Thanks, Jim - my comments are in the text below.

On 25 Oct 2003 12:29:48 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby.

Sounds reasonable, Leo. Different from the "created today" idea but worth a
look.

Guess I could have phrased it a bit better in my earlier posts - sorry
for the confusion!


Devil's Advocate mode = ON

That's the spirit!


Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters.

That's one way to look at it. OTOH, in 1930 there *were* problems with
transmitters splattering, chirping, clicking and buzzing all over the bands,
and getting outside the band as well. So it could be argued that the tests were
there to try to cure a problem as well.

That makes sense - a cause - and - effect relationship is very
possible as well. Strong justification for adding requirements to a
licence test - solving real-time problems. The success of the
additional tests can be measured by the impact on the issue.


Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested.

Drawing schematics as part of the test (in the USA) was removed at least 40
years ago, when FCC went to 100% multiple choice. (1960 or 1961, for amateur
tests up to at least General, which had all privileges at the time.)

They hung on through the mid 60s up here, according to an old licence
manual that I found recently. My point was, though, that rules like
this made sense at one time in the history of the hobby, but later on
(by the 60s, in this example) they were outdated, and retired.

To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

Here too - and that is one of the attractions for me, to be able to
try out just about anything on-the-air - experimentation at its best.
(no from-scratch projects yet - just a rebuild of an old Heathkit TX
from the 60s, and a few old military transceivers - I have a WS-19
almost ready to go!) I envy the guys who can build TX equipment from
scratch - my theory is not quite that current - yet.

The only difference up here is that building or repairing amateur
transmitting equipment is restricted to those holding the Advanced
licence (the higher of the two that we currently have). Basic licence
holders must operate commercially built transmitters designed
specifically for use on the amateur bands. The intent id to ensure
that those building or repairing TX equipment have sufficient
theoretical radio knowledge to do it right (theoretically, of course!)
and produce equipment that does not interfere with other users or
transmit out-of-band signals.


My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been".

At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of
time often do so for very good reasons.

True - but some tend to hang on for no reason at all. If there is a
good reason to keep something, then by all means it should be
retained!


To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech,

I don't! ;-)

Oops - there I go generalizing again! Make that 'almost everyone'!
:*p . But even some of the most conservative among us tend to refer
to noise as QRM or QRN, or use QSL to request verification of the
contact at least. The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to
indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own...


even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Sure - but what constitutes solid reasoning varies from person to person. I
think that the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of hams all over the
world use Morse on the HF ham bands is a solid reason to require at least a
test for skill in the mode at a very basic level - say, 5 wpm. Others disagree.


I don't think that I would agree that this would be a reason for
testing CW competence - more of a solid reason for keeping CW alive as
an approved mode on the bands. I tend to view making something a
mandatory requirement in order to correct a problem, or ensure
competency to prevent a problem. If CW was not a mandatory
requirement, would people still take the time to learn it? I believe
that they would - those who are interested enough to use it anyway.


Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

Agreed! But experience has shown otherwise.

Very true, unfortunately. One can only imagine a world free of
regulators and lawyers......

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo