Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #171   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 02:14 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 997
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:35:46 GMT, Robert Sherrod
wrote:

There was only one ship in orbit in "Independence Day", the mother ship.
All of the other ships that detached from the mother ship, the daughter
ships, so to speak, were all within the Earth's atmosphere. That is why
the satellites were necessary to overcome the line-of-sight problem
between the mother ship and the daughter ships on the opposite side of
the planet.


Some invaders. They couldn't invade a race that hadn't progressed to
the satellite stage yet.

Suspension of disbelief aside, it was a pretty good movie.
  #172   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 02:15 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 997
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect


Is that a statement or a question?
  #173   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 02:16 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 997
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:31:26 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
It was still Hokey. The aliens could do everything but provide their own
communications globally.


They also couldn't provide a decent firewall for their computers.


Or a force field that could contain an atomic bomb.
  #174   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 02:53 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,590
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?


Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect


Is that a statement or a question?

yes it is a stament and yes it is a question
happy now kleinmind

  #176   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 04:48 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,554
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?


Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.


However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.


That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than
the ability to memorize answers.


Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

That is not true. You wish to change the written exams, not add
practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty
darned old), packet, PSK, etc.


Add SSB, FM, etc., to the nothing there is today.


Ummm? There's no Morse Code test anymore?

So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that?


It's a lot more.


Prove it. Show me the exams for all the other modes.

The question isn't what ham radio is, it's whether
one should be required to pass a realistic test to get a license.


Yes!!! A realistic test.

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.


Sounds like the Conditional License to me.


The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.


Had everything to do with authenticity. You're asking for "real"
exams, right?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.


Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal.


What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a
test.


So what is it that you fear?

You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly.


I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not
the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a
second.


Mmmm. I see. You are a careerist in the electronics industry and it
****es you off that hobbyists have equal "status" as you in amatuer
radio. I've run across a lot of that in the past 20 years...

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.


You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.


Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.


What if you forgot your band edges?


What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest
tactics are transparent.


You're the one that forgot the circuit, not me. Get ****ed at your own
self.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.


Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.


Then do so. Quit complaining to me that you can't remember what it was
that you were supposed to draw.


Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and
we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests.


Correct. "WE" weren't discussing it. YOU were. YOU were discussing
how you can't draw what you can't remember.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.


Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.


So let's have them on the test.


But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it
necessary for other modes?


Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal
on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show
the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The
bands would be pretty QRM-free.


YES!!!

If you are ever going to save your beloved Morse Code test, this is the
only way you're going to do it.

If all radio is merely plug and play, why do the services still have radio schools


That's my point, not yours.


No. It's MY point.

Or don't you understand what you just said?


I think it is you who don't know where you're going with this
discussion. It's gone beyond your having grief over your favorite mode
to actually having to think about the future of the service.
Conggrats. Another couple of years of RRAP tutoring and you just might
become a rational being.

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.


Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!


So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the
schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on
14 MHz"? That kind of relevance?


Sure. But you have to ask yourself one question. Can the average VE
administer such an exam? If not, can your average GS-7 FCC employee
administer such an exam? If you set up an exam that only an engineer
can administer, then your government isn't going to accept it. So be
realistic in your zeal.

Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the
example" kind of relevance?


The exam can be anything your VEC wants it to be. We learned this when
the ARRL went from administering a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM to
administering a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.


No you didn't.


Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did.


There has never been a practical test to show that you could operate a
radio. Ever.


Do you understand what the word "theory" means?


You got me there.

And today's exams still provide that "theory" though they don't prepare
you to actually operate a radio - never did.

All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.


That's all you had to do then.


How do you draw a schematic


Memorization.

and explain the functions of parts by
memorizing answers?


Memorization.

You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k"
or "coil".


You can't memorize the def of phase shift?

C'mon, aren't you supposed to be in the industry?

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.


But you had to learn how to use the radios.


I did?


They just gave you a radio and said "use it"?


On/Off and PTT. What else is there???

Oh, yeh, a magnetic compass and a chart where the satellite is.

Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.


Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.


When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by
answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a
published answer pool.


Yes, you had to memorize paragraphs instead of multiple choices. Big
deal.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.


W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.


Point?


All you wonderful OF's taking trips down memory lane forget that some
of your brother hams were bootleggers.

It's only the unwashed No-code Techs that operate illegally. Hi!!!
What a stinking load.

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.


Lots of OFs on there who should know better. That's why I hold the
opinions that I hold. Your generation doesn't have a lock on decency,
respect, or apatite for knowledge. Far from it.


Very few of "my" generation there.


Explain.

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?


They were trained.


Not in Morse Code.


You must be sitting on oil. Can't you stick to a topic long enough to
be coherent? You were discussing how someone can be efficient at
voice commo, not in Morse.


Effective.

If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.


I have no problem with that.


Then go for it.

It is the ONLY legitimate recourse you have for retaining the Morse
Code exam.

Best of luck.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.


Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."


Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.


What is/was your profession?


Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into
digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive.


Are you drawing a pension from it? "Was."

Are you drawing a paycheck from it? "Is."

And it's so typical for Old Timers to forget that not everyone in the
ARS are CAREERIST PROFESSIONALS. Bitching and Moaning about how
everyone else doesn't know as much as them.

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?


You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.


But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.


Correct. And no one has a right to force their favorite mode on
everyone else.


I'm advocating real testing for whatever mode.


Finally!!! I hope you won't hold it against me for badgering you into
such a position.

Right now the only
test is "do you have the fee, can you get to the testing place, and
have you memorized enough answers to pass".


Welp, other than "can you get to the FCC office" things sure haven't
changed much in 50 plus years.

Let's have a test that
shows whether the testee knows anything.


Remember that you are handsomely compensated for your professional
knowledge. Amateur Radio is a non-compensated hobby.

CW, APRS, AX25, PSK - all of
it. Or separate the licenses. You want to operate FM, you take a
test on FM and, if you pass, you get an FM license.


Endorsement. Remember - your VE has to be smart enough to administer
the exam.

Want to operate
SSB, you take a different test.

Not "want to get on the air? memorize some answers and pay your fee".


And get a vanity license plate.

You are awesome. You're finally catching on.

Who say an old dog can't learn new tricks?

  #177   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 04:56 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 997
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

On 10 Aug 2006 18:53:36 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect


Is that a statement or a question?


yes it is a stament and yes it is a question


And on what do you base your statement? Your extensive familiarity
with dozens of Earth-like planets?
  #178   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 05:00 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,554
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?


Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.


On the contrary, the Conditional was the General Class
license given away from an FCC office.


To clarify, the test was given at a distance from an FCC office.

The license was not "given away."

At the time I got
mine, the distance from an FCC office was set at 75 miles.
Quoting the 1957 ARRL License Manual: "The Conditional
Class license conveys privileges identical to those of
the General Class ..." which incidentally at the time,
was all amateur frequency operating privileges.


General/Conditional Class = "All amateur priveleges," as in AMATEUR
EXTRA priveleges.

73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


Hey Cecil, how've you been?

  #179   Report Post  
Old August 11th 06, 02:28 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?

wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 21:00:36 -0700,
wrote:
The license was not "given away."


but if you did not sit for the FCC it was a give away


One of the definitions of "away" is "distant". The
Conditional exam was given "away from" the FCC office.
--
73, Cecil
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bonafied Proof of LIFE AFTER DEATH -- Coal Mine Rescue Ed Conrad Shortwave 0 July 6th 03 12:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017