it made sense. yep then it did but just when did that stop being the case? WW I? I think Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation but we could have done without it if had wanted to Not TECHNICALLY. The first "radio transmitters" used by hams were the Spark jobbies. Easy enough to construct at the time of the first U.S. radio regulating agency created in 1912. A Spark transmitter - of the ham variety - could ONLY be turned on or off. Since that was the way the landline telegraph worked, morse code was adapted for radio. There weren't many other ways to communicate with those technically primitive "radios." ANY on-off code scheme would have worked. "Morse" happened to be a then-mature way to go so that was it. I doubt that any ham in 1906 tried putting a "high-power" carbon microphone in series with their antenna lead a la Reggie Fessenden...even after Fessenden proved it could be done. [no other AM broadcaster tried it for broadcasting service...har!] The vacuum tube was needed for "clean" CW generation. Once those were more perfected, damped wave oscillation ("spark") was declared forbidden for use. Rightly so since it took up many, many Kilocycles of bandwidth that only a galena crystal receiver could love. :-) MAYBE the code test could have been dropped from amateur radio licensing in 1934 when the FCC was created. Personally, I don't think so from the political situation brewing in radio and all of "electronic" communications through USA membership in the CCITT. [the CCITT morphed into the ITU once the UN was born] about is where I eean then it could alothough it was very conveint still in those days By 1960 the vast majority of message traffic around the world was being done by TTY. [yes, Hans, the USN DID use morse on ships] MAYBE the time was ripe then for a code-test-free license. No, said the olde-tymers of that time, they were (now generally retired) champions of morsemanship and weren't about to let go. They "knew what was best for (their) ham radio!" By 1970 the code-test-free license was an even greater possibility. Offshore-designed/built radios were showing up on the ham market and the VHF-and-up HT was a practical piece of radio goods. The olde-tyme morsemen were still adamant and getting more stern. NO #$%^!!! code-test-free license for ham radio, no sir! :-) By 1980 the code-test-free license now had supporters, even a few of the clearer-thinking olde-tyme morsemen (!)...but there were many against this (shocking) revolution. That didn't come to pass until 1990 and FCC 90-53...which resulted in the no- code-test Tech class beginning in 1991. The 1990s had the steamroller of streamlining going faster and faster...and the result being, of course, recent history in amateur regulations. _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Another License Idea
wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between operating at 3524 vs 3526, obviating any rational regulatory reason for carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Another License Idea
KØHB wrote: wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. You are correct. As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between operating at 3524 vs 3526, obviating any rational regulatory reason for carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees. Yep. Jim starts saying things that he wishes he hadn't when faced with one of your restructuring ideas. On the last one, he said that a Morse Code exam would be a barrier to Morse Code use. That statement could have been made by Carl, and it would have been false. It could have been made by Bill Sohl, and it would have been false. It could have been made by Len Anderson and it would have been false. But it was made by Jim, and it has always been true. 73, de Hans, K0HB bb |
Another License Idea
KØHB wrote: wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. althought the level needed to achieve the safety advantage is another matter As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between operating at 3524 vs 3526, obviating any rational regulatory reason for carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Another License Idea
KØHB wrote:
wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. Agreed! But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is a 50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not a 100 W transmitter? Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs and simply not run them at full power. As you have stated yourself, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between operating at 3524 vs 3526, What is the fundamental difference between operating a 50 W transmitter and a 100 W transmitter? Under your plan, the former would be legal for Class B but not the latter. If your reason is RF exposure, consider that 50 W to an antenna with gain can be far more hazardous than 100 W to an antenna with no gain. Since your proposed Class B could run 50 W on any authorized amateur frequency, including UHF, some RF exposure testing would be needed anyway. obviating any rational regulatory reason for carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees. Instead, what you propose is keeping the "lower class" at a low power level, even though the power limit proposed is not backed by any real safety issue. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Another License Idea
