In article , Leo
writes:

Devil's Advocate mode = ON

That's the spirit!

Still ON, too...


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.

That was one reason for the content of the writtens, at least here in the USA.
If you look at the old "study guides" of the 40s/50s/60s, they are quite
focused on issues like band edges, harmonic/spurious emissions, rectifiers and
filters, modulation and measurements - all sorts of things one would need to
have some familarity with to operate a properly adjust a transmitter of those
times. Receivers and antennas, OTOH, got relatively little attention.

"Incentive licensing" was (in part) a move by the FCC to increase the
technological know-how of hams by requiring them to know more theory.

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(by the 60s, in this example) they were outdated, and retired.

I don't think that sort of thing was retired in the US because it was
"outdated" but simply because it made less work for FCC to go with only
multiple choice questions. Multiple choice also removes all subjectivity from
grading - either you picked the one right answer and get 100% credit for that
question, or you picked one of the wrong answers and get 0% credit.

It can also be argued that being required to draw diagrams does not really
indicate anything other than the ability to memorize a drawing, with little or
no understanding of what it really represents or how the device functions.

Schematic and block diagrams are still part of the US exams, btw. For example,
a block diagram will be shown, with all of the blocks except one labeled as to
function. The question will be something like "The block diagram of a
superheterodyne FM receiver is shown - what is the function of the unlabeled
block?". And the person being tested has to pick the correct choice. Or a
schematic is shown, and one component identified, and the question asks what
that component does. I recall questions on my exams back in the '60s where an
incomplete drawing was shown, and the question asked what was needed to
complete it (1 - capacitor from Point A to Point B, 2 - Inductor from Point C
to Point A, ...)

How much radio knowledge should new hams be expected to learn before they get
the license? Beyond the basic rules, regs and safety, that's purely a matter of
personal opinion - just like the code test.

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.

I've been doing it since Novice days back in 1967. Not that hard if you start
off with simple projects and work towards more complex ones. What mode permits
the most results from the simplest equipment? Hint: It's not SSB.

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.

Wow! There's never been such restrictions on US hams. What's the ratio of
Advanced to Basic hams in Canada, anyway?

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!

A story:

There's an old story (various versions exist) about how someone's Grandma made
the best brisket in the world. Before she passed away, one of the grandkids
made one with her and wrote down every single instruction. And the first step
was to cut off an inch or two from the end.

The recipe and procedure was passed down for generations and everyone in the
family cut off an inch or two from the end as the first step.

Then someone discovered an old, old letter from Grandma in which she described
the procedure to a long-dead relative. Grandma writes: "First thing I do is to
cut off an inch or so from the end - because the briskets the butcher gives me
are always a little bigger than the pan I like to use" (!)



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.

I'm not "conservative" - I do the radical thing of saying "noise" or
"interference".

The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to
indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own...

I found an article in a QST from the 1930s decrying such things, so they aren't
new at all.

My theory is that some hams use CW abbreviations on 'phone in an attempt to
portray themselves as somehow so steeped in CW practices that they "forget".
Oddly enough, the most proficient CW ops I know don't do such things.

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.

Then would you want to wipe out most of the written exams? Because, after all,
most hams don't cause problems - nor do most hams build their own rigs.

Which do you think is more common in today's amateur radio - a homebrew station
or a ham that uses Morse code?

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.

Sure, some would.

If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people
still take the time to learn it?

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......

They would arise again out of necessity.

73 de Jim, N2EY