| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
October 26th 03, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#22
October 26th 03, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 24 Oct 2003 00:53:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with it. I'll support it. Sounds to me like the "comic book rules" (disguised as "plain language rules") that the scholars and wonders at the then-new Consumer Affairs Task Force of the FCC tried to institute in 1976 after their spectacular victory in rewriting Part 95 Subpart D (the CB Rules) in the same "lowest common denominator" (also known as "Illiteracy for Dummies") style. They tried running it up the flagpole and it was resoundingly shot down by both the professional regulators and the knowledgeable amateur community. The head of that operation - who up to that time had no idea of what and how the FCC was supposed to do for a living, much like the recent crop of appointees and promotees - then tried coming out to our field office and telling us how we were doing everything all wrong. In return, we requested that our Bureau Chief do all he could to ensure that those fools stayed out of our face and off our property in the future. The person running that operation got the same message from wherever she visited, and soon left the agency. "Those who will not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it...." Subpart D of 95 was rewritten to its present form way back in '76? Gosh, that's 27 years ago! Nobody tried to change it back to lawyerspeak since then? :-) LHA |
|
#24
October 26th 03, 06:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (N2EY)
writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces. Pennsylvania is a "province?!?" :-) Your lack of a sense of humor is obvious, Len ;-) ;-) Actually it's a commonwealth. Okay, so Pennsylvania seceeded from the Union...otherwise called the United States of America. STATES. No great loss, really... I've built-from-scratch (not including kits, no carbon copies of homebrew articles) in my home workshops, at least: 5 receivers 5 transmitters 3 transceivers 4 transmatches 12 power supplies 4 TR systems 5 pieces of test equipment various shack furniture, antennas, power cables, control systems, etc. Keep on doing that. Eventually you'll get some of them to work. The above list does not include: - surplus units converted/restored - manufactured equipment restored/repaired/modified - kits built or rebuilt Keep on doing that. Eventually some may work... I've worked several of the regulars here on rrap using my homebrew rigs. I can often be found on or around 7040 using CW. 7040 what? You have absolutely verifiable proof, iron-clad, evidenciary documentation that such RF was actually generated by this "home-built" equipment? Keep at it old-timer. Eventually you can get to changing frequency and work some other bands... And my transmitters have all been legally used in the service for which I am licensed. So you say...because the FCC was too busy with other monitoring. All of MY transmissions and transmitters have been legally used in the services for which I am licensed...and in the radio services and government contract work which did NOT require any civilian license. You got the scratch, Elecraft has the KIT you can build. All by yourself. I built one of those back in 2001. Kits are not homebrew. So, you built it someplace else other than your residence. Now explain to us again about your 1948 unlicensed operations... Why? Those were within the regulations of unlicensed RF emitters at the time. AM broadcast band "wireless phonograph adapters." :-) You are welcome to retain an attorney to bring legal action to bear on alleged felonious radio emissions of 55 years ago! :-) Have him show us his cute legal briefs. Contact Riley Hollingsworth immediately! Let loose the legal hounds. Sound the Hue & Cry on the NTS! Bring the might of the US government LAW down on me! Are you erecting a new statute of limitiations or are you just erecting? Tsk, tsk, tsk...in 1953 I was transmitting 4 KW PEP SSB ON some amateur bands. Legally. Sue the United States Army for that. [remember what happened to "Tail Gunner Joe" when that senator tried to "get" the U. S. Army on another matter...] Your time machine isn't set properly. Get to work and FIX it. We are now on Standard REALITY time, not the daylight savings time of your fantasyland of long ago. LHA |
|
#25
October 26th 03, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: Devil's Advocate mode = ON That's the spirit! Still ON, too... Example - In 1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters. That's one way to look at it. OTOH, in 1930 there *were* problems with transmitters splattering, chirping, clicking and buzzing all over the bands, and getting outside the band as well. So it could be argued that the tests were there to try to cure a problem as well. That makes sense - a cause - and - effect relationship is very possible as well. Strong justification for adding requirements to a licence test - solving real-time problems. The success of the additional tests can be measured by the impact on the issue. That was one reason for the content of the writtens, at least here in the USA. If you look at the old "study guides" of the 40s/50s/60s, they are quite focused on issues like band edges, harmonic/spurious emissions, rectifiers and filters, modulation and measurements - all sorts of things one would need