Feb 23 is the No-code date
KC4UAI
Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.
-= bob =-
an old friend
KC4UAI wrote:
> Time to end the debate I suppose...
long past but that is the problem
>
> Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
> and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
> be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
>
> We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.
only for some is it sad
for many code tested and not it is LONG over due
>
> -= bob =-
N2...@aol.com
> Time to end the debate I suppose...
>
> Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
> and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
> be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
Register before January 24?
> We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.
>
Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.
73 de Jim, N2EY
an old friend
N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> KC4UAI wrote:
> > Time to end the debate I suppose...
> >
> > Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
> > and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
> > be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
>
> Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
> Register before January 24?
read it yourself at arrl org
>
> > We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.
> >
> Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
> just the code test, either.
wrong again standards are being rasied judeing by the attiutdes of
those that passed and those the opos e testing
Mike Coslo
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Hi Jim,
Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
higher than thay are now?
Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?
In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...
After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?
I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
Dee Flint
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1169250071.3...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> KC4UAI wrote:
>> Time to end the debate I suppose...
>>
>> Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
>> and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
>> be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
>
> Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
> Register before January 24?
>
There is an article on the ARRL website about it. Apparently they have
access to information that says it is scheduled to be published on January
24th. This would make it effective on February 23rd.
>> We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.
>>
> Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
> just the code test, either.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
Water under the bridge now. I will focus my efforts on teaching, elmering,
and conducting tests.
Dee, N8UZE
N2...@aol.com
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
> @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > KC4UAI wrote:
> >> Time to end the debate I suppose...
> >> Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
> >> and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
> >> be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
> > Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
> > Register before January 24?
> >
> >> We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.
> >>
> > Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
> > just the code test, either.
>
> Hi Jim,
> Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
> higher than thay are now?
I think they were higher then, yes.
> Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
> guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
> indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?
It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person
had to know and
understand to pass the tests.
The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for?
I have the old ARRL License Manuals from 1948, 1951, 1953, 1962, and
1971. They contained the study guides provided by FCC, but *not* the
actual Q&A used on the tests.
Having read all of them cover-to-cover, I can say I think the standards
were higher then.
> In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
> booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
> answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
> All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...
Those sample questions were *not* the actual questions used on the
test. They were simply made up by Ameco.
> After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?
Lots of ways:
For example, which of the following requires more knowledge:
Question 1:
The length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz is about:
a) 100 feet long
b) 50 feet long
c) 67 feet long
d) 40 feet long
Question 2:
Determine the length of a half-wave wire dipole for 7.150 MHz, using
the appropriate formula. Show all work.
That's just one question.
--
Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would cover
the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc. So the
typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards, forwards and
sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.
But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able to
solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
correct answer out of the four supplied.
In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that the
old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but covered
those subjects in some depth. The new
tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little
depth.
Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.
> I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
> historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
> sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
> how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
> a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.
I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse
process in other ways.
I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
space.
When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.
I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
gathering.
The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but
the Q&A weren't
available publicly.
And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?
73 de Jim, N2EY
an old friend
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Mike Coslo wrote:
> > N2...@AOL.COM wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
> > @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
> those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
> FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
> guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
> traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
> gathering.
it has it merits but ain't happening anymopre
>
> The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but
> the Q&A weren't
> available publicly.
>
> And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
> a day" - and they succeed.
indeed they should if they are to advertise such
> Is that a good thing, though?
why not?
>Do the new
> hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?
obviously they do
>
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
Steve Bonine
> I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
> on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
> really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
> radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
> the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
> space.
The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.
How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.
If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
remaining knowledge for most people.
On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
radio.
> When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
> build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
> scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
> projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.
But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true today.
I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years ago.
In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?
> And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
> a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
> hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?
The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
maybe they do.
When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license. Then
I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus learning
enough theory to pass the General exam.
In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
hobby die. The requirements were changed.
So you walk this tightrope of trying to keep the barriers to entry high
enough so that there is some
an old friend
Steve Bonine wrote:
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
> > on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
> > really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
> > radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not know
> > the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a limited
> > space.
>
> The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
> pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
> learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
> on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
> you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
> was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
> meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.
>
> How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
> what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.
indeed and many folks like myself and cecil think the license is permit
to learn not an end in itself
>
> If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
> accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
> was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
> they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
> that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
> remaining knowledge for most people.
interesting point
>
> On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
> operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
> happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
> that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
> radio.
...but may have no knowledge...
indeed or will be changed on the date reported to be 24 jan 2007
>
> So you walk this tightrope of trying to keep the barriers to entry high
> enough so that there is some
or you set the test to serve as a proper entry level
LenAn...@ieee.org
>N...@AOL.COM wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
>> KC4UAI wrote:
>
>>> Time to end the debate I suppose...
>
>>> Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
>>> and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
>>> be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
>
>> Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the Federal
>> Register before January 24?
[does that mean Miccolis can't understand what the ARRL
wrote on its web page? :-)]
>> Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
>> just the code test, either.
[quick, someone put up a sign saying "wet floor"...a
bunch of morsemen spilled their cask of sour grape mash!]
> Hi Jim,
>
> Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's were
>higher than thay are now?
>
> Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco study
>guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
>indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?
>
> In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
>booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first, and
>answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the book!
>All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question pool...
>
> After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?
Hello Mike.
Sigh...it's an old, old story with humans...whatever
someone did in their (relative) youth was ALWAYS "more
difficult" than what anyone else does in the present time! :-)
I've heard that song played over and over again for as long
as I've been an adult. The lyrics might change a bit from
decade to decade but the tune is the same. :-)
All these olde-tymers walked (uphill both ways) barefoot
through the snow to take Their FCC exams. :-)
Funny you should mention 1956. It's a clear time in my
life experience. In the summer of 1956 I was at H&H
Electronics in Rockford, IL, talking to Gene Hubbel, then
a W9, later W7DI (now SK). H&H had just gotten in some
new study guides. Can't remember the publisher but I
categorized all such as "Q&A" books. Must have been at
least three different publishers around that time. I
looked through a couple of them (always a nice "feel" to
a brand new book out of the carton). An "in-your-face"
customer asked me if I was going to take a test? I
replied, "already did it in March" and pulled out my
small First 'Phone ID card. Sneering he then asked
"which [Q&A book] did I use?" I said "None" and,
disbelieving, he was about to get physical over that!
[really, some folks wander around always looking for a
fight] Gene distracted him before the small store got
torn up. [not a big problem for me to handle physical
stuff since I had been released from active Army duty in
February] I had never used any Q&A book earlier that
year because no store in town had them...had to settle
for memorizing a borrowed copy of the FCC regs then
published in loose-leaf format. Hard work, that, but
it got done, I passed my First 'Phone but never "aced"
it. Passing was good enough for me then. Didn't walk
uphill both ways to Chicago, just rode the train 90
miles (shoes always on feet) to get there. <shrug>
I looked in here nearly a decade ago and there were
the "in-your-face" yahoos tawkin 'bout how HARD it
was for them...in the 60s...in the 70s...etc. :-)
The really rabid ones were going on about "the GROL
ain't hard, not like the AMATEUR EXTRA!!!" :-)
They apparently were too young to remember that a
GROL didn't get created until around 1980 or so. It
eventually became a lifetime thing, no renewals
necessary. Wasn't so in 1956 when a First 'Phone
took at least two hours to complete four different
test parts, only one of which was multiple-choice.
> I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
>historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
>sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
>how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
>a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.
I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process
was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation.
Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well
anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some
sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some
could send it "perfectly."
I've always regarded amateur radio as a FUN HOBBY. So
many enjoy it. But, some take almost a perverse attitude
in trying to "run it" according to Their standards...even
personal desires. Nobody vetted Them as "bosses" but
they strut around acting like bosses. Amateur radio is
NOT an occupation, guild, craft, or something absolutely
vital to national security. It is a HOBBY but some take
it wayyyyy too seriously.
Part of the problem of this nostalgia thing about "how
the older testing system 'worked so well'" lies with all
the 50- and 60- somethings suddenly facing their own
mortality. [we are ALL going to die, no exceptions,
its in our designer genes] The "old" ways are a form
of comfort, of security. They've survived them. They
are comfortable with what they have but don't want to
remember the struggle they had to reach to reach that
pinnacle of their claimed knowledge and experience.
Running around with a self-made (unofficial) "boss"
title is NOT going to help the hobby, regardless of
how good it makes Them feel.
The way I see it, the "threat" to the hobby that some
cry and cry about is just a personal threat to the
crier. They will LOSE their reference points for being
"better" than others. TS. Federal laws and regulations
aren't done to "better" the lives of minority hobbyists.
Federal laws and regulations apply to ALL citizens.
Hey, "change happens!" :-)
an old friend
> > I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially from a
> >historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
> >sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams regarding
> >how much better a vetting process the old old system was is going to be
> >a greater threat to the ARS than any code test elimination ever was.
>
> I really can't understand WHY some "vetting" process
> was needed. A hobby is an avocation, NOT an occupation.
> Survival of amateur radio never did depend on "how well
> anyone sent code" nor was the country in danger if some
> sent it badly...neither was it more secure if some
> could send it "perfectly."
realy Len as I understand It was ONCE vital to the ARS in 1908
certainly but somewhere betwen that date and 1950 that ended
>
K4YZ
nobodys old friend wrote:
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > Mike Coslo wrote:
> > > N2...@AOL.COM wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
> > > @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
> > those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
> > FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
> > guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
> > traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
> > gathering.
>
> it has it merits but ain't happening anymopre
Who says?
You?
> > The result was that there was testing available all over the place, but
> > the Q&A weren't
> > available publicly.
> >
> > And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
> > a day" - and they succeed.
>
> indeed they should if they are to advertise such
But they are NOT "technicians" any more than you are competent in
English, Morkie.
> > Is that a good thing, though?
>
> why not?
Becuase it's "dumbing down".
Please notice that no such exam process exists in any of the
countries that are quickly overshadowing us in REAL technology
advances...Like Red China, Japan, Singapore, etc etc etc...
> >Do the new
> > hams who get their licenses that way really have the background needed?
>
> obviously they do
Obviously they can answer the questions. That doesn't make them
competent in the material.
Witness KB9RQZ as an example.
Steve, K4YZ
Mike Coslo
news:1169258433.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Mike Coslo wrote:
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
>> @q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> > KC4UAI wrote:
>> >> Time to end the debate I suppose...
>
>> >> Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this
>> >> year and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will
>> >> no longer be required for ANY class license it seems after that
>> >> date.
>
>> > Does that mean the Report and Order will be published in the
>> > Federal Register before January 24?
>> >
>> >> We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.
>> >>
>> > Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again.
>> > Not just the code test, either.
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>
>> Are you saying that the standards for, say the late 1950's
>> were
>> higher than thay are now?
>
> I think they were higher then, yes.
As a person who took all the tests during the recent past -
Technician 1999, General and Extra 2001 and couppled with my research
into the issue, I respectfully disagree.
>
>> Did you read my posts with the excerpts from the 1956 Ameco
>> study
>> guide and sample F.C.C. tests? Perhaps my assessment of the tests as
>> indeed not being more difficult is inaccurate in your opinion?
>
> It's not about "difficulty" but about how much relevant info a person
> had to know and understand to pass the tests.
I'm not sure that this isn't changing the criteria in mid stream, but
assuming it isn't, I would then say that the tests are indeed relevent
today as well as apparently during that time.
> The Ameco guide you refer to - what license class was it for?
Novice and General.
Okay, you show two separate and related questions. But that isn't
the scope of the questions that I extracted from the study guide. Almost
all the questions were in the form of your question 1.
>
> Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
> sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
> be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would
> cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc.
> So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards,
> forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.
Frankly, that is what I did for my Extra exam. That was much easier that
trying to memorize the pool.
> But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able
> to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
> correct answer out of the four supplied.
I am so weary of that chestnut. I suppose real engineers don't
consult design manuals for hints and ideas.
In any field these days where it is necessary to prove that the
worker has been exposed to a particular bit of knowledge, there will be
a question pool. I've seen it for fields where a mistake can cost lives,
such as study guides with question pools for electrical code work. I can
get you the name of the book if you are skeptical. Its just how it is.
And I can remember what I studied for on my tests - I believe that the
pool does no harm, and a de facto pool has existed for many years.
> In looking at the old study guides vs. the new, it seems to me that
> the old exams focused on a relatively few number of subjects, but
> covered those subjects in some depth. The new
> tests seem to me to cover a wide range of subjects, but in very little
> depth.
>
> Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
> questions? I'll post them if you are interested.
Always am.
>
>> I too am a sad to see Morse code testing go away, espcially
>> from a
>> historical view, but I fear that some of the superior attitudes, and
>> sometimes outright misrepresentation put forward by some hams
>> regarding how much better a vetting process the old old system was is
>> going to be a greater threat to the ARS than any code test
>> elimination ever was.
>
> I think the old process was a better process in some ways and a worse
> process in other ways.
>
> I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
> on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
> really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
> radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not
> know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a
> limited space.
My own thoughts on how Amateur radio should be organized are that
the higher classes of license should be earned by time in grade, so to
speak. I don't think that an extra should not know how to erect a HF
antenna, or have no experience with operations in general - and the
present system allows that.
Of course, it is possible for the person to wait out the period of
time before upgrading, but two things work against that - attrition due
to lack of interest, and the likelyhood that a person who does simply
wait it out without actually doing anything before upgrading is just
going to be some sort of statistic.
> When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
> build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
> scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
> projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.
Related story:
I wanted to "build a Heathkit". Not wanting to get one of the rare
unbuilt ones and destroy it's value, I found an SB-200 at Dayton. I
bought it and completely dissassembled it. I cleaned everything,
replaced any parts that needed replaced, and some that didn't- like the
many modes the previous owners had done. I got a copy of the assembly
manual, and proceeded to put it back together. GReat gobs of fun, I'll
tell ya!
I would agree with your point. In this day of 100 percent appliance
stations, Amateurs should build as much as they can.
> I think the best system we ever had was the one in the late 1970s. In
> those days, FCC gave all the tests except Novice. Tests were given in
> FCC offices all over the country. In addition, if a group could
> guarantee a certain minimum number of test-takers, FCC would send a
> traveling-road-show examiner to a club meeting, hamfest, or other
> gathering.
