Forty Years Licensed
N2...@aol.com
to a 13-year-old kid in the 7th grade. The license arrived two days
later, and the kid (me) went on the amateur bands for the first time
October 14, 1967.
Since then, I've has had three amateur radio callsigns, six
"permanent" QTHs, a long list of rigs, antennas, parts and test
equipment, awards earned, articles published, and tens of thousands of
QSOs. Many things in amateur radio are different now than they were
then, many things are the same.
One thing that hasn't changed is that ham radio is sure a lot of fun.
Doesn't seem like 40 years, though.
What do others remember?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Howard Lester
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote
> Doesn't seem like 40 years, though.
>
> What do others remember?
:-) When a teen, my novice license arrived Friday the 13th, September 1963.
My first QSO was that night on 80m on 3706 Kc with a fellow in Schoharie,
NY. That was my only crystal. With crystals, we had to learn to listen all
over our 50 Kc available band of 3700 - 3750.
My friend Gary and I went down to the FCC office in Manhattan to take the
General exam just a few days before they were going to impose a $4 fee.
Ouch! We had a deadline to meet! We couldn't afford to pay $4! Well, we both
passed, and Gary called his mom to tell her the good news. Once we arrived
back to his house it was apparent that his mother told a neighbor the good
news because, as we walked by the neighbor's house, she exclaimed to us, "So
now you're Captains!?"
Howard N7SO
Steve Bonine
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote
>
>> Doesn't seem like 40 years, though.
>>
>> What do others remember?
>
> :-) When a teen, my novice license arrived Friday the 13th, September 1963.
> My first QSO was that night on 80m on 3706 Kc with a fellow in Schoharie,
> NY. That was my only crystal. With crystals, we had to learn to listen all
> over our 50 Kc available band of 3700 - 3750.
I was also first licensed in 1963 and I think I had three crystals, but
one was 3706. That must have been a common frequency for a surplus xtal.
I do remember listening the whole band for a call from a CQ. You picked
the closest frequency you had a crystal for. I also remember that it
was somewhat common for QRM to pop up because the station transmitting
had a limited selection of crystals and didn't always listen on the
frequency that they were about to transmit.
But it sure was fun.
I met a fellow novice on 80 meters and he traveled to Knoxville to take
his General exam on the same day I did. We met there. He was so
nervous that he literally could not fill out the FCC-610 form. But
somehow he managed to calm himself enough to pass the CW test. Perhaps
it was the CW that did it. By then we were routinely chatting at speeds
more than the required 13 wpm.
> My friend Gary and I went down to the FCC office in Manhattan to take the
> General exam just a few days before they were going to impose a $4 fee.
> Ouch! We had a deadline to meet! We couldn't afford to pay $4! Well, we both
> passed, and Gary called his mom to tell her the good news. Once we arrived
> back to his house it was apparent that his mother told a neighbor the good
> news because, as we walked by the neighbor's house, she exclaimed to us, "So
> now you're Captains!?"
I took the General with a friend, too. He was very good at theory. I
was very good at code. Somehow he managed to squeak by the code test,
but he failed the theory test. I think that he got one answer off on
the answer sheet and was putting down his answers for the wrong number;
there's no way he could have failed that theory test.
I'm about to teach a Technician class beginning at the end of the month.
Times have changed. No longer is the entry license the Novice and one
must use the one-year term to build up code speed for the General.
Instead I'll be trying to figure out how to teach both concepts and the
question pool. It will be interesting. (I don't think I've taught a
license class in the past two decades.)
But the fun remains in the hobby. Some things change and some things
remain the same. Thanks for the memories.
Jack VK2CJC
I was born in1967 so less history here. Didnt get my license until I was 26
years old in 1993. I recall my first contact like it was yesterday. Sitting
at my desk with a my new license and an FT480 on the FM calling frequency
wondering what I should do next.
I'm on my fourth callsign, from two countries. Planning another move so
number 5 on its way.
Many things in amateur radio change. But the basics will always be the same.
--
Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL
FISTS #9666
CW Ops QRP Club #753
Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group
www.mncarg.org
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> What do others remember?
I remember a QST cover with an image of the sun labled "Cycle 19 - The
Declining Years".
And now, here we are at the nadir of Cycle 23.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Howard Lester
> I was also first licensed in 1963 and I think I had three crystals, but
> one was 3706. That must have been a common frequency for a surplus xtal.
Gosh, Steve - I wonder if we worked each other. My antenna was so poor that,
when I used an EICO VFO as a transmitter hooked up to a 100 ft random
receiving antenna (with no matching system whatsoever) -- the EICO did
better! With it, I worked 14 states including Oklahoma (from the NYC area).
(Then I got an "OO" card in the mail, chastising me for using a VFO as a
novice. I guess "OO" stands for "OH-OH!")
The Johnson Challenger was, on 80m, hooked up to a 40m vertical dipole
hanging from the roof ledge of an 8 story apartment roof. Yep, it was right
up against the brick wall. I was on the 5th floor. What a moron... ;-) See,
I couldn't find any 40m crystals, so I got one for 80, and.... But that
Challenger could actually load a 40m antenna on 80.
Thus the license class "novice."
Howard
N2...@aol.com
My first rig was a single 6V6GT in the grid-plate circuit, running
maybe 10 W with one xtal on 3726 kHz. Dummy load was a Christmas tree
bulb, the big 7-1/2 watt kind. Antenna was a wire out to the crabapple
tree. Ground was the radiator pipe. J-37 key and knife-switch TR.
Antenna-current indicator was a pilot lamp in series with the lead-
in.
But the power supply was from an old Philco TV. Big power transformer,
5U4, cap and chokes. Good for at least 400 mills and I wasn't drawing
even 40.
Only parts bought new were the knife switch, the xtal and the 6V6GT.
Everything else was scavenged from the trash or acquired second hand.
Still have the key and the 6V6GT.
---
Another mentioned the cost of exams and nervousness at the FCC office.
I was lucky in that the FCC office was just a subway ride away. But a
school kid had to wait for summer or the rare school holiday that
wasn't a Federal holiday, because FCC exams were only given Monday
through Wednesday mornings. And the $9 cost was a big deal, too.
The first time I went for the General, early summer 1968, I flunked
the code because the examiner couldn't read my "Palmer Method"
longhand well enough to find the required 65 consecutive correct
characters. But he did find 25, so he let me take the written exam and
I wound up with a simultaneous Novice/Tech, which was OK back then.
WN3 call on HF and WA3 on VHF.
So I went home and taught myself to block-print, and listened to W1AW
until I could copy the 18 wpm bulletins solid from one end to the
other. Also saved up every spare penny to get the $9 exam fee. Went
back to FCC in midsummer and passed 13 wpm no problem.
As I was about to leave, the FCC examiner said "why don't you try
Advanced while you're here?" Though I hadn't prepared for it, there
was no way a 14 year old kid would say no to The Man From FCC, so I
tried it - and passed.
Two years later I was back for the Extra. But that's another story..
Tomorrow it will be 40 years since the license arrived in the mail...
73 de Jim, N2EY
Howard Lester
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote
> As I was about to leave, the FCC examiner said "why don't you try
> Advanced while you're here?" Though I hadn't prepared for it, there
> was no way a 14 year old kid would say no to The Man From FCC, so I
> tried it - and passed.
That white shirt and tie was pretty intimidating, wasn't it? I think it was
in 1968 that I went to the NYC office for my Advanced. I knew I failed...
but the man in the white shirt went over my answer sheet and casually said,
"You passed." "I DID!?" was my trembling response.... "Yeah." Oh. I
walked out of the exam room, went down the hall, threw my pencil in the air
over my back and kept going.
Now exams are given in people's living rooms....
> Tomorrow it will be 40 years since the license arrived in the mail...
Congratulations, Jim. It's quite a "club" we belong to.
Howard N7SO
Steve Bonine
> That white shirt and tie was pretty intimidating, wasn't it?
One of the most rewarding experiences of my ham radio career was serving
as reader for a blind ham who was taking her Extra exam in Chicago, just
before the FCC stopped administering them. She wanted to take the exam
from the FCC. She passed. I felt a tiny part of her pride.
I suppose that the VE system is a positive and reasonable step for the
hobby. It sure is easier to convince class attendees to come to a VE
session than to travel to the nearest FCC examination location, so it's
obvious that we get more new hams with the VE system than having the FCC
administer the tests. Not to mention all the tax dollars that we're
saving. But the new hams are missing a memory that all of us old timers
have of being intimidated by the FCC exam process, and that's just a
tiny bit sad.
Times change.
73, Steve KB9X
N2...@aol.com
> That white shirt and tie was pretty intimidating, wasn't it?
Not at all. Not to me, anyway.
What was intimidating was the fact that the Examiner was The Man From
FCC, who had sole power to say "You passed" or "You failed".
And if you failed, it was a 30 day minimum wait until you could try
again, plus another $9 fee.
> but the man in the white shirt went over my answer sheet and
> casually said,
> "You passed." "I DID!?" was my trembling response....
> "Yeah." Oh. I
> walked out of the exam room, went down the hall, threw my pencil
> in the air
> over my back and kept going.
I think I had a built-in advantage.
As a kid in school, taking tests was something I was used to, at least
weekly. One or two more tests was no big thing in itself.
Once the two-year experience requirement was met, I went for Extra.
Late summer 1970, same FCC office, same examiner. I was by far the
youngest person in the crowded waiting room that day. When The Man
opened the exam room door at 8 AM sharp and asked for anyone taking
the Extra, I was the only one trying for it.
He led me to the code test table and proceeded to open a locked filing
cabinet and take out the little code machine and the paper tapes it
used that contained The Actual Test. Plus 'phones, a legal pad and #2
pencil.
That little code machine used different-sized drive rollers to change
speeds, btw, and there was a stack of test tapes for it.
I got the standard instructions: Test is five minutes of code,
examiner must find 100 consecutive correct legible characters (which
amounts to 1 minute at 20 wpm) to pass, when the code stops put the
pencil down immediately or you fail.
Examiner asks if I'm ready, I manage a "yes" and put on the cans. He
says "Go!" and starts the machine.
I started right off copying in block letters. The code is loud and
clear and machine made, easier than copying off the air. After a bit I
settle down and start to think that it's easy - I'm getting every
letter!
I see out of the corner of my eye that The Man is looking out the
window, then over at me, Then he comes around and looks over my
shoulder as I copy. Bends down to get a better look.
Then he walks around the table and shuts off the machine, even though
the code has only been going for less than two minutes.
I look up, startled. I'd heard they always gave you the full five
minutes....
"That was easy, huh kid?" asks The Man.
"Uh, yeah..." is all I can manage.
"It should be" says The Man. "That was only 13. Here's 20"
And he swapped drive spindles on the code machine and started it
again.
Yes, I passed.
> Now exams are given in people's living rooms....
Nothing new about that. I took the Novice tests in K3NYT's dining
room. Spring-summer 1967.
> > Tomorrow it will be 40 years since the license arrived in the
> > mail...
Which makes it today..
> Congratulations, Jim. It's quite a "club" we belong to.
Yup. But consider how few we are.
There were about 250,000 US hams back then. If we lost just 1% of
those licensed then per year, only about 167,000 of us are left, out
of over 655,000 US hams today.
If we lost 2% per year, only about 111,000 of us are left.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Howard Lester
> But the new hams are missing a memory that all of us old timers have of
> being intimidated by the FCC exam process, and that's just a tiny bit sad.
Steve, I think you're right - very right - especially after reading Jim's
posting that followed yours. It's an experience that few of us hams share
any more.
N7SO
The Shadow
"Howard Lester" <heyl...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:13h4f7a...@corp.supernews.com...
examiner at BATTERY Street in San Francisco. Back then, it was a lot tougher
to get a Ham License than it was to join the US Navy hi hi. A memorable life
experience. And the several week wait for the ticket in the mail was
unforgettable as well.
Lamont Callsign withheld in the swampy waters of the news groups (;-)
N2...@aol.com
>
> I suppose that the VE system is a positive and reasonable
> step for the
> hobby. It sure is easier to convince class attendees to come
>to a VE
> session than to travel to the nearest FCC examination location,
> so it's
> obvious that we get more new hams with the VE system than
> having the FCC
> administer the tests.
I don't think it's obvious at all. Look at the growth in US amateur
radio over the decades, and the VE system by itself didn't really make
a noticeable difference in the number of new hams.
Remember too that in the mid-to-late 1970s the FCC offered
hams two test options:
1) Travel to an FCC exam point
2) Get a certain minimum number of people lined up for the
test, and FCC would send an examiner
Most hamfests above a certain size had FCC exam sessions
in that time period. Clubs and classes would have periodic exams, too.
All free.
> Not to mention all the tax dollars that we're
> saving.
*That* is the only reason we have the VE system, IMHO.
The FCC got unpaid volunteers to do almost all the work of test
preparation and administration, instead of paying federal
employees to do it.
> But the new hams are missing a memory that all of us old timers
> have of being intimidated by the FCC exam process, and that's
> just a tiny bit sad.
Given the choice, I'd rather have the tests be really good ones
that are readily accessible, with as little intimidation as possible.
I think the main effect the old system had on me (and probably many
others) was that, since it was somewhat difficult/expensive
to get to an FCC exam session, and the results of failure could be
rather dire, we tended to be way overprepared for the exams, and
surprised that they weren't as tough as we'd feared once we actually
got to them.
73 de Jim, N2EY
AF6AY
> What do others remember?
It's a cool late February weekday in the year 1956. I am
23 and a month out of active US Army duty, having spent
the last three Army years in radio communications, I had
decided to get a civilian commercial radio operator
license two weeks prior. I've done the cram thing on over-
drive, practically memorizing all of the looseleaf notebook
FCC rules borrowed from a new friend at a broadcast
station. I walk several blocks from the train station to
the Federal Building in Chicago. I am alone, have never
been walking in downtown Chicago before...but I am
confident although a bit tired. The train ride was an
hour and a half and the flat Illinois prarie boring as usual.