|
Another License Idea
an Old friend wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experiencedusers, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. Agreed! But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is a 50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not a 100 W transmitter? Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs and simply not run them at full power. indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment from the bargin bin. |
Another License Idea
On 2 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0800, wrote:
an Old friend wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. Agreed! But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is a 50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not a 100 W transmitter? Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs and simply not run them at full power. indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment from the bargin bin. what you dreaming about little boy I guess you don't count my new IC 910 H but that doesn't count _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Another License Idea
wrote: On 2 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0800, wrote: an Old friend wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B,but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. Agreed! But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement.Is a 50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not a 100 W transmitter? Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs and simply not run them at full power. indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment from the bargin bin. You know what I always am dreaming about little boys We know, Markie, we know. I guess you don't count my new IC 910 H but that doesn't count More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less get a new radio. |
Another License Idea
wrote obviating any rational regulatory reason for carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees. Instead, what you propose is keeping the "lower class" at a low power level, even though the power limit proposed is not backed by any real safety issue. The world tires of your transparent trolling, Jim, but I'll humor you. My proposed low limit on power (we can niggle over how low is appropriate) is intended to protect the newcomer and his/her neighbors from the potential safety hazards of QRO RF. Your proposed graduated levels of "private frequency reserves" has no rational regulatory justification. It's pure 19th century-liberal social engineering. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Another License Idea
From: on Jan 2, 12:36 pm
On 1 Jan 2006 19:59:18 -0800, wrote: From: an Old friend on Jan 1, 5:35 pm wrote: From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in the USSR near the end Ahem...that's a bit drastic in comparison, but unfortunately apt. shrug agreed the states involed in choosing your allies and enemies unwisely were Much higher in that Now defunct body but the operationing mechiansisms show striking comparisions To me it is just the "power" thing. As in the old folk axiom: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Power and control are emotional narcotics. It's difficult to go "cold turkey" after having them and the rationales for continuing on the power trip are many and varied. That's what many see the league being guilty of in the past four decades. I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all When it was the ONLY mode possible in radio, it made sense. yep then it did but just when did that stop being the case? WW I? I think I think some time close to 1960, coincident with the start of the solid-state era and the digital circuitry yet to appear en masse in the electronic component marketplace. While the late 40s and all of the 50s saw the rise of TV and the mobile two-way radios (neither of which using "CW"), the compact, power-economic transistor and IC circuitry led to a number of radio improvements: Frequency synthesis to any desired frequency with quartz crystal stability; true adoption of existing SSB techniques in much smaller packages; FM and PM as practical modulation modes in less-bulky radios; the keyboard-graphical user interface for all kinds of data modes; improved modems employing Information Theory for minimum spectral content yet maximizing data throughput. WW2 radios proved - absolutely - the value of FM for portable and mobile voice two-way radios. Even though those used tube architecture, newer and better design efforts led to rather compact designs. A case in point is the SCR-300 backpack VHF "walkie-talkie" having 18 tubes and weighing only 40 pounds with the big battery. The AN/PRC-8 family follow-on cut the weight and bulk in half just a decade later, even though they also used tubes (subminiature variety). In yet another decade, the AN/PRC-25 appeared with easy channel selection (crystal controlled), all solid-state except for the final amplifier (a tube). The AN/PRC-77 was a totally-solid- state version of the PRC-25, taking less than a decade after the first appearance