Well, that was when our tax dollars were going to other things.
> The result was that there was testing available all over the place,
> but the Q&A weren't available publicly.
I still am convinced that it essentially was available. Perhaps not in
verbatim form, but close enough.
> And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
> a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
> hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
> needed?
I think that the old novice test could have been taught in a day
also. Much of what is on the Technician test is common sense.
As for needed background, I think that getting licensed, getting on
the air and being elmered is what produces good hams.
Too much of what I have heard from a lot of old time hams is
disdain for newcomers - even now before the "great unwashed" come into
the hobby. Fortunately nickle Extras such as myself will be there to
help, not belittle or chase away.
I think I'm going to go heat up the Garage and get to work on that
mobile antenna I am building. Fun chat, Jim.
N2...@aol.com
>
>
> > Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
> > questions? I'll post them if you are interested.
>
> Always am.
>
>From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:
Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:
(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter
.
Study Question #32:
>From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
consumed by the load be determined?
Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?
Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
following components:
(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank
(c) high voltage source
(d) plate-current meter
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.
Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?
These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
were on the old exams.
The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe
license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e".
The question would be something like,
"which is the coupling capacitor?"
"which is an rf choke?"
"what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
above?"
So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and their
names
and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different
format
from the study guide.
The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small part
of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was covered!
How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
detail.
More to come.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Cecil Moore
> How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
> the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
> detail.
That's probably true. So do "we" want new hams to
have a broad-shallow knowledge or a narrow-deep
knowledge? Do "we" want Swiss Army Knife type hams
or quantum electrodynamic photon experts? I suggest
the former would be more valuable to the "service".
Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
>
>nobodys old friend wrote:
BRAND NEW YEAR...SAME OLD Robeson throwing shit arround
here and back to the cyver vandalism I see
if want answer to your post then stop engaging in your vandalism
it is just that simple
untill you can behave you get no answers from me
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
LenAn...@ieee.org
Yes, it very definitely ended - insofar as REALITY of
the times is concerned.
I can't speak with life experience about 1908 but, in
1950 I was a Junior in High School and had already
fooled around with "radio" in various forms, some WW2
surplus conversions, some homebuilt. 1950 is 56
years ago. :-)
By 1950 many things in "radio" had happened. The
military networks had converted to teleprinter for
the vast bulk of long-distance communications on HF
during WW2 and, with US military now all over the
globe, a definite "Cold War" needed quicker comms.
The public had gotten a taste of "on the scene" radio
in 1940 with Edward R. Murrow's broadcasts from
London DURING the "Blitz." Television broadcasting
was exploding in scope and availability of TV receivers
all over the nation. The US Army had already proved
the viability of using the moon as a reflector of
radio waves ("Project Diana" in 1946). US Public
Safety radio services were busy converting to VHF FM
voice for police, fire departments, ambulances,
state patrols. AT&T was busy with the first trials
of long-distance microwave relay of television and
hundreds of voice circuits on a single microwave link.
Single-channel SSB had come into reality courtesy of
the new Strategic Air Command's need for reliable
long-distance voice communications for their
bombers...a different version of multi-voice-
channel "SSB" in worldwide use since the 1930s.
Metallurgists and physicists were busy trying to
produce a new gadget called a "transistor" in
quantity, having to invent all sorts of things
needed to make them economically feasible. The
experimenters in crystal growth were beginning to be
successful in making large, pure, man-made crystals
of quartz and those methods would also be used in
making germanium and silicon ultra-pure later. FM
audio broadcasting was expanding under new
regulations and a US realignment of allocations
above 30 MHz. Standardization of FM stereo broad-
casts was still being worked out and the NTSC was
being called together again to work out color TV
broadcasting standards; the "fight" between CBS and
RCA methods had come to an impasse (industry didn't
really like either one). Radar was, of course,
already proven and was expanding in civilian
applications. Raytheon, in some lab trials with
old S-Band magnetrons, discovered that one could
heat foods with controlled microwave energy and
the first of the "Radaranges" had been born (they
would - foolishly? - sell that concept and brand
name to Amana). Civil airways communications were
close to standardizing worldwide on the US military
pioneering of VHF communications and radionavigation
systems...already given a baptism of fire with the
Berlin Blockade of 1948 and the intense Allied air
cargo supply effort to keep that city alive. Air
to ground radiotelemetry was already being used
during tests of new aircraft and was being adapted
for missle testing and guidance (using mostly
captured German V2 rockets). The old IFF
(Identification Friend or Foe) L-band transponder
system for aircraft of later WW2 was being improved
and standardization for civilian applications being
done by a newly-re-formed ARINC. The USN was busy
pioneering TACAN at L-band and was having success
with that (especially for carrier-based aircraft);
TACAN would eventually be adopted for the military
and a civilian form, DME (Distance Measuring
Equipment) was being tested. Civilian radio-
navigation testing of VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional Range) was successful, an easy-
to-use directional navigation aid that would work
in small general aviation aircraft. The maritime
world wasn't happy with LORAN so some other systems
were being tried out such as DECCA. The USN would
eventually prove out the prototype that would
become GPSS for the whole world. Up-and-coming
UK science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke (an
engineer on RAF work with radar-assisted landing
in WW2) had already written up a three-satellite
worldwide radio communications relay system in
Wireless World magazine and lots of folks were
beginning to have deep thoughts about that...no
worries about "MUF" or other HF propagation quirks
since it wouldn't depend on ionospheric bounce.
In 1950 the ARRL was busy promoting the glory and
majesty of the "epitome" of radio communications,
on-off keying CW as "vital" to maintain a "pool of
trained radio operators" in the USA via ham radio.
Oh, and a very few smart amateur radio hobbyists
(who were also engineers and educators at their
day jobs) were trying to explain SSB theory in
the pages of QST. There was great resistance to
this new-fangled SSB in the rank and file of
amateur brass pounders then, and apparently there
still is... :-)
Okay, so it is 57 years later. What do we have in
the world of "radio?" Communication satellites
are busy working 24/7, their equatorial orbit spaces
already FILLED, supplying us with speed-of-light
comms over carriers of TV, voice, data, and the
part of the international backbone of the Internet.
Land-based microwave radio relay is being replaced
by fiber optic cable handling digitized anything
at GigaHertz rates...under the oceans too. One in
three Americans now has a cell phone, a little two-
way radio tied into the telephone system, something
never really envisioned in 1950 despite the early
"walkie-talkies." Cell phones can now contain
digital cameras and little calculators, play hours
of digitally-recorded sound. All of that enabled
by the enormous technology explosion of the solid-
state ear beginning about 1960. Digital TV is now
a reality, both broadcast as well as cable. We
have stereo FM broadcast, even multi-channel audio
with "storecast." "Shortwave" broadcasters are
transmitting digital audio on HF, something pooh-
poohed as "impossible" by certain "radio experts."
The old 500 KHz worldwide maritime emergency
frequency is all but dead, replaced by Inmarsat-
relayed GMDSS...a system conceived and approved by
the maritime community. No more dramatic morse
messages from stricken ships, now its a quick,
almost-anyone-can-use-it data message that will be
picked up worldwide. GPS is, of course, a proven
reality and many different models of receivers
can be purchased at consumer electronics stores.
The aviation community is considering replacing
the 1955-standardized-worldwide civil airways
radionavigation with GPS, possibly a hybrid using
microwaves for the approach guidance. RFID is now
a reality, able to track everything at store
portals and, with implants, animals and people.
Private boat owners can add HF SSB to their harbor
and inland VHF radio equipment, many models, even
some made entirely in the USA (SGC in Puget Sound),
no big "test" needed. Almost every long-distance
truck operator has at least one CB radio on board
and that has been so for decades. Police and fire
department personnel can carry VHF or UHF two-way
radios on their person for instant communications.
In some police departments their VHF and UHF
radios have two-way data transmission capability
via "computer" terminal equipment in patrol cars.
WLANs (Wireless Local Area Networks) have been a
reality for a decade, used in large offices and
businesses spread over a large area, even in
factories (with all their inherent RFI from
motors, etc.). Homes can be networked wirelessly.
Cordless telephones, once operating solely on
49 MHz, have expanded to the 5 GHz ISM band (once
a seeming impossibility a half century prior)
and with security through on-line digital
encryption. Anyone watching team sports on TV
can see the ubiquitous Motorola logo on headsets
of coaches, little wireless two-way radios that
are similar to the $50 per pair FRS and GMRS
handie-talkies sold in consumer electronics stores.
The US military has highly secure digital radios
(low VHF range up through mid-UHF, almost jam-
proof) for small-unit land comms (voice and/or
data) and in relay with air and sea support;
they've had that since 1989. The military has
long had the 225-400 MHz band for AM airborne
voice comms and has peripheral equipment to adapt
it for secure digital voice and data. Of course,
the military has had precision GPS since 1980
(they pioneered and paid for it). NASA has
radio equipment for tracking and receiving data
(including imagery) from very distant space
probes and, in the late 1960s, enabled us to see
the first humans set foot on the moon in real
time, audio and video. Radio even relayed real-
time biometric data from astronauts on their way
to and from the moon. US submarines still use
VLF radio to communicate while submerged, all
using encrypted data (not morse code)...very slow
speed data but also very secure and automatically
recorded at the ship.
In early 2007 the FCC will finally END the "need"
to test for morse code skill to get any amateur
radio license. They did this despite the
insistence of olde-tymers that one "HAD" to test
for morse in order to "qualify" to enter the
"service" of US amateur radio. I'm not sure
where and what these olde-tymers imagine US ham
radio is, but they just don't realize the entire
rest of the radio world has long since dropped
morse code as any requirement for communications.
Amateur radio has always been a HOBBY, nothing
more, nothing less.
Morsemanship "vital" to the nation? No way.
Morsemanship "necessary" for emergency work? No
way. Morsemanship "needed to provide a pool of
trained radio operator for national defence?"
No way. Morsemanship "necessary" for government
licensing purposes? No way, even back in 1990.
Morsemanship an absolute must for ham radio? No,
that was always a figment of the old morsemen's
imagination, implanted there by ancient tales of
emotional glory of the distant PAST.
It is excellent that the FCC is finally getting around
to modernizing the US amateur radio regulations.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
>pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
>learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
>on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
>you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
>was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
>meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.
Good post, but I have to dispute a few things in your
paragraph. For example, on tests and testing.
In "today's environment" the "students" seem to be about
as willing and knowledge-hungry as when I was in high
school. [graduating class of 1951...:-)]
To further define that, SOME students cared and SOME
students didn't much give a snit, most of those in
between varied considerably. I can see the same
basic attitudes of invididuals now as back then...if one
strips off the veneer of what is/was social behavior
in their peer group. [that seems to cloud many
folks observation capability...of those who had a
different social environment/mores/ethos].
As a working design engineer for a long time, I've
NEVER questioned the "why" of Ohm's Law of Resistance.
It simply WAS. It's just one of the many laws of
radio-related physics.
Yes, I suppose I could write up a bunch of stuff on
Ohm and the "why" of his "law" since I once HAD to
learn that at some instructor's insistence (he never
did any design work himself, just "taught", but all
had to comply in order to pass his course). In 50+
years NOBODY has asked me about the "why" of Ohm's
Law of Resistance. That amounts to hundreds of
knowledgeable folks. Ohm's law just IS.
More radio-related is the equation for resonance.
[frequency=1/(2 pi (L*C)^0.5), in units of Hertz,
Henries, Farads] The "why" of that? I would have
to research it, spend two weeks or so at that, all
spinning my wheels on rote work that has NO
intrinsic worth. I KNOW it works because I've
proved it to myself over and over and over again
in actual calculation, construction and test. It
is one of those things that just IS. Memorize it,
engrave it on the synapses, and go to work USING it.
It is a reliable equation and works every time.
"Ohm's Law" is a very, very simple equation using
only three variables and not one single trans-
cendental function. It's almost elementary
algebra. To some licensed amateurs it might seem
to be "rocket science." :-)
>How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
>what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.
The material in the US amateur radio test is up to
the FCC to decide. The FCC grants the licenses,
not the "amateur community." The FCC was never
chartered to be an academic organization agency.
From my observation, most of the folks "perceiving
the goal of the exam" are usually working from a
base line of their OWN knowledge and experience;
i.e., expecting all to be "as good as they." :-)
>If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
>accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
>was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
>they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
>that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
>remaining knowledge for most people.
>
>On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
>operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
>happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
>that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge of
>radio.
Again, the function of the FCC is simply to regulate
all US civil radio. The FCC grants the licenses and
they have the task of deciding what is necessary for
Their test. To save taxpayer dollars, the FCC created
privatized testing via COLEMs and VECs. For US amateur
radio the VEC create the questions and answers which
are then approved/disproved by the FCC. By regulation
the VEC are required to be already-licensed radio
amateurs. Presumably those volunteer examiners know
something about radio and the general knowledge base
or background of those taking license tests. :-)
It would seem more logic to steer the discussion onto
the VEC Question Pool Committee rather than to blabber
about What Should Be (or What Should Not). The VEC QPC
determine the questions and answers and approval seems
to be pro-forma with the FCC. What seems to be the
case on that subject in here is merely Word War III
on licensing and an ignition point for yet one more
conflagration of the Angry Insistent (on Their way).
>In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
>appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
>required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on a
>piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But Ohm's law?
Good question. :-)
One such inhabitant of this Din of Inequity (K4YZ) once
stated he "deserved an extra" because of his "ability to
tune in a signal!" :-)
>In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
>effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero.
I disagree with that considerably. The expenditure of
anyone on their hobby is up to the individual hobbyist.
Being aware of several hobbies done by folks I am
acquainted with, such expenditure of personal time and
effort varies and none of it is compensated for by
anyone but the hobbyist.
It's an old, trite phrase in here that "all must dedicate
themselves and work hard" for an amateur radio license,
any class. Again, I'll ask "why?" Who is going to
compensate those ham radio hobbyists? Will they get
cheers and bouquets from their fellow hobbyists for such
"dedication?" I think not. At best they would get a
few words of approval if in person. In here they would
receive yet-another flame war trigger of antagonistic
comment, of allegedly "not doing as good" as the flamer.