The FCC Field Office is upstairs and I find it. Everything
seems to be utilitarian-government. World War II ended
11 years prior and all federal offices look "war surplus"
furnished. Three visible officials are brusque, bored, not
effusive; i.e., it's like being back in the Army. Familiar.
FCC guys are fussing with a paper-tape code machine
and one of the three radiotelegraph testees has a
problem with connecting his favorite speed key (allowed
then). I am going for radiotelephone first class. I fill
out a two-page form about myself, then do the first of
four written tests, a short one required of everyone then
about FCC organization and laws. Code beeps are
heard in the background and a telegrapher seems to be
mumbling while copying; he is advised to be quiet.
Government-issue tables are too high, government-issue
chairs too low. I pass the first test, then everyone is
interrupted by loud bell claning outside.It is a fire drill in
the Federal Building. FCC agents are not happy. I
get a cup of bad coffee from a stand at the main
entrance and do the break, waiting and waiting, my
mind reviewing what I've memorized in rules and regs.
The military had never required licensing and is not
accountable to the FCC in radio operation.
Back upstairs again to finish the parts. I have to draw
a couple schematics and explain what the parts do on
a supplied schematic. One of the tests is multiple-
choice. Not a problem, it is something almost
intuitive to me now. Regulations and special law
considerations are not. I finish the last part and
bring it to the remaining agent's desk...I wonder idly
where the other two have gone. He pulls out a
template and other test notes from under his desk
blotter. Not much "security" there. I stand quietly to
one side, sort of in civilian parade rest. After a long
time of checking and making a few notes he finally
notices another human in the office. The telegrapher
testees have finished and are gone. He looks up
and says "You passed" in a bored unenthusiastic tone.
I say "Thank you" with as much enthusiasm and leave.
I know the government drill.
It is now after lunch and the return train won't leave for
three hours. What to do? I have a hot dog from a
street vendor, good franks in Illinois and Wisconsin, as
I know. I idly look in shop windows, pass a movie
house in its last week of first-run showing of the film
"Oklahoma." It has a matinee. I buy a ticket and
watch it from the balcony, the only one up there. At
the train station I buy a copy of the Chicago Tribune
and pass the return trip time reading of news that
don't really affect my life. I have no real emotion
about the day. I was confident in passing and did.
My mind is at ease. The rest of my life awaits.
Time Machine forward to February 2007 and FCC
announcing the fateful decision of No Code Testing
for US amateur licenses. I hadn't planned on getting
a "ham ticket." I idly check for exam places near me
in Los Angeles. ARRLweb lists one on 25 February,
a Sunday, at an old firehouse across from a Ralphs
supermarket that I've shopped in for over 40 years. I
thought the one-engine firehouse had closed down
years ago? I say to myself, "Why not?" and call the
ARRL VEC team leader listed for other info. I will
miss the Fontana, CA, NASCAR race carried on
ESPN2 but we have a DVR in the cable company's
set-top box. The old one-door firehouse had been
replaced for years but is now one of the stations
of the Los Angeles Emergency Communications
Auxilliary. Nice folks in there, all pleasant and
seeming enthusiastic. I wait and wait in a room
full of strangers, all younger than myself. Actual
testing doesn't begin until an hour and a half after
scheduled time. Must be 30 to 35 folks in there by
then, most doing just routine administrative things
they could have done themselves. Why didn't they,
I wonder? No real problem but it delays license
testing. The ARRL VEC team leader knows I am
going for Extra but I get the impression he doesn't
think I can do it.
These tests are not even close to the formal testing
I've had in college classrooms. I am retired and my
"job" doesn't depend on passing this test. I will not
cease to exist if I don't pass it. I have prepared for it
and have confidence that I can pass. But...let's GET
ON with it there, people! It's at least a half hour wait
between each test element. I chat idly during
breaks with others. Most seem amazed at what I
am doing. Why, I wonder? I don't look THAT old.
Do they really stand in awe of tests? How did they
get California drivers licenses which also require
multiple-choice testing? Did some fail to graduate
high school?
There are four in this ARRL VEC team. I casually study
them as much as they seem to study me. Interesting
situation. I smile inwardly. The team leader practices
lots of testing security, even to using a small padlocked
test-material box. Every examiner checks everyone's
answers. That's good. That also slows down the
process. I was surprised to see an African-American
on the VEC team. That's a rarity in US amateur radio.
I finish the last test. The VEC leader seems really
surprised. He shakes my hand in congratulations. So
do the other three. Am I the first applicant who got
"Extra out of the box" with this VEC team? I guess so.
One of them mumbled something to that extent. Okay,
another test completed, another in many tests taken
during my life. I leave, walk across the street to get to
my car and drive a mile back to my house. My name
and new callsign (for amateur radio purposes) shows
up on FCC databases for 7 March 2007. I am 74.
Did I get all sorts of emotional goosebumps over that
ham test? No. I had planned to do it, prepared myself,
and felt confident in passing...much the same as I'd
done 51 years prior for my commercial license.
Planning, preparedness, confidence works every time.
73, Len AF6AY
Michael Coslo
As a little counterpoint to the issue, I was licensed first in 1999
(rank newbie - HA!) and took my first Element one test in 2000.
Well, I flunked it.
What I remembered though was the examiner who labored over trying to
find the different ways that I might have squeezed through and actually
passed the thing. But it just wasn't to be. Poor guy was so apologetic
and felt so badly that I ended up feeling badly for him.
So much depends on our outlook, but I would trade that guy's kindness
and eagerness to get me into the fold, over being intimidated by the
steely eyed examiner. It made me look forward to passing my test and
getting into that fraternity. Which I did a few months later. And passed.
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
Steve Bonine
> So much depends on our outlook, but I would trade that guy's kindness
> and eagerness to get me into the fold, over being intimidated by the
> steely eyed examiner. It made me look forward to passing my test and
> getting into that fraternity. Which I did a few months later. And passed.
Ah . . . back then, the 5 wpm code test was not administered by the FCC,
at least not for the Novice ticket. It was administered by your fellow
operator, as part of the examination for Novice.
I gave a number of Novice exams back then, and it was always a pleasure
to do so. I also taught a number of Novice classes, most of which was
code, and enjoyed doing it. Mostly I think my students enjoyed it, too.
So we got both experiences . . . an Elmer's kindness, plus the steely
eyed examiner <grin> (Although my memory of the examiners in Chicago is
a pretty positive one.)
73, Steve KB9X
Phil Kane
<heyl...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>Steve, I think you're right - very right - especially after reading Jim's
>posting that followed yours. It's an experience that few of us hams share
>any more.
So very true. For most hams that was the first one-on-one contact
that they had with the FCC and being told that one passed the exam
made it a positive contact. Some hams also went up to the FCC office
to look up information in the public data bases or to ask for an
interpretation of the Rules. Now one deals with the FCC via the very
impersonal internet or through a third party (privatization at its
worst) , and it's a good bet that most hams do not know the location
of the closest FCC District Office or the name and face of the
District Director or any of the field agents unless and until one
receives an inspection or Notice of Inquiry or Violation because of
some problem.
At one time the staff was encouraged to visit each ham club on a
regular basis. Everyone knew who Phil Kane was and how he could be
reached.
Those days are gone. What a loss.
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
>From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon
e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net
Phil Kane
>What was intimidating was the fact that the Examiner was The Man From
>FCC, who had sole power to say "You passed" or "You failed".
It was the applicant who determined if the result was passing or
failing. The examiner merely reported the results.
Phil Kane
>> Not to mention all the tax dollars that we're
>> saving.
>
>*That* is the only reason we have the VE system, IMHO.
>The FCC got unpaid volunteers to do almost all the work of test
>preparation and administration, instead of paying federal
>employees to do it.
That is not the only reason - part of the problem was that the very
high brass had no idea why we were in the regulatory business in the
first place. That culminated in the big decimation of the field staff
in 1995-96 with the concomitant decline of the reputation and respect
that the FCC had before then.
The "tax money" that was allegedly saved was poured down other holes
that were created just because the position slots came available.
But you knew that....
DGMS
N2...@aol.com
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:14:05 EDT, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >What was intimidating was the fact that the Examiner was The Man From
> >FCC, who had sole power to say "You passed" or "You failed".
>
> It was the applicant who determined if the result was passing or
> failing. The examiner merely reported the results.
Bwaahaaahaaa! I walked right into that one, Phil!
However, didn't the examiner have to use at least some judgement as to
whether an applicant's Morse Code copy was 'legible', and whether his/
her sending was OK?
Going back before my time, when the exams involved writing essays,
drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was derived, didn't the
examiner have some judgement as to whether the applicant had properly
answered a question?
--
The way I recall it, the examiner I met wasn't so much trying to
intimidate as to simply let you know that this licensing stuff was
serious business.
--
One more story:
In those days (1967-1970) the written exam questions came in a booklet
and there was a separate answer sheet for your answers. They made a
big deal about having two #2 pencils, filling in the little box
completely, erasing completely, not making stray marks on the paper,
do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate, etc.
I'd had similar standardized tests several times in school, and there
was always an air of mystery about how the tests were graded. It was
implied that they were fed into a computer that had a no tolerance for
those who didn't follow instructions.
Being a curious sort, I asked how the machine worked, but got no
information. Top secret?
It seemed to me there were two possibilities: either there was some
form of photoelectric system that shone a light through the paper, or
there was a grid of contacts (gold plated?) that detected the answers
by the conductivity of the graphite pencil marks.
The photoelectric system seemed more workable, but the grid-of-
contacts system explained the insistence on #2 pencils.
When I went to take the test at the FCC office, I thought I might get
a glimpse of the grading machine. But there was nothing that looked
like such a device in the exam room.
When I handed in my completed written test, the examiner's assistant
pulled out what looked to me like a manila file folder. She opened it
up and slid the answer sheet inside - behind a piece of paper with
holes punched in it. She counted up the holes with marked boxes behind
them, then pulled out the answer sheet and looked for any questions
with more than one box filled in. Whole operation took very little
time. She said "You passed" and that was it.
What a letdown! No fancy machine, no photocells or gold-plated
contacts, no computer, just some pieces of paper with holes in the
right spots.
I got the distinct impression that I'd seen something I wasn't
supposed to reveal to others.
The phrase "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" took on a
whole new meaning that day.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Phil Kane
>However, didn't the examiner have to use at least some judgement as to
>whether an applicant's Morse Code copy was 'legible', and whether his/
>her sending was OK?
>
>Going back before my time, when the exams involved writing essays,
>drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was derived, didn't the
>examiner have some judgement as to whether the applicant had properly
>answered a question?
Welllll....yes.
We're even! <ggg>
Howard Lester
"Phil Kane" wrote
>>Steve, I think you're right - very right - especially after reading Jim's
>>posting that followed yours. It's an experience that few of us hams share
>>any more.
> So very true. For most hams that was the first one-on-one contact
> that they had with the FCC and being told that one passed the exam
> made it a positive contact.
Oh, it was a positive contact, all right. (I got to have two of them, both
in the NYC office.) I remember more the FCC men who set my friend and I up
with the headphones to listen to the 13 wpm tape. They were very nice to us
teenagers. It's not to say that others, who got their tickets from VE's,
don't have fond memories of *their* experiences. It's just that this was,
well, the official place, #2 pencils and all that... ;-) And it was in a
time (1963) when authority was respected a lot more than it is now.
Seriously, I attended a W5YI VE session here in Tucson about 14 years ago to
take my Extra exams. It was in someone's house, and it was so noisy, they
were having what amounted to a party while the exams were being given! I did
pass the 20wpm (it was given in a separate room), but I failed the
written.... in the party room. I was appalled at the "QRM" atmosphere. Give
me the quiet, sterile FCC exam room anytime.
Howard N7SO
Mike Coslo
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 17, 2:51?am, Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:14:05 EDT, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> >What was intimidating was the fact that the Examiner was The Man From
>> >FCC, who had sole power to say "You passed" or "You failed".
>>
>> It was the applicant who determined if the result was passing or
>> failing. The examiner merely reported the results.
>
> Bwaahaaahaaa! I walked right into that one, Phil!
>
> However, didn't the examiner have to use at least some judgement as to
> whether an applicant's Morse Code copy was 'legible', and whether his/
> her sending was OK?
>
> Going back before my time, when the exams involved writing essays,
> drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was derived, didn't the
> examiner have some judgement as to whether the applicant had properly
> answered a question?
>
> --
>
> The way I recall it, the examiner I met wasn't so much trying to
> intimidate as to simply let you know that this licensing stuff was
> serious business.
This kind of got me to thinking. Perhaps the judgement part is one of the
reasons that essays went away. In a related situation, the first time I
took my driving test, I went before a steely eyed Examiner, a state
policeman by the name of Nix. I aced the written part of the test, and
aced the driving test too. Then on the way back to the building where
they were headquartered, he suddenly yelled out STOP NOW! I did so
immediately, thinking there might be an emergency situation; after which
he looked at me, grinned, and said "Congratulations, YOU flunked!" When I
asked what I did wrong, He said "You didn't use your turn signal." My
test was already over, and I did everything asked, and yet I couldn't do
a thing about it.
I am a big supporter of the tests the way they are now.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> Forty years ago today, October 12, 1967, FCC issued a Novice license
> to a 13-year-old kid in the 7th grade. The license arrived two days
> later, and the kid (me) went on the amateur bands for the first time
> October 14, 1967.
Jim, October 14th is special for me, too. That's the date I entered
active duty.
> Since then, I've has had three amateur radio callsigns, six
> "permanent" QTHs, a long list of rigs, antennas, parts and test
> equipment, awards earned, articles published, and tens of thousands of
> QSOs. Many things in amateur radio are different now than they were
> then, many things are the same.
While serving, I had seven ranks, 10 PCS moves, including two
unaccompanied short tours (12 months in 1979 and another 12 months in
1988), one long tour (1989), several deployments, lots of awards, and
got to play radio, too.
> One thing that hasn't changed is that ham radio is sure a lot of fun.
>
> Doesn't seem like 40 years, though.