of its older brother. In the civilian/commercial world, the handheld FM voice transceiver was becoming the radio of choice once the solid-state devices were available to designers. Teletype Corporation's teleprinters had proved indispensible in written messaging communications just prior to and during WW2. A written copy at each comm circuit end, identical, no specialized operator training needed to run one of those. While cost was a factor in slowness to adopt those for civilian/commercial uses, the first of the "dumb" terminals (with attached printers) would supplant those wonderful old electro- mechanical beasties. Solid-state circuitry made the "dumb" terminal possible...and the control of the peripheral paper printer. SSB for voice radios became a practical reality in the 60s and took over "the bands" (HF) for relatively narrow AM SSB, aided first by mechanical or crystal bandpass filters, then the Gingell Polyphase network (after the 70s). MAYBE the code test could have been dropped from amateur radio licensing in 1934 when the FCC was created. Personally, I don't think so from the political situation brewing in radio and all of "electronic" communications through USA membership in the CCITT. [the CCITT morphed into the ITU once the UN was born] about is where I eean then it could alothough it was very conveint still in those days You have to realize that there is a terrible INERTIA in some "regulatory" circles (standardization rather than legislative coding of regulations). Newer concepts are difficult for many to accept, those wishing to retain modes and methods that they finally learned to understand. In 1934, "radio" was only 38 years old. It had gone through the beginning arc-spark era, through the KW VLF alternator era, and suddenly thrust into "modern" radio using vacuum tubes. Receivers were now sensitive, first through the regenerative variety, then the superheterodyne (invented just 16 years prior). Many, many, Many NEW things had appeared in radio in just a generation and a half of human existance. That was difficult for many amateur radio hobbyists to keep up with back then. On-off keying morse code was already a mature mode in 1896, well-known (through telegraphy), and therefore something the standardizers and regulators could understand. All the way up to 1941, the most conventional way to transmit voice on radio was through AM and "plate modulation" of the final amplifier. That meant an extra audio amplifier having a power output (at AF) at least half that of the RF final amplifier. Bulky, costly, and a power-hog, it was restricted to broadcasters for the most part. Use of FM tossed out that big AF power amplifier for modulation and assured a constant signal level in the useful dynamic range of the receiver. Even though Ed Armstrong had PROVED the efficacy of FM prior to WW2, the INERTIA of the powers-that-be kept it from being commonplace. The needs of WW2 tossed aside a lot of the old inertia about modes and methods in radio. Some relative "youngsters" question "why couldn't we have had SSB sooner than 1960?" That's more complicated. The Telcos were ALREADY using SSB techniques in frequency-multiplexing many telephone voice channels into one pair of long-distance wires in the 1920s. That was wire-line telephone use and "not radio" (as it was known then). But, the Telco subsidiaries were adapting this new multi-channel "carrier" equipment to go on RF and did so in the 1930s. The Dutch were the first to put HF SSB multi-channel into service, Hilversum to the Netherlands Antilles. Worked just dandy and many other radio communications providers used the same sort of system. That became standardized (through use) as having four voice bandwidth channels, usually with two of the voice bandwidth channels further frequency-multiplexed to carry about 8 TTY circuits. Heckuva good spectral economy in only 12 KHz of bandspace. But, that was TELEPHONE techniques and "not radio as 'everyone' knew it." It didn't really occur to radio folks that SINGLE-CHANNEL SSB might be useful until after WW2 and then to the Army Air Corps (prior to becoming the USAF in 1948) for their long-distance bomber fleet. While "the SSB story" is awash in myths and legends of its 'development,' single-channel SSB AM became the de facto voice mode on HF for MANY different HF radio users, not just amateurs. The WHY of not having single-channel SSB radios for 20 years after the first HF SSB appeared is what I put down to INERTIA in thinking, inability to grasp the obvious. If you wish to see "inertia" in thinking in the amateur radio area, just read about a decade's worth of ham magazines of the 50s and 60s, especially the "letters to the editor" sections. Hams of that time were FIXED in certain concepts (finals HAD to be Class C, could not be "linear" due to "efficiency"), that one MUST have a humongous AF plate modulator to create AM, and "CW gets through when nothing else will" mythos. Many hams just refused to try understanding "phasing" modulation in creating AM...it HAD to be done by moving the Class C final's plate supply "up and down" just like the classic RF envelope depiction of AM in all the textbooks. :-) [the basic math behind AM, FM, and PM modulation had been worked out by 1915 and still holds true today] If - and only if - the rest of the radio world had NOT been advancing in technology, radio amateurs MIGHT still claim justification for retaining the manual code test. Turning an RF carrier on-off is a very simple concept, easy for anyone to understand. All the other modes take some head-scratching to grasp how it is done. Inertia in learning is safe, easy, a survival tactic...and it improves self-esteem of the "operators." :-) |
