(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

. . . amongst NCI's membership, and it should be pointed out
that this is the norm in the rest of the world and no real harm seems to
have come from the lack of restrictive sub-band-by-mode limitations such
as
those currently embodied in the Commission's Rules."

Simply stating the facts as perceived in terms of the membership's views.
This
is NOT NCI's issue though ... though, as I have said over and over, I
*personally*
would hate to see the digital/CW sub-bands overrun by SSB.

Carl check me here but wasn't it you who advocated the abandonment of
all mode setasides in order to be able to run wall-to-wall spread
spectrum on 20M?

Read that sentence carefully:

"I *personally* would hate to see the digital/CW sub-bands overrun by
SSB."

Spread spectrum isn't SSB.

The rallying cry I recall hearing was "no setasides for legacy
modes"...

The discussion you recall, Brian, was an exchange between Carl and
either KE3Z or W1RFI (halfheimer moment has me mixing them up, but I
think it was Jon) here some years back. IIRC, Carl thought that HF
DSSS (direct-sequence spread spectrum) could be overlaid atop, say, 15
meters. His opponent pointed out that even a QRP station with a simple
antenna would lay down an increased noise level to "narrow-band" users
for miles around if that were allowed.

Some basics:

Suppose Amateur A operates a 100 watt 15 meter SSB rig into a decent
vertical. Let's say he is S9+20 dB or louder over, say, a 5 mile
radius, and his signal is 2.5 kHz wide. That is, a 2.5 kHz wide rx
picks up almost all of the signal Amateur A transmits. (Does anybody
see anything amiss with the above numbers?)

Now suppose Amateur A switches to DSSS and spreads that same 100 watts
over 250 kHz of the band. For mathematical simplicity, let's assume
the power is equally distributed over the 250 kHz, though in reality
it will drop off towards the edges and be highest in the center. A 2.5
kHz receiver will now intercept only 1% of that DSSS signal, because
it is 100 times wider than the rx passband. So the DSSS signal sounds
like noise, but its level is 20 db lower - S9. If Amateur A drops his
power to 1 watt, the noise will drop 20 dB more - to about S6.

So we have an S6 noise level within the above area over 250 kHz of the
band from ONE station running 1 watt. Spread the signal over the
entire band instead of 250 kHzand the noise level drops less than 3
dB. How much weak-signal DX you gonna work with an S5 noise level over
the entire band?

Note also that if propagation is decent, it's not unusual to hear
S9+20 dB signals from 100-watt-and-simple-antenna stations hundreds or
thousands of miles away. What if each one of those signals dumped its
own S5+ noise level on you, even though they were running 1W out?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:

"Knowledge" in this context really means anything
that can be learned and known consciously by a person.

There are at least three different kinds of knowledge -
facts, concepts and skills.

Is there significant knowledge in using a hammer skillfully?



Dwight your ignorance is showing again--OF COURSE there is!


Absolutely. First of all you have to select the rightr hammer for the job.
Secondly if you are going to be hammering a lot, you need to know how to
select a hammer with the proper weight and balance to maximize the
effectivity of the hammer with a minimum of energy expenditure. Then there
is an art to swinging the hammer. Beginners manage to hit a lot of fingers
and hands.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

And of that 11,000 how many do you 'spose are engineers who wouldn't
have become hams unless the code test was dropped to 5 wpm? And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?


I don't think that's a very fair question. How many long-licensed/current
hams have ever made a contribution to the service? I suspect not many by
your definition, so it's not even a good question, let alone a fair one.

I absolutely did mean it within my narrow definition because the
ongoing argument has been based on a narrow definition. But I should
have been more specific in my post.

It's a very fair & appropriate question as a rhetorical response to
the NCTAs who have been claiming forever that eliminating the code
tests for HF access will result in a new influx of technically astute
engineers. Bilge. Who will put their expertise to work and come up
with "advances in the state of the art" now that they won't have to
jump thru the "code test hoops". More bilge and you know that as well
as I do.


w3rv

Kim W5TIT

w3rv

"N2EY" wrote:

Yep, if you accept that skill is a type of
knowledge. Besides the skill of actually
hammering, there's knowing what hammer to
use for a particular job, knowing how to
hold the hammer and thing to be hammered,
and what safety precautions to take.


Obviously building something with a hammer requires knowledge, but even a
two year old child can learn to hit a nail with a hammer - the skill.