In ham years, you're just getting dried behind your ears... Enjoy
anther 20 or 30 or so...
> What do others remember?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
I remember passing my novice test 20 years ago last November. In ham
years, I'm a rank beginner..
73, bb
N2...@aol.com
> N...@AOL.COM wrote in news:1192669855.352467.256260
> @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> > Going back before my time, when the exams involved
> > writing essays,
> > drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was
> > derived, didn't the
> > examiner have some judgement as to whether
> > the applicant had properly
> > answered a question?
> This kind of got me to thinking. Perhaps the judgement part
> is one of the reasons that essays went away.
I agree. Your story about the driving test shows how arbitrary that
judgement could be. Things like handwriting legibility and how good
someone is at English composition could make the difference.
Another issue is the need for examiners who knew the material
well enough to grade the tests. Anybody with the right answer key
can grade a multiple-choice test but essays require a grader that
knows the stuff - and has the time.
Historically:
- Novice was always all multiple-choice.
- the pre-1953 Advanced had essays, diagrams, show-your-work problems
and multiple choice. When it was revived in 1967, it was all multiple
choice. (No Advanceds were issued from 1953 to 1967).
- Technician/General/Conditional and Extra had essays, diagrams, show-
your-work problems and multiple choice until about 1961, when the old
blue-book tests were replaced with all-multiple-choice tests.
There was not a single changeover date from blue-book to multiple
choice exams, because the examiners
were instructed to use up their existing stock of old exams before
starting to use the new ones. So depending on where you went for
the exam, you could get one or the other. I suspect that busy exam
points like NYC used up their stock of old exams very quickly, while
a less-busy place might have used them for quite a while after the
new ones came out.
- For the first two years of their existence (1951-1953), Novice and
Technician were tested at FCC offices unless the examinee could meet
the "Conditional criteria" of distance or physical disability.
After that time, those exams were issued by mail using a single
volunteer examiner, regardless of distance.
>From what older amateurs have told me, the reason FCC made the
switch was that the exam points were being inundated with people,
particularly teenagers, coming to take the exams without adequate
preparation. The tests were free in those days, and a kid on summer
vacation could show up at the FCC office three times in a summer
with the 30 day wait. IMHO the FCC wanted to both reduce their
workload of failed exams and reduce the number who passed simply
because they'd gone back so many times that they'd seen all the exam
versions.
The by-mail exam process slowed things down a lot because there
was a 6-8 week processing delay at every step, plus all the work was
at FCC Hq.
All the amateur radio written exams I took were multiple choice.
None of them were difficult at all, IMHO. They did require knowing
some radio theory and regulations governing the ARS, though.
> I am a big supporter of the tests the way they are now.
Two things I would change in the exam *process* (not *content*,
but *process*):
1) I would go back to the way things were in the late 1970s,
when FCC conducted the exams, both in their offices and by
request at hamfests, club meetings and almost anywhere that a
certain minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed.
2) I would make the exams themselves 'secret', that is, no more
open question pools.
Of course 2) would depend on 1). The chances of either actually
happening are probably 'slim to none'.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dan Yemiola AI8O
>
> "Phil Kane" wrote
>
>>>Steve, I think you're right - very right - especially after reading Jim's
>>>posting that followed yours. It's an experience that few of us hams share
>>>any more.
In the mid 70's I took the first class phone exam in front of a FCC examiner
in Cincinnati.
Since there wasn't an FCC office in town they held the exam at a suburban
hotel in one of those meeting rooms where they pull out a divider to
subdivide the room. Unfortunately there was a Mary Kay Cosmetics meeting
being held on the other side of the ballroom, and every five minutes or so
Mary Kay ladies would start clapping and singing, just like camp meeting.
No "quiet, sterile FCC exam room " that day.
Steve Bonine
> Unfortunately there was a Mary Kay Cosmetics meeting
> being held on the other side of the ballroom, and every five minutes or so
> Mary Kay ladies would start clapping and singing, just like camp meeting.
>
> No "quiet, sterile FCC exam room " that day.
At least they tried, sort of.
My General class exam was held in the Federal Building in Knoxville, TN.
I've seen other articles here that described using headphones for code
exams; we did not have them. The room was one of those sterile 1960s
government classroom/conference rooms, and the echo was horrendous. It
was kind of like copying cw through QRN on 80 meters, which is just what
I had been doing for the past few months, so I did pass the test. But I
do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but not
for others.
73, Steve KB9X
Phil Kane
>Another issue is the need for examiners who knew the material
>well enough to grade the tests. Anybody with the right answer key
>can grade a multiple-choice test but essays require a grader that
>knows the stuff - and has the time.
That was the main reason. The Commercial Radiotelegraph Operator
exams has diagrams to the end, and we always had to call an engineer
to grade those questions.
Bruce in Alaska
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
I took my General Test at the FCC Office in the OLD Federal Office
Building in Seattle, Washington, from the Steelie Eyed, Old Crone
named Gertrude Johnson, who was the Office Secratary. She did a
REAL Good impression of "Librarian from Hell". NO talking, no noise
of any kind, if your eyes even left your desk, you FAILED. She was
Code Proficent, clear up to 35WPM, and the EIC, Bob Deitch, was even
Better. I took my First Class Radiotelephone Exam in the same place
the next year, and Ms. Johnson was still there.
Years later, when I took the Advanced Exam, in the NEW Federal
Office Building, Bob Zinns was the examiner, and they just made you
erase all the memory in your calculator. I had it a lot easier
then, as I had been doing Marine Ship Inspections, with Inspectors
from the Seattle Office for a couple of years, and had a good
relationship whith all of them.
A few years after that, I was approched by the FCC Region X Director,
Bill Johnson, and was offered a position with the Commission as
a Resident Field Agent for Southeastern Alaska, attached to the
Anchorage Office. I spent 5 years working for them, untill the
ALGORE BloodLetting, that destroyed Field Operations as we knew
it.
Bruce in alaska <AL7AQ>
--
add <path> before @
John Siegel
I took my exam in Philly in the same era. Fortunately the headphones did
help
with the jack hammers going outside.
John
Phil Kane
>The by-mail exam process slowed things down a lot because there
>was a 6-8 week processing delay at every step, plus all the work was
>at FCC Hq.
Actually they were processed at the License Center in Gettysburg, PA
which still processes all licenses, inputting the data into the ULS
and printing/mailing the actual document.
>1) I would go back to the way things were in the late 1970s,
>when FCC conducted the exams, both in their offices and by
>request at hamfests, club meetings and almost anywhere that a
>certain minimum number of examinees could be guaranteed.
>
>2) I would make the exams themselves 'secret', that is, no more
>open question pools.
>
>Of course 2) would depend on 1). The chances of either actually
>happening are probably 'slim to none'.
The success of (2) depends on the willingness to prosecute any and all
persons who reveal or possess the contents of any examination without
authorization. Does the name "Dick Bash" ring any bells? It's still
a sore point with me.
The chances of either actually happening range from "none" to "what
world are you on".
Phil Kane
>But I do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but not
>for others.
It all depended on what resources the local office could scrounge up,
because the nickel-nursers at HQ were not of a mind to buy such things
in an era when we had to scrounge surplus equipment from Federal
disposal sites. Other agencies were "retiring" or discarding stuff
that was newer and better than what we had in service. For many years
our non-technical vehicles were the Fords and Chevys seized by the DEA
from low-level drug dealers. The BMWs and Mercedes of the high-level
dealers they kept for themselves.
The FCC was, and to some extent still is, a "pauper agency". They
don't get to keep any of the license fees or spectrum auction proceeds
collected, over and above the actual cost of processing the license or
running the auction.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Milepost 755 - Tillamook District
Phil Kane
wrote:
>I spent 5 years working for them, untill the ALGORE BloodLetting, that destroyed Field
>Operations as we knew it.
That was the first time that I heard Internet Al blamed for it.
I had always thought that it was Der Hundt, when The Congress laid the
task of rewriting the Cable TV rules on the agency but refused to
approve any more slots (money) for the reg-writers. and he looked
around to see who was expendable. He had no understanding of what the
field did, no matter how hard we tried, and so the blood-letting of
the field started. The then-Bureau chief (Beverly Baker, one of my
law school mentors) resigned rather than go through with it. She was
replaced by a former Chief Recruiting Sergeant for the Marine
Corps.... (no further comment)
I took early-out 10 seconds after it was offered. That's how good
morale was under that cloud 12 years ago.
Phil Kane
<JohnA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I took my exam in Philly in the same era. Fortunately the headphones did
>help with the jack hammers going outside.
During most of the 1980s they were tearing up the streets outside the
San Francisco office, and we actually had to find an inside conference
room to give the code tests.
Klystron
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> >2) I would make the exams themselves 'secret', that is, no more
> >open question pools.
> The success of (2) depends on the willingness to prosecute any and all
> persons who reveal or possess the contents of any examination without
> authorization. Does the name "Dick Bash" ring any bells? It's still
> a sore point with me.
>
> The chances of either actually happening range from "none" to "what
> world are you on".
You could get the same result, effectively, by increasing the size of
the question pool. Just go from the present 8 or 10 to 1 ratio (pool
size to test size) to something larger. It could be easily accomplished
with the issuance of the next set of pools.
--
Klystron
Mike Coslo
news:xxx-E5D360.1...@news.verizon.net:
> You could get the same result, effectively, by increasing the size
> of
> the question pool. Just go from the present 8 or 10 to 1 ratio (pool
> size to test size) to something larger. It could be easily
> accomplished with the issuance of the next set of pools.
And yet, it begs the question of *should* the tests be harder? And
were they harder back in the day?
This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that
memory might be playing a sort of trick on people.
I have done a little research on the subject, imcluding "study guides"
from the 1950's. I found the major difference was that the 1950s tests
apparently contained more tube oriented material.
I was also struck by the fact that some of the questions are verbatim
what they are now! Some of the electronic basics have not changed, and
there are apparently only so many ways to ask the same question.
My references are for Novice and General, and I can say that the Novice
written was very, very, easy. The General was of similar difficulty to
today's General test. When I can get materials for the Advanced, and
more importantly the Extra, I think I'll find a similar pattern.
My conclusions:
At least since the late 1950's, the testing was no more difficult than
it is now. Many of the questions have changed, but in the context of the
times it was quite similar.
Study guides were a substitute for question pools. Judging by the
verbatim content of some of the questions to what is in the question
pools, there must have been some relationship.
Perhaps one of the reasons that many people believe that the old time
tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for the
test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957 would
indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical
learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one can be
excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the
knowledge accumulation, they are easy.
But not for everyone, and certainly the testing regimen should not be
tailored to the highest denominator, so to speak.
Klystron
>
> And yet, it begs the question of *should* the tests be harder? And
> were they harder back in the day?
A frequently heard position is that the elimination of the code test
should be counterbalanced by an increase in the difficulty and/or size
of the written test. I suggested that back when there still was a code
test, as a means of getting rid of the code test. At this point, I am
ambivalent on the topic. Considering the shrinking population of hams,
I'd like to keep the Technician test easy and advertise it as a foot in
the door, especially to persons who are interested in ham radio mainly
as a tool that is intended to serve other areas (emergency and disaster
relief, for example).
> This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that
> memory might be playing a sort of trick on people.
>
> I have done a little research on the subject, imcluding "study guides"
> from the 1950's. I found the major difference was that the 1950s tests
> apparently contained more tube oriented material.
>
> I was also struck by the fact that some of the questions are verbatim
> what they are now! Some of the electronic basics have not changed, and
> there are apparently only so many ways to ask the same question.
>
> My references are for Novice and General, and I can say that the Novice
> written was very, very, easy. The General was of similar difficulty to
> today's General test. When I can get materials for the Advanced, and
> more importantly the Extra, I think I'll find a similar pattern.
I don't doubt that, but the elimination of essays and diagram drawing
questions has made the tests easier for some. Persons who can memorize
the material can get grades that are out of all proportion to their
knowledge of radio and electronics. Larger pools would change that.
> My conclusions:
>
> At least since the late 1950's, the testing was no more difficult than
> it is now. Many of the questions have changed, but in the context of the
> times it was quite similar.
>
> Study guides were a substitute for question pools. Judging by the
> verbatim content of some of the questions to what is in the question
> pools, there must have been some relationship.
>
> Perhaps one of the reasons that many people believe that the old time
> tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for the
> test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957 would
> indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical
> learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one can be
> excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the
> knowledge accumulation, they are easy.
>
> But not for everyone, and certainly the testing regimen should not be
> tailored to the highest denominator, so to speak.
I found that to be true. In the late 1970's, I bought a copy of the
Ameco study guide for the phone-one test (the thick book with an orange
cover). I was unable to read it; I made absolutely no progress with it.
Earlier this year, I used it to study for the GROL and found it quite
easy. I wondered, at the time, whether that meant that I had become
smarter.
On the other hand, some of those old study guides were clearly
inadequate for the task. I have a copy of the "General Class Amateur
License Handbook" by Howard S. Pyle, W7OE, Sams Publications
[1961,1964,1968], 136 pages. You could MEMORIZE the entire book and
still not come close to passing the test. It just glossed over the
material.
--
Klystron
N2...@aol.com
> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote innews:xxx-E5D360.1...@news.verizon.net:
> And yet, it begs the question of *should*
> the tests be harder? And
> were they harder back in the day?
Depends on what you mean by "harder".
> This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that
> memory might be playing a sort of trick on people.
>
> I have done a little research on the subject, imcluding
> "study guides"
> from the 1950's. I found the major difference was that
> the 1950s tests
> apparently contained more tube oriented material.
I have License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971.
There are more differences than just the tube emphasis.
For example, the old study guides focused on a few subjects in-depth,
and left other subjects completely alone. Lots of stuff on
power supplies, including rectifiers and filters, but almost nothing
on receivers, for example. Lots of calculations of how to know
you're in the band with a frequency meter or crystal with a certain
percentage error and a certain temperature characteristics, but
nothing on RF exposure. Etc.