This "dedication" thing seems to be an imaginary construct
existing in different forms in each individual. Amateur
radio is a hobby. It isn't a craft, a guild, a union, or
any occupation thing. The hobby is NOT necessary for the
survival of the nation nor one whose primary concern is
public safety. [like all citizen organizations, they CAN
be of aid in emergencies but that is NOT a prerequisite
in the amateur radio regulations] Does everyone have to
be "dedicated" to something? Or can't they just go and
enjoy the hobby without meeting someone else's idea of
"standards?"
>There are exactly two
>choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
>hobby die. The requirements were changed.
I differ on that. Requirements EVOLVE as I see them.
They evolve to fit many, many things but, foremost, I
think is that they should fit the present-day and the
immediate future.
There was nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 nor
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that mandated amateur
radio to preserve and protect the old ways of amateur
radio. Nothing about preservation of "tradition." The
agency granting all amateur radio licenses in the US
exists solely to regulate all US civil radio...it is NOT
a "club," NOT some agency beholden to anyone specific
or any organization.
The FCC should be responsive to ALL US citizens, on ANY
radio service it regulates. For the most part I think
they are just that. The FCC and its ham radio license
testing doesn't exist to provide emotional sustenance
to the olde-tyme ham radio lifestylers who wish to
preserve the environment as it was when they were
first licensed. That's not evolution, just stagnation
in favor of a small minority. That is FAR from
"serving the nation," just ordinary selfishness.
an_old_friend
> > Here's another example: In the old exam methods, there would be a few
> > sample questions on Ohm's Law for DC, as an example. These would *not*
> > be the exact questions on the actual exam, though, but they would
> > cover the general areas of resistance, power, parallel, series, etc.
> > So the typical ham-to-be would learn those subjects backwards,
> > forwards and sideways, in order to be ready for anything on the test.
>
> Frankly, that is what I did for my Extra exam. That was much easier that
> trying to memorize the pool.
OTOH some of the materail is only possible to learn by memorization the
band edges, rules. I find the RF safety easy but then I have studied
maxwells equation and reconzie element from them but the answer is an
arbitary limit set by the FCC
>
>
> > But with the actual Q&A available, all one needs to do is to be able
> > to solve the particular problems in those questions - or recognize the
> > correct answer out of the four supplied.
>
> I am so weary of that chestnut. I suppose real engineers don't
> consult design manuals for hints and ideas.
me too
>
> In any field these days where it is necessary to prove that the
> worker has been exposed to a particular bit of knowledge, there will be
> a question pool. I've seen it for fields where a mistake can cost lives,
> such as study guides with question pools for electrical code work. I can
> get you the name of the book if you are skeptical. Its just how it is.
> And I can remember what I studied for on my tests - I believe that the
> pool does no harm, and a de facto pool has existed for many years.
>
> > I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too much
> > on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much has to
> > really be learned to pass those tests, rather than understanding basic
> > radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have a license yet not
> > know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF antenna in a
> > limited space.
>
> My own thoughts on how Amateur radio should be organized are that
> the higher classes of license should be earned by time in grade, so to
> speak. I don't think that an extra should not know how to erect a HF
> antenna, or have no experience with operations in general - and the
> present system allows that.
interesting diea Id coment more and negitively but I see your next para
>
> Of course, it is possible for the person to wait out the period of
> time before upgrading, but two things work against that - attrition due
> to lack of interest, and the likelyhood that a person who does simply
> wait it out without actually doing anything before upgrading is just
> going to be some sort of statistic.
>
>
> I would agree with your point. In this day of 100 percent appliance
> stations, Amateurs should build as much as they can.
funny I have built a few thing I am found of vacutumed 6 m am unit I
built from direction in CQ VHF was supposed to be based of a radio
originaly published for use on an 5 m band with just the compents
altered a bit to fit 6m
> > And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician in
> > a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the new
> > hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
> > needed?
>
> I think that the old novice test could have been taught in a day
> also. Much of what is on the Technician test is common sense.
>
> As for needed background, I think that getting licensed, getting on
> the air and being elmered is what produces good hams.
elmerd and not abused
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Didit
Mike Coslo
@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Mike Coslo wrote:
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in
>> news:1169258433.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>> > Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
>> > questions? I'll post them if you are interested.
>>
>> Always am.
>>
> Here's a sample - lots more to come.
>
>>From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:
>
> Study Question #31:
>
> Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:
>
> (a) battery with internal resistance,
> (b) resistive load,
> (c) voltmeter,
> (d) ammeter
>
> .
> Study Question #32:
>
>>From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
> the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
> consumed by the load be determined?
>
>
> Study Question #33:
> In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
> order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?
I'm assuming that if the applicant recieves question number 32 or
33 that they also recieved number 31?
>
>
> Study Question #34:
> Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
> following components:
>
> (a) triode vacuum tube,
> (b) pi-network output tank
> (c) high voltage source
> (d) plate-current meter
> (e) plate-voltage meter,
> (f) rf chokes,
> (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.
Yup, that was in the study guide that I looked at.
>
>
> Study Question #35:
> What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?
did they get both questions again?
>
> These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
> were on the old exams.
>
> The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
> amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe
> license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e".
>
> The question would be something like,
> "which is the coupling capacitor?"
> "which is an rf choke?"
> "what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
> above?"
>
> So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and
their
> names
> and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different
> format
> from the study guide.
Is that supposed to be difficult? If you had a basic knowledge of
the circuit, you would be able to guess at the part names - if you
didn't already know..
> The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small
part of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was
covered!
> How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
> the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
> detail.
Which of course means that the applicant knew what to concentrate
on. sometimes I think that what a lot of Hams want is for the test
questions to be both very much in depth, and completely random, with the
questions produced on-site by the steely eyed proctor. ;^)
Agreed on your point about the increased number of potential
subjects to cover in the present day tests. I suspect the only way to
reconcile that with your (testing wishes?) would be to concurrently test
to the old time depth, with the increased subject matter? I doubt that
quadrupleing the number of test questions would sit very well with
anyone except those who don't have to take the tests any more.
Mike Coslo
news:1169267536....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com:
Don't know if you read the other post I wrote on the subject in a
different thread, but I'll repeat it here.
In trying to figure out just where this canard came from, sfter my
investigation into why the "old tests were so much harder", I came to
the conclusion that they weren't more difficult.
So where the discrepancy?
My theory is that when these old timers took the test, they weren't
all that knowlegable. So those tests were harder for them. During their
post-test lifetime, they learned more, and became more experienced.
But they forgot that they learned all that stuff, and in the
crankiness that middle aged men can fall prey to, suddnely expect that
all the new hams should know aht they do now.
I also suspect it doesn't matter. They don't dislike the new hams
because they are dumb or less qualified, they dislike new things.
I don't really have any problems with levels of "ability" and goals
such as DX awards or contesting. I do have problems with superior hams.
Mike Coslo
news:noCdnfEwbebqBSzY...@deskmedia.com:
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>> I think that in the past couple of decades the focus has been too
>> much on learning just enough to pass the test, and reducing how much
>> has to really be learned to pass those tests, rather than
>> understanding basic radio. I don't think it helps a newcomer to have
>> a license yet not know the basics, like how to put up an effective HF
>> antenna in a limited space.
>
> The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how
> to pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead
> of learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific
> questions/answers on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They
> might be able to tell you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm
> resistor with 2 amps of current was 4 volts, but if you asked them why
> that was the case or what it meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or
> care.
>
> How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
> what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to
> do.
>
> If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
> accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
> was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so
> that they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same
> thing that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of
> useful remaining knowledge for most people.
Up for a challenge? Memorize the Extra test, all 800 some questions
in the pool. Then let's take a test. I'll give you the test question
number, and you give me the letter answer. Since memorization presumably
has nothing to do with the knowledge, this should be easy as the new
applicants have in taking the so called dumbed down tests
>
> On the other hand, if you think that a newly-licensed amateur radio
> operator should actually know something about radio, that's simply not
> happening these days. They can tell you the very specific information
> that is covered on questions in the exam, but have no real knowledge
> of radio.
A lot of Technicians I know used the "Now You're Talking" books.
Lots of stuff in there that prepares you for radio operations.
>> When I was a beginner, it was not unusual for complete newcomers to
>> build their own first stations - receiver and transmitter - from
>> scratch. Kitbuilding was even more common. Look at the beginner
>> projects of 40-50 years ago vs. today - they tell the story.
> But look at the interest profile of the hams of the two time periods.
> Hams in the 60s were interested in radio, in building equipment, in
> fiddling with antennas. With minor exceptions, that is not true
> today.
Where did you get that?
> I'll have to admit that I don't know what is the big "draw" that's
> pulling new hams into the hobby, but it's not the same as 40-50 years
> ago.
>
> In this sense, the testing and licensing mechanism has changed
> appropriately to match the current culture. Why should someone be
> required to learn radio theory if they are going to twirl the dial on
> a piece of commercial equipment? Rules and regulations, yes. But
> Ohm's law?
Do you think that most new hams get their license, then hire people
to put their stations together after they buy their "Yaecomwood"
boxes?
>> And consider this: There are classes today that promise "Technician
>> in a day" - and they succeed. Is that a good thing, though? Do the
>> new hams who get their licenses that way really have the background
>> needed?
>
> The background needed for what? For keying the mike on an HT? Yeah,
> maybe they do.
I'll bet those stupid Novices used to bother the good Hams too....
;^)
> When I was licensed in 1963, I figure I spent about five hours a week
> for six weeks to learn the code and theory for the Novice license.
> Then I got on the air and spent time building up my code speed, plus
> learning enough theory to pass the General exam.
I spent 6 months learning Morse code to 5 wpm, failing my first test.
Aced the other tests.
>
> In today's world, the number of people willing to expend that much
> effort on a hobby is vanishingly close to zero. There are exactly two
> choices -- change the requirements to enter the hobby, or watch the
> hobby die. The requirements were changed.
I respectfully disagree. Since we started a new program to recruit
and test new hams (and upgrade old ones) we've been doing at least one a
month. We're working well above attrition and the actuarial tables.
That's hardly vanishingly small interest.
That's just the start. We have a station for the new guys and gals
to use, with a control Op if need be (usually me) to sit with 'em as
they get their feet wet.
Wanna know the best way to turn off new hams? Be grumpy and
superior. Know for sure that you had a much harder time to earn your
stripes than they did. Don't talk to them at club meetings. Make sure
they know you're superior, so don't miss a chance to tell em that. With
that sort of attitude you'll have a self fulfilling prophecy. Ham radio
will die - all around you, wherever you go.
Mike Coslo
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
There are so many more possibilities in Amateur radio these days.
Lots of possibilities for test questions. RF safety, spaec station
operations. More bands to have those stupid band questions. Seems like a
good thing to me.
We often hear (and I believe) that the test is a starting point, not an
end. Exposure to the many facets of Amateur radio can only be better
than lots of questions about just a few subjects.
an_old_friend
Mike Coslo wrote:
> Cecil Moore <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:qoush.50660$wc5.9835
> @newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
> There are so many more possibilities in Amateur radio these days.
> Lots of possibilities for test questions. RF safety, spaec station
> operations. More bands to have those stupid band questions. Seems like a
> good thing to me.
>
> We often hear (and I believe) that the test is a starting point, not an
> end. Exposure to the many facets of Amateur radio can only be better
> than lots of questions about just a few subjects.
we do need (and we hams have in theory) good questions which ARE hard
to write and some the questions we have are well stinkers but each pool
I have read sems to be better than the one it replaced
so i suspect our current system is the worst of all worlds for testing
except of course for all the others that have been tried (seem to
recall that as a quote of someone ;)
AaronJ
>N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
>> the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
>> detail.
Having received a pink ticket from the FCC as a teenager in 1959 for the
spurious emissions of a homebrew HF transmitter I think I was more dangerous in
those days, even after having passed that 'more detailed' technical General
test.
>That's probably true. So do "we" want new hams to
>have a broad-shallow knowledge or a narrow-deep
>knowledge?
Does it make a difference? Virtually everyone now is running commercially built
relatively foolproof equipment (appliances). Chances are way better these days
that the stuff is clean even when operated by a non-technical person (most
hams).
>I suggest the former would be more valuable
Memorizing the regulations makes sense, but having to memorize the engineering
stuff is just plain silly. Especially with no real understanding behind it.
Course I'm still operating under a license obtained under Bash... 8-O
>to the "service".
Service? This is a hobby that on average probably has less technical people than
those in the RC model aircraft crowd.
robert casey
>
> How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
> what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.
>
Considering that the FCC lets us build or modify our transmitters, we at
least should pass a test to demonstrate that we are at least aware of
the responsibilities of not spewing RF trash all over the radio
frequency spectrum, messing up the bands for other users.
Cecil Moore
> Service? This is a hobby that on average probably has less technical people than
> those in the RC model aircraft crowd.
From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
as of a government"
KH6HZ
> Up for a challenge? Memorize the Extra test, all 800 some questions
> in the pool. Then let's take a test. I'll give you the test question
> number, and you give me the letter answer. Since memorization presumably
> has nothing to do with the knowledge, this should be easy as the new
> applicants have in taking the so called dumbed down tests
That isn't how memorization works.
While there may be some people who "memorize" the question and answer, in
reality what most people are referring to when they talk about
"memorization" is in fact something more akin to "word association" or
"familiarity".
All one has to do is read the question pool enough, or drill long enough
using a computer program, that they will "recognize" the correct answer when
they see it. They don't actually "memorize" the question pool per se, such
that they know the answer to question ### is AAA. No, instead, they simply
become familiar enough with it that they can recognize the correct answer to
the question, much the same way you become familiar with many things in life
without actually "memorizing" them.
> A lot of Technicians I know used the "Now You're Talking" books.
> Lots of stuff in there that prepares you for radio operations.
When I got my tech license, I used the Gorden West book. That's not how I
passed the exams though.
> Do you think that most new hams get their license, then hire people
> to put their stations together after they buy their "Yaecomwood"
> boxes?