to have some familarity with to operate a properly adjust a transmitter of those times. Receivers and antennas, OTOH, got relatively little attention. "Incentive licensing" was (in part) a move by the FCC to increase the technological know-how of hams by requiring them to know more theory. Now, where just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance, and is no longer tested. Drawing schematics as part of the test (in the USA) was removed at least 40 years ago, when FCC went to 100% multiple choice. (1960 or 1961, for amateur tests up to at least General, which had all privileges at the time.) They hung on through the mid 60s up here, according to an old licence manual that I found recently. My point was, though, that rules like this made sense at one time in the history of the hobby, but later on (by the 60s, in this example) they were outdated, and retired. I don't think that sort of thing was retired in the US because it was "outdated" but simply because it made less work for FCC to go with only multiple choice questions. Multiple choice also removes all subjectivity from grading - either you picked the one right answer and get 100% credit for that question, or you picked one of the wrong answers and get 0% credit. It can also be argued that being required to draw diagrams does not really indicate anything other than the ability to memorize a drawing, with little or no understanding of what it really represents or how the device functions. Schematic and block diagrams are still part of the US exams, btw. For example, a block diagram will be shown, with all of the blocks except one labeled as to function. The question will be something like "The block diagram of a superheterodyne FM receiver is shown - what is the function of the unlabeled block?". And the person being tested has to pick the correct choice. Or a schematic is shown, and one component identified, and the question asks what that component does. I recall questions on my exams back in the '60s where an incomplete drawing was shown, and the question asked what was needed to complete it (1 - capacitor from Point A to Point B, 2 - Inductor from Point C to Point A, ...) How much radio knowledge should new hams be expected to learn before they get the license? Beyond the basic rules, regs and safety, that's purely a matter of personal opinion - just like the code test. To propose that today would be quite difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch..... But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces. Here too - and that is one of the attractions for me, to be able to try out just about anything on-the-air - experimentation at its best. (no from-scratch projects yet - just a rebuild of an old Heathkit TX from the 60s, and a few old military transceivers - I have a WS-19 almost ready to go!) I envy the guys who can build TX equipment from scratch - my theory is not quite that current - yet. 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. The only difference up here is that building or repairing amateur transmitting equipment is restricted to those holding the Advanced licence (the higher of the two that we currently have). Basic licence holders must operate commercially built transmitters designed specifically for use on the amateur bands. The intent id to ensure that those building or repairing TX equipment have sufficient theoretical radio knowledge to do it right (theoretically, of course!) and produce equipment that does not interfere with other users or transmit out-of-band signals. Wow! There's never been such restrictions on US hams. What's the ratio of Advanced to Basic hams in Canada, anyway? My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just "the way it's always been". At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of time often do so for very good reasons. True - but some tend to hang on for no reason at all. If there is a good reason to keep something, then by all means it should be retained! A story: There's an old story (various versions exist) about how someone's Grandma made the best brisket in the world. Before she passed away, one of the grandkids made one with her and wrote down every single instruction. And the first step was to cut off an inch or two from the end. The recipe and procedure was passed down for generations and everyone in the family cut off an inch or two from the end as the first step. Then someone discovered an old, old letter from Grandma in which she described the procedure to a long-dead relative. Grandma writes: "First thing I do is to cut off an inch or so from the end - because the briskets the butcher gives me are always a little bigger than the pan I like to use" (!) To review using an analytical mindset might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby - sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses Q-signals in comon speech, I don't! ;-) Oops - there I go generalizing again! Make that 'almost everyone'! :*p . But even some of the most conservative among us tend to refer to noise as QRM or QRN, or use QSL to request verification of the contact at least. I'm not "conservative" - I do the radical thing of saying "noise" or "interference". The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own... I found an article in a QST from the 1930s decrying such things, so they aren't new at all. My theory is that some hams use CW abbreviations on 'phone in an attempt to portray themselves as somehow so steeped in CW practices that they "forget". Oddly enough, the most proficient CW ops I know don't do such things. even though they were only designed for brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past. Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0) Sure - but what constitutes solid reasoning varies from person to person. I think that the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of hams all over the world use Morse on the HF ham bands is a solid reason to require at least a test for skill in the mode at a very basic level - say, 5 wpm. Others disagree. I don't think that I would agree that this would be a reason for testing CW competence - more of a solid reason for keeping CW alive as an approved mode on the bands. I tend to view making something a mandatory requirement in order to correct a problem, or ensure competency to prevent a problem. Then would you want to wipe out most of the written exams? Because, after all, most hams don't cause problems - nor do most hams build their own rigs. Which do you think is more common in today's amateur radio - a homebrew station or a ham that uses Morse code? If CW was not a mandatory requirement, would people still take the time to learn it? I believe that they would - those who are interested enough to use it anyway. Sure, some would. If we took out most of the theory questions from the written test, would people still take the time to learn it? 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#26
October 26th 03, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Len Over 21" wrote
N2EY wrote: Actually it's a commonwealth. Okay, so Pennsylvania seceeded from the Union...otherwise called the United States of America. STATES. No great loss, really... Dear Mrs. Anderson, Leonard is failing in geography class. As a means of bringing his grade up to "passing", please have him list the 48 states and the 2 commonwealths which make up our great Nation. 73, K0HB PS: Rhode Island is NOT a commonwealth, but neither is that the name of a state. For extra credit, what is the name of the place we commonly call Rhode Island? |
|
#27
October 27th 03, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#28
October 27th 03, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote N2EY wrote: Actually it's a commonwealth. Okay, so Pennsylvania seceeded from the Union...otherwise called the United States of America. STATES. No great loss, really... Dear Mrs. Anderson, Leonard is failing in geography class. As a means of bringing his grade up to "passing", please have him list the 48 states and the 2 commonwealths which make up our great Nation. Ancient mariner, let not the fumes of that rotting albatross around your neck affect your brain so much. CIVICS AND GOVERNMENT classes would study the governmental structures and organization of the states. GEOGRAPHY goes for the land itself, may touch on the human names and government structures for identification. You can't keep that straight, either. Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's NOT an amateur radio policy thing, is it? Somewhere close to general old radio subjects you claimed as "fact" that ol' Reggie Fessenden made his historic 1906 Christmas Eve voice broadcast with a SPARK transmitter. [nope, rotary alternator] You've not admitted to any error of factual statements, but you should as a long-time "leader" in ham radio, presenting a good attitude and all that ("unique ability of amateur's good will," etc.). Now you've made another wrong "fact" but this time NOT about radio subjects, about grade-school level academic things. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Both wrong. Two strikes. Third time and you are out. Better luck at "radiosport." [harf..."sport"... :-) ] The light at the end of the carpal tunnel is the surgeon's little fiber optic imaging probe trying to separate your dits from your dahs... LHA PS: PLEASE try to remember the general subject of this newsgroup, quit trying to dumb everyone down to chat room nonsense. |
|
#29
October 27th 03, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: On 26 Oct 2003 19:00:14 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Responses below: In article , Leo writes: snip Schematic and block diagrams are still part of the US exams, btw. For example, a block diagram will be shown, with all of the blocks except one labeled as to function. The question will be something like "The block diagram of a superheterodyne FM receiver is shown - what is the function of the unlabeled block?". And the person being tested has to pick the correct choice. Or a schematic is shown, and one component identified, and the question asks what that component does. I recall questions on my exams back in the '60s where an incomplete drawing was shown, and the question asked what was needed to complete it (1 - capacitor from Point A to Point B, 2 - Inductor from Point C to Point A, ...) 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. 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? 