>
> I was also struck by the fact that some of the questions are
> verbatim
> what they are now! Some of the electronic basics have not
> changed, and
> there are apparently only so many ways to ask the same question.
Sure - there's only so many ways to ask for the unit of resistance.
The big thing is that the old study guides simply indicated the areas
that would be covered on the exams, not the exact Q&A nor the exact
method of the test. So some mental processing was essential.
> My references are for Novice and General, and I can say
> that the Novice
> written was very, very, easy.
I would say it was *basic*. It covered the regulations, some theory,
and that's about it.
Novice (back then) was also a one-year, nonrenewable, one-time
license with extremely limited privileges. So its test could be very
basic and still cover the needed material.
>The General was of similar difficulty to
> today's General test.
IMHO, it's not about difficulty but about covering the relevant
material, and being sure the person being tested knows that material.
> At least since the late 1950's, the testing was no more difficult than
> it is now. Many of the questions have changed, but in the context
> of the
> times it was quite similar.
>
> Study guides were a substitute for question pools. Judging by the
> verbatim content of some of the questions to what is in the
> question
> pools, there must have been some relationship.
>
> Perhaps one of the reasons that many people believe that the old > time
> tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for > the
> test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957
> would
> indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical
> learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one >can be
> excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the
> knowledge accumulation, they are easy.
That's certainly true. In fact, the person to worry about is the
experienced amateur who thinks the exams are "hard" even after
gaining experience.
However, note that we cannot look at the actual exams of those days,
because they aren't available. We can only extrapolate from the study
guides. Today's tests are wide open. Big difference there!
The test-taker of those old days had no clear idea how the questions
would be worded, nor how many would be on a given subject, so the
usual response was to assume the worst and
overprepare. Then the actual test seemed relatively simple.
At least that was my experience.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Ralph E Lindberg
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
Some 20 years ago I had a job interview with the Regional Engineer, she
was crowing about the $100K budget plus-up he just got, I didn't have
the heart to tell him that I had a $100K pin money budget (as a minor
project lead for the DoD)
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
Ralph E Lindberg
Bruce in Alaska <fa...@btpost.net> wrote:
Wasn't she just scary?
Bruce in Alaska
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
ALGORE was the guy who was incharge of the "Reinvention Of Government"
movement under the Clinton Administration. The Commission was one of
first agencies that got "ReInvented", and FOB was the first Bureau
that got slashed. It was interesting that the total number of employees
stayed fairly static thru the whole process..... $60K Engineers and
$45K Field Techs, replaced with $120K Economists, and $100K Lawyers....
and this saved money, How? Oh well, I really enjoyed my time with the
Commission, and the friends I made, and still have, some of whom are
still there. Although fewer, each year.
Bruce in alaska
Phil Kane
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>Some 20 years ago I had a job interview with the Regional Engineer, she
>was crowing about the $100K budget plus-up he just got, I didn't have
>the heart to tell him that I had a $100K pin money budget (as a minor
>project lead for the DoD)
One year in the 1980s the annual budget for the FCC was less than
DoD's expenditure for toilet paper. For enforcement budget and
staffing shortfalls, we can thank JEdgar Hoover who made sure that
enforcement activities of agencies other than his fiefdom were starved
for funds. His legacy lives on.
Doug Smith W9WI
> It's a cool late February weekday in the year 1956. I am
> 23 and a month out of active US Army duty, having spent
> the last three Army years in radio communications, I had
> decided to get a civilian commercial radio operator
> license two weeks prior. I've done the cram thing on over-
> drive, practically memorizing all of the looseleaf notebook
> FCC rules borrowed from a new friend at a broadcast
> station. I walk several blocks from the train station to
> the Federal Building in Chicago. I am alone, have never
> been walking in downtown Chicago before...but I am
> confident although a bit tired. The train ride was an
> hour and a half and the flat Illinois prarie boring as usual.
>
> The FCC Field Office is upstairs and I find it. Everything
> seems to be utilitarian-government. World War II ended
> 11 years prior and all federal offices look "war surplus"
> furnished. Three visible officials are brusque, bored, not
> effusive; i.e., it's like being back in the Army. Familiar.
> FCC guys are fussing with a paper-tape code machine
Believe it or not, in 1974 I took my General code test on the same
paper-tape code machine you saw the inspectors fussing with in 1956.
The pitch jumped briefly about halfway through. Didn't faze most of us,
but when the tape was over one of the guys being tested protested loudly &
insisted on being tested again. Don't know if he passed on the second try.
(the rest of us all passed on the first try, even with the jumping pitch)
By the time I took the 20wpm for the Extra two years later, they were
using a cheap portable cassette player. It worked, but most of the "soul"
was missing.
The train ride was from Milwaukee; I suspect the Federal Building was
somewhat taller; and there was a Sears Tower along the walk from the train
station, but I suspect it was a similar experience.
AF6AY
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:53:39 -0400, AF6AY wrote:
> Believe it or not, in 1974 I took my General code test on the same
> paper-tape code machine you saw the inspectors fussing with in 1956.
Heh, heh, I'll bet the government-issue furniture was the same...:-)
>
> The pitch jumped briefly about halfway through. Didn't faze most of us,
> but when the tape was over one of the guys being tested protested loudly &
> insisted on being tested again. Don't know if he passed on the second try.
>
> (the rest of us all passed on the first try, even with the jumping pitch)
I would insist the group would have to be interrupted by a fire
drill... :-)
> By the time I took the 20wpm for the Extra two years later, they were
> using a cheap portable cassette player. It worked, but most of the "soul"
> was missing.
Well, according to Phil Kane, money is the real soul of the FCC.
I don't think it is that bad. I moved from the Midwest to California
in November of 1956. The Field Office of the FCC is in Long Beach,
CA, and that office doesn't look furnished in WWII-surplus.
I rather like my local area's Communications Auxilliary. It seems to
have been put in place some time around the Attack on America
("9/11"). The Old Firehouse had been replaced by the LAFD years ago
by a larger station somewhat close by...to all intents and purposes it
looked like an unused building. But, inside there is a converted bus
as a mobile radio station and there is a permanent base station in the
rear of the firehouse which can do HF to UHF comms. The LAFD is
responsible for the Communications Auxilliary and they kindly let the
VEC do test exams there. Seemed like the Old Firehouse is still kept
up nicely as if it could house a regular crew of firemen. We couldn't
get to inspect the Auxilliary's radio stuff but could see in through a
window set in the door.
>From the listing of amateur radio test sites, I could have gone to a
Denny's Restaurant reserved room near me or a private residence
somewhat farther away. At a mile away, the Old Firehouse and on a
Sunday afternoon was better. Getting a closer look at one of the
Communications Auxilliary's stations was a plus.
> The train ride was from Milwaukee; I suspect the Federal Building was
> somewhat taller; and there was a Sears Tower along the walk from the train
> station, but I suspect it was a similar experience
Heh, probably. I haven't been back to "The Loop" since then but been
through Chicago Midway and, certainly, O'Hare, many a time since then,
even a trip to Meigs Field right on the lakefront. But, 51 1/2 years
ago I was just out of four years in the Army and could walk just about
any distance needed. :-) I wouldn't think of trying that walk
now. :-)
One thing I remember being amazed at in a 2001 trip back to northern
Illinois for the Big 50 Reunion of our high school class of '51 was
that WMCW in Harvard, Illinois, was still operating. I worked there a
few months in 1956 when it was literally a converted farmhouse. 500 W
daylight only, it was "the voice of Boone, McHenry, and Walworth
Counties" sitting just off a two-lane highway and I did the whole
works as the only employee. The 'studio' was the old living room and
the control room was converted from the former dining room. :-) The
farmhouse is gone and the studios for WMCW are now 'downtown' in
Harvard, a bigger wide place in the road than it was 45 years prior.
Only the single vertical for 1600 KHz remains, where I once replaced a
mandatory warning light bulb that had gone out as a favor to the
station owner, Esther Blodgett (of Blodgett Broadcasters).
73, Len AF6AY
Dan Yemiola AI8O
"Mike Coslo" <mco...@youknow.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns99D0E78D8FCF2...@216.196.97.136...
> tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for the
> test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957 would
> indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical
> learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one can be
> excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the
> knowledge accumulation, they are easy.
Precisely my experience! In my day to day work I picked up a LOT of
electronics knowledge and experience.
NOT to BRAG but one day in 1983 I just happened to be in Detroit.
I just walked in and took the General test.
The secretary looked up my Novice license and then gave me the General test
and I upgraded to Tech Plus ( it ws just called TECH then).
The hardest part of the exam for me was the parts rules and regs that were
just arbitrary like Band limits and how many days you had to respond to a
violation notice.
Same with the EXTRA exam I took in 2000. Day to day working knowledge was
more than enough to pass the exam.
>
> But not for everyone, and certainly the testing regimen should not be
> tailored to the highest denominator, so to speak.
No I think the exam should have more questions to test not just hit the high
points but also test the depth of the testee's knowledge, that is I think
the exam should have more questions, not harder just more questions.
>
AF6AY
22:54:39 EDT
>Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote in news:xxx-E5D360.1...@news.verizon.net:
>> You could get the same result, effectively, by increasing the size of
>>the question pool. Just go from the present 8 or 10 to 1 ratio (pool
>> size to test size) to something larger. It could be easily
>> accomplished with the issuance of the next set of pools.
>
> And yet, it begs the question of *should* the tests be harder? And
> were they harder back in the day?
>
> This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that
> memory might be playing a sort of trick on people.
As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool
questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007:
Technician pool had 392 (35 required). Ratio of pool to requred
11.20:1
General pool had 485 (35 required). Ratio of pool to required 13.86:1
Extra pool had 802 (50 required). Ratio of pool to required 16.04:1
The pools have gone beyond 10:1 by a fair margin...even if I've mis-
counted slightly. My printouts (single spaced, both sides) FILL a
1" loose-leaf notebook.
Some time back I showed the notebook to an acquaintance who is an
aspiring actor, not a radio hobbyist. He is used to memorizing lines
of
a script and being as letter-perfect as possible, his lines as well
as
others in the same scene. His main comment went something like,
"Holy ##$%&!!! You had to memorize all that?!?" :-)
"No," I said, "Only certain things about regulations...theory and
practice should be known enough to pass."
Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart
of
bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate
satellites. :-)
73, Len AF6AY
Klystron
>
> As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool
> questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007:
>
> Technician pool had 392 (35 required). Ratio of pool to requred
> 11.20:1
>
> General pool had 485 (35 required). Ratio of pool to required 13.86:1
>
> Extra pool had 802 (50 required). Ratio of pool to required 16.04:1
>
> The pools have gone beyond 10:1 by a fair margin...even if I've mis-
> counted slightly. My printouts (single spaced, both sides) FILL a
> 1" loose-leaf notebook.
Did you exclude from that count the questions that were later
disqualified? When I took the tests, most of the questions about band
edges had to be dropped because of the rule change. A few others were
dropped due to errors or poor wording. I think the current pool size has
been chosen to allow for a safety margin for the elimination of some
erroneous questions. (I am currently studying for the GMDSS operator
test and the worst questions on the amateur tests are worded better than
a large number of these.)
My figure of 8 or 10 pool questions to 1 test questions was very
rough and not intended for 4 significant digit precision. However, other
FCC test pools bring the average a bit closer to it, such as the GMDSS
test pool (600 in pool, 100 on test).
> Some time back I showed the notebook to an acquaintance who is an
> aspiring actor, not a radio hobbyist. He is used to memorizing lines
> of
> a script and being as letter-perfect as possible, his lines as well
> as
> others in the same scene. His main comment went something like,
> "Holy ##$%&!!! You had to memorize all that?!?" :-)
>
> "No," I said, "Only certain things about regulations...theory and
> practice should be known enough to pass."
>
> Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
> VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
> regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
> satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart
> of
> bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate
> satellites. :-)
Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4).
I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially
on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving
imaginary numbers, for example).
--
Klystron
Phil Kane
>I don't think it is that bad. I moved from the Midwest to California
>in November of 1956. The Field Office of the FCC is in Long Beach,
>CA, and that office doesn't look furnished in WWII-surplus.
Until 1975 the LA office was in downtown LA, and its last location was
on the top floor of the U S Courthouse. When the judges made them
move, the deal was cut to move to Long Beach with G.I. 1960s-era
furniture. It helped that one of the engineers there (a good friend
and ham who rose to become the Western Regional Director but died much
too young 15 years ago) was a superior surplus scrounger who found the
newest-looking stuff.
AF6AY
>AF6AY <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool
>> questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007:
>
> Did you exclude from that count the questions that were later
>disqualified?
I only counted the applicable pool questions. Yes, I also
printed out the NCVEC website listing of question changes,
but only as a very general reference, not to be used
specifically for my 25 Feb 07 test. www.ncvec.org
>When I took the tests, most of the questions about band
>edges had to be dropped because of the rule change. A few others were
>dropped due to errors or poor wording.
I took my test before an ARRL VEC team. The ARRL-supplied
test question sheets had already excluded changed questions
(and answers). Good security was practiced by the ARRL VEC
team leader and the other three in the team, all materials for
testing kept in a small padlocked carrying box. Scoring
templates were translucent plastic sheets, blue and imprinted
with the ARRL logo, if memory serves me correctly.
> My figure of 8 or 10 pool questions to 1 test questions was very
>rough and not intended for 4 significant digit precision. However, other
>FCC test pools bring the average a bit closer to it, such as the GMDSS
>test pool (600 in pool, 100 on test).
After doing the total count of questions on my printout, I used
a pocket calculator to derive the percentages. It has flexible
significant digit settings and I used my standard setting of two
significant digits in the fraction of percentages. I apologize if
that offends anyone. [HP-32S II, cost $60 in 2001 off-the-shelf,
just got an HP-35S, $60 still, the latest in the 35-year history
of scientific pocket calculators, direct from HP on-line shop]
GMDSS testing would be done in front of a COLEM since it is a
Commercial radio license group. Different from the VEC.