"putting a station" together these days involves little more than calling
HRO, unpacking the boxes UPS delivers, and plugging everything in. Not much
theory required there.
73
KH6HZ
N2...@aol.com
That's the study guide, not the actual exam.
We really don't know what the old exams were actually like (actual
questions), except for the memories of those who took them, because FCC
kept them secret. All we really have are the study guides, which are
not the same thing at all.
> > Study Question #34:
> > Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
> > following components:
> >
> > (a) triode vacuum tube,
> > (b) pi-network output tank
> > (c) high voltage source
> > (d) plate-current meter
> > (e) plate-voltage meter,
> > (f) rf chokes,
> > (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.
>
> Yup, that was in the study guide that I looked at.
For the General - not the Extra.
> > Study Question #35:
> > What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?
>
> did they get both questions again?
In the study guide.
> > These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
> > were on the old exams.
> >
> > The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
> > amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe
> > license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e".
> >
> > The question would be something like,
> > "which is the coupling capacitor?"
> > "which is an rf choke?"
> > "what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
> > above?"
> >
> > So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and
> > their names
> > and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different
> > format from the study guide.
>
> Is that supposed to be difficult?
It's not about difficulty at all. It's about what knowledge is needed
to pass the test.
Look at my postings and I do not think you will find me saying I think
the old tests were "harder" or "more difficult". What you will see is
me saying they were better.
Big difference.
IMHO, one of the problems in amateur radio today is too much emphasis
on passing the test, and not enough on what to do with it. IMHO, a
one-day Tech license course is too likely to produce a person with a
license who doesn't know enough about how to get on the air and use the
license.
Of course Elmering is part of the answer. And you're looking at the
most powerful Elmering tool ever invented. But it has to be used - by
both the Elmers and those needing help. Read the various reflectors
(much better behaved than Usenet) and you'll see a lot of that going
on.
> If you had a basic knowledge of
> the circuit, you would be able to guess at the part names - if you
> didn't already know..
If you had a basic knowledge of the circuit, you wouldn't be guessing.
>
> > The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small
> part of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was
> covered!
> > How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
> > the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
> > detail.
>
> Which of course means that the applicant knew what to concentrate
> on. sometimes I think that what a lot of Hams want is for the test
> questions to be both very much in depth, and completely random, with the
> questions produced on-site by the steely eyed proctor. ;^)
Part of the old *process* (not the test content as much as how it was
given) was that you only had general areas of study.
> Agreed on your point about the increased number of potential
> subjects to cover in the present day tests. I suspect the only way to
> reconcile that with your (testing wishes?) would be to concurrently test
> to the old time depth, with the increased subject matter? I doubt that
> quadrupleing the number of test questions would sit very well with
> anyone except those who don't have to take the tests any more.
That's not my wish at all.
What I'd like to see is more emphasis on the basics of radio (Ohm's
Law, basic antennas, how circuits actually work), particularly in the
Technician and General exams. Leave the more-exotic, niche stuff for
the Extra.
And regardless of what anyone other than FCC wants, both the number of
tests and the number of questions for each license class dropped
dramatically in 2000.
One more point:
The old Novice was easy to get. Its written was very basic, and so it
had a small study guide. But that license also conveyed extremely
limited privileges! On top of that, it wasn't a permanent license - you
had one shot at the Novice. So there was a real incentive to learn.
Comparing the old Novice to the current Tech is apples-and-oranges.
--
How "hard" were the old exams? How much did the "old timers" actually
know?
Here's one story - you tell me:
Back in the late 1960s, I knew a young amateur who was a Technician.
This was in the days when the Advanced had just been reopened for new
issues, and the Advanced written test was reportedly the technical
equivalent of at least the Second 'Phone, if not the First 'Phone,
except for the regulations part, of course.
In those days, those who had both amateur and commercial licenses
usually said the technical part of the tests needed to get the Amateur
Extra (three exams, General.Advanced /Extra) was at least the technical
equivalent of the 'First Phone.
One summer day this young amateur, who would enter 9th grade that fall,
went to the local FCC office to take the 13 wpm code and upgrade to
General. (No additional written test was needed back then, because the
Tech and General used the same written test in those days). He passed,
and was about to go home and await his new license, when the FCC
examiner suggested he try the Advanced written. (He couldn't try the
Extra because of the "time-in-grade" requirement back then).
This young amateur hadn't studied for the Advanced written at all. He
knew some radio theory and practice, and the regulations, all of it
self-taught. He'd only been a ham about a year or two, but even a 14
year old back then knew better than to say no to The Man From FCC.
So he sat down and tried the Advanced - and passed easily. Not because
of some study guide or other, or some memorization tricks, but because
of knowing some radio theory and the regs.
So while some may have said they were "hard" and some say the OTs
didn't know much, the truth was somewhat different.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bob Brock
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1169319231....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mike Coslo wrote:
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in
>> news:1169258433.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>> > Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
>> > questions? I'll post them if you are interested.
>>
>> Always am.
>>
> Here's a sample - lots more to come.
>
>>From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:
>
> Study Question #31:
Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used. It's
more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking it.
Every tried grading essay questions?
Cecil Moore
> All one has to do is read the question pool enough, or drill long enough
> using a computer program, that they will "recognize" the correct answer when
> they see it.
The majority of a grammar school education probably
uses that method of learning.
KH6HZ
> The majority of a grammar school education probably
> uses that method of learning.
Not sure of your grammer school experience, since you're older than I am,
but mine mainly rested on rote-memorization. Vocabulary, math tables, etc.
Dee Flint
"KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
news:LnJsh.4225$jb3...@newsfe18.lga...
> "Mike Coslo" <mco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Up for a challenge? Memorize the Extra test, all 800 some questions
>> in the pool. Then let's take a test. I'll give you the test question
>> number, and you give me the letter answer. Since memorization presumably
>> has nothing to do with the knowledge, this should be easy as the new
>> applicants have in taking the so called dumbed down tests
>
> That isn't how memorization works.
>
> While there may be some people who "memorize" the question and answer, in
> reality what most people are referring to when they talk about
> "memorization" is in fact something more akin to "word association" or
> "familiarity".
>
> All one has to do is read the question pool enough, or drill long enough
> using a computer program, that they will "recognize" the correct answer
> when they see it. They don't actually "memorize" the question pool per se,
> such that they know the answer to question ### is AAA. No, instead, they
> simply become familiar enough with it that they can recognize the correct
> answer to the question, much the same way you become familiar with many
> things in life without actually "memorizing" them.
>
>
Besides memorizing that way will lead to certain failure. The questions and
answers on the exam are worded the same way BUT the answers are allowed to
be in a different order and they are. The reason is to prevent people
memorizing the A, B, C, or D.
Dee, N8UZE
Dee Flint
"KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
That is because for the material being taught in grammar school, the rote
memorization approach is probably the most appropriate. There's really no
other way to learn math tables except repetition via memorization.
Dee, N8UZE
N2...@aol.com
Yes - but you missed the point, Bob.
In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except that
most of them were 5 choices rather than 4.
But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given
above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not
officially.
73 de Jim, N2EY
an_old_friend
> Big difference.
>
> IMHO, one of the problems in amateur radio today is too much emphasis
> on passing the test, and not enough on what to do with it. IMHO, a
> one-day Tech license course is too likely to produce a person with a
> license who doesn't know enough about how to get on the air and use the
> license.
that might mean we have toomany tests and to much focus on license
class and therefore need fewer tests and fewer classes
an_old_friend
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Bob Brock wrote:
> > <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> > news:1169319231....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except that
> most of them were 5 choices rather than 4.
would going to one in 5 make you shut up on this issue
>
> But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given
> above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not
> officially.
they were avable meaning the honest we want did not have access and
the rouges we would like to exclude did have access
hmm that state of affair MIGHT have something with the bad apples that
got through code testing
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
Cecil Moore
> But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given
> above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not
> officially.
First "question" from the 1957 ARRL License Manual for
the General exam.
"1. Name the basic unit(s) of electrical resistance, ..."
(etc.)
"The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm."
How is "ohm" not the exact answer? Wouldn't giving an
inexact answer have been dishonest?
KH6HZ
> Besides memorizing that way will lead to certain failure. The questions
> and answers on the exam are worded the same way BUT the answers are
> allowed to be in a different order and they are. The reason is to prevent
> people memorizing the A, B, C, or D.
True. I would say the vast majority of people who "memorize" the question
pools do not actually "memorize" verbatim the questions and answers, but
instead simply familiarize themselves enough with the pools such that they
can recognize the correct answer on the examination, regardless of whether
it appears in position A, B, C, or D.
Granted, certain types of questions lend themselves to 'rote memorization'.
Definitions, for instance. An ohm is an ohm is not a watt. Most of the
regulations probably also fall into this category as well, as do things like
circuit diagram symbols. You just have to "know" where band limits are, and
what a NPN transistor "looks like".
I've always been a proponent of eliminating question pools, and instead
allowing computer programs to randomly generate question sets. No longer
would there be a "where on the HF 80m bands are you allowed to transmit CW?"
question with 4 static answers. Instead, the question could have 1 randomly
generated correct answer and 3 randomly generated detractors.
Such a test setup would at least ensure that folks taking the test have the
requisite knowledge base to pass the test, and didn't simply familiarize
themselves w/ the question pool enough to successfully pass the test.
73
KH6HZ
an_old_friend
now if you can describe to me how this does 2 thing you will have my
suport for a proposal
one how does it serve the interest of the ARS
two how does it serve the interest of the public at large
it was lateer that the Porocders realy feel down and the later is most
important
>
> 73
> KH6HZ
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org> wrote in
>> From: Mike Coslo on Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:27 pm
>>>N...@AOL.COM wrote in news:1169250071.314393.175910
>>>> KC4UAI wrote:
...
>>> In addition, imagine my surprise when I opened up that little
>>>booklet and saw the "sample questions" Right there, Question first,
>>>and answer "A" through "D". Then an answer section in the back of the
>>>book! All this in 1956, long before Bash and the present day question
>>>pool...
>
>>> After all, how may ways are there to ask the same questions?
>
>> Hello Mike.
>
>> Sigh...it's an old, old story with humans...whatever
>> someone did in their (relative) youth was ALWAYS "more
>> difficult" than what anyone else does in the present time! :-)
>
> Don't know if you read the other post I wrote on the subject in a
>different thread, but I'll repeat it here.
>
>In trying to figure out just where this canard came from, sfter my
>investigation into why the "old tests were so much harder", I came to
>the conclusion that they weren't more difficult.
>
> So where the discrepancy?
>
> My theory is that when these old timers took the test, they weren't
>all that knowlegable. So those tests were harder for them. During their
>post-test lifetime, they learned more, and became more experienced.
>
> But they forgot that they learned all that stuff, and in the
>crankiness that middle aged men can fall prey to, suddnely expect that
>all the new hams should know aht they do now.
>
> I also suspect it doesn't matter. They don't dislike the new hams
>because they are dumb or less qualified, they dislike new things.
Absolutely...in my observation also. But, an addition:
Some really and truly do NOT like new anybodies. They
want to keep their little local "in-group" intact, nice
and comfortable, secure with everyone "in-tune" to one
another. [see the "No Lids, Kids, or Space Cadets"
type or Wince Ficus' "Slow Code" alter-ego]
For many middle-agers, their (sudden?) realization of
their own mortality will make new things uncomfortable.
They want, desire, and strive for the secure, the
comfortable old concepts that they managed to adapt to.
I would suppose that's rooted with the #1 human desire
of SURVIVAL (sex is only #2). Natural enough.
That age group and that striving for security through
keeping the OLD extends all throughout human groupings.
It's really a very basic lesson in psychology classes.
[I didn't learn it from my wife the retired social
worker but rather from two mandatory psych classes for
CA engineering majors a very long time ago]
Too many make out like "THE TEST" is some god-awful
ordeal or a Battle Between Good and Evil or some kind
of cataclysmic EVENT that shakes their being to
their core. For some who have been very sheltered
that might be true. :-)
I've taken all sorts of "tests" in my life and would
rate everyday WORK as being much more meaningful.
Produce results according to spec and one "passes"
(gets the paycheck regularly). Can't do the work?
Maybe not a "fail" exactly but it's a good time to
start collecting Want Ads or think about moving into
Sales. [Sales doesn't do all that work but they sure
talk about how much they do and how good they are...]
> I don't really have any problems with levels of "ability" and goals
>such as DX awards or contesting. I do have problems with superior hams.
Sigh...well, superior anybodies will happen. Those are
the "salesmen types" who are selling themselves, fueled
by their ego. Some are found in here and there were lots
of them in here before. :-) Usually they want to
CONTROL things, make order (usually their way), and
demand respect from their "inferiors." They can be
spotted right away. They won't learn and probably
can't understand why most folks just don't like them.
I was questioning the "necessary vetting" and the "time
in grade" concept for "advancement" to "higher classes."
For one thing, I can't see this whole business of ANY
class structure in a hobby activity. If someone NEEDS
rank-status-title, let them join a fraternal order that
has various grades of "poohbahs" or whatever, wear silly
uniforms, and do the "tradition" thing. :-)
The actual operation of a "radio" is usually very easy
and any average-intelligence human can learn it quickly.
An activity that has lots of jargon attached to it might
need some extra hours to memorize all the new terms and
how they are used, but the actual operation doesn't take
long at all. Comments about "years of service" has
always sounded bizarre and absurd to me in a hobby radio
activity. :-) Yes, telegraphy skill DOES require a
lot of practice but that is a psycho-motor skill really
unrelated to operating a radio...and certainly unrelated
to knowing HOW a radio works.
I've always said that, to me (and many others I've
worked with) radio and electronics is totally
fascinating. Ham radio is a good place to get
acquainted with that fascination possibility. That
hobby doesn't come close to encompassing all that is
in electronics, but it's a start. If an individual
LIKES the technology, they will naturally seek to
learn more about it. NOBODY has to fulfill some
kind of artificial "qualifications" test to learn nor
are they "inferior" if they didn't get those artificial
"qualifications" and be awarded a class-conscious
Title of "superiority." Yet there are "superior"
beings who strut around Telling others what they
should like and what not to like and all should
"respect" all those who push others around. Ech.