Many of the written test questions are about
the rules and regs, such as band edges and
power limits. Also symbol identification,
definitions, and other facts. One doesn't
have to know what a kHz is to know that the
40 meter band is 7000 to 7300 kHz. Nor does
it require an understanding of the operation
of electronic components to correctly
identify which symbol is, say, a JFET.


All requiring far more knowledge than the skill of hitting a nail with a
hammer.


More importantly, since the Q&A are all
in the public domain, all that is needed
to get an answer correct is to identify
which of the 4 answers is correct. (snip)


Then you dispute the multiple choice method of testing, which means you
must also dispute this method of testing when employed by schools and
colleges throughout this country and around the world (and the studies once
used by those schools to determine this is a sufficient means of testing for
educational purposes).


How this is done by the testee and how much
understanding is involved is not a concern
of the FCC or VEs as long as there's no
cheating involved. Rote memorization, word
association, and random guessing are all
accepted ways of getting an answer correct.
Get enough answers correct and the license
is issued.


If the FCC is not concerned, why are you? Obviously, the FCC has
determined this method of testing is sufficient to meet the goals it has for
Amateur Radio license testing. Perhaps you're dissatisfied with this method
because you don't truly understand the goals of those license exams. Again,
the exams are an entrance exam to get into Amateur Radio, not a final exam
to determine ultimate skills and knowledge. In Amateur Radio, the primary
develop of skills and knowledge comes after those entrance exams through
actual experience.


I never saw much if anyhting about radio in
any of the science textbooks I had, grade
school through college. I did see some stuff
in my engineering textbooks, though. But by
then I had been a ham for 5 years.


You're out of date, Jim. Many college science textbook used throughout the
US cover these subjects (radio and electronics). For example;

The Sciences, An Integrated Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chapter 5 (pg. 115), Electricity and Magnetism (electromagnetic force,
electric circuits, ampere, voltage, resistance, ohm's law).
Chapter 6 (pg. 127), the Nature of Waves (wavelength, frequency and
velocity).
Chapter 6 (pg. 139), the Electromagnetic Spectrum (radio waves,
induction, radio waves and the atmosphere, ducting).
Chapter 11 (pg. 241), Electrical Properties of Materials (conductors,
insulators, semiconductors, and superconductors).
Chapter 11 (pg. 240), Technology (diodes, semiconductors, transistors).

Even many high school science textbooks cover the basics. For example;

Physical Science, Holt/Harcourt Publishing.
Chapter 17 (pg. 420), Introduction to Electricity (electric current,
conductors, insulators, ac/dc, resistance, resistors, Ohm's Law, electric
circuits, series and parallel circuits).
Chapter 19 (pg. 480), Electronic Technology (semiconductors, diodes,
transistors, integrated circuits).
Chapter 20 (pg. 508), The Energy of Waves (amplitude, frequency,
wavelength).
Chapter 22 (pg. 568), The Electromagnetic Spectrum (radio waves, am/fm
modulation, induction, destructive and constructive interference, the
ionosphere).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
.com:


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

Ask a lawyer about that one. Hey I want to be a BSEE, why do I
have to take History classes ????

You don't have to take history classes in some schools
to get a BSEE.


Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I'm against that too. BTW, I got my EE degree in England, and you
don't have to go through any of that wholly irrelevant stuff. No
English, no social studies of any kind, no chemistry (which I
understand is oftem required over here).

It depends on whether you consider colleges and universities as
institutions of higher learning or as job training schools. If the
former then the various non-degreee specific classes are appropriate.
If the latter, then they are not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I beleive in free choice. If someone wants to study a broad programme they
can, but I don't beleive in forcing people to study things they don't want
to, at least not beyond the age of 16, and even then only to avoid
illiteracy and innumeracy.

My own interests are not atall narrow, but they are eclectic. They include
poetry, archaeology and languages, for example. If, however, a poetry
class were to be compulsory in an EE curriculum, I feel strongly that it
would be wrong. You can't force people to become well-rounded. Force
feeding is a poor sort of education.

I do not beleive that it is necessary to make people study unwanted
classes to qualify as an institution of higher learning, more that it
disqualifies the college.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Alun Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. 4...

"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

Ask a lawyer about that one. Hey I want to be a BSEE, why do I have
to take History classes ????

You don't have to take history classes in some schools
to get a BSEE.



Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Unless you are a "non-traditional student" at old PSU, you have
to
take
Physical Education classes. My son is taking Karate this semester, as
a
required course.

It has no bearing on his eventual carreer, yet he may elect to
not
take
it, and not graduate. He has to take some history, to and there are
plenty of other classes that have a questionable relevence to his
eventual carreer.

Even the Electrical engineers have to take these classes.

The idea is actually sound, as it helps produce a more well
rounded
individual. It also takes into account that a person may not have the
same "core competencies" their entire career. A narrowly focused
education may prepare a person for a carreer that eventually
dissapears.

- Mike KB3EIA -



I might have known that you would think it was a good idea - I don't

When my son-in-law(a ham) was deciding which engineering discipline to
major in (he
later graduated
cum laude in civil engineering) he discussed it with my daughter who
suggested that
transportation
was a industry that isn't going away, so he became a highway engineer,
working on
interstate and tollway projects. He has been steadily employed with a
large stable
national company, and
does very well.
On the other hand, I read a number of electrical and digital engineers
lamenting
the shipping of their work to offshore areas like India and the middle
east (I read
that Microsoft is doing that - I wonder who they plan to sell their wares
to when all
the good jobs here are gone?) where such engineering can be done at far
less expense
than in the US.

Meanwhile, it's difficult to engineer a road project from the other side
of the
planet!

Dick,

Wow, something we agree on. The exportation of development
engineering is quite widespread. Software development
is also wholesaled to India by many companies (perhaps you
meant that too in reference to digital engineering).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...

Don't get me wrong, Cecil - you read my input to the Restructuring
Docket and you know that I was in favor of eliminating the code test.

begin quote

COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PHILIP M. KANE

MANUAL MORSE CODE TESTING

13. From the inception of both commercial (marine) and amateur radio
in the early years of this century, Manual Morse Code was the first and
"simplest" method of communication, requiring operators trained and
experienced in the use of this mode at all points in the circuit. At the
time, equipment used by all services was rather crude, and in some cases
the amateur service shared large amounts of spectrum with the governmental
and private commercial services. It was essential that the amateur
operator be qualified in Manual Morse Code in order to recognize signals
from other stations with higher priority informing the amateur operator of
technical interference and in some cases exercising authority to order the
amateur operator to stop communicating.

14. At the present stage in the development of communications, those
early-year requirements no longer are valid and Manual Morse Code is
considered an obsolete method of communication. Amateur operators are no
longer advised of problems "on the air" by governmental and commercial
operators, and indeed the amateur radio service is the only such service
still using Manual Morse Code for communications.

15. The United States is a signatory on the International Radio
Regulations ("IRR") of the International Telecommunications Union ("ITU")
which still specifies that each Administration require proof of proficiency
in receiving by ear and sending by hand of Manual Morse Code for amateur
operators using portions of the spectrum below 30 MHz. The IRR does not
specify any particular speed for such certification, and indeed, one major
Administration (Japan) has been issuing amateur radio licenses in
derogation of this regulation (by the "exception" process).

16. It is expected that a proposal will be made to eliminate this
requirement at an ITU World Radiocommunications Conference to be held
within the next few years. This commenter urges the Commission to take a
leadership position among the ITU member Administrations to eliminate this
requirement as no longer necessary.

17. Additionally, this commenter urges the Commission to eliminate
all such code testing requirements at the earliest opportunity, by the
"exception" method if feasible, and if not feasible, in the interim to
require testing in Manual Morse Code to be at a speed of no greater than
five (5) words per minute.

end quote

The FCC must have agreed, they changed all code test to 5 wpm.


Just not for the reasons that you are proffering.

If your reason is because it is "unnecessary",
I agree, it is unnecessary [arbitrary, not in conformity with
5 USC 706(2)(A)].

Ok, we agree on the decision, now who gets writes the majority opinion?

I do like that "exception" thing. Dam, did I take a lot of flake
for proposing that to the NCI board.

La.rry....

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

And of that 11,000 how many do you 'spose are engineers who wouldn't
have become hams unless the code test was dropped to 5 wpm? And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?


I don't think that's a very fair question. How many
long-licensed/current
hams have ever made a contribution to the service? I suspect not many
by
your definition, so it's not even a good question, let alone a fair one.

