On 27 Oct 2003 01:30:02 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


snipped at various parts below...


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.


True enough - although the exam I took centered almost exclusively on
tank circuits and calculation of resonant component values..

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?

SB-400. Cosmetically OK, but a disaster inside - corroded rotary
switches, poor solder joints, wiring errors (17 of them - including
one which shorted out the LSB crystal - somebody must have been less
than happy with this set ...) and of course a complete set of high-ESR
electrolytics. Almost 50 hours on the bench to get it up and
running....

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?

CW, most likely - I would prefer to start with something relatively
simple.

Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in
and take the Advanced exam straightaway?

No experience requirements (they were dropped years ago) - it is
possible to write the Basic and Advanced exams concurrently on the
same day.


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).

33 Million in Canada, approximately 1/10 of the US, I believe...


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.


Haven't heard much on this so far! I posted the results of the survey
condusted by the Radio Amateurs of Canada a while back - it has been
submitted to Industry Canada (the FCC equivalent), but nothing since
then. No idea how long a decision will take - we have a system of
NPRMs here as well, and we're waiting for some indication one way or
the other.

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!

Glad to hear that!


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.


Have a look at the following web site - a humourous view of this sort
of thing gone wild....entitled "How To Sound Like A Lid"...


http://www.dxzone.com/cgi-bin/search...D=1750&ID=1750


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.......


And I really am incapable of understanding this behaviour. The
ability to visualise, design and implement amateur radio equipment is
a gift - one that the amateur community should hold in the highest
regard. Anyone could purchase and operate a modern HT, with minimal
training - it takes a great deal of skill to create something from
nothing. And, for those who enjoy the traditions of the hobby,
homebrewing harkens right back to day one!


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?


Not as much as there was years ago, I suspect - testing has become
very much simplified over the last 40 years...

The Advanced level, like the Extra, does require a fair amount of
additional radio knowledge to pass. Is it enough? It depends - I'm
not aware of a study that would indicate whether the goals of the
testing were being met!

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.

Here, an amateur with a Basic licence has access to all bands above 30
MHz. Add on a Morse Code test, and full access to the bands under 30
MHz is granted.

The Advanced kicence, aside from providing the ability to homebrew
transmitting equipment, provides a couple of other perks - high power
TX operation, the ability to operate a repeater, and the ability to
apply to become a volunteer examiner. There are a couple of other
minor ones as well, but I don't recall them at the moment!

No annual renewal fees are due (these were dropped in 2000).

Those with a Basic licence are encouraged to homebrew as well - only
transmitters are legally excluded from that licence class. Modems,
receivers, antennas - no problem.

I suppose that a basic requirement for entry into this hobby is, and
always has been, an interest in the technical aspects of radio
communications. And, for the level of freedom to experiment that this
hobby provides, I don't feel that it is unrealistic to expect new
licencees to be required to demonstrate technical competency, in the
form of written exams. I would assume that those whose desire to
become a ham is strong enough would also be the type of folks who
would want to continue to learn and grow. Perhaps I'm wrong - but the
people that I have met so far (for the most part) follow this model.


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

73, Leo