That's NOT what an enjoyable hobby is about...
Nice talkin' at ya Mike, have fun with the mobile
antenna project.
LA
KH6HZ
> one how does it serve the interest of the ARS
> two how does it serve the interest of the public at large
The ARS is a technical service, alledgedly charged with maintaining a pool
of trained radio operators, to provide emergency communications, advance the
radio art, contribute to international goodwill, and advance their skills in
communications and technical phases of the art.
These purposes are outlined in Section 97.1.
An individual who simply passed the requisite examinations to obtain their
license without studying the underlying electronics/antenna/etc theory does
not meet those goals.
It is extremely likely that people who pass their examinations using these
methods will not continue to increase their electronics or radio knowledge,
since they didn't take the time to learn any to begin with.
I, for one, do not think that the ARS needs a pool of appliance operators.
Granted, to some degree, appliance operations are going to be a "given" in
today's age, since hardly any amateurs build their own gear any longer.
However, if you're looking for a radio service devoid of any technical
knowledge, there are many others that fit that bill available to
individuals.
an_old_friend
KH6HZ wrote:
> "an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > one how does it serve the interest of the ARS
>
> > two how does it serve the interest of the public at large
>
> The ARS is a technical service, alledgedly charged with maintaining a pool
> of trained radio operators, to provide emergency communications, advance the
> radio art, contribute to international goodwill, and advance their skills in
> communications and technical phases of the art.
>
> These purposes are outlined in Section 97.1.
>
> An individual who simply passed the requisite examinations to obtain their
> license without studying the underlying electronics/antenna/etc theory does
> not meet those goals.
how? in what way?
>
> It is extremely likely that people who pass their examinations using these
> methods will not continue to increase their electronics or radio knowledge,
> since they didn't take the time to learn any to begin with.
unsupported supotion
>
>
> I, for one, do not think that the ARS needs a pool of appliance operators.
> Granted, to some degree, appliance operations are going to be a "given" in
> today's age, since hardly any amateurs build their own gear any longer.
Opinoin unsuported by facts
>
>
> However, if you're looking for a radio service devoid of any technical
> knowledge, there are many others that fit that bill available to
> individuals.
and now you enage in making assertions as to the motives of the man
that questions you
I say answer the questions of how your proposal support the interest of
the ARS, and the public
you are the one that want to change things
I am more or less atified that the current written tests are acceptable
and slowly improving thus I see no need to change
you do suport your asertion
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Mike Coslo wrote:
>
> Don't know if you read the other post I wrote on the subject in a
> different thread, but I'll repeat it here.
>
> In trying to figure out just where this canard came from, sfter my
> investigation into why the "old tests were so much harder", I came to
> the conclusion that they weren't more difficult.
>
> So where the discrepancy?
Mike, there is none.
> My theory is that when these old timers took the test, they weren't
> all that knowlegable. So those tests were harder for them. During their
> post-test lifetime, they learned more, and became more experienced.
I've said as much before, but perhaps not as clearly.
> But they forgot that they learned all that stuff, and in the
> crankiness that middle aged men can fall prey to, suddnely expect that
> all the new hams should know aht they do now.
Some of these guys wished they were middle aged...
Regardless, either they've spent a lifetime in the industry, or a
lifetime as an amateur, and would like to think that everything they
know now was on the tests they took 30 years ago. It was not. And
they didn't know it back then.
> I also suspect it doesn't matter. They don't dislike the new hams
> because they are dumb or less qualified, they dislike new things.
IS THIS THE SAME MIKE COSLO THAT USED TO POST HERE???
Is someone forging your name and email address???
They do like new things when they emulate old things, such as the $350
jewelled Morse Code Keys, and No-Code Technicians like Val Germann who
bash no-coders who have no intention of learning the code.
snip
>
> I don't really have any problems with levels of "ability" and goals
> such as DX awards or contesting. I do have problems with superior hams.
>
> - 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
I don't have a problem with people who achieve a lot.
Forget license class... what did you actually do with your license?
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
the present test would seem to meet that standard
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"an_old_friend" <konst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> one how does it serve the interest of the ARS
>> two how does it serve the interest of the public at large
>
>The ARS is a technical service, alledgedly charged with maintaining a pool
>of trained radio operators, to provide emergency communications, advance the
>radio art, contribute to international goodwill, and advance their skills in
>communications and technical phases of the art.
Tsk, Tsk, TSK! It also includes FAKING a required mailing
address to the FCC attempting to fool them into getting one
state's callsign prefix. It also includes FAKING a bunch
of "clubs" and gobbling up callsigns for those "clubs,"
none of which seem to have existed in reality. Roughly
a dozen of them.
So, I hope Mikey is enjoying the warm, comfortable
weather at his Hawaii "home," a perfect spot for
the "RF Commandos" to practice field manuevers!
Hup, too, tree, foah...march, march...beep, beep.
Aloha,
LA
KH6HZ
Mike Coslo
news:LnJsh.4225$jb3...@newsfe18.lga:
> "Mike Coslo" <mco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Up for a challenge? Memorize the Extra test, all 800 some
>> questions
>> in the pool. Then let's take a test. I'll give you the test question
>> number, and you give me the letter answer. Since memorization
>> presumably has nothing to do with the knowledge, this should be easy
>> as the new applicants have in taking the so called dumbed down tests
>
> That isn't how memorization works.
I was waiting for someone to fall into that one.
Of course it isn't how it works.
>
> While there may be some people who "memorize" the question and answer,
> in reality what most people are referring to when they talk about
> "memorization" is in fact something more akin to "word association" or
> "familiarity".
Here is a intereting note.
I have an almost photographic memory. When I studied fot the tests,
I would take an on-line test. Any and all questions that I got wron, I
hit a book and figured out the correct answer. I read it - usually once,
and then I knew the answer. Was I memorizing?
> All one has to do is read the question pool enough, or drill long
> enough using a computer program, that they will "recognize" the
> correct answer when they see it. They don't actually "memorize" the
> question pool per se, such that they know the answer to question ###
> is AAA. No, instead, they simply become familiar enough with it that
> they can recognize the correct answer to the question, much the same
> way you become familiar with many things in life without actually
> "memorizing" them.
Yeah, Sounds like how mwmory works.
I offered that challenge because I hear so much about rote memory. Some
of the curmudgeons are correct in that a person who memorizes the pool
is a lot dumber than a person who learns it.
>
>> A lot of Technicians I know used the "Now You're Talking" books.
>> Lots of stuff in there that prepares you for radio operations.
>
> When I got my tech license, I used the Gorden West book. That's not
> how I passed the exams though.
>
>
>> Do you think that most new hams get their license, then hire
>> people
>> to put their stations together after they buy their "Yaecomwood"
>> boxes?
>
> "putting a station" together these days involves little more than
> calling HRO, unpacking the boxes UPS delivers, and plugging everything
> in. Not much theory required there.
But it doesn't have to. We have the options of putting out a fair
amoount of power, and to experiment, and work with equipment of our oown
design and manufacture, and to modify that equipment as long as it stays
within whatever legal performance limits as apply.
That's what the testing is about. No one is required to make use of
all the priveliges.
Mike Coslo
> KH6HZ wrote:
>> All one has to do is read the question pool enough, or drill long
>> enough using a computer program, that they will "recognize" the
>> correct answer when they see it.
>
> The majority of a grammar school education probably
> uses that method of learning.
Very true - a most old fashioned way of teaching.
Some hams won't be satisfied with the testing regimen unless the tests are
so hard that no one can pass them.
an_old_friend
Mike Coslo wrote:
> Cecil Moore <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:jWKsh.3462$O02...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
> so hard that no one can pass them.
indeed that is the goal to end the ARS since they lost the war on code
testing
Mike Coslo
news:1169388369....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com:
Guess it depends on what you mean by "basic". I'm a real neophyte
at hollow state, and I almost got the "Draw the schematic" version of th
equestion correct.
>>
>> > The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small
>> part of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was
>> covered!
>
>> > How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
>> > the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
>> > detail.
>>
>> Which of course means that the applicant knew what to
>> concentrate
>> on. sometimes I think that what a lot of Hams want is for the test
>> questions to be both very much in depth, and completely random, with
>> the questions produced on-site by the steely eyed proctor. ;^)
>
> Part of the old *process* (not the test content as much as how it was
> given) was that you only had general areas of study.
>
>> Agreed on your point about the increased number of potential
>> subjects to cover in the present day tests. I suspect the only way to
>> reconcile that with your (testing wishes?) would be to concurrently
>> test to the old time depth, with the increased subject matter? I
>> doubt that quadrupleing the number of test questions would sit very
>> well with anyone except those who don't have to take the tests any
>> more.
>
> That's not my wish at all.
As a committee designed product, that is what would have to happen
to stop some people from griping.
>
> What I'd like to see is more emphasis on the basics of radio (Ohm's
> Law, basic antennas, how circuits actually work), particularly in the
> Technician and General exams. Leave the more-exotic, niche stuff for
> the Extra.
I can't argue with that. I'd happily trade all of the space
operations and all of the stupid band size questions for some more
technical stuff.
> And regardless of what anyone other than FCC wants, both the number of
> tests and the number of questions for each license class dropped
> dramatically in 2000.
I had some profs and teachers that gave out one question tests!
> One more point:
>
> The old Novice was easy to get. Its written was very basic, and so it
> had a small study guide. But that license also conveyed extremely
> limited privileges! On top of that, it wasn't a permanent license -
> you had one shot at the Novice. So there was a real incentive to
> learn.
>
> Comparing the old Novice to the current Tech is apples-and-oranges.
In 1956, the Technician test was the General test without Morse
testing.
> How "hard" were the old exams? How much did the "old timers" actually
> know?
>
> Here's one story - you tell me:
>
> Back in the late 1960s, I knew a young amateur who was a Technician.
> This was in the days when the Advanced had just been reopened for new
> issues, and the Advanced written test was reportedly the technical
> equivalent of at least the Second 'Phone, if not the First 'Phone,
> except for the regulations part, of course.
>
> In those days, those who had both amateur and commercial licenses
> usually said the technical part of the tests needed to get the Amateur
> Extra (three exams, General.Advanced /Extra) was at least the
> technical equivalent of the 'First Phone.
>
> One summer day this young amateur, who would enter 9th grade that
> fall, went to the local FCC office to take the 13 wpm code and upgrade
> to General. (No additional written test was needed back then, because
> the Tech and General used the same written test in those days). He
> passed, and was about to go home and await his new license, when the
> FCC examiner suggested he try the Advanced written. (He couldn't try
> the Extra because of the "time-in-grade" requirement back then).
Time in grade - smart idea....
> This young amateur hadn't studied for the Advanced written at all. He
> knew some radio theory and practice, and the regulations, all of it
> self-taught. He'd only been a ham about a year or two, but even a 14
> year old back then knew better than to say no to The Man From FCC.
>
> So he sat down and tried the Advanced - and passed easily. Not
> because of some study guide or other, or some memorization tricks, but
> because of knowing some radio theory and the regs.
>
> So while some may have said they were "hard" and some say the OTs
> didn't know much, the truth was somewhat different.
I didn't really study for my Tech license, only a bit for my
General, and did indeed spend some time on the Extra. Even so, the tests
were not "hard" when I took them.
But I believe that the tests are an entrance test, not some sort of
PhD thing. Its what people do after they get them that counts. And I
really do like the time in grade thing before getting an Extra license.
Mike Coslo
news:0vKsh.1210$qt...@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
There has always been a lot of room for interpretation on essay
questions. And interpretation always leaves a lot of room for further
interpretations, ie arguments.
Mike Coslo
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
That's exactly my point, Cecil! How many ways are there to ask the
same questions? Even if we don't use those exact same words, as long as
it's intelligible, it's still the same question.
an_old_friend
Mike Coslo wrote:
> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in
> news:0vKsh.1210$qt...@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> >
> > Every tried grading essay questions?
>
> There has always been a lot of room for interpretation on essay
> questions. And interpretation always leaves a lot of room for further
> interpretations, ie arguments.
and room for the biasis of the tester who are not fed employees a
bigger factor
here in RRAp a VE has baosted that he refused a duely signed code
waiver . what makes you think that in some places a tesste will fail
solely becuase of the colour of their skin or...
AaronJ
>AaronJ wrote:
>> Service? This is a hobby that on average probably has less technical people than
>> those in the RC model aircraft crowd.
>
> From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
>as of a government"
From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
"avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"
Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...
LenAn...@ieee.org
Oh, my, Mikey D. is going to ignore the big who-haa in here about
his Dirty
Dozen "clubs?"
It looks like you were "collecting" OTHER callsigns in 1994. For
example, private ship call WCD6729 for the "trawler" named
"HORNBLOWER." [ship identification # 526927] Now I
suppose that is normally okay except for the required mailing
address you supplied:
Deignan, Michael P.
P. O. Box 465
Grapeview, WA 98546
Tsk. Grapeview is a tiny place on one of the innermost waterways
that make up the huge Puget Sound. It's about as far removed from
Rhode Island as is anyplace in CONUS. You'd have to steam for a
couple hours just to pass under the (old) Tacoma Narrows bridge and
then it would take lots more hours to get into International Waters.
WCD6729 states that this ship "makes international voyages!"
Ship radio license was cancelled in 2004.
A TRAWLER in Puget Sound, state of Washiington, for a
Rhode Island resident? What were you phishing phor?
Now, I can understand your other ship radio license, WCN4898,
for the motorboat "EFFLUVIA." [ship ID # MS5499FT] At least
your required mailing address was Chepachet, RI. Love that boat's
name...so fitting with what you post in here. :-)
Curiosity makes me wonder who gave you that P.O. Box in
Grapeview? It was kind of far away from Jeffie Herman's P.O.
Box in Hawaii.
Hey, no sweat, your Effluvia (the boat) radio license was also
cancelled in 2004 after ten years. You must have bailed Rhode
Island before then, right? But, your effluvia continues.
All these FACTS courtesy of the FCC's own search engine.
Aloha,
LA
robert casey
>
> they were avable meaning the honest we want did not have access and
> the rouges we would like to exclude did have access
>
> hmm that state of affair MIGHT have something with the bad apples that
> got through code testing
>
That's not much different than a younger brother looking at his older
brother's algebra test when studying for his upcoming algebra test. Or
fraternity members in college looking at a file of previous years tests
(many profs don't bother to make more than minor changes in their tests
from year to year). Calculus students can see that there's no point in
learning mathematical proofs, as it never shows up on tests. But you
better know how to integrate 3csc^4x/((2tan^5x)-1)dx
Dee Flint
"Mike Coslo" <mco...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98BFE2CEE1F9E...@216.196.97.136...
[snip]
>
> I didn't really study for my Tech license, only a bit for my
> General, and did indeed spend some time on the Extra. Even so, the tests
> were not "hard" when I took them.
>
> But I believe that the tests are an entrance test, not some sort of
> PhD thing. Its what people do after they get them that counts. And I
> really do like the time in grade thing before getting an Extra license.
>
> - 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
If a person actually knows the material and how to apply it, nothing is
really hard. It's getting to the point of knowing that takes the real
effort.
Dee, N8UZE
KH6HZ
lolol.
Poor senile old boy.
I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.
For the record, my Ship License was WCN4898, not WCD6729. Anyone with half a
brain can check the ULS and see the FRN on my (expired) ship license.
Jot that down on a yellow sticky and put it next to your acoustic modem, ok,
Lennie?
Might wanna get the visiting nurse to come and change your diaper a little
more often too, you get so grumpy when you're soiled.
KH6HZ
> I have an almost photographic memory. When I studied fot the
> tests, I would take an on-line test. Any and all questions
> that I got wron, I hit a book and figured out the correct
> answer. I read it - usually once, and then I knew the answer.
> Was I memorizing?
At some level, yes.
You either memorized the process/algorithm/information required to properly
process a question of the nature you missed (for example, a resistance
computation), or you simply word-associated/familiarized yourself with the
question pool enough that you recognized the correct answer when you saw it.
In the first case, you engaged in the process which virtually all people go
thru to learn a new skill, etc. (certain base memories have to be memorized,
i.e. formulas, definitions, etc.) This isn't a bad thing. It forms a basis
from which you can then build upon the knowledge.
In the second case, all you did is word-associate the answers, without any
real understanding of the theory behind the answer. This IMO is a bad thing,
and isn't what we should be promoting with our licensing examinations.
> I offered that challenge because I hear so much about rote
> memory. Some of the curmudgeons are correct in that a person
> who memorizes the pool is a lot dumber than a person who
> learns it.
I can't say whether a person who word-associates the pools and manages to
get a license is more or less intelligent than someone who learns the
material (i.e. someone with a photographic memory could also be rated as a
genius from an IQ perspective.) All I can say is that, IMO, the type of
person the ARS should be striving for is the person who learns the
underlying technical material to pass the examination.
> But it doesn't have to. We have the options of putting out a
> fair amoount of power, and to experiment, and work with
> equipment of our oown design and manufacture, and to modify
> that equipment as long as it stays within whatever legal
> performance limits as apply.
I know very, very few people who build their own gear these days. Probably
the only thing I've seen someone build in the past 3 years is a QRP
transmitter and a dipole.
> That's what the testing is about. No one is required to make
> use of all the priveliges.
No, but testing should ensure that the applicant actually *knows* the
material they are being tested on. The current structure of the theory
examination testing does not accomplish that.
My complaint with theory testing has never been about the material being
tested, simply the presentation, as the current tests do not actually ensure
the applicant knows the material.
Despites claims in another thread, I do not wish to "make the tests harder",
although I'm sure that my ideas would probably result in a higher failure
rate, since applicants would actually need to know the material, rather than
word-associating the correct answers.
To some, mainly, those looking for a free-ride anyway, this is likely to be
viewed as "making the tests harder", just as I'm sure they would claim the
existing tests are too hard for a myriad of reasons, all of which really
boil down to the fact they simply cannot sign their name to a form and
instantaneously receive an amateur radio license.
73
KH6HZ
KC4UAI
of folks are "memorizing" the test questions and not mastering the
material. There are a lot of places where one can go take "practice"
testing that uses the exact question pool for any test you want to
take. Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not impossible to
memorize just the questions and not know the concepts.
I'd argue that this is very short sighted so one wonders what the
solution here is... I suppose we could increase the question pool by 10
fold or so and make it easier to learn the material than memorize the
questions?
-= bob =-
> space.The difference is that in today's environment the student learns how to
> pass the test, rather than learning the actual material. Instead of
> learning E=IR, today's student memorizes the specific questions/answers
> on Ohm's law that are in the question pool. They might be able to tell
> you that the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor with 2 amps of current
> was 4 volts, but if you asked them why that was the case or what it
> meant, they wouldn't have a clue. Or care.
>
> How bad this is depends on how you perceive the goal of the exam, and
> what you expect a newly-licensed amateur radio operator to be able to do.
>
> If you perceive the exam as a barrier to entry, it continues to
> accomplish that goal. It serves as an indication that the individual
> was willing to dedicate enough effort to memorize the questions so that
> they could pass the test. Oddly enough, this is exactly the same thing
> that the code requirement did, with about the same amount of useful
> remaining knowledge for most people.
>
KC4UAI
Just so there is no mistake here...
I morn the dropping of the code from the testing requirements, more
from a nostalgia perspective than a practical one. I understand the
reasons and arguments on both sides of the debate, and I understand and
agree with the reasons it was done.
-= bob =-
On Jan 19, 5:35 pm, "an old friend" <kb9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> KC4UAI wrote:
> > Looks like the FCC will make it official on February 23 of this year
> > and go along with the rest of the world. Code testing will no longer
> > be required for ANY class license it seems after that date.
>
> > We all knew it was coming, but it's sort of sad to see it go.only for some is it sad
>
Cecil Moore
> Cecil Moore <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
>> as of a government"
>
> From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
> "avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"
>
> Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...
It is by law, Part 97, the "Amateur Radio Service".
That part cannot be argued. The "service" that is
performed is by the federal government for the
benefit of US citizens.
It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not
a choice of either/or. It is both.
KH6HZ
> It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
> questions and not mastering the material.
I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.
> Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
> impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
> concepts.
It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question and
exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become familiar
enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that they simply
recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se of the actual
question or answer. Much like the same way you become familiar with, say,
streets along your daily commute, even though you probably do not have a map
memorized in your head.
> I'd argue that this is very short sighted
It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1
> so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
> could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
> it easier to learn the material than memorize the
> questions?
My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated based
on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
license:
T7B10 (B)
What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
A. 420 to 450 MHz
B. 435 to 438 MHz
C. 440 to 450 MHz
D. 432 to 433 MHz
Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
automatically?
Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes it
appear as a "graduation exam".
From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become familiar
enough with the question pools to pass the examination.
However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
"harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to "know"
ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to the
question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the question?
Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for at
least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure that
applicants actually know the material they are tested on.
73
KH6HZ
an_old_friend
KH6HZ wrote:
> "KC4UAI" <kc4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'd argue that this is very short sighted
>
> It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
> using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1
it is short sighted I agree
but how was your 12 club calls anything but a violation of the intent
of that same part? it wasn't
people are allowed to be shortsighted
OTOH I doubt anyone can USE ham radio without learning something about
it
that has been a joy in watching my wife (inspried to get her tech by
the NPRM explore ham radio her degree is in fine arts not a techical
sort by any means and yet she is being to follow to discussion of our
recent reapeater mataince and even the techincal programs at our club
meeting (they are not comon alas recent programs have been foucused on
things like the NPRM and the recent FCC actions)
Bob Brock
"KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
news:CA6th.49521$oA1....@newsfe19.lga...
From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license. Afterall, that is
what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?
You know, if we came up with enough ideas, we could probably open up most
ham bands to business interests and they don't have to take a test at all.
On the other hand, we could identify what the critical tasks a ham operator
needs to operate, tell the prospective ham what those tasks are, give the
prospective ham the answers to those tasks (such as a question and answer
pool) and then test on those identified objectives. After the new ham gets
his license to get on the air, we could provide him with a learning
environment to enhance those basic skills and become a more experienced and
adept operator.
Me, I go for plan "B."
Bob Brock
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1169402658.7...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bob Brock wrote:
>> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:1169319231....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Mike Coslo wrote:
>> >> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in
>> >> news:1169258433.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
>> >> > questions? I'll post them if you are interested.
>> >>
>> >> Always am.
>> >>
>> > Here's a sample - lots more to come.
>> >
>> >>From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:
>> >
>> > Study Question #31:
>>
>> Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used.
>> It's
>> more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking it.
>>
>
>
> In 1976 the tests were all multiple-choice, same as today, except that
> most of them were 5 choices rather than 4.
>
> But the FCC-provided *study guides* were in essay format, as given
> above. The exact Q&A were not publicly available - at least not
> officially.
>
Yeah, but then there were all those "unofficial" question pools. The same
thing is done with the "General Contractors" exam here. For a fee, you can
know what questions are on the various exams and hence have a study guide.
Whether it's sanctioned or not, it would still happen. I'll bet that the
truth be told, there were some underground copies of test questions
available even back then. You know, if everyone in the club came back an
just wrote down the questions that they remember, it wouldn't take long to
cover over 90 percent of the pool of questions.
Giving the study guides in essay format and then testing multiple choice
gives the test writer a lot of leeway in how the questions are worded. Some
people get off on writing questions so that the test is not so much on your
knowledge of the subject as it is about your ability to read carefully. The
reason that it worked back then was because the tests were administered by
the FCC and had a lot more oversight than todays test administrators do.
The only real soulution would be to provide an accepted pool of test
questions that would be approved to be on the tests. However, then we come
back to how those test pools would be available for a price after a while.
Now, a better question would be, if the current test procedure produce
operators capable of functioning at the minimum entry level for that
particular classification of ham, why would we feel compelled to change it?
Bear in mind, I'm not opposed to proposing a change to the testing method
provided there is a tangable benefit to it beyond simply making it harder to
get a ticket.
Bob Brock
That is exactly my point. It leave the person grading the test a lot of
lattitude. It also gives them real big headaches.
LenAn...@ieee.org
><N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> Mike Coslo wrote:
>>> N...@AOL.COM wrote in
>Well, I can see why those types of questions are no longer being used. It's
>more about who is giving the tests than it is about who is taking it.
>
>Every tried grading essay questions?
My wife has worked at that (Illinois, with a Masters in
Education) for several years, mostly in regards to US History.
It's a difficult task given the wide span of students'
ability to write and express themselves. Ask any teacher or
college instructor and get - more or less - the same answer.
:-)
Since 1934 and the Communications Act, the FCC has never been
chartered to be an academic institution or organization and,
as far as I've been able to find out, FCC field office
officials have never been required to hold any degrees or
certification in education as part of their jobs. Essay
ANSWERS generally require a goodly part of time in just
trying to understand what the test-taker wrote for any
answer. Much, much more time than pulling out an answer
template to lay over a multiple-choice answer sheet. [such
answer templates are in wide use in most all government
agency testing, not just in schools and colleges]
The one bit of good advice I got in 1956 for my First 'Phone
test in Chicago was: "Be clear in your writing, concise and
legible." Even for the few schematics that had to be drawn.
No sweat, even with the government-issue #3 lead pencils we
had to use. I printed my answers to be sure they had a
minimum of handwriting-interpretation tasks. :-) I passed.
The law's requirements for VEs doesn't require ANY of them
to possess academic certificates or college degrees nor
experience in test-giving and test-grading. Privatization of
ALL radio operator license testing (commercial as well as
amateur) pretty much dictates the easier-to-grade multiple-
choice question-answer format. Certainly so for the all-
volunteer amateur radio test coordinators.
an_old_friend
Bob Brock wrote:
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1169402658.7...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bob Brock wrote:
> >> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >> news:1169319231....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Now, a better question would be, if the current test procedure produce
> operators capable of functioning at the minimum entry level for that
> particular classification of ham, why would we feel compelled to change it?
> Bear in mind, I'm not opposed to proposing a change to the testing method
> provided there is a tangable benefit to it beyond simply making it harder to
> get a ticket.
I agree a much better question don't expect an answer from jim though
and yes if I am shown a better method that will work at least as well
etc and serve th interest of the public and the ars i will be all for
it but on the scale of how hard the test should I want the number to be
1.0 enough units if that can not be assured Id rather have the test be
0,9 enough units than 2 or more enough units
LenAn...@ieee.org
>AaronJ wrote:
>> Cecil Moore <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
>>> as of a government"
>
>> From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
>> "avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"
>
>> Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...
>
>It is by law, Part 97, the "Amateur Radio Service".
>That part cannot be argued. The "service" that is
>performed is by the federal government for the
>benefit of US citizens.
Welp, putting dictionaries aside, I rather prefer
the FCC's own definition of the word "service" in
regard to ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. (of which Part 97
is one of the smaller Parts):
"The word 'service' is a regulatory term, denoting
a type and kind of radio activity being regulated."
All throughout Title 47 is found the word "service"
such as Private Land Mobile Radio SERVICE, Aviation
Radio SERVICE, and (gasp!) Citizens Band Radio
SERVICE! :-)
>It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not
>a choice of either/or. It is both.
Ahem, that's an interpretation. I prefer what the
FCC itself uses in regards to definitions...and also
note that the FCC is chartered by Congress to only
US civil radio. Military SERVICE is governed by the
Department of Defense and military radio use is done
in cooperation with the NTIA. By law, the FCC
cannot regulate military radio service.
One problem with so many amateur licensees is their
imaginations leading them to believe (wrongly) that
their (defacto) hobby is a form of "national service"
just by being federally licensed. That imagination
makes them think they are more than just hobbyists.
They reinforce that by boastfully pointing to their
volunteer efforts in helping their communities. In
truth, ANY citizen can volunteer to help their
community (in or out of emergency situations)
without any "license" of any kind. That's called
"civic duty," sometimes "civic responsibility."
I've nothing against anyone pipe-dreaming or doing
the wish-fulfillment dreaming. However, such
fantasy role-playing should NOT be codified in law
NOR be some kind of "definition" which is really
a grossly-distorted interpretation. Politicians
are constantly reinforcing such pipe-dreaming and
fantasy role-playing by proclaiming the "goodness"
and "nobleness" of ALL KINDS of activities. But,
those proclamations are just the usual political
bullshit done to favor certain groups and get the
politicians' names into public media.
