What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


[snip]


Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any
CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use.
Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.


Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using
only
their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name.

I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA
amateur radio operators...

Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job
(contesting) for which it is ill-suited.

And you keep changing the parameters of the challenge.


That's because CWGet fails in almost all contest situations. It cannot
handle the QRM caused by all the stations calling at once.

Are you saying that of those amateurs that learned the code, that they
are all still highly proficient in it? I think most learned the code
as a licensing hurdle, and never looked back.


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient.
I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for
failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw
contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out
their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my
call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the
exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's
sad but that's their problem.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...


While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels. When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've
only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that?
They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use
them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on.

It
doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at
the
same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse
code.
So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything.

Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet.

So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed
(the
human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually
keyed
code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no
particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and
still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality
and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human
brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or
just call it a night and go to bed.

OK.


[snip]

You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic
knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what
Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis
something magical.

Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there
is
NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have
operating
experience.

They don't even have a definition of what Morse Code is within the
rules of the last service required to have a Morse Code exam. I think
that tells the story.


The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse
Code that is sufficient for the purpose. The FCC doesn't need to define it.
They say we must pass the International Morse Code. It is sufficient that
the dot/dash sequence is defined for the characters. The weighting,
spacing, and speed can be varied to suit the conditions. For test purposes,
the Council of VECs establishes the test standard and that is sufficient
since all who go test have the opportunity to train using the exact
parameters (tone, weighting, spacing, speed, etc) that will be used on the
test. The variations that occur in the real world can be learned on the
air.

[snip]
I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or
otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional
certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American
Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with
engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia.

Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the
electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical
engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since
they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the
electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the
other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure
vessal
theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that.

You're talking about the working world.

Were you able to hire out your studies in college?


Since we weren't required to take electrical engineering courses, it is not
relevant. Would you require EEs to take basic mechanical engineering
courses? That would chew up a couple of years.

Were you able to hire out your PE exams?


Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or
registration or whatever they call it these days. Plus there are study
guides specifically aimed at the content of the PE exam. Plus the exam for
a structural engineer is different from the one for a mechanical engineer is
different from the one for an electrical engineer, etc.

Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional
engineer........

Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as
calculus
and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were
not
taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical
engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory.

OK.

Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am
perfectly
capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class
for
our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my
husband
attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra.

You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer
without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough.

You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the
area
to which I referred.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?


No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup
as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my
usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there. One needs to
learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take
them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want
to further explore various branches of amateur radio.

Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of
engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my
work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On
the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33
years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic.
The ironic part is that Fortran was a class I hated in college and struggled
to get through (Basic was not in use at the time). Once I was out in the
real world working on software to use in real situations, I found it to be
quite easy and fun.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license. Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Nope.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate
software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


Beats me. But you know what they say. There's the right way, the wrong way
and the Army way. I would not presume to pass judgement on their training.
However it may be that some of the recruits have not yet learned to read a
schematic and have never operated a soldering iron. I'm quite sure that is
not part of basic training.

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up
and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?


So what if it is boring. That is no reason not to learn it. I suspected
that digital would end up being boring but since I believe that a person
should be striving to increase their knowledge and skills, I decided it was
time to become familiar with this area. Afterall, I might find myself in
the position of being asked to Elmer someone in this area.

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if
there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.


They have different goals and objectives than amateur radio. Government
agencies and commercial business do not have the goal of individual self
training and experimentation. Comparing amateur radio to
government/commercial applications is like comparing apples to pomegranates.
They're both red fruits but there the similarity ends.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

[snip]

Depends on how bad you want the privileges. Just don't ask for something
for nothing. Originally I had no interest in ham radio but my husband at
the time dragged me to a class as something we could do together. As I
got
involved, I found it interesting. I deduced very early on that what I
wanted to get out of ham radio would best be served by going all the way
to
Extra. Since I wanted the privileges, I met the requirements including
the
20 wpm.

So if he dragged you to a class, how did you end up presiding over the
class that took him to Extra?