more forery all the handiwork of steve and his co conspirators
On 2 Jan 2006 16:16:24 -0800, wrote:
wrote: On 2 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0800, wrote: an Old friend wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote Deciding that the power level of 50 W is acceptable for Class B, but 100 W is not, is just a matter of judgement. It's the same kind of judgement as saying that 3500-3525 kHz is not allowed for all license classes. Not the same at all, Jim. How is it any different? They're both a matter of judgement, not some absolute scientific or engineering fact or limit. There is a clear safety advantage to lower power for less experienced users, especially if you don't have a strenuous examination of safety issues. Agreed! But setting the line at 50 W output is purely a matter of judgement. Is a 50 W transmitter somehow "safe" at the proposed testing level, but not a 100 W transmitter? Consider that if the 50 W license were created, a considerable number of new Class B hams would probably use 100-150 W rigs and simply not run them at full power. indeed the exactl elevel of course arbitary As if you'd know, Markie. You can't even afford third hand equipment from the bargin bin. You know what I always am dreaming about little boys We know, Markie, we know. you know you are lying and a forgery just like your bussy steve "what you dreaming about little boy" was the original I guess you don't count my new IC 910 H but that doesn't count More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less get a new radio. why do think I can pay my utilly bills? of course as I install more solar cells and wind units I increasingly don't have a utility bil what a matter stalker you can't them? _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Another License Idea
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:13:59 -0500, wrote: On 2 Jan 2006 16:16:24 -0800, wrote: More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less get a new radio. why do think I can pay my utilly bills? of course as I install more solar cells and wind units I increasingly don't have a utility bil But you have bills for the cells and the wind units and the maintain of them and the install of them all of which can be lots more money than paying for electric tricity. It is like them hibrid cars which cost so much that it is cheaper to buy gas for a regular car. consumer report say it so. sometimes hugging trees isnt realy very smart. only dum peoples do it. Tood, NOGL _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
more lies from a forger but a few things about solar cells and the ROI
On 3 Jan 2006 09:58:37 +0800, (NOGL) wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:13:59 -0500, wrote: On 2 Jan 2006 16:16:24 -0800, wrote: More Markie lies. You can't afford to pay your utility bills, much less get a new radio. why do think I can pay my utilly bills? of course as I install more solar cells and wind units I increasingly don't have a utility bil But you have bills for the cells and the wind units and the maintain of them and the install of them all of which can be lots more money than paying for electric tricity. I don't haveto pay to have them instaled and and once I have paid for a unit it is mine mainatnce on solar is cleaning them idoit, wind unit require just a little more maintance but it isn't hard to DIY more when now yes but we all know that power prices are only going up It is like them hibrid cars which cost so much that it is cheaper to buy gas for a regular car. consumer report say it so. yea they hybrids don't tlook that good, ecomonical, often the case with first gen tech, but solar and wind systems in there 20 plus generation of tech sometimes hugging trees isnt realy very smart. sometimes tree hugging isn't very samrt but the number do makes sense solar wind unit pay a return on investment of from 10 to 20 % only dum peoples do it. Tood, NOGL _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Another License Idea
KØHB wrote: wrote obviating any rational regulatory reason for carving up the bands to provide private reservations for higher class licensees. Instead, what you propose is keeping the "lower class" at a low power level, even though the power limit proposed is not backed by any real safety issue. The world tires of your transparent trolling, Jim, but I'll humor you. the wolrd does not hear Jim thank the gods My proposed low limit on power (we can niggle over how low is appropriate) is intended to protect the newcomer and his/her neighbors from the potentialsafety hazards of QRO RF. Your proposed graduated levels of "private frequency reserves" has no rational regulatory justification. It's pure 19th century-liberal social engineering. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com