My First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Operator license
test was taken at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, IL, 51 1/2
years ago. There were no COLEMs or VECs then and testing
was not privatized. All commercial radiotelephone licenses
were changed to the General Radiotelephone Operator License
(GROL) much later and my First 'Phone was changed
automatically to that. I kept that GROL renewed also until it
became a lifetime license, no renewals required. I am not
interested in obtaining any other commercial license now.
>> Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
>> VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
>> regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
>> satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct.
>Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4).
I concentrated only on passing my three required test elements.
I wasn't in 'competition' with anyone else but myself. The FCC
sets the limits on the pass versus fail and the FCC grants the
license. I passed. I mentioned my observed scoring only as an
afterthought. The percentage of questions passed didn't seem
to be logged by any in the VEC team. Scores aren't in the data-
base from the FCC.
>I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially
>on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving
>imaginary numbers, for example).
Complex number quantities are not an absolute necessity in
amateur radio...unless one wants to be successful in designing
certain parts of radio and electronics or doing a more in-depth
realization of what actually comprises impedance or admittance.
I learned complex number quantities from a third- or fourth-hand
used reference on mathematics given to me in 1959. [I still
have it and use it as a refresher on other math from time to
time] They are not hard to learn, just a bit strange to those who
haven't yet gone beyond scalar quantities. Both the HP-32 and
HP-35S will do complex number arithmetic as a built-in
function on the keyboard and the HP-35S has a much larger
program storage.
I wish you well on your GMDSS test before a COLEM.
73, Len AF6AY
Michael Coslo
> Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
> VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
> regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
> satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart
> of bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate
> satellites. :-)
Hi Len,
The bandplan frequencies and satellite operations are a real issue with
me. I always thought that better questions were available, since like
you note, you look at a chart. I do too.
At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
to see if the testee knew where to look them up.
Phil Kane
>At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
>to see if the testee knew where to look them up.
Another approach would be to have a sample chart with the segments
labeled by their emission designators, such as A1A or J3E, and ask for
the segment allowed to Phone or Morse, or Data, etc.
This would be independent of "real life" band plans or regulations,
which are subject to frequent changes, and would test another phase
of the knowledge of The Compleat Ham.
The California Bar Exam does just that - they give you a set of laws
and a fact pattern and you have to write something - an argument, a
petition, etc based on those, not on "real life" which can be
something different depending on the latest court cases.
N2...@aol.com
> AF6AY wrote:
> > Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
> > VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
> > regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. >
> The bandplan frequencies and satellite operations are a real issue with
> me. I always thought that better questions were available, since like
> you note, you look at a chart. I do too.
>
> At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
> to see if the testee knew where to look them up.
>
With all due respect, I think there's a bit of terminology confusion
here.
In amateur radio use, "bandplan" refers to voluntary, suggested usage
of frequencies,
not regulations. For example, AM operation on 75 meters centers around
3885 kHz
even though it is legal (for Region 2 Extras) to use AM anywhere from
3600 to 4000 kHz (as
long as the sidebands are inside those limits).
"Subbands" refers to the frequency limits in the regulations
themselves, by mode, class of license,
or both.
For example, 'phone modes are not allowed from 3500 to 3600 kHz for
any class of FCC-licensed
radio amateur in Region 2. That CW/data-only subband is part of the
regulations, not the bandplan.
Or the rule that only Extras can use 3500 to 3525 kHz, etc. -
regulations, not bandplan.
Yes, some hams do use the term "bandplan" to refer to the regulations.
But doing so leads
to confusion, because the term usually means voluntary agreements, not
regulations. Why
not use the term that most clearly expresses the concept?
On 160 meters there are no subbands by mode or license class, but
there is a bandplan!
Same for 30 meters.
The problem with removing direct questions on the regs is that such an
approach has a
proven record of not working as a regulatory tool. Back when FCC
licensed cb users,
the license form required a signed statement that the licensee had
read the regulations,
understood them, and would follow them to the letter. Compliance with
the regulations
for that radio service turned out to be less than FCC anticipated,
however.
Putting specific questions on the regs in the tests is one way of
saying that knowing those
regs is important for all hams. If they are replaced by questions
about "where do you look
up the band edges" or some such, why can't the whole exam be replaced
by such questions?
73 de Jim, N2EY
AF6AY
>AF6AY wrote:
>> Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
>> VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
>> regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was
>> satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart
>> of bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate
>> satellites. :-)
>Hi Len,
>
> The bandplan frequencies and satellite operations are a real issue with
>me. I always thought that better questions were available, since like
>you note, you look at a chart. I do too.
Mike, I agree with you but don't see it as anything worth arguing
about.
>At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
>to see if the testee knew where to look them up.
That could be a solution. I'm still wondering about all those space
questions, though. Like there's not going to be many DXepiditions
to earth orbit specifically for radio amateurs.. :-)
73, Len AF6AY
AF6AY
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:34:11 EDT, Michael Coslo <m...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
>>to see if the testee knew where to look them up.
>
>Another approach would be to have a sample chart with the segments
>labeled by their emission designators, such as A1A or J3E, and ask for
>the segment allowed to Phone or Morse, or Data, etc.
>
>This would be independent of "real life" band plans or regulations,
>which are subject to frequent changes, and would test another phase
>of the knowledge of The Compleat Ham.
"Compleat Ham?" :-) 'Armour plated?' Or Farmer John? :-)
>The California Bar Exam does just that - they give you a set of laws
>and a fact pattern and you have to write something - an argument, a
>petition, etc based on those, not on "real life" which can be
>something different depending on the latest court cases.
With all due respect, Phil, a Bar Examination is for a professional
license, not an amateur radio license. No one is expecting the
theory part to be taken from a state Professional Engineer license,
yet that would be as applicable in the same sense, yes?.
While there is so much hoo-hah about 'privatization' of amateur
radio examinations, the NCVEC are all composed of licensed
amateurs. They seem to have done good in the last two
decades and one can communicate with them about what
should be the questions. Could anyone but the FCC discuss
things about the FCC amateur radio test questions before
privatization? I ask because I was unaware that there was any
possibility of suggesting anything about that before privatization.
73, Len AF6AY
Phil Kane
>With all due respect, Phil, a Bar Examination is for a professional
>license, not an amateur radio license. No one is expecting the
>theory part to be taken from a state Professional Engineer license,
>yet that would be as applicable in the same sense, yes?.
I wasn't referring to the content level, but to the process of using
and applying "given" information rather than "memory guesses".
Phil Kane
>Could anyone but the FCC discuss
>things about the FCC amateur radio test questions before
>privatization? I ask because I was unaware that there was any
>possibility of suggesting anything about that before privatization.
In real life the FCC exams were mode up by engineers who were
knowledgeable in the fields being tested. I myself wrote several
questions on television standards and measurements for the
Radiotelephone First Class License revision in 1972. The questions
on the amateur exams were composed by staff engineers who were active
amateurs.
Yes, there was a provision for input from the "outside" by writing a
letter to the Examinations and Licensing Branch of the Field
Operations Bureau with the suggestions. This was not a "secret"
process, either, because lots of such letters were received and
reviewed by the committee that was responsible for examination
revisions. Some suggestions were accepted, others were rejected.
My gripe with privatization is that these are functions that should be
done by the FCC, not by others. Dumping them on someone else is not
the proper way to solve the problems that existed.
Michael Coslo
> On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Michael Coslo <m...@psu.edu> wrote:
>> AF6AY wrote:
>>> Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the
>>> VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain
>>> regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. >
>
>> The bandplan frequencies and satellite operations are a real issue with
>> me. I always thought that better questions were available, since like
>> you note, you look at a chart. I do too.
>>
>> At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be
>> to see if the testee knew where to look them up.
>>
> With all due respect, I think there's a bit of terminology confusion
> here.
Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't
like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are
allowed to operate on by your class.
> Putting specific questions on the regs in the tests is one way of
> saying that knowing those
> regs is important for all hams. If they are replaced by questions
> about "where do you look up the band edges" or some such, why can't the
>whole exam be replaced by such questions?
That is kind of slippery sloping my point. Knowing that we are supposed
to ID at certain intervals, or what a wavelength is, or what unit is
used to describe electrical power (all questions from the Technicians
test) are things that require some knowledge, and simply knowing where
to look them up would be troublesome and time consuming in a real time
situation if one had no knowledge of what they were - or even what, in
which case knowing would not be possible.
While printing out that nice little chart from ARRL and posting it by
the rig is simple to the point, and can be looked at before transmitting
to make sure you are within the limits.
Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal,
another question that would be better on the test than the simple
statement of frequencies.
Dee Flint
"Michael Coslo" <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:fg4usj$172g$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
> [snip]
> Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't like
> on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are
> allowed to operate on by your class.
>
Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't have
that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies.
>
> Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal,
> another question that would be better on the test than the simple
> statement of frequencies.
>
I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can
be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people don't
understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a class,
I try to emphasize this.
Dee, N8UZE
konstans
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Vq-dnQFm894N-Lva...@comcast.com...
>
> "Michael Coslo" <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in message
> news:fg4usj$172g$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
>> [snip]
>> Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't
>> like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are
>> allowed to operate on by your class.
>>
>
> Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't
> have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies.
how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none of mine will
only on HF can this be an issue since only hthere does the rules contiue the
insanity ofparts of bands to deferent class (amoug the classes we still
issue)
>
>>
>> Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal,
>> another question that would be better on the test than the simple
>> statement of frequencies.
>>
>
> I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can
> be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people
> don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a
> class, I try to emphasize this.
I thought it was such a question
>
> Dee, N8UZE
>
Ivor Jones
news:fgac2l$14r$1...@registered.motzarella.org
: : "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
: : news:Vq-dnQFm894N-Lva...@comcast.com...
: : :
: : : "Michael Coslo" <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in message
: : : news:fg4usj$172g$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
: : : : [snip]
: : : : Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated
: : : : that what I don't like on the tests is questions
: : : : about what particular frequencies you are allowed
: : : : to operate on by your class.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Yet there are times such as mobile or portable
: : : operation that we don't have that band chart with us.
: : : So it's nice to know our frequencies.
: :
: : how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none
: : of mine will
They can be programmed or modified to.
For example my Icom IC-V82 2m handie will transmit anywhere from 136-174
MHz. This was apparently necessary to allow it to operate on the US 2m
band 144-148 MHz. Here in Region 1 (UK) we only have 144-146 on 2m so so
in order to keep the warranty intact, I asked the importers to modify it
for the US band when I bought it, as I travel there on holiday regularly.
They told me that opening it up to 134-174 was the only way it could be
done, apparently the firmware in US versions that cover 144-148 only is
different.
73 Ivor G6URP
Dee Flint
>
> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Vq-dnQFm894N-Lva...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Michael Coslo" <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:fg4usj$172g$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
>>> [snip]
>>> Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't
>>> like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are
>>> allowed to operate on by your class.
>>>
>>
>> Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't
>> have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies.
>
> how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none of mine will
>
All HF rigs that I have permit one to set and transmit SSB in the CW/Data
portion. That is operating out of band. Happened to a lot of continental
US folks last weekend in the CQ WW contest. I suppose they got excited and
weren't paying attention to the frequency readout.
> only on HF can this be an issue since only hthere does the rules contiue
> the
> insanity ofparts of bands to deferent class (amoug the classes we still
> issue)
You are overlooking the splits by mode. For example it is against FCC rules
for continental US stations to transmit any voice mode in the CW/DATA
portion.
>>
>>>
>>> Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal,
>>> another question that would be better on the test than the simple
>>> statement of frequencies.
>>>
>>
>> I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one
>> can
>> be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people
>> don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach
>> a
>> class, I try to emphasize this.
>
> I thought it was such a question
Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual
test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to
insure that one does show up on the actual test taken.
Dee, N8UZE
N2...@aol.com
> All HF rigs that I have permit one to set and transmit SSB in the CW/Data
> portion.
All the HF amateur rigs I have seen will also permit one to transmit
data modes in the 'phone/image subbands, which is also against US
regs. Some will permit things like too-wide-for-the-regs FM on HF,
too.
> That is operating out of band. Happened to a lot of continental
> US folks last weekend in the CQ WW contest. I suppose they got excited and
> weren't paying attention to the frequency readout.
Or they don't know the rules well enough to apply them all the time.
> For example it is against FCC rules
> for continental US stations to transmit any voice mode in the CW/DATA
> portion.
Whether we like it or not, subbands-by-license-class are a reality for
FCC-licensed amateurs. That's a reality which isn't going to change
soon, because FCC has repeatedly denied all proposals to eliminate
subbands-by-mode or subbands-by-license-class on the HF amateur radio
bands. We might someday go to subbands-by-bandwidth, if someone can
come up with a reasonable proposal, but the situation won't change
much if that happens. We'll still have the case of 'you can't transmit
that mode on this frequency'.
There's also the fact that we US amateurs - all of us - are allowed
by the regs to design, build, repair and modify our rigs, and they
don't have to be formally type-accepted or certified. So it makes
sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to
prevent our mistakes.
> Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual
> test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to
> insure that one does show up on the actual test taken.
Even if the question shows up on the test, the person can get it
wrong.
IMHO, one of the fundamental weaknesses of the written tests today is
that all subjects and questions are lumped together so that a person
can have huge holes in their knowledge yet still pass. This is of
particular concern because the holes can be in subjects like safety
and regulations.
I think it would be better if each test were broken down into
subelements-by-subject, and marked in such a way that you'd need a
passing grade in each subelement to pass the whole exam.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Steve Bonine
> Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual
> test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to
> insure that one does show up on the actual test taken.
Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions
from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech
exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license
responsibilities. When the pool was constructed one of the aspects was
a weighting of the various topics. There are, for example, only two
questions from subelement 7 (Operating in the field. Contests. Special
events. Satellite operation).
I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what
they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of
a thankless job.
73, Steve KB9X
Steve Bonine
> So it makes
> sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to
> prevent our mistakes.
I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind.
The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit
of computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce
sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already
"know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit
completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step
and not allow SSB in the CW band?
I don't think that most folks who find themselves doing something stupid
like using SSB outside of the US sub-bands do so because they don't know
the regulations. They get caught up in the excitement of a contest or
chasing DX or their mind slips out of gear, and when they realize what
they've just done they feel about two inches tall. I would like to see
the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
bucks for to keep me from doing this, while at the same time giving me
the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class
or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different.
Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know,
not having bought any HF equipment in this century.
73, Steve KB9X
AF6AY
Steve, I've got to agree with you 100% on that. :-)
I did pause a moment to reflect on a few years of lots of folks'
comments, on-line, off-line, in-print, in-person. There's some
relationship to "instant gratification" that is a catch-phrase in all
the complaints. As I sense it, all the "experienced experts" on
everything want the TEST to prove all successful applicants
become Instant Experts almost as good as the complainers. :-)
The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to
use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their
lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended
to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in
a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an
amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia.
Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was
proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my
contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist. There was no way
one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone
'expert.' When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include
privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many
PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a
'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the
questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came
about through other political work, not the fact of privatization.
I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator
system is so 'bad.' It is composed of active fellow amateur
radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be
considered dummies. That's better than having questions
and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones
whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur
radio nor trying to get more licensees. All in all, I think the
VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on
what to ask in every test element.
It is even better when one considers the first word in their
description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have
guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes
thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all
five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two
decades (give or take).
73, Len AF6AY
Phil Kane
>I would like to see
>the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
>bucks for to keep me from doing this,
That separates the "Compleat Ham" who is in control of the station
from the "appliance operator".
>while at the same time giving me
>the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class
>or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different.
An interesting thought.
>
>Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know,
>not having bought any HF equipment in this century.
I acquired an Elecraft K2/100 about 18 months ago. It has been
augmented by the K3 now. Both are top-of-the-line HF rigs in kit or
modular form (think of a Heathkit on steroids). Neither has the
feature that you are describing.
Jack VK2CJC
> computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce
> sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already
> "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit
> completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step
> and not allow SSB in the CW band?
I should imagine that this facility would be easily added as a feature. But
they never will. When I moved from the UK to Australia, I took my region 1
HF radios to region 3. I contacted Kenwood and Icom to find out if I could
reprogram the band edges to allow use of the larger 40m band. Both were very
helpful and told me how to "wide band" them, which fixed the problem.
I found out that the radios were available in 3 versions. One for each
region. And it was not possible to make one version into another without
replacing ICs at the factory.
If "mode sensitive" sub bands were programmed, every time someone moved, or
a change in bandplan was brought in, it would be nessesary to go to the
Yaecomwood dealership and ask to have the radio changed. An expensive, time
consuming and unnecessary exercise :o)
Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a
manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it.
--
Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL
FISTS #9666
CW Ops QRP Club #753
Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group
www.mncarg.org
Dee Flint
"Steve Bonine" <s...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:13ijouu...@news.supernews.com...
Very true.
Dee, N8UZE
Dee Flint
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>> So it makes
>> sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to
>> prevent our mistakes.
>
>
> computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce
> sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already
> "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit
> completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step
> and not allow SSB in the CW band?
>
This will cause a problem for those who use AFSK for RTTY rather than FSK.
The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the receiving
end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to do RTTY..
If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate using AFSK for
RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended consequences".
Dee, N8UZE
Dee Flint
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:ie7ki3lq55k2a4voj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:51:51 EDT, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>I would like to see
>>the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
>>bucks for to keep me from doing this,
>
> That separates the "Compleat Ham" who is in control of the station
> from the "appliance operator".
>
>>while at the same time giving me
>>the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class
>>or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are
>>different.
>
> An interesting thought.
>>
>>Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know,
>>not having bought any HF equipment in this century.
>
You can program many new rigs to auto mode switch based on frequency but
they also allow you override that auto mode at any time.
Dee, N8UZE
Steve Bonine
> If "mode sensitive" sub bands were programmed, every time someone moved, or
> a change in bandplan was brought in, it would be nessesary to go to the
> Yaecomwood dealership and ask to have the radio changed. An expensive, time
> consuming and unnecessary exercise :o)
Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing capacity to be able to
handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans. These rigs can be
connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the
equipment. For example, it's common to program local repeaters (and
not-so-local repeaters) into the memory of VHF/UHF rigs using the
software on the owner's PC then downloading the information into the rig.
It would be an easy programming effort to do the same kind of thing for
HF. Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and
modify it based on license class and/or personal preference.
Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of band
plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired.
> Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a
> manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it.
No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit
outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could undo
given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting.
For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance operator", I
don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from
doing something stupid.
Jeff
">
> The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the
> receiving end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to
> do RTTY.. If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate
> using AFSK for RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended
> consequences".
>
> Dee, N8UZE
>
Indeed, it is also a problem if you use the HF set as the driver for a
transverter to a band where the bandplan is entirely different.
73
Jeff
N2...@aol.com
> N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > So it makes
> > sense to require us to know the regs rather than
> > expecting our rigs to
> > prevent our mistakes.
>
> I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind.
>
> The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that
> have quite a bit
> of computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce
> sub-bands?
I don't know of any that do, in terms of subbands-by-mode or subbands-
by-license-class.
But I don't think it would be a big feat of software engineering to
have a lookup table that compared the mode selection with the
transmit frequency, and allowed transmission only if the selection was
in the lookup table.
> Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already
> "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to
> transmit
> completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next > step
> and not allow SSB in the CW band?
As N8UZE points out, this would limit flexibility, because all sorts
of "soundcard data modes" are often implemented by putting the rig in
SSB mode and feeding audio into it. This may become less of a problem
as more rigs incorporate data modes internally. (The Elecraft K3 can
send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or
keyboard).
> I don't think that most folks who find themselves doing something
> stupid
> like using SSB outside of the US sub-bands do so because they > don't know
> the regulations. They get caught up in the excitement of a contest > or
> chasing DX or their mind slips out of gear, and when they realize > what
> they've just done they feel about two inches tall.
With all due respect, if someone forgets the regs by being caught up
in the excitement, they really don't know them in a practical sense.
> I would like to see
> the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big
> bucks for to keep me from doing this, while at the same time
> giving me
> the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license
> class
> or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are
> different.
The second problem is that, for flexibility, you'd have to include the
ability to defeat/disable the feature. Which means it could be left in
the off position unintentionally, and provide no protection.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Ivor Jones
"Steve Bonine" <s...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:13il5tk...@news.supernews.com
[snip]
: : For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance
: : operator", I don't see anything wrong with using
: : available technology to keep me from doing something
: : stupid.
Your brain is available technology and has been around for a lot longer
than computers ;-)
Seriously, I know what you're saying and I sort of agree, but I wouldn't
want to see anything forced on us. If you feel you may "do something
stupid" without assistance, fine, for my part I prefer the flexibility of
using my equipment how I want to, not how a computer tells me I should.
73 Ivor G6URP
N2...@aol.com
> Jack VK2CJC wrote:
>
> Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing
> capacity to be able to
> handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans.
> These rigs can be
> connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the
> equipment.
> It would be an easy programming effort to do the same
> kind of thing for
> HF.
I don't know how 'easy' it would be, but it could be done. The classic
'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work?
> Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and
> modify it based on license class and/or personal preference.
> Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of
> band
> plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired.
Or, the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When
the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and
Elecraft, do this already.
Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature
would be part of the user interface.
> > Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively
> > programmed in a
> > manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it.
>
> No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit
> outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could
> undo
> given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting.
Ultimately you'd want the ability to defeat the feature, in case the
rig were sold or loaned to someone with a higher license class, or the
rules changed, or you traveled somewhere with different rules.
> For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance
> operator", I
> don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep > me from doing something stupid.
I think it depends on the intent.
It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For
example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since
1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage
cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have
had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating.
That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it
has probably saved me from a few problems along the way.
It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the
intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to
know things, like the subband edges.
IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Phil Kane
> (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or
>keyboard).
Good trick. I can see using the front-panel display for the monitor
but how does one input alphanumeric characters without a keyboard of
sorts?
Then again, what do I know? I'm just as lowly K2 "appliance operator"
<ggg>
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <1194028158.2...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> N2...@AOL.COM writes:
>On Nov 2, 12:27?am, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Jack VK2CJC wrote:
>>
>> Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing
>> capacity to be able to
>> handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans.
>> These rigs can be
>> connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the
>> equipment.
>> It would be an easy programming effort to do the same
>> kind of thing for
>> HF.
>I don't know how 'easy' it would be, but it could be done. The classic
>'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work?
Another angle on the same challenge would be who would be motivated to
develop a vendor-independent standard, that would actually be widely
adopted by vendors, to implement this? Witness the various permutations
of DC power connectors (with amateur radio emergency groups driven to
distraction trying to establish at least local standards). Witness the
inability to develop working, vendor-independent, interoperable
standards for high-speed radio modems (9600 baud and above) that could
be found in commonly-available commercial amateur radio gear. Amateur
radio equipment manufacturers appear to prefer to differentiate their
products by unique, and unfortunately incompatible, means of interfacing
and control, with few economic incentives to standardize with other
brands.
>> Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and
>> modify it based on license class and/or personal preference.
>> Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of
>> band
>> plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired.
>Or, the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When
>the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and
>Elecraft, do this already.
Will your amateur radio that is programmed to recognize band edges and
allowed modes be able to be modified via reasonably available tools and
techniques for the indefinite future? Examples that may cause me to
think otherwise include:
- Most amateur radio equipment in the past couple of decades, for
economic reasons, tends to use custom bit-masked EEPROM's to
implement their internal programming, something that would not be
economical to duplicate by third-party manufacturers. Though amateur
radio equipment would seem to be covered by the Magnuson Moss Act
(i.e., availability of parts on the open market for some period of
time after the end of manufacture, preservation of warranty even if
third party parts and service are used, etc.), I also recall letters
to QST complaining about repair depots simply being unable to fix
amateur radio equipment, some of which was less than 10 years old.
- I recall a legal dust-up from some years ago, discussed on the
newsgroups, where Motorola was cracking down on efforts to
reverse-engineer radio interfaces and the software that is used to
modify the configurations of their radios. Regardless of whether
Motorola was taking a legally defensible position, if the software is
proprietary, or unable to run on current computers, or otherwise
unavailable or unusable in some way, you may be left holding the bag.
Consider the problem with VCR's and the recent change in the start of
Daylight Savings Time in the U.S., and no way to modify them.
>Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature
>would be part of the user interface.
This would appear to offer more promise of future compatibility and
programmability, though might still run afoul of legal problems with
regard to reverse engineering or otherwise developing openly-published
specifications and third-party software tools. Whether or not these
positions would be legally defensible might not prevent manufacturers
from attempting to chill the open market for these tools via
intimidation tactics. Also, how long would it take for software-defined
radios to propagate out to the amateur radio community in significant
enough numbers to make a meaningful impact?
>73 de Jim, N2EY
I think that's the important distinction. It's also related to a
classic conundrum in developing safety systems in other fields. I would
welcome an amateur radio that had fault protection to keep me from
blowing the finals if I accidentally transmitted into no load or an
infinite load. I'm not so sure about an amateur radio that would keep
me from transmitting out of band or in an unauthorized mode if
assumptions about what constituted "out of band" or "authorized mode"
changes, or if I find myself in a true, bona-fide, communications
emergency.
The Usenet newsgroup comp.risks (aka, "Risks Digest") has touched on
many of these types of issues. For example, while a rev-limiter on a
motor would increase safety by preventing a blown engine, putting speed
limiters on automobiles to keep them within speed limits may increase
accidents by denying the necessary amount of power to get you out of a
reasonably unanticipated emergency situation while passing or merging.
An airplane whose controls would keep you from overstressing the
airframe, or flying into restricted airspace, might also keep you from
making appropriate emergency maneuvers, where landing alive with your
crew and passengers, but with an airframe you have just end-of-lifed, or
under fighter escort to be whisked off to a friendly interview with the
authorities, might be far preferable to the alternatives.
- - --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFHK5SL6Pj0az779o4RAqO+AJ9xxoDtAggjbx5/2VFmBJSHqmiibgCgxP/K
RCO/Au67cS5M2dwZJsV0TUg=
=Fvin
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
N2...@aol.com
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31
> > without a computer, monitor, or
> >keyboard).
Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online
now:
>
> Good trick. I can see using the front-panel display for the monitor
> but how does one input alphanumeric characters without a
> keyboard of sorts?
You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the Morse
into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device.
Built in, not an add-on device. The decoder is reputedly very good
too, its only limitation being the limited display space.
>
> Then again, what do I know? I'm just as lowly K2 "appliance
> operator"
> <ggg>
bwaahaahaaa....
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2...@aol.com
> On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Remember that the exam is built by choosing
> > a given number of questions
> > from each subelement. For example, there are
> > four questions on the Tech
> > exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station
> > license
> > responsibilities.
Yet it is possible to get all four of those questions wrong and still
pass the test. The result is a licensed amateur with big 'holes' in
his/her knowledge of certain areas.
> > I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool.
> > No matter what
> > they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it.
> > A fine example of
> > a thankless job.
The big question is whether the criticism is constructive, or just a
form of complaining. IOW, does the critic offer a way to make the
process better?
> The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to
> use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their
> lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended
> to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in
> a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an
> amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia.
Who are these people, making such claims, Len?
It seems to me that one main purpose of license testing is to
insure that the licensee knows enough about the thing being
licensed for so that s/he can reasonably do what the license
allows. For an amateur license, that means knowing the basics
of amateur radio, in the form of technology, rules & regs, and
operating practices.
Most important is that the tests focus on what *amateurs* are
allowed to do on the air, and how they typically do it. Experience
and knowledge of other radio services may or may not be relevant.
A Ph.D. in EE with multiple patents is not necessarily qualified
to be a radio amateur if s/he doesn't know the amateur radio
regulations.
> Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was
> proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my
> contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist.
>From my personal experience, and from that of many of *my*
contemporaries, that reality certainly did exist. Not that the tests
for an amateur or commercial radio license were equivalent to
what I later encountered in EE school, but they were real tests
of what the licensee knew with regards to amateur radio.
> There was no way
> one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone
> 'expert.'
Agreed - but that wasn't the purpose. The tests were to see if
the licensee had met a certain minimum level of knowledge and
skill, not that the person was an expert.
Anyone knowledgeable about Morse Code will tell you that even
the old 1 minute solid copy 20 wpm Morse Code test wasn't
"expert" level.....;-)
> When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include
> privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many
> PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a
> 'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the
> questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came
> about through other political work, not the fact of privatization.
The question-and-answer pools became public knowledge in two steps.
The first was the publication of the "Bash books" in the 1970s, whose
information was gathered by means that, IMHO, clearly violated the
law. But the top folks at FCC decided not to prosecute Dick Bash nor
those who helped him, so the books made it possible for those willing
to spend the money to see a pretty close replica of the actual exams.
The second step was the creation of the Question Pool Committee
and the VEC system in the early 1980s. This replaced the work of
paid Federal government employees with that of unpaid amateur
volunteers.
> I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator
> system is so 'bad.'
I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but
rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact
questions and answers that will be on the test.
In the pre-Bash-book days, a prospective licensee did not have
access to the exact Q&A. There were study guides which
indicated the general areas of information that would be on the test,
and in some cases the test followed the study guide closely, but
that was not the same thing as seeing the exact questions and
answers.
For example, the study guide showed some Ohm's Law problems in essay
format. The actual test would show some Ohm's Law problems in multiple-
choice format, but the prospective amateur did not know much else
about the Ohm's Law problems on the test. The logical response in most
cases was to learn enough Ohm's Law theory to be able to solve all
sorts of problems in that subject.
With the actual test questions available, it becomes possible to
"study the test" rather than actually learning the material. In
another thread in this NG, there have been discussions about
using a class to teach the test rather than an understanding of the
material.
Which is better - learning and understanding the material, even at a
basic level, or simply learning the test questions by rote memory, to
be forgotten?
> It is composed of active fellow amateur
> radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be
> considered dummies. That's better than having questions
> and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones
> whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur
> radio nor trying to get more licensees.
Again, the perceived problem is not the VEC system itself, but
the fact of public Q&A.
Note too that the Question Pool Committee is, in practice, almost as
much of a "faceless few" as the FCC was.
VECs do not make up the questions and answers directly. Nor do they
make any decisions on the process other than selecting specific
questions for each exam, to insure randomness. They only proctor the
exams.
> All in all, I think the
> VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on
> what to ask in every test element.
I agree that within their limitations they are doing a good job. The
problem is the limitations they have to work under. Those limitations
are not of their doing.
There have also been a few *documented* instances of irregularities in
the administration of exams by specific VEC groups. (See FCC
Enforcement Letters).
> It is even better when one considers the first word in their
> description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have
> guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes
> thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all
> five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two
> decades (give or take).
It's good to see you saluting and thanking them, Len. Particularly
considering your criticism of certain VECs in the past. What changed
your mind?
Volunteer examiners go back a lot longer than the 1980s.
They date back at least to the 1930s, when the Class C license
was created for those who lived too far from an FCC exam point, or who
were disabled. Later (1954), all routine exams for Novice and
Technician licenses, as well as the Conditional, were done by
volunteer examiners.
My first amateur radio license exams were given by a volunteer
examiner, K3NYT, when I was a little past my 13th birthday. I realize
now that it took him some time and effort to make the exam
sessions possible for me. That Novice license of 1967 opened up the
world of amateur radio to me, and led to a career in electrical
engineering.
And yes, I thanked him.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Klystron
> [...]
> I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but
> rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact
> questions and answers that will be on the test.
If the size of the pool were increased, would that satisfy your
objection? Given a finite body of information, there are only so many
questions that can be formulated from it to test an applicant's
knowledge. I have a number of the old Ameco Q&A books from the days
before question pools (for the commercial tests). If you compare the
Ameco questions, that is, the questions that the author MADE UP, with
the later FCC questions, you don't find a great deal of difference.
I have always found that a decently written test preparation guide,
in Q&A format, for a test like a New York State Regents exam, an SAT, a
GRE or a GMAT is just about as good as a published test pool, especially
if the pool is large. That is particularly true when the questions tend
to be similar from one year to the next (For example, one year, they ask
you to solve for x when 3x=6. The next year, the question is changed to
4x=8. The test prep guide has a sample question of 5x=10.)
--
Klystron
Phil Kane
> If the size of the pool were increased, would that satisfy your
>objection? Given a finite body of information, there are only so many
>questions that can be formulated from it to test an applicant's
>knowledge.
The national Multistate Bar Exam, one element of each state's bar
exam, is composed of 200 multiple choice questions. Half of those
come from the published "Green Book", a compilation of 500 Q&As, the
equivalent of the Question Pool Study Guide. The other half are
composed on the fly by a "faceless committee" for each semi-annual
exam (all given on the same day nationwide). Thus, 20% of the Q&As on
each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the
Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested.
The answer choices of each question usually consist of two that are
obviously incorrect and two more that appear to be very close, and
the process is really to identify the better of the two. A score of
130 = 65% or better is the minimum required in most states. In
California, acknowledged to have the toughest test, a score of 152 =
76% is an absolute pass where performance on the other elements of the
exam are not even taken into account.
Granted that the level of knowledge required for passing the Bar exam
is greater than the level of knowledge required for passing an amateur
exam, the key factor in both is not the size of the published pool,
but should be the knowledge of the examinee.
As we were told in Bar Exam review courses, the correct answer is
right there in front of you, and all you really have to know is "a",
"b", "c" , or "d".
Phil Kane
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
> Thus, 20% of the Q&As on
>each test is from a published pool, while the remaining 80% of the
>Q&As require absolute knowledge of the published areas being tested.
Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of
those published. The ratio of published to non-published questions is,
of course, 50%/50%.
Klystron
> [...]
> Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of
> those published.
Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive.
I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published
questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100
questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We
have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over
10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an
acceptable solution?
--
Klystron
Howard Lester
> Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive.
>
> I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published
> questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100
> questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We
> have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over
> 10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an
> acceptable solution?
Objection overruled. Now sit down at your rig and "work" someone in the cw
portion of the band... at 25 wpm. You already have your license; enjoy it.
;-)
Jack VK2CJC
> not how a computer tells me I should.
Well put Ivor. I feel the same way.
My most recent 2m radio (Yaesu FT1802) has automatic repeater shift, which I
have been forced to turn off as it tries to shift the TX on a few
frequencies which due to local convention, I require to use simplex.
Automatic features are great, especially if you can switch them off :o)
N2...@aol.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >The classic
> >'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work?
>
> Another angle on the same challenge would be who would be motivated to
> develop a vendor-independent standard, that would actually be widely
> adopted by vendors, to implement this? Witness the various permutations
> of DC power connectors (with amateur radio emergency groups driven to
> distraction trying to establish at least local standards). Witness the
> inability to develop working, vendor-independent, interoperable
> standards for high-speed radio modems (9600 baud and above) that could
> be found in commonly-available commercial amateur radio gear. Amateur
> radio equipment manufacturers appear to prefer to differentiate their
> products by unique, and unfortunately incompatible, means of interfacing
> and control, with few economic incentives to standardize with other
> brands.
I think there are a couple of reasons for that:
1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of
standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig.
2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it
means less sales
> > the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When
> >the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and
> >Elecraft, do this already.
>
> Will your amateur radio that is programmed to recognize band edges and
> allowed modes be able to be modified via reasonably available tools and
> techniques for the indefinite future? Examples that may cause me to
> think otherwise include:
>
> - Most amateur radio equipment in the past couple of decades, for
> economic reasons, tends to use custom bit-masked EEPROM's to
> implement their internal programming, something that would not be
> economical to duplicate by third-party manufacturers. Though amateur
> radio equipment would seem to be covered by the Magnuson Moss Act
> (i.e., availability of parts on the open market for some period of
> time after the end of manufacture, preservation of warranty even if
> third party parts and service are used, etc.), I also recall letters
> to QST complaining about repair depots simply being unable to fix
> amateur radio equipment, some of which was less than 10 years old.
Isn't that true of almost any consumer electronics?
We hams are the exception that proves the rule. We tend to keep rigs
in working order for a very long time, compared to, say, VCRs,
computers or TV sets.
Note also that hams like N4PY have come up with aftermarket software
improvements for rigs like Ten Tec.
> - I recall a legal dust-up from some years ago, discussed on the
> newsgroups, where Motorola was cracking down on efforts to
> reverse-engineer radio interfaces and the software that is used to
> modify the configurations of their radios. Regardless of whether
> Motorola was taking a legally defensible position, if the software is
> proprietary, or unable to run on current computers, or otherwise
> unavailable or unusable in some way, you may be left holding the bag.
The idea is that you're either supposed to pay Motorola prices, or
replace the radios.
> Consider the problem with VCR's and the recent change in the start of
> Daylight Savings Time in the U.S., and no way to modify them.
That reminds me, I have a bunch of things to reset....
> >Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature
> >would be part of the user interface.
>
> This would appear to offer more promise of future compatibility and
> programmability, though might still run afoul of legal problems with
> regard to reverse engineering or otherwise developing openly-published
> specifications and third-party software tools. Whether or not these
> positions would be legally defensible might not prevent manufacturers
> from attempting to chill the open market for these tools via
> intimidation tactics. Also, how long would it take for software-defined
> radios to propagate out to the amateur radio community in significant
> enough numbers to make a meaningful impact?
Good point! But the ability to add and change filters by firmware/
software methods is a major reason to go SDR.
> >I think it depends on the intent.
> >It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For
> >example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since
> >1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage
> >cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have
> >had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating.
> >That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it
> >has probably saved me from a few problems along the way.
> >It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the
> >intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to
> >know things, like the subband edges.
> >IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection.
> I think that's the important distinction. It's also related to a
> classic conundrum in developing safety systems in other fields.
Yup - been there, done that.
> I would
> welcome an amateur radio that had fault protection to keep me from
> blowing the finals if I accidentally transmitted into no load or an
> infinite load. I'm not so sure about an amateur radio that would keep
> me from transmitting out of band or in an unauthorized mode if
> assumptions about what constituted "out of band" or "authorized mode"
> changes, or if I find myself in a true, bona-fide, communications
> emergency.
One way to implement such protection is to have an override switch
that must be activated for each exception. Or just a "feature off"
switch.
> The Usenet newsgroup comp.risks (aka, "Risks Digest") has touched on
> many of these types of issues. For example, while a rev-limiter on a
> motor would increase safety by preventing a blown engine, putting speed
> limiters on automobiles to keep them within speed limits may increase
> accidents by denying the necessary amount of power to get you out of a
> reasonably unanticipated emergency situation while passing or merging.
I can't think of a reasonable real-world situation where an RPM
limiter would cause problems.
Speed limiters, though, have practical problems. The max speed would
have to be set higher than the highest legal speed limit in the
country, so we're talking about 80-85 MPH. Since the car doesn't know
if it's on a superhighway or in a school zone, the practical effect
would be rather small.
> An airplane whose controls would keep you from overstressing the
> airframe, or flying into restricted airspace, might also keep you from
> making appropriate emergency maneuvers, where landing alive with your
> crew and passengers, but with an airframe you have just end-of-lifed, or
> under fighter escort to be whisked off to a friendly interview with the
> authorities, might be far preferable to the alternatives.
>
There's also the problem of what happens if the protection system
fails.
It seems to me that the best implementation for ham rigs would be a
firmware feature that you could turn off, and update as needed by
downloads.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Michael Coslo
> On Nov 2, 2:04?pm, Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31
>>> without a computer, monitor, or
>>> keyboard).
>
> Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online
> now:
>
> www.elecraft.com
>> Good trick. I can see using the front-panel display for the monitor
>> but how does one input alphanumeric characters without a
>> keyboard of sorts?
>
> You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the Morse
> into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device.
That is pretty darn clever. Does it have any special characters for
backing up/corrections? I don't know if you've ever done it or not, but
I suspect that it would be really easy to drop into "cw speak", which
might be a little strnge for us native psk'ers. In any event, props go
out to Elecraft for an innovative solution.
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
AF6AY
>On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
>
>1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of
>standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig.
STANDARDIZATION, nearly all of it industry standards,
make up nearly everything in the component parts of any
manufactured and nearly every home-built radio equipment
for at least the last half century. Everything from fasteners
(nuts and bolts) made to English and metric industry
standards, vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, inductors,
transistors and diodes (of the 'registered' 2N and 1N prefixes).
There's industry standards on aluminum and magnesium
alloys, even some on castings of same. There's industry
standards on rack panels even though that was once
started by AT&T for the telephone infra-structure. There's
industry standards on wire (American Wire Gauge ruling
through the market demand)...although those standards v.
government specifications blur for heavier guages.
The 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10% logarithmic-sequence of parts
values has become a de facto standard because of its
ease in equating the parts' tolerances. The 'UHF' series
of common RF connectors on amateur radios was
originally a military specification but has become a de
facto standard through its incorporation; the military
doesn't use it now, hasn't for years, the patents on it
have run out and it is a relatively cheap coaxial connector
compared to other, better coaxial connectors.
>2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it
>means less sales
Aeronautical Radio, Inc (ARINC) was once solely a
commercial company engaged in providing air-ground
communications with aircraft before our government
got its act together and created the air traffic control
system. They still do that but ARINC is better
known to commercial avionics equipment makers as
an industry Standards Group that, by common
agreement of members, establishes standards on all
civilian avionics equipment. Those cover everything
from cases, their mounting equipment, even the control
wiring with specified connectors and specific connections
for control functions. ARINC standards have been
acceptable to manufacturers and users for fifty years.
The civilian avionics market is smaller than the USA
amateur radio market.