Different husband. My previous husband dragged me to the Tech class. We
split up a few years later. Then after that I met the man who was to become
my current husband. It is my current husband who took the Extra class that
I was teaching. Sorry for the confusion there.

Although it would have been possible for me to have taught my previous
husband since I reached Extra a couple of months before he did.

Not everyone wants those privileges. Kim is a case in point. She is a
Tech
Plus and could have gotten her General with just a written test and no
further code testing as of April 2000. She chose not to because she did
not
really like HF operations. The typical background static of HF bothers
her.
Her interests lie in VHF and up. Since she has full privileges there,
the
General does not serve her goals.

Yep. Technician is a whole lot of priveleges.

That's the beauty of anon postings, they don't have to follow their own
"style."

Very true. But it takes a lot of discipline to consistently write in a
different style and not make tell tale slips. When Len Anderson was
posting
as Avery Fineman, it was quite obvious they were the same person.

When I post as Hot-Ham, there's no intent to deceive. There is an
intent to have a throw-away email address that I've checked the mailbox
content about twice. It can fill up with all that spam that the
spammers desire.

I Am What I Am. That a famous quote of Popeye.


And I don't criticize some one who does that. It is only when there is the
apparent intent to deceive (Len Anderson) or the appaerent intent to violate
their ISPs TOS (Mark Morgan), that it is unreasonable.

I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request.
I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I
seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do.

Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than
I have.

That's so swell of him.

I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just
tit for tat. No?

Doesn't really matter as with the internet this information is findable
one
way or another if one cares to go after it. Posting it here only shows
that
you have the internet search skills of any average user and get some kind
of
juvenile thrill out of posting it.

Dee, N8UZE

The intent is to intimidate.


Such an attempt is foolish. Anyone who is intimidated by that must not be
aware how easy that information is to find these days.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Slow Code wrote:

Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people
in
the
group anymore.

SC

Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful.

No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan,

I see Mark Morgan as the necessary balance in the vicious postings
by
Robesin.

He doesn't need to create dozens of posts to refute each one.

You don't get to decide that. Has Robesin accused you of lesbian
encounters or pedophilia?

When he does, I'll be sure to keep track of the ratio of Robesin
postings to Dee postings.

Well if such an odd thing should ever happen, I'll killfile him. I
refuse
to get sucked into such stupidity.

And one day when your job depends on a security background
investigation and accusations of homosexuality, pedophilia, and rape...



Whether or not I were to respond to such accusations would make no
difference as the postings would still be in the archive. If it did cause a
problem in that area, I'd certainly take legal action against the poster and
the company who accepted such unfounded accusations.


[snip]

Stupid? It was sexual harassment. That's illegal isn't it?

Hard to say. One would have to weigh it against the specific wording of
the
law and adjudicated cases to determine if it was or was not illegal.

Good side-step.


No not a side step. I'm not a lawyer, judge, legal expert, or a juror
weighing evidence in such a case. So I don't have sufficient data to make
such a judgement.

Are Bruce and Dan in your killfile? Are "thier" anonymous characters
in your killfile?


They've been gone so long, I don't know. I clean out the file and start it
over about once or twice a year.

[snip]

Dee from Deetroit? I like Michigan but Detroit isn't my favorite
place.


Actually I live in one of the suburbs not Detroit itself. However, there
are some good things in Detroit. They have a full slate of pro sports teams
and an absolutely wonderful opera company.

[snip]

I think amateur radio is one of the best hobbies ever, and it can also
serve in an emergency communications roll.


On that we agree. So on that upbeat note, let's conclude this extensive
discussion (it was fun but we've kind of beaten it to death) and go work
some radio.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 6:49pm

wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 1:28pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 21 2006 4:01pm
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

Jimmie will NEVER admit to using any pseudonyms. :-)

Jim doesn't want to tell a lie, so he avoids the question... pretend it
wasn't asked.

...and then tries to misdirect the whole thread! :-)

OK, that's 'Quitefine' with me...:-)

Quiterite!