I absolutely did mean it within my narrow definition because the
ongoing argument has been based on a narrow definition. But I should
have been more specific in my post.

It's a very fair & appropriate question as a rhetorical response to
the NCTAs who have been claiming forever that eliminating the code
tests for HF access will result in a new influx of technically astute
engineers. Bilge. Who will put their expertise to work and come up
with "advances in the state of the art" now that they won't have to
jump thru the "code test hoops". More bilge and you know that as well
as I do.


w3rv

Kim W5TIT

w3rv


Well, if you're going to use what appears to be an honest question to lash
out at whomever it is you are targeting, please forgive the confusion on my
part. I didn't realize you were being rhetorical to the NCTAs.

By the way, isn't stating that NCTAs "have been claiming forever that
eliminating the code tests for HF access. . ." rolling us all into one
"neat" little package? I don't think people who'd like to see an end to CW
testing all think alike at all. Have you ever seen me accuse you of being
like Larry or Dick? They are two PCTAs and you are a PCTA also.

We all have our own opinions about why we think something is a good idea.

Kim W5TIT

On 14 Jul 2003 17:31:44 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

And learning history in an EE degree somehow helped you to do that???

It taught me to think. It taught me that we live in a culture, not
on a circuit board. It taught me not appear as an ignoramus before
non-technical folk.

At a very intensive (i.e. tough to get into and tough to stay in)
engineering school, not only did we have to take two semesters of
"American and World Civilization" in freshman year, which disguised
a course in Cultural Anthropology which we all hated, and two
semesters of "American and World Literature" in junior year, a
required "Humanities" sequence which we all regarded as a waste of
our valuable nerd time and geek energy (and to add insult to injury
taught by the same professor as the freshman year course), we also
had to take a course in General Economics, which I wished I had paid
more attention to because until this day the subject still remains
mumbo-jumbo to me. At least Atomic Physics (taught by one of the
Manhattan Project physicists) which also seemed like mumbo-jumbo
finally made sense when sometime after I took the course I finally
figured it out with the help of my brother who is also a ham and has
a Masters degree in Physics but hasn't worked in that field for 35
years.

To further broaden my background, while I was in engineering graduate
school at one university, I was attending another university studying
Jewish history, philosophy, liturgy, Hebrew language, and culture,
subjects I had "kissed off" in my younger years. Was I forced to?
Not by the school involved (it wasn't a degree program), but by the
need to be a well-educated person in my community.

I can almost say the same for my law school (doctorate level)
education. Some of the courses seemed like a waste of time....but
in practice I find that the background that I got from the "unnecessary"
specialty courses was really necessary for the proper practice of my
legal specialty.

Substitute "the humanities" for the string of courses I cited above, and
they are still necesary for one to be a well-rounded and well-educated
person. One can't "figure out" humanities - either one learns it or one
doesn't.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Alun Palmer wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. ..

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
igy.com:


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. 1.4...

"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

Ask a lawyer about that one. Hey I want to be a BSEE, why do I
have to take History classes ????

You don't have to take history classes in some schools
to get a BSEE.


Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I'm against that too. BTW, I got my EE degree in England, and you
don't have to go through any of that wholly irrelevant stuff. No
English, no social studies of any kind, no chemistry (which I
understand is oftem required over here).

It depends on whether you consider colleges and universities as
institutions of higher learning or as job training schools. If the
former then the various non-degreee specific classes are appropriate.
If the latter, then they are not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




I beleive in free choice. If someone wants to study a broad programme they
can, but I don't beleive in forcing people to study things they don't want
to, at least not beyond the age of 16, and even then only to avoid
illiteracy and innumeracy.

Ahh, now your starting to qualify yourself and are no longer pure!

Why should someone have to learn ANYTHING they don't want to. If a
person wants to remain illiterate, then so be it. Why should children be
forced to go to school if they don't want to. Why should I have to take
any training whatsoever, just call myself an engineer.


My own interests are not atall narrow, but they are eclectic. They include
poetry, archaeology and languages, for example. If, however, a poetry
class were to be compulsory in an EE curriculum, I feel strongly that it
would be wrong. You can't force people to become well-rounded. Force
feeding is a poor sort of education.


I do not beleive that it is necessary to make people study unwanted
classes to qualify as an institution of higher learning, more that it
disqualifies the college.

You must be related to our friend Vipul! At least you think alike.

- Mike KB3EIA -