US amateur radio is basically a HOBBY, a radio
activity of NON-pecuniary compensation, forbidden
by law to be a broadcasting service. It is
regulated by charter of the Congress due to the
nature of laws of physics and the propagation of
electromagnetic waves...something that applies to
ALL radio, not just amateur radio.
LenAn...@ieee.org
><LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>lolol.
>
>Poor senile old boy.
>
>I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.
"Judge" Miccolis has "ruled" that there is no statute of
limitartions in newsgroups. Take it to his court...
>For the record, my Ship License was WCN4898, not WCD6729. Anyone with half a
>brain can check the ULS and see the FRN on my (expired) ship license.
Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
"legally" defrauding the US government?
Ship radio license WCD6729 was granted 1 Feb 94, no FRN given,
FCC required mailing address given as Grapeview, WA, 98546.
Ship radio license WCN4898 was granted 13 Oct 94, FRN given
as 0003639002, mailing address given as Chepachet, RI.
Both ship radio licenses expired in 2004.
Both ship radio licenses were granted to "Deignan, Michael P."
Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
"Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
licenses at one time...PLUS having given his "residence"
address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
license application. Was "Deignan, Michael P." EVER a
RESIDENT in the state of Hawaii? Residency is not defined
as temporarily staying there as on a vacation.
"Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
and dates all point to a single individual.
FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
called a "tell" to investigators. A common characteristic
of those seeking to hide something. Anyone with a full
brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
so coincidental.
Now, I could go into the collusion you had with Jeffrey
Herman on your KH6 vanity callsign...but that has already
been done and you've been forced to give up your "club"
calls by the FCC. Tsk, tsk. The mighty "RF Commandos"
were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.
It's rather obvious also that you refused to give an
explanation for taking out so many "club" calls or the
misleading "residence address" of Hawaii for you vanity
callsign. [a KH6 must be oh, so tres chic in New England
area, much better than a plebian KD1 like your previous
license of KD1HZ, another vanity call]
>Jot that down on a yellow sticky and put it next to your acoustic modem, ok,
>Lennie?
I have neither "yellow stickys" nor acoustic modem.
>Might wanna get the visiting nurse to come and change your diaper a little
>more often too, you get so grumpy when you're soiled.
Tsk, tsk, an amateur extra betraying Miccolis' boast that
all pro-coders are "polite, civil" people who never
utter personal insults? Yes, they DO exist as proven by
the quotes above.
I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."
But, to drop to the vernacular of the ugly, feel free to
eat my shorts. :-)
Aloha,
LA
N2...@aol.com
> "KC4UAI" <kc4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems that a lot of folks are "memorizing" the test
> > questions and not mastering the material.
> I've been stating this very thing for close to 10 years now.
> > Given the number of questions in the pool, it's not
> > impossible to memorize just the questions and not know the
> > concepts.
> It is important to put "memorize" in quotes, because (as others have
> mentioned) it is highly unlikely someone memorizes verbatim the question and
> exact answer. More likely what actually happens is people become familiar
> enough with the question pool after drilling long enough that they simply
> recognize the correct answer -- no real "memorization" per se of the actual
> question or answer. Much like the same way you become familiar with, say,
> streets along your daily commute, even though you probably do not have a map
> memorized in your head.
Exactly - you may not even consciously know the street names, but you
know
the route.
Here's another "memorization" example:
Way back when "Trivial Pursuit" first came out, somebody gave me the
game as a present. I kept the card sets out and carried a small bundle
around with me. I'd glance
at them at odd moments - waiting for/riding the elevator, during TV
commercials, while waiting for the washer or dryer to complete a load,
etc. In a relatively short time I had gone through the first box of
cards twice.
I didn't try to consciously memorize the questions and answers on the
cards, I just read the questions, tried to guess the answers, and then
looked to see if I was right.
The end result was that I was near-unbeatable in a game *if* they
started with the first box of cards. I hadn't really "memorized" all
the Q&A, or even most of them, but having seen them before put me way
ahead of most other players.
> > I'd argue that this is very short sighted
> It is, IMO, very short sighted, because people who pass the examinations
> using this method do not, IMO, meet the goals of the ARS as outlined in 97.1
Perhaps, but that's not the big issue.
What I see as the big issue is that such testing may actually do a
disservice to the amateurs themselves, because they wind up with a
license but not the basic knowledge
on how to set up a station and operate it.
> > so one wonders what the solution here is... I suppose we
> > could increase the question pool by 10 fold or so and make
> > it easier to learn the material than memorize the
> > questions?
>
> My proposed solution is to eliminate question pools entirely, and instead
> have a computerized question pool which is entirely randomly generated based
> on various parameters. For example, take this question from the Tech
> license:
>
> T7B10 (B)
> What is the satellite sub-band on 70-CM?
> A. 420 to 450 MHz
> B. 435 to 438 MHz
> C. 440 to 450 MHz
> D. 432 to 433 MHz
>
> Now, rather than having 4 set answers, why couldn't we simply have a
> computer program generate the correct answer and 3 distractors
> automatically?
Because that wouldn't help the situation at all - at least not in the
above example.
First off, a regulations question is essentially a memorization
question. A Ph.D. in EE,
a pile of patents and the Nobel Prize in physics won't help a person
answer that question if they don't know the relevant rules in Part 97.
Second, if the exact questions are publicly available, figuring out the
correct answer is pretty easy. Then all the person has to do is
"memorize" the correct answer enough to recognize it. Changing the
distractors doesn't make any difference. In fact, if one intends to
"memorize" the pool, the first step is to blank out all the distractors
and only look at the right answers!
Where such an approach would have an effect would be in questions like
Ohm's Law, where the values could be randomly generated.
> Some people have argued that my idea makes the test too "hard", or makes it
> appear as a "graduation exam".
>
> From the perspective that the exam is harder, that is probably true. You
> would actually need to know the material, rather than simply become familiar
> enough with the question pools to pass the examination.
Maybe not. I think that, in the long run, it is actually easier to
learn the material.
It's the short run that is the problem.
> However, in no way do I support (or suggest) that we make the examination
> "harder" from a material perspective. If an applicant is supposed to "know"
> ohms law on an examination, is it too much to ask that they really
> demonstrate they "know" it, rather than simply "know" what the answer to the
> question is, with no real understanding of the theory behind the question?
Agreed! The issue is *not* how "hard" the tests are, but how good they
are.
> Like Cecil once said... The examinations are not supposed to be graduation
> exams, nor do I support any type of proposal to make them more difficult,
> from a content perspective. My suggestion, however, which I've posted for at
> least 6-7 years, is to simply make the question pools computerized to
> eliminate the ability of applicants to "memorize" the Q&A's, and ensure that
> applicants actually know the material they are tested on.
Agree again!
In practice, however, not much can be done other than to enlarge the
question pools
and possibly have computer randomization of values. The FCC is clearly
not going to
take over the testing jobs that have been done by unpaid volunteers for
more than 20
years.
73 de Jim, N2EY
John Smith I
> snip
> ...
> LenAn...@ieee.org
>
Len:
Sorry for snipping it all.
Great work of text, logic and facts!
So, you claim hams are nothing more than
"Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"
Well, the CB'ers have claimed that for decades! <grin>
Warmest regards,
JS
LenAn...@ieee.org
John Smith I wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > snip
> > ...
> > LenAn...@ieee.org
> >
>
> Len:
>
> Sorry for snipping it all.
Do that again and I'll have Governor Arnie "pay you a visit..."
Remember that Stockton ain't far from Sacramento...:-)
> Great work of text, logic and facts!
>
> So, you claim hams are nothing more than
> "Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"
Nah...only SOME of them. Peyote-munchers or stash
puffers or the sweet nothings desperately searching for
ANY kind of title-rank-status that they never had.
> Well, the CB'ers have claimed that for decades! <grin>
Yanno (to use your own expression), I've NEVER heard
that claim. Really. But, I don't hang out with CB-ers,
just give a listen once in a while. All I hear (besides
heterodynes) are ordinary folks gabbing, communicating,
and so forth, hardly anyone using the Gog-diven, OFFICIAL
Language of Radio hamspeak. Roger that, old-timer? :-)
> Warmest regards,
Thank you but I will appreciate just some warmth. I hope
the San Walk-In is suffering less from this alleged
"global warming" Arnie wants to put off. Brrrrrr.
Overranout, beep, beep,
LA
N2...@aol.com
> From: "KH6HZ" on Mon, Jan 22 2007 6:53 am
> ><LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >lolol.
> >Poor senile old boy.
> >
> >I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.
>
> "Judge"
> has "ruled" that there is no statute of
> limitartions in newsgroups. Take it to his court...
"limitartions"?
> boast that
> all pro-coders are "polite, civil" people who never
> utter personal insults?
Who said that, Len? Give us a direct quote, please.
> Yes, they DO exist as proven by
> the quotes above.
Not proven at all, Len. In fact, when you argue with Mike,
you are arguing with a nocodetest person.
You have obviously forgotten that KH6HZ is, and was,
*against* the Morse Code test for an amateur license.
This isn't a new thing, or a secret. Look up his 1998 comments to
the FCC on the subject, if you don't believe me.
He specifically asked FCC to do the following in response to NPRM
98-143:
1) Reduce all Morse Code testing to a single 5 wpm test, but only
because
the treaty then in effect required some sort of test
2) Include a "sunset clause" that would automatically eliminate that
test when
and if the treaty changed, *without* any further NPRMs, petitions
or other
actions being required.
IOW, he *supported* the NCI proposal of that time! He's a
dyed-in-the-wool
no-coder!
He also suggested:
3) Reduction of the number of amateur radio license classes to two.
4) Changes to the written test methods (not the content as much as the
test methods).
This was almost ten years ago. I don't think Mike has changed his
> I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."
> But, to drop to the vernacular of the ugly, feel free to
> eat my shorts. :-)
> Aloha,
>
Well, it's interesting to see that you can be nasty to those who agree
with you....
John Smith I
> ...
>> So, you claim hams are nothing more than
>> "Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"
>
> Nah...only SOME of them. Peyote-munchers or stash
> puffers or the sweet nothings desperately searching for
> ANY kind of title-rank-status that they never had.
>
Well, don't look now! But those low-lives are about to pull a BIG
RETREAT and head for a rec.radio.amateur."something".MODERATED! thread!
You have seen the list of "moderators?" These are the high priests of
misinformation, deception and high-thievery-of-radio-frequencies about
to escape through the back door of the temple! (I can hear their "brass
heels" pounding pavement now ...)
> Overranout, beep, beep,
That's a BIG TEN-FOUR Goodbuddy. Now throw that hammer down, we need to
be in Shy-Town in the morning (before the "Moderation Sheriff" shows up
and locks us outa the jail here! <grin>
My heart-felt regards,
JS
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > ...
>>> So, you claim hams are nothing more than
>>> "Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"
>>
>> Nah...only SOME of them. Peyote-munchers or stash
>> puffers or the sweet nothings desperately searching for
>> ANY kind of title-rank-status that they never had.
>>
>
>Well, don't look now! But those low-lives are about to pull a BIG
>RETREAT and head for a rec.radio.amateur."something".MODERATED! thread!
> You have seen the list of "moderators?" These are the high priests of
>misinformation, deception and high-thievery-of-radio-frequencies about
>to escape through the back door of the temple! (I can hear their "brass
>heels" pounding pavement now ...)
meaning there NG IF it get launched will die the sma edeath as the BBs
>
>> Overranout, beep, beep,
>
>That's a BIG TEN-FOUR Goodbuddy. Now throw that hammer down, we need to
>be in Shy-Town in the morning (before the "Moderation Sheriff" shows up
>and locks us outa the jail here! <grin>
nothing is suposed to happene to RRAP even if they start they well
controled no change no disagreement allowed NG
which if launched is not likely to amount to anything sadly
>
>My heart-felt regards,
>JS
>
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
I think you have the worng Mike
Gavrielah Hojnacki
<Ma...@kb9rqz.org> wrote in message
news:7klar2tdnussclikg...@4ax.com...
> I think you have the worng Mork
> http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
>
CLEAN THE YARD UP!
http://i10.tinypic.com/4fzaadx.jpg
http://www.badongo.com/vid/277528
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
<Tra...@kornstains.com> wrote:
>
more fraud from stev et al
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
John Smith I
>
> meaning there NG IF it get launched will die the sma edeath as the BBs
Naaa! Let me tell you sonny--old truckers NEVER DIE--they jest git a nu
PeterBilt! AND, those old moderators 'ull niver die, they'll jist git a
new Key-Built!!!
>
> nothing is suposed to happene to RRAP even if they start they well
> controled no change no disagreement allowed NG
>
> which if launched is not likely to amount to anything sadly
Hmmmm, about the same they did with their amateur privileges--didn't let
'em amount to nothin'?
Guess there is jest no acountin' for style ...
3's GudBuddy!,
JS
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ma...@kb9rqz.org wrote:
>
>>
>> meaning there NG IF it get launched will die the sma edeath as the BBs
>
>Naaa! Let me tell you sonny--old truckers NEVER DIE--they jest git a nu
>PeterBilt! AND, those old moderators 'ull niver die, they'll jist git a
>new Key-Built!!!
they will die just no way near soon soon enough
>
>>
>> nothing is suposed to happene to RRAP even if they start they well
>> controled no change no disagreement allowed NG
>>
>> which if launched is not likely to amount to anything sadly
>
>Hmmmm, about the same they did with their amateur privileges--didn't let
>'em amount to nothin'?
or at least to nothing lately it seems
>
>Guess there is jest no acountin' for style ...
or taste
>
>3's GudBuddy!,
robert casey
>
> Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
> just the code test, either.
>
Is there really a problem here? Or is it that we have fun arguing this
issue here? Ham are. for the most part, quite well behaved, unlike the
CBers. So I don't see what is broken in ham radio testing.
Cecil Moore
> One problem with so many amateur licensees is their
> imaginations leading them to believe (wrongly) that
> their (defacto) hobby is a form of "national service"
> just by being federally licensed.