Notice that Miccolis hasn't commented about "Quitefine"? :-)

Jimmie is a proud amateur "serving his country in other ways"
such as playing with his radio hobby, spreading "international
good will" by working DX on HF with CW. :-)

A-1 Operator!

Is he into the sauce? :-)

Which one? There are 57 varieties.

Is "A-1" a Heinz product?

"Slow Code" could be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.

Not in Miccolis' petty prissy manner of "always being correct."
[i.e., thinking as Miccolis thinks...all else is "wrong"]

Miccolis already tried at least one pseudonym. That pesudo
STOPPED when confronted. [that's in the Google archives]
But, but, but...Miccolis (who never swears) swears "it wasn't
him!" AS IF. :-)

Squeaky Clean.

Squeak...mouse..."the mouse that roared."

Into a maze of his own making.

Too bad Miccolis never joined the IEEE. He would have had a
ball with their annual Mouse in a Maze contest. He could
have explained that all engineering involves maze solutions
and that Reggie Fessenden was the first maze solver and
ENIAC computed him to be the winner. :-)

Ditto
Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who "appears" to
be absent from RRAP.

Maybe it is Val Germann, frustrated that he can't get his
(code speed) up? :-)

Probably never tried. For if he had really, really tried, he could
have been a 20WPM, Code-Tape Extra.

One of Missouri's Finest!

But he didn't try, for if anyone ever tries, they would suceede.

Lazy? Dumbed-down? :-)


Maybe it is Lamont Cranston? "Who knows what evil lurks in
the hearts of No-Coders?" :-)

Little Billy Beeper's mentor?

Nah. Wouldn't be close to Hans Brakob. Hans has a sense
of humor. Humor is very rare among morsemen; Hans is a
morseman but is NOT for the US amateur radio code test. :-)

Blowcode is just an Attention-WANTER, making trouble so he
can feel "famous." All he can think about is memorized
lines from the ARRL hymnbook of a half century past. He
can't think for himself. His bigotry is in the way.

Then he really, really could be Jim.

...only if Miccolis is developing Alternate Personalities.

He DOES seem to be developing his Major Dud side...emulating
the group's Great [military] Imposter. Before long he might
be mentioning wives, joining a local CAP, getting his pix in
QRZ. :-)

who has used a wide variety of screen names
here, ("billy beeper", "hot ham and cheese", to name just a few)
usually without including his name or callsign.

I understand that Brian Burke has received a whole lot less spam email
on his regular user account than when he posted here under his name and
call. I also understand that he let go of "Billy Beeper" at Han's
Brakob's request, as "Billy Beeper" was an invention of Hans, a
fictitious boy who feared evil No-Coders.

There's lots of fictitious BOYS in here fearing evil No-Coders.

Most of them use pseudonyms. No guts. No courage. No brains.

They hide behind their BFO-enabled beeping, afraid to stray
beyond the anonymity of their monotonic dots and dashes...and
dreams of glory and honor via morsemanship..."serving their
country in 'other' ways." :-)

They wished.

They wish so hard they think it is real. Poor babies.



And if they clicked their heeels together...

...they would all turn into the Wicked Witch. :-)

Come to think of it, some HAVE! :-)

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Sun, Oct 29 2006 6:32am

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Heh heh heh...I can't wait to see Dee's answer on that! :-)

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

Gosh, from what I've seen, DATA on ham bands is a lot like
the old computer-modem comms by wireline! Sort of like the
Internet and USENET access now. Maybe Dee just get 'bored'
easily?

Maybe Dee actually "works" USENET by morse code and her ISP
'translates' that into text? :-)

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Sunnuvagun! :-)

Maybe the whole rest of the radio world KNOWS something that the
morsepersons don't?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 7:49pm

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

So who do you think "Slow Code" is? Coslo? Miccolis? Roll? Deignan?
Dan, Dan the CB Radio Man?

Haven't a clue on Slow Code. The style doesn't sound like Coslo or
Miccolis.

Obviously it's someone who's been here awhile.

...or someone who has read a lot of ham magazines and
faithfully followed the ARRL's hymnbook.

Don't really know the style of the other fellows writing.

Troll was the racist poster ("My favorite black on the bus...," and
"Welfare mothers of Color with their hands out...").

K3LT, the claimed summa cum laude in human resources
study at some college, claiming he "could get any job
he wanted" in that field after graduation. He became
a bus driver. :-)

Deignan was the vanity callsign collector and the original "RF
Commando." He called me a liar when I said he had collected 12
callsigns, but I was wrong - one of the callsigns actually belonged to
his wife at the same address. So I guess I was a liar after all. I
should have known that he had a Ham Wife that collected vanity
callsigns, too.

Was it his wife or his sister? [it's been awhile...]

Deignan's buddy in Hawaii loaned him his PO Box number so he could scam
some Hawaiin calls, meanwhile, the Hawaiin PO Box owner was scamming a
Guam callsign. Never been to Guam and could have operated /KH2 like I
did for two years. I guess a Hawaiin Call Stroke Guam Call is a pretty
cool thing...

The Hawaiian buddy was Jeffrey Herman...who feigned
"innocence" on getting the Hawaii PO Box in here! :-)

Yeah, riiiight, knowing Deignan LIVED in Rhode Island
Herman got him a Hawaii PO Box address for "vacation"
mail or something? :-)

Anyway, these are the guys who pass judgement on me because I am too
fat, lazy, and stupid to buy into the whole Morse Exam stuff at 5, and
then 13, and then 20 WPM.

The Morsemen are the Masters! :-)

Morsemen are 'superior' beings above us mundanes... :-)

Fifty-three years ago I first fired-up on HF with a
1 KW transmitter running RTTY. My "first" really big
HF transmission. :-)

Didn't get trained in "CW" by the Army, didn't have to
use "CW" to transmit on HF or VHF or UHF for the next
three years...the middle year involving responsibility
of running a team of operators manning 36 to 40
transmitters. No license required. Perfectly legal.
Never needed nor used "CW" since on frequencies that
ranged from LF on up to 25 GHz, not even needed on HF
last year in operating an SGC 2020 from a boat in a
marina.

But, to do AMATEUR radio operation below 30 MHz, one
*MUST* need to pass a "CW" test!

1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.



I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request.
I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I
seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do.

I use my IEEE e-mail alias. No charge. As a Lifetime
Member I could have taken advantage of it sooner. There
is some spam filtering with that mail alias but not as
much as I hoped.

Miccolis bitterly complains about my PREVIOUS "handles"
and confuses an e-mailing alias with 'screen name." :-)

Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than
I have.

That's so swell of him.

I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just
tit for tat. No?

The PCTA amateur extra morsemen rationalize that as "providing
a SERVICE." :-)

Whatever the PCTA amateur extra morsemen do is 'quitefine.'

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 10:27pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

[snip]

I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or
otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional
certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American
Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with
engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia.

Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the
electrical engineers.

Really? That's NOT been my experience over the last half
century in the Los Angeles Aerospace Industry. I've NEVER
been hired by any mechanical engineers...the final interview
before a hiring okay has ALWAYS been done by EEs.

Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical
engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since
they have a significant impact for our field).

Really? Rocketdyne (my last big corporate employer) makes
the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine). A rocket motor (simple)
might need a spark plug or other igniter to start it up (if
not using hypergolic fuel). However, each SSME has a STRAP-
ON COMPUTER, primarily to regulate the liquid oxygen flow.
Can't use a conventional flowmeter...the LOX just eats them
up (rapid oxidation from pure oxygen). Since the SSME is
throttleable there's a wide range of variables involved,
something that can only be solved in real time by a computer.
Computer was designed and built by Minneapolis-Honeywell and
is probably the MOST robust computer ever made. Perhaps you
want to argue that Rocketdyne is "not" involved in aerospace
engineering? [feel free, but you would be WRONG]

If you go a bit north of Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, CA, you
would reach Hughes Aircraft Missle Division. Nice place.
I worked there when Ramo-Wooldridge occupied that facility.
Stouffers ran both the RW and HAC cafeteria, good good food.
Is the Phoenix air-air missle considered part of "aerospace?"
I'd say so, and thousands of other engineers would say so.
However, for a missle there is a STRONG interplay between
the tin benders and solder slingers to get an optimum
package with the most bang for its buck...and get it to the
target RELIABLY. HAC has had an excellent record in air-air
misslery, beginning with their first, the GAR-1 and GAR-2
(launched from F-102s, Shrub's NG plane). Air-air missles
NEED little computers on board along with air data sensors
and control acuators to do their task. A mechanical who
specializes in aerodynamics is certainly needed but those
would be out of a job without the electronics specialist
working side-by-side.

