In article , Leo
writes:
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.
It could be argued that having to identify what a particular component in a
schematic actually does is at least as much an indication of knowledge about
that schematic as is simply being able to draw it.
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.
Which one?
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!
And it would be a transmitter for which mode?
Consider that one of the primary goals of the amateur radio service is
technical education - or perhaps I should say, self-education.
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).
Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in
and take the Advanced exam straightaway?
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
So we have almost exactly 50-50 split Basic/Advanced. Interesting to know. And
VE amateur radio licenses total a little more than 8% of those in the USA. (Of
course the populations are different too).
In addition, the total number of Canadian hams with Morse endorsements
on their licence is 31,557 - approximately 55%..
let's see - in the USA before the recent changes it was 470,000 out of 675,000
- just under 70%.
Looks like Canada may be the next to simply drop Morse testing, though.
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!
There's a matching story about railroad trains and hot boxes which proves the
other point.
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.
None taken!
The point was to illustrate the carryover of common CW abbreviations
into the spoken communications of the hobby.
I can remember some hams back in the '60s doing such things as saying "Kay"
instead of "over" at the end of a voice transmission. This was on 6 meter AM,
of all things.
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!
Late 1930s - 38 I think. IIRC it was by K.B. Warner, who was one of the key
(pun intended) figures in amateur radio from the mid' 20s until his death about
1948. KBW was second only to HPM in this regard, but is not nearly so widely
known.
There was also a column in the late '40s and early '50s called "Phone Band
Phunnies" that described and decried certain bad habits some 'phone ops tended
to acquire.
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!
"Say it with words". Heck, "Cue Ess Ell" is three syllables, while "Roger" or
"OK" is two.
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.
OK, fine - the written exams must include the regulations. And perhaps some
safety (RF exposure rules) to protect others.
But what about the rest of the writtens?
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....
It's that way for a number of reasons, the primary one being economic.
Some of us, however, still design and build our own rigs. Note how we are
sometimes met (not by you, Leo) with disbelief and ridicule for doing so.......
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.
Is that really true?
Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of Advanced
vs. Basic hams in Canada?
Is there a dramatic difference in the overall technical competence of the
various license classes in the USA?
Without an understanding of radio theory, operators would be limited
in their potential to grow into new areas of the hobby!
Sure - but is it the function of the license exams to force that understanding
on everyone?
In the Canadian system, if I understand it correctly, a ham who wants to
homebrew has to learn more theory, and a ham who only wants to use manufactured
gear can stick with the Basic. Or are there more privileges than the ability to
homebrew granted with the Advanced?
In the USA, every ham can homebrew, but to get access to more HF spectrum, one
must jump through the hoop of additional written testing, even if one has no
intention of building anything.
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....
All regulations start out simple. Then real life gets hold of them.
73 de Jim, N2EY