Like I said, the Amateur Radio Service is a one-way
national service being offered *BY* the federal government
*TO* qualified members of the ARS. It is the federal
government that is serving amateur radio, not the other
way around.
Stefan Wolfe
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote in
>> news:1169258433.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>> > Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
>> > questions? I'll post them if you are interested.
>>
>> Always am.
>>
> Here's a sample - lots more to come.
>
>>From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:
>
> Study Question #31:
>
>
> (a) battery with internal resistance,
> (b) resistive load,
> (c) voltmeter,
> (d) ammeter
>
> .
> Study Question #32:
>
>>From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
> the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
> consumed by the load be determined?
>
>
> Study Question #33:
> In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
> order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?
>
>
> Study Question #34:
> Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
> following components:
>
> (a) triode vacuum tube,
> (b) pi-network output tank
> (c) high voltage source
> (d) plate-current meter
> (e) plate-voltage meter,
> (f) rf chokes,
> (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.
>
>
> Study Question #35:
> What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?
>
> These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
> were on the old exams.
>
> The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
> amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe
> license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e".
>
> The question would be something like,
> "which is the coupling capacitor?"
> "which is an rf choke?"
> "what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
> above?"
>
> So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and their
> names
> and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different
> format
> from the study guide.
>
> The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small part
> of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was covered!
>
> How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
> the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
> detail.
This is the first time I have ever seen the old format but I must admit I
prefer the old format to the new, without the answers published in advance.
Actually the new extra class format asks the same sort of questions but
being able to answer the old format seems to more accurately measure one's
basic understanding of an amplifier circuit. I vote for the old. Why did
they change it to multiple guess?
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
>> just the code test, either.
>>
>
>Is there really a problem here?
not realy
> Or is it that we have fun arguing this
>issue here?
no
> Ham are. for the most part, quite well behaved, unlike the
>CBers. So I don't see what is broken in ham radio testing.
this is just the sour grapes of the procoders being splashed all over
the net
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
to remove subjective judgement on the part of the examiners from the
grading proceedure
Stefan Wolfe
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1169507549....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The law's requirements for VEs doesn't require ANY of them
> to possess academic certificates or college degrees nor
> experience in test-giving and test-grading. Privatization of
> ALL radio operator license testing (commercial as well as
> amateur) pretty much dictates the easier-to-grade multiple-
> choice question-answer format. Certainly so for the all-
> volunteer amateur radio test coordinators.
I hadn't thought about it that way but of course it is true that VE's can be
assumed to have no academic qualifications and must grade the tests using a
template with holes. You are absolutely correct on this Len.
KH6HZ
> Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
> "legally" defrauding the US government?
Assuming for a moment that I did, indeed, hold two ship licenses (one of
which was for an ocean-going trawler - lmao) is there a law which states I
cannot hold multiple ship licenses?
> Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
> here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
> "Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
> licenses at one time...
So? Is there a law that places a limit on the # of callsigns one individual
can be trustee of?
> PLUS having given his "residence"
> address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
> only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
> license application.
So? Is there a law (or Part 97 regulation) which states individuals cannot
use PO Boxes for their mailing addresses?
Doesn't Morkie use a PO Box for his license?
> "Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
> that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
> name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
> and dates all point to a single individual.
lmao.. damn Lennie, you've done way too many drugs in your day.
I'm touched that you're so obsessed with my life. It really is quite
hilarious.
I can pick up the Rhodyland phone book and find reference to 3 other Michael
Deignan's in my state alone.
My name is neither uncommon nor unusual, it is, actually, a relatively
common Irish last name, as are my first (and middle) names.
Now, I'll grant you, in the Deep South you're not likely to find many folks
with my last name.. but in Boston? Quite a few.
> FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
> Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
> called a "tell" to investigators.
What's it "tell" that Morkie uses a PO Box for his mailing address?
> A common characteristic
> of those seeking to hide something.
What's Morkie hiding?
I use a PO Box when I have to. No law or regulation states I cannot.
> Anyone with a full
> brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
> so coincidental.
But then again, Lennie, we've known for at least a decade you're not playing
with a full deck.
> The mighty "RF Commandos"
> were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.
Oddly enough, the RF Commandos is still in full operation -- we even have
our own club callsign, used principally for the automated operation of our
hidden transmitters. And *gasp* I'm STILL the trustee! Drop by sometime,
perhaps we'll even let you be the 'fox' in our foxhunts -- though I imagine
there wouldn't be much challenge DFing a drooling old fool in a wheelchair,
would there be?
> I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."
There is no other logical explanation for your attitude other than a cold,
wet diaper. Common with folks your age, Lennie. Probably explains why you
can't get a ham license too.
Cecil Moore
> Why did they change it to multiple guess?
Are the exam questions covered under the
freedom of information act?
John Smith I
> ...
> being able to answer the old format seems to more accurately measure one's
> basic understanding of an amplifier circuit. I vote for the old. Why did
> they change it to multiple guess?
>
>
Amplifier? No such thing!
Just two types of oscillators:
1) Self-sustaining oscillator.
2) Input-controlled oscillator (smaller input--smaller oscillations,
larger input--larger oscillations, "special case"=no input--no
oscillations).
Regards,
JS
John Smith I
> ...
> Is there really a problem here? Or is it that we have fun arguing this
> issue here? Ham are. for the most part, quite well behaved, unlike the
> CBers. So I don't see what is broken in ham radio testing.
Not only that, word on the street is:
Hams are thinner, have more hair, have fewer warts and better looking
than CB'ers too! <attempted-straight-face>
Well, except for the fat-bald-warty-ugly-hams :(
JS
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
><LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
>> "legally" defrauding the US government?
>
>Assuming for a moment that I did, indeed, hold two ship licenses (one of
>which was for an ocean-going trawler - lmao) is there a law which states I
>cannot hold multiple ship licenses?
are you claiming you did or did not
>
>
>> Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
>> here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
>> "Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
>> licenses at one time...
>
>So? Is there a law that places a limit on the # of callsigns one individual
>can be trustee of?
no but it is ilgela to comit fraud to obtain even one
obviously you agreed or you would still own the calls
>
>
>> PLUS having given his "residence"
>> address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
>> only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
>> license application.
>
>So? Is there a law (or Part 97 regulation) which states individuals cannot
>use PO Boxes for their mailing addresses?
no but it is ilegal to use them in order to comit fraud in filing
federal documents
>
>Doesn't Morkie use a PO Box for his license?
no he doesn't
nor is My POBox the issue it is your fruad that is the issue not the
pobox per se
>
>
>> "Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
>> that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
>> name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
>> and dates all point to a single individual.
>
>lmao.. damn Lennie, you've done way too many drugs in your day.
no w desnding to just baseless personal attck way to go MD
>
>I'm touched that you're so obsessed with my life. It really is quite
>hilarious.
obessed? hardly
you were just memorable
>
>I can pick up the Rhodyland phone book and find reference to 3 other Michael
>Deignan's in my state alone.
how many are you?
>
>My name is neither uncommon nor unusual, it is, actually, a relatively
>common Irish last name, as are my first (and middle) names.
>
>Now, I'll grant you, in the Deep South you're not likely to find many folks
>with my last name.. but in Boston? Quite a few.
>
>
>> FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
>> Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
>> called a "tell" to investigators.
>
>What's it "tell" that Morkie uses a PO Box for his mailing address?
so the PoSBoix is merely one of the means you used to comit fraud
>
>
>> A common characteristic
>> of those seeking to hide something.
>
>What's Morkie hiding?
nothing but you are afraid of me
>
>I use a PO Box when I have to. No law or regulation states I cannot.
except when you use em in order to comit fraud
>
>
>> Anyone with a full
>> brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
>> so coincidental.
>
>But then again, Lennie, we've known for at least a decade you're not playing
>with a full deck.
back to the personal attacks
>
>
>> The mighty "RF Commandos"
>> were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.
>
>Oddly enough, the RF Commandos is still in full operation -- we even have
>our own club callsign, used principally for the automated operation of our
>hidden transmitters. And *gasp* I'm STILL the trustee! Drop by sometime,
>perhaps we'll even let you be the 'fox' in our foxhunts -- though I imagine
>there wouldn't be much challenge DFing a drooling old fool in a wheelchair,
>would there be?
>
>
>> I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."
>
>There is no other logical explanation for your attitude other than a cold,
>wet diaper.
lying again
>Common with folks your age, Lennie.
more personal attacks
> Probably explains why you
>can't get a ham license too.
out right lie now MD
N2...@aol.com
The questions I listed above were from the 1976 *Novice* study guide...
>I vote for the old. Why did
> they change it to multiple guess?
It's a bit of a story:
>From the first days of amateur licensing to 1950, all US amateur
license written exams were a mixture of essay questions, draw-a-diagram
questions, show-your-work calculation questions, and multiple choice
questions. Test preparation and grading were all done by FCC or other
government officials (FCC did not exist until the early 1930s).
When the Novice license was created in 1951, its test was all
multiple-choice. But the test preparation and grading were all still
done by FCC. Through the 1950s the other license classes remained as
they had been.
All this time, the license exams were considered almost government
secrets. The actual tests were not public knowledge. Instead, FCC
published "study guides" in essay format that indicated the areas the
tests covered.
About 1961, FCC decided to "modernize" the license tests. They were all
converted to multiple choice format, with a new answer sheet that could
be machine-graded. This transition did not take place overnight, though
- the field offices first used up their supply of old tests before
going to the new ones.
Still, the tests themselves remained secret, and the study guides
stayed in essay format even though the tests themselves were multiple
choice.
By changing the written tests to multiple-choice, the person grading
them did not need to know anything about the test content. This greatly
reduced the FCC's workload in administering the tests. That was the
main reason for the change - to reduce FCC's workload.
In the 1970s, there was a fellow on the West Coast named Dick Bash who
published a series of books whose contents were reportedly almost
identical to the actual tests. He reportedly did this by stationing
himself or a helper outside FCC offices, questioning people who had
just taken the tests, and paying them for each question they could
remember. He also reportedly sent people to FCC to take the tests - not
to pass them, but to remember what was on them.
This caused a lot of outcry and protest in both the amateur community
and FCC. But the top brass at FCC refused to go after Bash, and his
books stayed on the market. Although the rules said that the contents
of the exam were not to be divulged to others, FCC did not stop Bash at
all.
This system continued until about 1983, when FCC created the VE/QPC
system. The VE/QPC system turned over most of the testing work to
unpaid volunteers. The Question Pool Committee prepared and maintained
the questions used on the tests, and the Volunteer Examiners
administered them. VE fees went to pay the direct expenses of the
system - duplicating, facility rental, postage, etc. FCC retained
ultimate control, approving all the questions and setting guidelines,
but leaving the grunt work to unpaid amateur volunteers.
The VE/QPC system meant that the tests could no longer even keep up the
appearance of being secret. The question pools were made public, and
there were no more study guides, since the actual exam was available.
It also relieved FCC of an enormous amount of administrative work,
which was the main reason for the change.
The idea was that the number of questions in the pools would be much
larger than the number on the actual test, and that individual tests
would be made by a random choice of questions from the pools.
That's how we got the system we have now.
73 de Jim, N2EY
AaronJ
>AaronJ wrote:
>> Cecil Moore <myc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> From Webster's: "service - an administrative division,
>>> as of a government"
>>
>> From the Noah Pro definition of hobby:
>> "avocation, by-line, sideline, spare-time activity, an auxiliary activity"
>>
>> Which of our definitions better fits ham radio, service or hobby...
>
>It is by law, Part 97, the "Amateur Radio Service".
Ah, if Webster's fails then try again using the Federal Regs huh... ;)
>That part cannot be argued.
Your *usage* can be argued though. Heck anything can be argued...
>The "service" that is performed is by the federal government for the
>benefit of US citizens.
You said (quote):
"Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one."
If as you say the "service" is that performed by the Government for the
citizens, then how does your sentence make any real sense? Use hobby and it
makes perfect sense.
>It also meets the definition of "hobby". It is not a choice of either/or. It is both.
It is both only if service = hobby. And service does not equal hobby, that was
my point. Everybody here knows what you meant including me. 'Service' has been
used for 'hobby' as long as 'CW' has been used for 'code'. And most hams think
that service means that we perform some kind of terribly useful service to the
public. But the truth be told, we are more a pain in the butt to both the public
and the government than any kind of real service. There. Now can we stop with
the semantics... ;)
KH6HZ
> Not proven at all, Len. In fact, when you argue with Mike,
> you are arguing with a nocodetest person.
Lennie's had the proverbial "hard on" for me since he showed up on USENET
back in the mid 90's. I can only conclude his obsession with me is due to
the fact that I have a ham radio license while, alas, he does not.
> This isn't a new thing, or a secret. Look up his 1998
> comments to the FCC on the subject, if you don't believe me.
What is even more amusing is if you look up Lennie's comments to the FCC,
out of thousands of pages of comments, he felt the need to rebut my comments
virtually line for line.
> He specifically asked FCC to do the following in response to NPRM
> 98-143:
I have always felt stronger (not read: more difficult) theory examinations
were more important to the ARS than morse code testing. It is an opinion
that I hold to this day.
> IOW, he *supported* the NCI proposal of that time! He's a
> dyed-in-the-wool no-coder!
I actually have my NCI membership certificate packed someone in my boxes.
> 3) Reduction of the number of amateur radio license classes
> to two.
I still feel two license classes - a 50MHZ+ and a 30MHZ- would not
necessarily be a bad idea.
> This was almost ten years ago. I don't think Mike has changed
Not at all. I still feel all my ideas presented 8 years ago hold merit
today.
I do not really see any need for two HF licenses. The FCC should simply
eliminate the General license and have a Class A and Class B license.
> Well, it's interesting to see that you can be nasty to those
> who agree with you....
Since Lennie's first appearance... oh, 10? years ago, he's pretty much been
a nasty fellow.
As I've posted in the past, he reminds me a great deal of my
long-since-departed paternal grandmother, who was so miserable, she had to
try and make everyone else around her miserable too. I can only conclude
that Lennie's inability to get a ham license has made him very, very
miserable.
73
KH6HZ