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? Consider that one of the primary goals of the amateur radio service is technical education - or perhaps I should say, self-education. The only difference up here is that building or repairing amateur transmitting equipment is restricted to those holding the Advanced licence (the higher of the two that we currently have). Basic licence holders must operate commercially built transmitters designed specifically for use on the amateur bands. The intent id to ensure that those building or repairing TX equipment have sufficient theoretical radio knowledge to do it right (theoretically, of course!) and produce equipment that does not interfere with other users or transmit out-of-band signals. Wow! There's never been such restrictions on US hams. What's the ratio of Advanced to Basic hams in Canada, anyway? Over 50% are qualified at the Advanced Level (requirement: examinations consisting of the Basic 100 multiple-choice questions, plus an additional 50 on advanced radio theory). Any requirements as to experience with a Basic or can a raw newbie just walk in and take the Advanced exam straightaway? I pulled a quick count of the total licence stats from the RAC website this afternoon, and the (rough) totals are as follows: Total licences issued: 57, 188 Basic Qualification: 28, 047 Advanced Qualification: 29, 141 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). 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. My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just "the way it's always been". At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of time often do so for very good reasons. True - but some tend to hang on for no reason at all. If there is a good reason to keep something, then by all means it should be retained! A story: There's an old story (various versions exist) about how someone's Grandma made the best brisket in the world. Before she passed away, one of the grandkids made one with her and wrote down every single instruction. And the first step was to cut off an inch or two from the end. The recipe and procedure was passed down for generations and everyone in the family cut off an inch or two from the end as the first step. Then someone discovered an old, old letter from Grandma in which she described the procedure to a long-dead relative. Grandma writes: "First thing I do is to cut off an inch or so from the end - because the briskets the butcher gives me are always a little bigger than the pan I like to use" (!) Good story! There's a matching story about railroad trains and hot boxes which proves the other point. To review using an analytical mindset might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby - sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses Q-signals in comon speech, I don't! ;-) Oops - there I go generalizing again! Make that 'almost everyone'! :*p . But even some of the most conservative among us tend to refer to noise as QRM or QRN, or use QSL to request verification of the contact at least. 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! The point was to illustrate the carryover of common CW abbreviations into the spoken communications of the hobby. I can remember some hams back in the '60s doing such things as saying "Kay" instead of "over" at the end of a voice transmission. This was on 6 meter AM, of all things. The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own... I found an article in a QST from the 1930s decrying such things, so they aren't new at all. Interesting - do you recall the specific issue? I'd like to read that! Late 1930s - 38 I think. IIRC it was by K.B. Warner, who was one of the key (pun intended) figures in amateur radio from the mid' 20s until his death about 1948. KBW was second only to HPM in this regard, but is not nearly so widely known. 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. My theory is that some hams use CW abbreviations on 'phone in an attempt to portray themselves as somehow so steeped in CW practices that they "forget". Oddly enough, the most proficient CW ops I know don't do such things. Think you hit the nail on the head there! "Say it with words". Heck, "Cue Ess Ell" is three syllables, while "Roger" or "OK" is two. snip I don't think that I would agree that this would be a reason for testing CW competence - more of a solid reason for keeping CW alive as an approved mode on the bands. I tend to view making something a mandatory requirement in order to correct a problem, or ensure competency to prevent a problem. Then would you want to wipe out most of the written exams? Because, after all, most hams don't cause problems - nor do most hams build their own rigs. Absolutely not - the writtens are intended to ensure that everyone operating an amateur station is aware of the rules and regulations, similar to the written driving tests that must be passed before allowing folks out on the road. OK, fine - the written exams must include the regulations. And perhaps some safety (RF exposure rules) to protect others. But what about the rest of the writtens? Which do you think is more common in today's amateur radio - a homebrew station or a ham that uses Morse code? Morse code would be the hands down winner here. Sadly, the number of homebrew guys is quite small these days.... It's that way for a number of reasons, the primary one being economic. 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....... If CW was not a mandatory requirement, would people still take the time to learn it? I believe that they would - those who are interested enough to use it anyway. Sure, some would. 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? 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. 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 |
|
#30
October 27th 03, 04:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
