David Stinson wrote:
Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

All HAM related skills came into play during the power outage. People
laughed at me when I study for the exam. During the power outage, when
the computers did not power on when the button was pressed. We used
handheld to communicate between the head office and regional offices.

cw came into play for a short period of time.

Dwaine.

Bobby wrote:
Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,

I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Dwaine.

Dwaine Garden ) writes:
Bobby wrote:
Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,

I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Dwaine.

I doubt it. It wasn't hard when I took the test back in 1972, at age
12. When the restructuring in Canada took place in 1990, the rules changed
so you couldn't build and use a transmitter unless you passed the advanced
test. Surely that has made the basic test simpler, since there is no
expectation that someone taking that license has to ensure homemade equipment
works.

Aren't there sample questions around? Check the Radio Amateur's of Canada
website at http://www.rac.ca and if they don't have them there, there
must be a link to a site that does have them.

Michael VE2BVW

I believe it would be really interesting to have a HAM that got his
license back in the 50's, 60's or even 70's take a new test but not
given anytime to study.(like a spot test at a Hamfest with.) Any guess
as to how many would pass? My guess is under 25%. Most Ham don't have
a clue how there equipment works and even less of a glue about Math.
Most that pass would be working electronic engineers and even a per cent
of them would fail. I believe more would pass a CW test at 10 WPM than
a theory and regulation test.

Ron WA0KDS




Michael Black wrote:

Dwaine Garden ) writes:


Bobby wrote:


Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,


I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Dwaine.



I doubt it. It wasn't hard when I took the test back in 1972, at age
12. When the restructuring in Canada took place in 1990, the rules changed
so you couldn't build and use a transmitter unless you passed the advanced
test. Surely that has made the basic test simpler, since there is no
expectation that someone taking that license has to ensure homemade equipment
works.

Aren't there sample questions around? Check the Radio Amateur's of Canada
website at http://www.rac.ca and if they don't have them there, there
must be a link to a site that does have them.

Michael VE2BVW

"Bobby" wrote in message
news:bFY1b.241791$uu5.50053@sccrnsc04...
Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,
HiFi, home theatre, antique radios, and ham radio. I am planning on
getting a license, but I thought that code was needed for a technicians
class. I thought wrong, but still plan on learning it. It is interesting
to me, kinda like be interested in a new language. Also, never know when
it may come in handy. Maybe ID4("Independence Day", the movie) has
predicted some future use for it. Just kidding, but anymore, who knows?
There may be life out there, somewhere.

Anyways, to get back on track, I have a reprint of the Radio Handbook,
23rd Edition, by the late Bill Orr W6SAI. There is a schematic for a
simple code practice oscillator that I am going to build. Sure there are
some that can be bought, but how fun is that. I enjoy getting in there
and dealing with all of the hardware. I do my own car repairs, and it is
a 1998 Chrysler Sebring. Electronics galore in that monster. One of
these days, hopefully sooner than later, I may just be conversing with
one of the hams who regular this NG. Cheaper than a long distance phone
call, at least if you don't consider the cost of the equipment.

Gotta go,

Bobby

That's the way to do it Bobby, guys should stop the bitching take the test
(if you want to be a ham bad enough) Think about it...I bitched and moaned
for almost 10 years as a No Code Tech as to why we dont need CW, but I guess
I wanted the General license bad enough, so I learned enough to pass the
exam and now Im on HF, was it so hard? Nope, took me a while to learn but it
was worth every minute spent learning it, hate to say it but its now my
favorite mode.
Why do we have to take the CW exam?
Because its there, it has been from day one and we should respect
that....Period!
Its part of the requirements to become a Ham.

gil

gil wrote:
Why do we have to take the CW exam?
Because its there, it has been from day one and we should respect
that....Period!
Its part of the requirements to become a Ham.

Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?

Ya know, it's funny. I was reading _50 years of the ARRL_ the past
few days. And in in the 50's people were bitching about appliance
operators. Oh, and I might add, the relevancy of morse code. There
was talk about "I wish the ARRL would stop trying to force SSB down
our throats." And a great wailing and gnashing of teeth because
Collins dropped their AM transmitter line. Go figure. I guess part
of the tradition of amateur radio is being a Luddite.

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?

Was that ever part of the test?

All I'm saying is that a lot of the newbies and anti-code guys want to
change the exam to accomodate their wants/needs.

13 wpm was too much, now 5wpm is too much, do away with the code then the
debate will be...why should we learn or know anyting about radio when we can
just go to the store and buy a rig with lots of watts so we can chat with
someone on the other side of the world with no problem? No No wait....lets
give them a telephone call so we can talk without QRM!


Why not just eliminate all exams and rules and regulations?



"Jeffrey D Angus" wrote in message
...


gil wrote:
Why do we have to take the CW exam?
Because its there, it has been from day one and we should respect
that....Period!
Its part of the requirements to become a Ham.

Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?

Ya know, it's funny. I was reading _50 years of the ARRL_ the past
few days. And in in the 50's people were bitching about appliance
operators. Oh, and I might add, the relevancy of morse code. There
was talk about "I wish the ARRL would stop trying to force SSB down
our throats." And a great wailing and gnashing of teeth because
Collins dropped their AM transmitter line. Go figure. I guess part
of the tradition of amateur radio is being a Luddite.

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

gil wrote:
Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?


Was that ever part of the test?

All I'm saying is that a lot of the newbies and anti-code guys want to
change the exam to accomodate their wants/needs.

13 wpm was too much, now 5wpm is too much, do away with the code then the
debate will be...why should we learn or know anyting about radio when we can
just go to the store and buy a rig with lots of watts so we can chat with
someone on the other side of the world with no problem? No No wait....lets
give them a telephone call so we can talk without QRM!


Why not just eliminate all exams and rules and regulations?

What I'm trying to point out is the relevancy of the testing
requirements. Morse code proficiency isn't relevant any more. It
hasn't been for quite some time. And as you pointed out, spark was
outlawed. So far, that's the ONLY mode that has been outlawed by the
FCC. But the "test for morse code proficiency" people keep acting
like eliminating the code test requirement is the same thing as
outlawing morse code and CW on the amateur bands.

I've made it quite clear a number of times in the past that the testing
requirements should be relevant to current technology, modes of
operation and regulations.

I've also pointed out that morse code has done NOTHING to eliminate the
morons from the amateur radio bands. (Witness the usual nonsense on the
upper ends of 80 and 40 meters. Those are ALL code tested licensees.)

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 97--AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec. 97.1 Basis and purpose.


The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an
amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the
following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service
to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through
rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.


Funny, I don't believe I see ANYTHING in there about it being a hobby,
or heritage. Specifically, tell me how morse code proficiency relates to
paragraph (b)

Jeff
wa6fwi


--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:43:34 -0400, scharkalvin
wrote:

I've heard some very good things about PSK31, and I'd like to try it. I
need
to build myself an interface for my computer sound card to my rig.

Geez, I wish the board builders would stop selling these boards. You
don't need ANY extra equipment to get on PSK31. The radio stays on
USB so you can copy many stations SIMULTANEOUSLY on slightly different
frequencies inside the SSB-width "channel", like 14.070. Plug the
headphone output of the modern HF rig into the LINE IN on the
computer's sound card.

Now, plug the audio output, preferably LINE OUT if your sound card has
it, into the radio's LINE IN if it has one. If not, connect audio
output on the sound card to a 500 ohm thumbwheel pot or whatever you
have handy. Connect the wiper arm to the mic input jack and tweak
around with the pot setting to get the best power level with the MIC
LEVEL on the radio set about 1/2 way open. This keeps the soundcard
from overdriving the rig's sensitive mic input amp.

TURN ON THE VOX! You don't NEED any kind of "switching computer" to
run it! The VOX hears the tone on the mic jack and KEYS THE
TRANSMITTER AS LONG AS THE TONE IS THERE! Who needs an "interface"??
When you switch to receive, the VOX drops. Set the VOX DELAY to ZERO
during PSK31 and it's perfect! The tone controls the
transmitter....(c;

There, I just saved you $50....I like dark English ale....thanks!

But good as it is, PSK31 still requires a computer and more rig than a
simple CW setup. CW works it's magic using that gray lump between your
ears and the simplest of transmitting and receiving electronics. You'll
never
get PSK31 to work with a one tube rig and no computer.

Oh, please......(sigh). If it'll make you feel better, plug a DOS 3.3
machine into an old Drake TR-4 and use its VOX......

I suppose if you wanted to tough it out you could FSK the 78 tube's
Hartley oscillator a tiny bit. PSK31 is very forgiving....and free!



Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.

Wow! You'd probably faint if you saw the moon bounce rig I used to
have! I ran 1500W PEP into 33dB of stacked beams over 3 megawatts
ERP!



On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:24:37 GMT, "SQL Servant"
wrote:

I used to subscribe to that theory, but no more. There was a time when CW
was the best mode for weak signal work, but as of my last experience (1990
or so) AMTOR had it beat hands down. I hear that AMTOR has since been
replaced with yet more efficient digital modes.

Sure, if you hoard a few kHz of your bandwidth for your
mode, you're certain to have better data transfer integrity.
The U.S. military has some real bandwidth hogging modes
they use. You're comparing apples-n-oranges to compare
CW to even AMTOR. You should realize that! Are you
trying to support your feeble point of view through deliberate
misrepresentation or are you really this ignorant of radio
emission and spectrum occupation? If it's the latter, I hope
you're no longer licensed or on the air.





Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.