Slow Code wrote:

" wrote in
ps.com:

I am a new ham and will respond to this based on being new. I got my
license last year at age 48 so I'm neither a kid nor a senior. I've
been tested and scored at 136 so I'm not a genius but am far from a
dummy. I mention these things to give a general picture of who I am and
where my position comes from.

Radio Buff wrote:

No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all
elements required for their license class.

Although I see the reasoning behind this request I disagree. There are
older hams who wouldn't be able to pass their license class test but
who still enjoy participating in their nets and talking to their circle
of ham friends. I don't want to be the one to take that away from a
senior ham who is hurting absolutely no one by enjoying their hobby.
The fact they might not pass the Extra test means nothing.

Yes it does mean something. It means they're appliance operators. They
pass their exams once then forget everything and don't want to advance
themselves anymore or be proficient hams. They're not an asset to the
service, they're just lazy asses with licenses and only want to operate
appliances.

Radio Buff isn't going to want to give up enjoying radio when he/she is
older and can't pass the exam either.

If I can't pass the tests, I don't deserve a license, or renewel. I don't
get to operate if I can't qualify. It's that simple. You people think
that if someone can't pass a test, they should get the license anyway.
It's a government handout just like how you get your welfare checks and
food stamps in the mail at your project housing. Your Democrat party
outcome based thinking is what is distroying Amateur radio and America.
Everyone is equal and if you want to excel and improve yourself there is
something wrong with you because your not supposed to want to do that.


The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

I have no problem with this provided the exam is similar. If you want
to raise the minimum score required while also increasing the
difficulty level of the exam by 20-25% the combination will make it too
difficult for many. You will kill amateur radio because there will be
far fewer coming into the hobby than going SK.

Quality or quantity? You people that want things easy always say
requiring more qualified licensees will kill the service. You're against
quality because it require you have to work a little. Well, If you ever
need radio help in an emergency to save lives & property, and the ham
operator you talk to on the other end is an incompetant retard, I'll bet
you'd wished for quality then.


Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Code should not be a part of the license test anymore than PSK or any
other operating mode. There are so many different ways to enjoy and
utilize amateur radio today that were not available decades ago that
make code no longer a necessity. Mandating code skills is now similar
to mandating slide rule skills for an engineer. It is an excellent tool
and anyone capable of using it has a true skill. That said, there is
nothing that can't be done by one without slide rule skills. They may
be at a disadvantage at certain times and in certain specific locations
and scenarios but for the most part the individual with the slide rule
skills has no true advantage today as they did a few decades ago. The
same holds true with code.

Yah, we can't require quality or skill for a license. I know you're right.
We gotta be like CB'ers.

I do believe there should be a segment of the bands each license class
is authorized that is reserved for those with code in their license. It
just shouldn't be a requirement any longer. It keeps otherwise
intelligent and capable people away from the hobby and the goal should
be to bring them in not keep them away.

Code isn't a requirement, you can always talk on CB, FRS, and cell phones
all you want.


Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

This point is pointless with the sensible approach outlined above.

No, it's not pointless. It insures licenses will improve and will be
valuable to the service. I know you would hate that because in another
month you would either have to upgrade or loose your ticket.

Doesn't anyone else here want to save ham radio? I'm getting tired of
arguing with the lazy asses. I hope some of you cared and want to help me
save ham radio enough that you emailed this to President Bush, your
Senators and Congressmen to press the FCC does the right thing for us:

No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and
pass all elements required for their license class.

The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

73, Thanks for your support.

SC


Dip****. If code is the only way to go, why are you using text for
your usenet messages? Can you say "Hypocrite"


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:15:26 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Dip****. If code is the only way to go, why are you using text for
your usenet messages? Can you say "Hypocrite"

If text is the only way to go, why do you speak?

Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"?

I think you have to refer to people like Al as "Code Nazis" as they want
to force it on everyone, they try to make it into something it is not,
they think code is a cure for what ails the amateur service, and the
only way to salvation is through the code. Anyone who is not on the
code bandwagon is unfit for the amateur service and needs to be eliminated.

"All hail the code!" - NOT!

Al Klein wrote:

If text is the only way to go, why do you speak?

Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"?

J. D. B. wrote:
I think you have to refer to people like Al as "Code Nazis" as they want
to force it on everyone, they try to make it into something it is not,
they think code is a cure for what ails the amateur service, and the
only way to salvation is through the code. Anyone who is not on the
code bandwagon is unfit for the amateur service and needs to be eliminated.

"All hail the code!" - NOT!

indeed and I have from time to time

spread any lie and deciet in there cause

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:15:26 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Dip****. If code is the only way to go, why are you using text for
your usenet messages? Can you say "Hypocrite"

If text is the only way to go, why do you speak?

Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"?


Can't you spell any better than that?

So, Al. Can you tell us how many receivers or transmitters have you
built from scratch? Not from a kit, or someone else's design, but from
scratch? Drew a block diagram that was converted to a real schematic
one block at a time where you did all the math, laid out the chassis,
cut and drilled all the holes and built the equipment all by yourself?


