RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 26th 03, 11:06 PM

On 26 Oct 2003 19:00:14 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Responses below:

In article , Leo
writes:

snip

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, ...)

Pretty much the same here - block diagrams and 'fill in the
blanks'schematics, with multiple choice answers.

snip

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.

Well, the Heath SSB transceiver was the most complicated piece of
radio equipment that I've tackled so far for restoration. If I was
going to try a 'designed by me' homebrew project, it would be a QRP
tansmitter - fairly simple to construct and
troubleshoot...comparatively, anyway!

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?

Over 50% are qualified at the Advanced Level (requirement:
examinations consisting of the Basic 100 multiple-choice questions,
plus an additional 50 on advanced radio theory).

I pulled a quick count of the total licence stats from the RAC website
this afternoon, and the (rough) totals are as follows:

Total licences issued: 57, 188
Basic Qualification: 28, 047
Advanced Qualification: 29, 141

In addition, the total number of Canadian hams with Morse endorsements
on their licence is 31,557 - approximately 55%..

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" (!)

Good story!

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".

No disrespect intended, Jim - poor choice of words on my part here.
The point was to illustrate the carryover of common CW abbreviations
into the spoken communications of the hobby.

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.

Interesting - do you recall the specific issue? I'd like to read
that!

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.

Think you hit the nail on the head there!

snip

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.

Absolutely not - the writtens are intended to ensure that everyone
operating an amateur station is aware of the rules and regulations,
similar to the written driving tests that must be passed before
allowing folks out on the road.

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

Morse code would be the hands down winner here. Sadly, the number of
homebrew guys is quite small these days....

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?

Good question - but removal of the theoretical questions would likely
have a much more dramatic effect on the overall technical competence
level within the hobby than the removal of code testing would.
Without an understanding of radio theory, operators would be limited
in their potential to grow into new areas of the hobby!

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.

They sure would....

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo