In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...


What will be very interesting to see is what effect complete elimination of
code testing has on the number of new hams and the overall growth of the
ARS.
More than three years ago, the 13 and 20 wpm code tests, and the medical
waivers, were dumped by FCC. Result was growth of about 11,000 hams - and a
lot of already-licensed hams got upgrades. Sure doesn't seem like there
werea lot of people being kept out by the 13 and 20 wpm code tests.

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?

Damfino.

And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?

Some will, some won't.

I know a couple of engineer-ham who have made great contributions. One of them
is W1RFI. Just for starters, he and other ARRL HQ. folks put together that 121
page commentary on BPL.

Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on 03-104 (BPL).
Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did, KB3EIA did...anybody else?

Of course Reply Comments are still open.

btw - I'm an engineer, and none of the tests were a deterrent for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 13 Jul 2003 06:35:28 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

I don't mean contributions in the sense of Ed's work on the BPL
comments package. One of the rationales proffered over and over again
by the NCI types for deleting the code tests has been that
eliminatinating the code tests will bring flocks of engineers into the
hobby who would then come up with technical contributions, "advance
the state of the art" etc. Maybe I missed it but I don't know of any
such "event" since 1991 when engineers could become hams without a
code test.

I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz. Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...


What will be very interesting to see is what effect complete elimination of
code testing has on the number of new hams and the overall growth of the
ARS.
More than three years ago, the 13 and 20 wpm code tests, and the medical
waivers, were dumped by FCC. Result was growth of about 11,000 hams - and a
lot of already-licensed hams got upgrades. Sure doesn't seem like there
werea lot of people being kept out by the 13 and 20 wpm code tests.

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?

Damfino.

And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?

Some will, some won't.

I know a couple of engineer-ham who have made great contributions. One of them
is W1RFI. Just for starters, he and other ARRL HQ. folks put together that 121
page commentary on BPL.

I don't mean contributions in the sense of Ed's work on the BPL
comments package. One of the rationales proffered over and over again
by the NCI types for deleting the code tests has been that
eliminatinating the code tests will bring flocks of engineers into the
hobby who would then come up with technical contributions, "advance
the state of the art" etc. Maybe I missed it but I don't know of any
such "event" since 1991 when engineers could become hams without a
code test.


Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on 03-104 (BPL).
Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did, KB3EIA did...anybody else?

Of course Reply Comments are still open.

btw - I'm an engineer, and none of the tests were a deterrent for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:
On 13 Jul 2003 06:35:28 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:


I don't mean contributions in the sense of Ed's work on the BPL
comments package. One of the rationales proffered over and over again
by the NCI types for deleting the code tests has been that
eliminatinating the code tests will bring flocks of engineers into the
hobby who would then come up with technical contributions, "advance
the state of the art" etc. Maybe I missed it but I don't know of any
such "event" since 1991 when engineers could become hams without a
code test.


I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz. Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

But if they don't "do code" then they will never be "real hams"
like Larry and Dick. They just don' want to, as Larry says,
"bother to be as good as he is."

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on 03-104 (BPL).
Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did, KB3EIA did...anybody else?

I did, at least their website said I did! I didn't go back and go through all the
gyrations
later to see if it actually did show up there, but I did post my comments to the
EFCS page


I didn't post any comments. First because I was all ate up by other
matters and missed the deadline. But even if I had submitted a comment
it would simply parrot a zillion other similar comments. What good
would that do? The FCC is not conducting a referendum on BPL. I
seriously doubt that a large number of comments by us weenie private
citizens has anywhere as much effect on the FCC as do the the few
professionally crafted comments submitted by the heavy hitters in the
biz such as the ARRL and the IEEE. Imlay and Hare have a whole bunch
more clout with the FCC than any of us have combined so I bought a
$100 money order yesterday and it'll be on it's way to Newington
tomorrow.

w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on 03-104 (BPL).
Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did, KB3EIA did...anybody else?

I did, at least their website said I did! I didn't go back and go through all the
gyrations
later to see if it actually did show up there, but I did post my comments to the
EFCS page

I didn't post any comments. First because I was all ate up by other
matters and missed the deadline. But even if I had submitted a comment
it would simply parrot a zillion other similar comments. What good
would that do? The FCC is not conducting a referendum on BPL. I
seriously doubt that a large number of comments by us weenie private
citizens has anywhere as much effect on the FCC as do the the few
professionally crafted comments submitted by the heavy hitters in the
biz such as the ARRL and the IEEE. Imlay and Hare have a whole bunch
more clout with the FCC than any of us have combined so I bought a
$100 money order yesterday and it'll be on it's way to Newington
tomorrow.

Prolly the better move. Actually I plan to wait until the lawsuit is filed-yep, after a
close reading
of the filing of the United Power Line Council, which HQ is located no more than 3
blocks from the White House on Pennsylvania Ave, I truly believe this is a done deal,
and the only way out will be
the route I lambasted last time ARRL did it- I think they'll have to sue theFCC over
this one, if even that does any good.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:59:09 -0400, Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:

I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz. Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

If so, they were hams working as engineers, not engineers working as
hams. Being up here in The Silicon Forest, I have come to know a
whole pile of ham-engineers at Intel and Tektronix. I daresay that
very few of them have so intertwined their professional engineering
and amateur radio activities to the point where one cannot
distinguish one from the other. Most of the ham EEs of my
acquaintance prefer to keep a very distinctive line between the two,
many under pressure of their employer.

Those who have successfully blended their specialties are folks like
Dr. Dave Leeson, W6NL/HC8L, a real DX hound who is the founder and
CEO of California Microwave and Professor of Electrical Engineering
at Stanford University, and who serves as an Expert Witness when we
go to the California legislature or into litigation over amateur
radio issues - that is if he's not off on some DXpedition or world
radio contest or other.

Another example is Phil Karn, KA9Q, who, besides our being taken for
each other because of the similarity of our names, is a whiz-bang
guru of data transmission systems with Qualcomm and has developed a
whole bunch of software for digital data transmission specifically
designed for the amateur radio service.

Finally, myself and several others across the country are a "three
way mixture" of lawyer, engineer, and active ham, all so intertwined
to make our professional lives an E-ticket ride.

In all the above situations, there is input -directly- into amateur
applications per se, not development of some system or device which
has such general application that it -could- have application in the
amateur service "somehow".

A fine - but finite - difference.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel
ARRL Volunteer Consulting Engineer

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

On 12 Jul 2003 21:31:26 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Visit the FCC ECFS system and see who actually filed comments on
03-104 (BPL). Particularly among the regulars here on rrap. I did,
KB3EIA did...anybody else?

Ed Hare covered all the points that I could have made except about
the technical (in)adequacy of the supporters of this nonsense
inside the Commission, so upon medical advice I didn't file anything
separate.

The medical advice was necessary because the actions of the Three
Fools + Two Wise Men lately have driven up my blood pressure 20
points.

Retirement indeed.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2003 06:35:28 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

I don't mean contributions in the sense of Ed's work on the BPL
comments package. One of the rationales proffered over and over again
by the NCI types for deleting the code tests has been that
eliminatinating the code tests will bring flocks of engineers into the
hobby who would then come up with technical contributions, "advance
the state of the art" etc. Maybe I missed it but I don't know of any
such "event" since 1991 when engineers could become hams without a
code test.

I wonder if any of the engineers who worked on developing surface
mount components were hams...or the engineers who took computer CPU
chip clock speeds from mHz into gHz.

You haven't even started, the list of engineering feats pulled off by
engineers who are hams is endless. In every case I know about however
including those you cite they did what they did as professionals
working for money outside the ham bands, not as amateurs. The topic
on the table here is technical innovations which have advanced the
state of the art in the field of RF comms made by engineers working
within their roles as hams. Let's see your list of those. I'd be
particularly interested in your list of ham engineers who wouldn't
have made those contributions if they had to take any code tests.

Let's see a list of YOUR technical accomplishments in radio, Kellie.

Your SINGLE patent is a mechanical one, not even related to radio.

What innovation or push of the SOTA envelope has 1999 graduate
Larrah Roll done? He IS an Extra "heavy" (20 WPM code test).
How about colonel Klunk 8 Minnesota? Stealth engineer N2EY?
The Whiskey zero EX? All long-timers.

They've had LOTS of time to innovate and do envelope pushing.

Shrug.

Oh, and didn't the hams who
happen to be NASA Mission Specialists, some of whom undoubtedly have
engineering degrees and who took ham equipment into space, contribute
anything to the hobby by doing so?

Great PR for ham radio but that's button-punching operational "stuff"
based on aerospace comms technologies which have been under
development since the earliest days of NASA. I haven't heard much
about any mission specialists breaking out soldering irons and doing
any innovtive sorts of things.

Sigh. Begin with the Apollo 13 mission.


Geez, Kellie knows about NASA as much as he knows the electrical
systems of US WW2 vehicles! :-)

LHA

In article QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01, "Guessing"
writes:

Someone squawked
As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me
exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is
abolished might be another matter.

Nonsense and a big copout

Bull**** anonymous one. You can't be more wrong.

If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests

I passed the BS tests. But, academic degrees are NOT set by any
federal laws, cannot be changed outside of the academic community.

Want a driver license -- take a test

I took my first one in 1950 in Illinois. But, state laws are debateable AND
changeable by law.

Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a professional
test

Plenty of jobs out there, not all of them require "drug tests." The
physical
examination for insurance purposes, NOT for all jobs.

Want insurance -- take a physical exam

Not always needed. I've never had to get a physical exam for car
insurance...nor house insurance. :-)

Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test

Long before I got my degree I was a working electronics design
engineer. No "unions" in electronics engineering. :-)

Want to advance in the Military -- take the test

In my 4 years of active duty in the US Army, I went from E-1 to E-5 in
two and a half years WITHOUT ANY FORMAL TESTS.

Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test

I've passed many bars. A few I even walked into and got served.

Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests

Steamy, are you trolling again? Mess up your Anger Management
class again?

Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one

I've never been in Dodge. I once rode in a Dodge. I'm sober as a judge
and right now I judge you to be some kind of trolling putzim.

Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al test
Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands ought to be
totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!!

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I was legally ON HF the first time in 1953 and didn't have to
get my first FCC radio license until 1956.

Simple as that.

You ARE "simple," simple one.

Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't
serious about it.

Awwww...got your feelings hurt by NCTAs? :-) :-)

If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other college
grad ???

One can brainwash pre-18 teeners a LOT easier than older folks. :-)

Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ??
Didn't think so !!

I'm only on a "good friends" basis with three US radio amateurs. All of
them became licensed well before the "no-code" OR technician licenses
came into being.

Were you born in Newington or were you brainwashed as a child?

LHA