The 'D-Star' VHF-UHF standard, currently under large
promotion by Icom, may or may not become a
standard. A lot of opposition to that standard is from
US amateurs because it originated in Japan and was
conceived and tested there. <shrug>
'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to
receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use'
standard and a recommendation by the IARU. Yet
most are under the impression that all S Meters are
calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely
report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-)
Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers,
are designed and made for stand-alone use.
Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna-
connector devices or different speaker boxes and
other audio processing things. The external
connections are standardized as to power input
(AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure
or DC power from the auto industry), computer
interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those
are included for read-out or computer control, and
'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna
tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by
independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker,
morse key connections still aren't standardized
fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows
more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-)
I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan
automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting.
Allocations of amateur frequency and modes for same
aren't locked to any standard but the common-agreement
terms of the ITU-R. Sub-band allocations are always at
the discretion of the national radio regulating authorities
and may change at any time dependent on that nation's
politicking for sub-band use. :-)
I've seen a LOT of different human factors documents and
guides, but have yet to see a specific arrangement for
manual control functions on any consumer electronics
product. The 'need' for that seems to be no different for
remote control via computer. Computer interfaces are
very standardized now but that industry has had a
quarter century to work those out; they evolved in
the same manner as all standards did. Some have
disappeared such as the 5 1/4" floppy and the
'Centronics' connector (Amphenol Blue-Ribbon); the 8"
floppy and CP/M OS disappeared so early that few
computerists of today know they once existed. :-)
PC operating systems are standardized on the MS
Windows package through agressive marketing and
buyers agreeing to that despite the 'Linux' alternative.
De facto 'standards' will come about through a
combination of manufacturer's marketing efforts and
public acceptance...plus other manufacturers
offering 'compatible' things to work with the apparent
market-leader that started the de facto standard.
That's how it was "forty years ago" and that's how it
will continue to be. <shrug>
AF6AY
Iitoi
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1194227853.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> The idea is that you're either supposed to pay Motorola prices, or
> replace the radios.
>
Motorola just announced the intent to purchase Yaesu Musen.
The Man in the Maze
QRS at Baboquivari Peak, AZ
--
Iitoi
N2...@aol.com
> N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >>> (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31
> >>> without a computer, monitor, or
> >>> keyboard).
>
> > Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online
> > now:
>
> >www.elecraft.com
> > You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the
> > Morse
> > into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device.
>
> That is pretty darn clever.
Yup.
Of course it means you have to know how to send Morse Code in order to
do PSK31 or RTTY without a keyboard, but still.....
> Does it have any special characters for
> backing up/corrections?
Check the manual. It's interesting reading.
> I don't know if you've ever done it or not, but
> I suspect that it would be really easy to drop into "cw speak",
> which
> might be a little strnge for us native psk'ers.
O RLY?
> In any event, props go
> out to Elecraft for an innovative solution.
They've got a lot of them. Their manuals are worth a read
just for the ingenuity that went into the rig designs.
I got a chance to use a KX1 on Field Day this year. Amazing
little rig. Complete with accessory paddles, it's about the size of a
stack of QSL cards.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2...@aol.com
> Motorola just announced the intent to purchase Yaesu Musen.
Actually, they are buying Vertex, which owns Yaesu - and a lot more.
Which raises the question - will they keep Yaesu as a major amateur
radio manufacturer, sell off the amateur division, or shut it down?
Interesting times!
73 de Jim, N2EY
Michael Coslo
> 'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to
> receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use'
> standard and a recommendation by the IARU. Yet
> most are under the impression that all S Meters are
> calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely
> report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-)
Ain't that the truth! There is so much ambiguity in S-meters that they
are more for self comparison than anything else. I calibrated my S-meter
during an antenna comparison a year or so ago, and they wen't in
agreement, and they weren't linear - which is to say that while S-7
might be a bit high, and S-5 mogt be a bit low, and S-2 something else
altogether.
Coupled with what I understand was a change in how many db were
considered an S-unit to boot makes the S meter more of an entertainment
device, or more likely one of the less important functions of the meter
we use ot adjust power, alc, SWR and the like.
> Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers,
> are designed and made for stand-alone use.
> Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna-
> connector devices or different speaker boxes and
> other audio processing things. The external
> connections are standardized as to power input
> (AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure
> or DC power from the auto industry), computer
> interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those
> are included for read-out or computer control, and
> 'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna
> tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by
> independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker,
> morse key connections still aren't standardized
> fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows
> more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-)
>
> I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan
> automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting.
Certainly those who have the most need for the lock outs wouldn't
program them in anyhow. But I find it just an interesting thought exercise.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
Michael Coslo
> On Nov 5, 4:03?pm, Michael Coslo <m...@psu.edu> wrote:
>> N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>>> (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31
>>>>> without a computer, monitor, or
>>>>> keyboard).
>>> Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online
>>> now:
>>> www.elecraft.com
>
>>> You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the
>>> Morse
>>> into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device.
>> That is pretty darn clever.
>
> Yup.
>
> Of course it means you have to know how to send Morse Code in order to
> do PSK31 or RTTY without a keyboard, but still.....
Indeed! My Morse code shortcomings are all on the receiving side. I can
send fairly well, but I have to have a pretty clean signal to hear it
easily.
>> Does it have any special characters for
>> backing up/corrections?
>
> Check the manual. It's interesting reading.
>
>> I don't know if you've ever done it or not, but
>> I suspect that it would be really easy to drop into "cw speak",
>> which
>> might be a little strnge for us native psk'ers.
>
> O RLY?
I've always said that Hams are probably the origin of leet.
>> In any event, props go
>> out to Elecraft for an innovative solution.
>
> They've got a lot of them. Their manuals are worth a read
> just for the ingenuity that went into the rig designs.
>
> I got a chance to use a KX1 on Field Day this year. Amazing
> little rig. Complete with accessory paddles, it's about the size of a
> stack of QSL cards.
Well so is my IC-761, as long as you can stack up a few thousand in
maybe 30 piles.....
Seriously, the KX-1 is a nice little Xceiver.
N2...@aol.com
> Posted by N...@AOL.COM on Sun, 4 Nov 2007 21:23:33 EST
>
> >On Nov 2, 4:49?pm, Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
>
> >1) The relatively-small amateur market won't support the cost of
> >standardization. IOW, it would add too much to the cost of a rig.
>
> STANDARDIZATION, nearly all of it industry standards,
> make up nearly everything in the component parts of any
> manufactured and nearly every home-built radio equipment
> for at least the last half century. Everything from fasteners
> (nuts and bolts) made to English and metric industry
> standards, vacuum tubes, resistors, capacitors, inductors,
> transistors and diodes (of the 'registered' 2N and 1N prefixes).
The standardization being discussed was about things like power
connectors and the possible feature of the rig not transmitting
outside
the licensee's privileges (such as no 'phone in the CW/data subbands).
btw, many of the parts in consumer and amateur electronics today
are "house numbered", particularly ICs, and replacements can be a
real problem.
> >2) The rigmakers don't want any more interoperability, because it
> >means less sales
>
> Aeronautical Radio, Inc (ARINC) was once solely a
> commercial company engaged in providing air-ground
> communications with aircraft before our government
> got its act together and created the air traffic control
> system. They still do that but ARINC is better
> known to commercial avionics equipment makers as
> an industry Standards Group that, by common
> agreement of members, establishes standards on all
> civilian avionics equipment.
Key factor there is "common agreement of members".
> 'S Meter' levels aren't really standardized as to
> receiver input signal levels except as a 'common use'
> standard and a recommendation by the IARU.
Even if S meter readings were standardized, differences
in antenna systems would make the readings meaningless
on an absolute scale.
> Yet
> most are under the impression that all S Meters are
> calibrated/scaled alike (they aren't) and routinely
> report their S Meter readings in QSOs. :-)
Who are "most", Len?
None of my homebrew receivers or transceivers has ever
had an S meter. Yet I give signal reports as part of most
QSOs.
> Amateur radio equipment, especially transceivers,
> are designed and made for stand-alone use.
Most are, but not all. For example, the Kachina 505DSP,
introduced about a decade ago, requires connection to a
computer. Same for the Ten Tec Pegasus, introduced
about a year after the 505DSP.
The inexpensive PSK31 transceivers commonly known as
the "Warbler" is another example.
More recently, some software-defined rigs have been produced
that require computer connection to operate.
> Peripherals are relegated to outside-the-antenna-
> connector devices or different speaker boxes and
> other audio processing things.
Isn't being "outside" the definition of "peripheral"?
Many rigs nowadays have numerous *internal* options as
well, such as filters and firmware upgrades. These are almost
always manufacturer-specific if not model-specific.
At least one company (Elecraft) makes their transceivers
available with a wide variety of internal options that can be
added at initial construction, or later.
For example, their basic K2 transceiver is a 10 watt CW-only
80/40/30/20/17/15/12/10 rig. Options include an antenna
tuning unit, SLA battery, analog and DSP audio filters,
SSB, 160 meters/second receiver antenna input, noise blanker,
60 meters, 100 watt amplifier, and serial port. Their other
products offer similar options. But they are all specific to the
manufacturer.
> The external
> connections are standardized as to power input
> (AC standards from the power distribution infrastructure
> or DC power from the auto industry),
Not on amateur gear. Some use Molex, some use PowerPoles,
some use other connectors for DC power.
> computer
> interface connections (USB, serial, parallel) if those
> are included for read-out or computer control, and
> 'open-source' connections such as automatic antenna
> tuners made by the originating manufacturer or by
> independent suppliers. Microphone, headset/speaker,
> morse key connections still aren't standardized
> fully, not even as de facto standards; that allows
> more sales of adapters for that small niche market. :-)
My point exactly.
> I'm puzzled about all this palaver over some bandplan
> automatic lock-out on frequency control and transmitting.
What's the puzzlement? It's just a proposed feature.
> Allocations of amateur frequency and modes for same
> aren't locked to any standard but the common-agreement
> terms of the ITU-R. Sub-band allocations are always at
> the discretion of the national radio regulating authorities
> and may change at any time dependent on that nation's
> politicking for sub-band use. :-)
The idea was that the rig could prevent an amateur from
accidentally transmitting where s/he wasn't supposed to.
Not just out-of-band but out of subband, even when the handy
frequency chart isn't available, or the operator doesn't look at it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2...@aol.com
> > Of course it means you have to know how to
> > send Morse Code in order to
> > do PSK31 or RTTY without a keyboard, but still.....
> Indeed! My Morse code shortcomings are all on the receiving
> side. I can
> send fairly well, but I have to have a pretty clean signal to hear it
> easily.
IMHO the circle game is complete.
I recall an article in QST (March 1964) where, by using
the right key sequences, a 60 wpm RTTY machine
could be made to send Morse Code. This was
particularly useful because in those days amateurs
using RTTY had to ID in Morse Code.
A few years later came the first CW keyboards,
which permitted someone with no Morse Code
sending skills to generate near-perfect Morse Code.
Now we have a rig that will permit a person with
no typing skills to send perfect RTTY or PSK31.
> > O RLY?
> I've always said that Hams are probably the origin of leet.
Naw, the landline telegraphers started it.
> - 73 de Mike N3LI
Congrats on the new call!
73 de Jim, N2EY
Jeff
<> Now we have a rig that will permit a person with
> no typing skills to send perfect RTTY
I thought that was the punch tape reader
Jeff
N2...@aol.com
> I thought that was the punch tape reader
BWAAHAAHAAA - good one!
--
Another neat RTTY trick involved paper tape.
By using certain sequences of letters, the holes in
the paper tape could be made to form letters and numbers.
What was printed on the page looked like gibberish-with-a-pattern
but if you looked at the tape the message was clear.
Of course since it took several characters to make one letter, the
effective speed on a 60 wpm machine was about 15-20 wpm. And
there was no going back if you made a mistake. But the effect could
be impressive to the uninitiated.
73 de Jim, N2EY
...remembering the smell of hot machine oil in the W3ABT room...
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
I remember back-spacing and nulling out the mistake, then continuing.
But I wasn't 10 years old, either.
AF6AY
>On Nov 9, 6:57 am, "Jeff" <j...@local.host> wrote:
>Another neat RTTY trick involved paper tape.
"Trick?" TTY p-tape was standard practice among the big guns
in communications of the 1940s. Back then it was 60 WPM on
a 24/7 basis...just keep them fed with paper, ink, and once in a
while, some lubricant. Teletype Corporation made a fine piece
of goods.
>Of course since it took several characters to make one letter, the
>effective speed on a 60 wpm machine was about 15-20 wpm. And
>there was no going back if you made a mistake. But the effect could
>be impressive to the uninitiated.
TTY p-tape makes it possible to do an immediate re-send of the
SAME message if a wire or radio circuit is blitzed by something.
During WWII and afterwards it was the standard way at big hubs
of networks that spread around the globe...be they military or
commercial, the 'torn tape relay' rooms were big and efficient.
>...remembering the smell of hot machine oil in the W3ABT room...
I can easily remember an entire second floor at ADA's control
center tape relay room of the early 1950s. Over 200 teleprinter
machines busy working away 24/7. Impressive all by itself. And
that was only the third-largest hub (RUAP) in the Army network
then.
73, Len AF6AY
Mike Coslo
> On Nov 6, 8:17?pm, Michael Coslo <m...@psu.edu> wrote:
>> N...@AOL.COM wrote:
<some snippage>
> Now we have a rig that will permit a person with no typing skills to
> send perfect RTTY or PSK31.
Like they say, "It's all good". I don't know anyone nearby that has a K@,
but at Dayton next year I'm going to haunt the Elecraft booth.
>> I've always said that Hams are probably the origin of leet.
>
> Naw, the landline telegraphers started it.
Point conceeded! ;^)
>
>> - 73 de Mike N3LI
>
> Congrats on the new call!
Thanks. I was toying around, not too serious, looking for something a
little shorter, and found this one. I like it both for Morse and Voice.
And N5EE was taken already, hehe
-73 de Mike N3LI -