What is the biggest transmitter you've ever built or used? I'm a
disabled now, but I worked in broadcast, and built telemetry equipment
that is in use all over the world, and in orbit. Tell us, what can you
do other than whine? Have you ever built a commercial TV station from
scratch? Have you ever maintained a 5 MW EIRP UHF plant with a 1700
foot+ tower? Had the fun of finding parts for a transmitter that
haven't been made for 15 years while managing to stay on the air?

I found CW boring years ago, and have some hearing problems so I said
to hell with Morse code and got involved in the equipment design end of
things. It was more fun for me to develop a design and built it, get it
aligned and working, then move on to the next design.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:49:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"?

Can't you spell any better than that?

A spelling flame! I'm vanquished!

So, Al. Can you tell us how many receivers or transmitters have you
built from scratch? Not from a kit, or someone else's design, but from
scratch? Drew a block diagram that was converted to a real schematic
one block at a time where you did all the math, laid out the chassis,
cut and drilled all the holes and built the equipment all by yourself?

3 receivers, about a dozen transmitters. Oh, yes, and the automation
system of the Hong Kong Space Museum planetarium, the old Amtrak
ticket printer, some software that's in use in over 50,000
installations around the world ...

But I'm not the typical ham, I've been a design engineer for a long
time.

What is the biggest transmitter you've ever built or used? I'm a
disabled now, but I worked in broadcast

Never built anything over a kilowatt, but engineered some pretty hefty
ones. (Ch. 40 in Waterbury CT, WWRL, WHN, a few others.)

(You remind me of an IBM HR department of old. They always wanted to
know the largest program the applicant ever wrote. Someone
legitimately told them, back when software was a few k, that he'd
written a 3 meg program. It was a translation program with a 3 meg
dictionary. You're playing "mine is bigger than yours.")

Tell us, what can you do other than whine? Have you ever built a commercial TV station from
scratch?

All by myself, no. Ever build a planetarium automation system all by
yourself from scratch (including inventing some of the technology -
which is still, after 30 years, state of the art)? But I'm not going
to get into a ****ing contest with you. If you were mentally as old
as you claim your body to be you wouldn't have started one.

I found CW boring years ago, and have some hearing problems so I said
to hell with Morse code and got involved in the equipment design end of
things. It was more fun for me to develop a design and built it, get it
aligned and working, then move on to the next design.

Since I totally depend on 2 4 channel BTE aids, I can't receive CW
that easily any more, but that's not a good reason for the FCC to drop
the requirement. It's not even a bad reason. But when anyone can
guess well enough to pass the "technical" part of the exam, the
license isn't worth much.

Al Klein wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:49:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"?

Can't you spell any better than that?

A spelling flame! I'm vanquished!


Not really, I just hate needless abbreviations, and even more so as
my vision gets worse.


So, Al. Can you tell us how many receivers or transmitters have you
built from scratch? Not from a kit, or someone else's design, but from
scratch? Drew a block diagram that was converted to a real schematic
one block at a time where you did all the math, laid out the chassis,
cut and drilled all the holes and built the equipment all by yourself?

3 receivers, about a dozen transmitters. Oh, yes, and the automation
system of the Hong Kong Space Museum planetarium, the old Amtrak
ticket printer, some software that's in use in over 50,000
installations around the world ...

But I'm not the typical ham, I've been a design engineer for a long
time.


I was asked a number of times why I didn't have a degree in EE. When
I found a problem, or saw something that needed improved I didn't just
run crying to the MEs. I researched the problem and wrote up a detailed
report. I found the way to correct the problem, found a source for any
part we didn't already stock, and submitted it directly to the engineer
responsible for that item. After a while they would just flip through
my paperwork and submit it to be typed up on the proper forms, then sign
it off. I had planned to go to college and get my degree, but my time in
the Army threw those plans out the window.


What is the biggest transmitter you've ever built or used? I'm a
disabled now, but I worked in broadcast

Never built anything over a kilowatt, but engineered some pretty hefty
ones. (Ch. 40 in Waterbury CT, WWRL, WHN, a few others.)

(You remind me of an IBM HR department of old. They always wanted to
know the largest program the applicant ever wrote. Someone
legitimately told them, back when software was a few k, that he'd
written a 3 meg program. It was a translation program with a 3 meg
dictionary. You're playing "mine is bigger than yours.")


Not really, but a lot of guys have never done anything more than
solder a microphone plug to a cable, and then use those crappy
solderless coax connectors. Actually, I'm always happy to meet a ham
with some real electronics skills. I meet a lot of retired hams here
near Ocala, and very few of them know any electronics. I hear the same I
could through together a CW rig from scratch in an emergency, then they
admit they don't even have an old ARRL handbook to look up a schematic,
or any parts. One told me he would use parts from his TV set, that the
horizontal output tube and a few other parts would put him on the air.
He didn't even know that his six month old TV only had one tube, and
I've never seen a transmitter built from a CRT and salvaged, unmarked
SMD parts.