Would a satellite or space probe work without solar cells?
[only for a short time] Solar cells are ELECTRICAL things,
charging up the internal batteries (another electrical
thing) to keep the payload (electronics) working. Feel
free to go out to JPL and tell them "aerospace is all
mechanical engineering." :-)

I could expand on avionics...stuff that acquires and tracks
targets (military) or guides aircraft (military and civilian)
or does "fly-by-wire" (control surface acuation via electrical
coupling from manual controls). Absolutely needed in the
high-performance aircraft of today. But, you say that is
due to "aerospace being all mechanical engineering?" No.
Have you seen the "glass cockpit" of today's aircraft?
Gone are the mechanical and aerodynamic gauges, replaced
with flat-screen LCD and Plasma displays operated through
microprocessors from sensors with no moving parts.

Again we go hire the electrical engineers.

Nonsense.

Same with civil and structural engineers.

More nonsense. "Civil engineers?" Building rigid
airships? :-)

On the
other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal
theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that.

I might have had some past jobs that made me a 'vassal' but
at Rocketdyne I never had any responsibility for pressure
VESSLES. That was for the smoke-and-fire guys to do. :-)

By the way, the almost-catastrophy of the Apollo 13 mission
was a LOX tank blowing up in the Service Module. Specifially
it was failure of the LOX stirring thermostate within it, a
design responsibility of mechanicals with thermodynamics
specialty. :-) [one of three VESSLES holding LOX in the
Service Module]


Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional
engineer........

Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus
and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not
taught across the board.

Tsk, tsk. Bad school. Sit in corner. :-)

We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical
engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory.

Really? "Beam theory" (cantilever and others) was a REQUISITE
in southern California colleges; most instructors prolly
couldn't hack the basic electrical stuff anyway. Ever look into
a Texas Instruments 'DLP' IC? CANTILEVER BEAM MOVEMENT of the
micromachined mirrors does every single lil' pixel in that IC.
TI has a virtual monopoly on the DLP for very large screen
DTV displays.

One need not use 'cantilever beam theory' to design a
horizontal ham antenna (such as a parasitic beam)...just
go out and BUY one, ready-made, some-assembly-required,
then watch it fall down in the next big windstorm. :-)

---

As far as actual KNOWLEDGE gained, a 'degree' has LITTLE
value except in the eyes of personnel departments and
department managers (the ones who think they can run people
but sure don't know how to run the equipment). I finally
got one...LONG AFTER the fact of having quite a bit of
design responsibility and a whole heaping gob of experience.
Personally, I feel mine is a negative worth due to lots of
LOST time attending 'requisite' classes...just so a few
instructors could write down I passed their courses and a
few others in a college (or university) could rubber-stamp
a 'sheepskin.'

The point is BEING ABLE TO DO THE JOB, not the number of
diplomas (suitable for framing) on display, or the number
of alphabetic characters one can put after a signature.

Does anyone NEED a radio license to effectively run,
repair, maintain, calibrate, test a radio transmitter? NO.
The license is a LEGAL requirement. The TEST for any radio
license, amateur or commercial, is ridiculously SIMPLE, and
has NEVER been made complex or comprehensive by the
FCC. It is an AUTHORIZATION by a government agency,
NOT a "qualification". It might as well be a fancy hunting
or fishing license.

However, the FCC regulations for radio amateurs is strict
on technical performance, a responsibility for EACH
licensee. Can you do any sort of comprehensive test to
insure compliance with the LAW? I can. I could long
before any degree was received.