Biggest isn't the goal, but a long term large project is always
interesting. I always liked a challenge, and left the easy jobs for
everyone else.


Tell us, what can you do other than whine? Have you ever built a commercial TV station from
scratch?

All by myself, no. Ever build a planetarium automation system all by
yourself from scratch (including inventing some of the technology -
which is still, after 30 years, state of the art)? But I'm not going
to get into a ****ing contest with you. If you were mentally as old
as you claim your body to be you wouldn't have started one.


I never built anything like that, but I did repair some electronics
for the manager of the planetarium at the Orlando Science Center years
ago. I have worked on numerous industrial control systems, as well.
Sounds like it was a bit of a challenge. Good for you. My next
couple projects are an electric gate controller, and a motorized flag
pole, both with custom controllers with 100 MHz Ethernet interfaces so i
can run them from any computer on my home network. I have about 50' of
used TV tower in storage. I'm going to weld angle iron up two legs and
use a motorized trolley to raise and lower the flag. The gate openers
are a pair of used 24" sat tv jacks with a custom controller, a web cam,
and an emergency open button that sets off the security system as the
gate opens.


I found CW boring years ago, and have some hearing problems so I said
to hell with Morse code and got involved in the equipment design end of
things. It was more fun for me to develop a design and built it, get it
aligned and working, then move on to the next design.

Since I totally depend on 2 4 channel BTE aids, I can't receive CW
that easily any more, but that's not a good reason for the FCC to drop
the requirement. It's not even a bad reason. But when anyone can
guess well enough to pass the "technical" part of the exam, the
license isn't worth much.


What about the people locked out by CW requirements who wanted to
design and test RF equipment? Not the "I don't do solder" types, but
people with a real love of electronic design? I've always had a severe
dropout in my hearing that made it impossible to listen to CW for more
than a few minutes at a time. I would end up with headaches, some that
lasted for days. I finally threw in the towel and went into other areas
of electronics. I wanted to learn microwave communications. Along the
way I worked in Broadcast and Two way radio servicing. My last job was
building commercial microwave receivers at Microdyne. They were custom
built from base models for the customers application, on whatever band
or segment they needed, and with IF and video bandwidths from 10 KHz to
40 MHz. In a place like that you would have thought there would be a
lot of hams, but I only found about a dozen still licensed, and not one
who was still active.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Al Klein wrote:


What about the people locked out by CW requirements who wanted to
design and test RF equipment? Not the "I don't do solder" types, but
people with a real love of electronic design? I've always had a severe
dropout in my hearing that made it impossible to listen to CW for more
than a few minutes at a time. I would end up with headaches, some that
lasted for days. I finally threw in the towel and went into other areas
of electronics. I wanted to learn microwave communications. Along the
way I worked in Broadcast and Two way radio servicing.
i hear you on the headaches I remmebr them from my teen aged efforts at
Morse
amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as
long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in
matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal

I can in fat qso in the mode using pc with a spectrographic display to
allow me to look at the parts of the signal I can't read with the pc

On 13 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

amusing I listen I can lsiten to morse all day without a problem as
long I don't try to break it down at all then a headache sets in a in
matter of seconds and slowly grows as I try to process the signal

There's the problem. "breaking down" CW is like listening to the
letters someone is speaking. You don't break it down, you listen to
what's being said.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:00:47 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:49:48 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Can you say "Yes, I ar wun"?

Can't you spell any better than that?

A spelling flame! I'm vanquished!

Not really, I just hate needless abbreviations, and even more so as
my vision gets worse.

It wasn't an abbreviation, it was a comment. From an old poster we
had in high school - "Six munce ago I cun't evun spel injunere, now I
ar wun."

I had planned to go to college and get my degree, but my time in
the Army threw those plans out the window.

Then I'm glad I chose the Navy.

You're playing "mine is bigger than yours.")

One told me he would use parts from his TV set, that the
horizontal output tube and a few other parts would put him on the air.

There have been many people on the air thanks to a 6BG6 or similar.

He didn't even know that his six month old TV only had one tube, and
I've never seen a transmitter built from a CRT and salvaged, unmarked
SMD parts.

Interesting idea, though - a CRT as a final with an inherent monitor.
I wonder how much RF output you can drive a CRT to. And, if you made
it AM, would that be "focused" modulation? Or, if you were listening
to the flyback, "high sing modulation"?

I never built anything like that, but I did repair some electronics
for the manager of the planetarium at the Orlando Science Center years
ago.

I'll take a stab - a Minolta projector? I doubt it's a Zeiss.

What about the people locked out by CW requirements who wanted to
design and test RF equipment?

That was the whole idea behind the Tech ticket - minimal CW that
anyone could get to in a few weeks and enough written exam to prove
that you knew electronics. Anyone who can design or test RF equipment
should be able to draw a few schematics.