| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#31
October 27th 03, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Leo
writes: On 27 Oct 2003 01:30:02 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: 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.. The ones I took 30+ years ago were as described. 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. That's a transmitter, not a transceiver. ;-) 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.... That's probably more time than it took to build it in the first place! 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. And *there's* the connection between CW skill and technological development and self education in the ARS. Without code skill, that transmitter would be almost useless to you. With code skill, you could use it to work the world. For hams, code skill *is* another tool in the toolbox. 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. Same thing happened to Extra 25+ years ago. 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... More like 1/8 of US, but fairly close correlation. 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. Check out the RAC website.. 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...http://www.dxz one.com/cgi-bin/search/jump.cgi?ID=1750&ID=1750 I'll take a look.. 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. Perhaps it's because I'm also in favor of code tests. You'll have to ask Len and Brian why they do it. The ability to visualise, design and implement amateur radio equipment is a gift - one that the amateur community should hold in the highest regard. I don't see it as a gift, just a set of skills built up over the years. There are others much better at it than I. 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! Perhaps that's why they criticize it so much. It's old, it's traditional... 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... Same down here. 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! Exactly 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. That was necessary because of old S25.5. 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! OK - thanks No annual renewal fees are due (these were dropped in 2000). Annual fees? Wow! Amateur license fees here were dropped in the '70s. VE fees are for testing only. One fee can, in principle, be used to go from no license to Extra. 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. Interesting concept! I suppose a Basic could homebrew a transmitter, but not use it until the Advanced license was in hand... 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. For some, yes, but for others the public service and communications aspects are dominant. Should someone be excluded from amateur radio because they're more interested in what the radios can do rather than how they work? 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 agree - but what level of competency is reasonable? And why isn't it reasonable to require a very basic level of Morse competency, given how popular Morse is in amateur radio vs. how popularity homebrewing is? 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. Same here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#32
October 27th 03, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#33
October 27th 03, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote:
some snippage Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look for a copy. Very interesting reading, Leo. It should be part of the testing regimen! However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the service. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today, and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are relevant to meet those goals. Somehow, it's not working out quite that way....  Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted one post - mine. The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today. That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services, then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications more easily justifiable. It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing. Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO. I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code themselves, look like they are going to go along with it. Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one. The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing. I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the same thing as the core. Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out of the picture. So what's left? A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions. Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about satellite operations!!!! 8^) The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive schools" where the student made up their own curriculum OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not become a reality. We always need paper documents for something. True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive. Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because they are the only place left to find people who share their interest in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why, however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the underlying reason, Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service. Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone. Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies. I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#34
October 27th 03, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alun Palmer wrote
BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes ITU doesn't "require", they only "recommend". 73, Hans, K0HB |
|
#35
October 27th 03, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, Mike - my responses are in the text below.
....whole lotta snippage goin' on..... On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:49:04 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted one post - mine. Yup, I remember that one well! Wonder why that happens....this thread went a bit farther, but keeps branching out into other topics, with the requisite bashings of the participants. It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing. Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO. Good point - the ability to use the hobby for community service is pretty unique to amateur radio. (try that with R/C model planes, or Civil War re-enactment!.....). The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing. I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the same thing as the core. ....the only difference is that the written testing consists of a question or so on satelite operation - Morse continues as a complete syllabus and test in its own right. I'm not convinced that it is quite that important anymore to warrant this. I do see your point, though - we'll have to 'agree to disagree', I suppose...(a rare achievement in this newsgroup 8*p ) Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out of the picture. So what's left? Here's the way I understand this one: Agree that there most certainly was a time when CW was all that was available to amateur operators (and was heavily used for commercial radio as well as landline operations too). Then, if an amateur were to be allowed to go on the air with no code training, what would the impact to amateur radio be? You would have a guy sending signals out that no one could understand, or answer. A very frustrated operator, most likely - but no real damage to the service itself. However, if that guy was interfering with commercial or governmental traffic, and did not know enough code to understand their signals to clear off the band immediately, major problems would be possible. Multiply this by the number of amateurs playing around with radio, and it would be a huge problem. CW proficiency testing pior to licence issuance would be a big step towards preventing situations like this one. Now, with virtually no one using code except amateurs, and all of that strictly within the amateur bands, this problem seems to be a thing of the past. Just like a guy who sets up an improperly-functioning RTTY setup (like I jusy did, a couple of nights ago...) - no major problem - and no two way communications, either  A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions. Agree, to a point. There don't seem to be any logical reasons to keep CW testing (I was hoping that this thread would flesh them out...). OTOH, there is a reason to discontinue CW testing - the reason being that CW is (for all practical purposes) no longer any more important than any other available operating mode, today, in 2003. As such, is it fair to compel people to learn and pass a practical test on one mode in deference to all others? I don't see it! Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about satellite operations!!!! 8^) Don't know - I think that's one of the ones I got wrong anyway.... The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive schools" where the student made up their own curriculum Likewise, if the school board decided that "The Adz, Plane , Bow Saw And Other Pioneer Tools" was to become a seperate mandatory subject, which must be studied and passed prior to gaining a trade certification in Carpentry - that would be equally wrong. It is interesting to some (and at one time, the only way to build a log cabin), but not relevant enough to be given its own course today. Still, there are those who enjoy building with these types of tools - more power to 'em! Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies. You're right - for me, at least so far, it is only a hobby . Since I'm relatively new to the avocation (a year and a half, so far), I'm still in learning mode - I am interested in getting involved with ARES, and may do so in the next few months or so, time permitting. BTW - grinding mirrors? Now there's something that requires a lot of patience! Wow! I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? But there is a technolgical reason in continuing to teach longhand division - and that is, without knowing how it works, how will you know when the calculators' answer is incorrect? (My kids have demonstrated this concept to me many times.....they tend to believe whatever answer the thing displays, without applying logic to see if they entered something wrong - grrr) And for that reason, I think that the current level of testing that we do to become an amateur is not enough - as I have explained in previous threads, the level of technical knowledge has dropped considerably over time. Longhand is the check-and-balance for the answer presented by the calculator. I don't quite see the analogy to CW, though - sure, if SSB communications are not possible CW could be used to get through. But the rest of the world is moving away from it (first the commercial and government users, and now amateur administrations all over the world) - I'd suggest that if there was any value to retaining it even as a back-up mode of communications, it would have been retained by someone. I'd think, anyway. - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
|
#37
October 28th 03, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Leo wrote: some snippage Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look for a copy. Very interesting reading, Leo. It should be part of the testing regimen! Only problem with "200" is that it stops at 1936 and there was never a followup book. If you want a really good history of US amateur radio from the very beginning to almost the present day, google up W2XOY's "Wayback Machine". Excellent history in many chapters. Free for the download. (extra bonus question: what is the significance of that callsign?) However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the service. That phrase was added in 1951. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today, and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are relevant to meet those goals. Somehow, it's not working out quite that way.... Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted one post - mine. Hey! The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"! It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important! Regulators *do* deal in historic preservation, history, and tradition, however. Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today. That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services, then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications more easily justifiable. It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing. Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO. One of the good things about amateur radio is that it defies a simple definition. That's also one of the bad things! What is a core purpose of the service to one person may be of minor interest to another. For example, are technical smarts more important than public service? I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then OK, good point - maybe it should. Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code themselves, look like they are going to go along with it. Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one. The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing. Most hams do only a small fraction of the activities open to them, in part because most of us haven't anywhere near the time or money to do all of them or even most of them. Yet almost all of them are on the test. I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the same thing as the core. As you said, it all comes down to opinions. That one question on satellites could be the one that causes a ham to fail. Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out of the picture. So what's left? The anti-interference thing was just *one* reason - there are lots more. And it really wasn't that much of a reason because hams had their own frequency allocations and the government/commercial folks had theirs. In fact, there was no international requirement for hams to pass code tests until 1927. A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. There *are* new reasons, as well as other, old ones. But whether they are sufficient is a matter of opinion. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions. bingo. Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! I thought it was dropped because so few applied for it. I recall something like 150 in 4 years. Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about satellite operations!!!! 8^) The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive schools" where the student made up their own curriculum Exactly. OTOH, if someone proposes that CW testing should continue because thats the way its been since the beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that statement have to do with today? So what? Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency (and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the departmental VP that something is being done because it has always been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes. Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this too. But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not become a reality. We always need paper documents for something. True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive. They're still selling those cameras, however. And merely because something is old doesn't make it bad. Look at the way words are spelled... Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because they are the only place left to find people who share their interest in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why, however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the underlying reason, Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today, without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an important service, if we believe that? Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service. Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone. Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies. Try telling the hams who searched for shuttle pieces, or who are right now helping fight the wildfires in California, that it's "a hobby". They might not agree. I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. Looking through the anti-code-test petitions, though, we could also be seen as a bunch of folks making a really big deal out of eliminating a test that requires only the most basic level of skill in a mode widely used in the Amateur Radio Service. Does it not seem odd to require lots of theory testing for a license to use manufactured radios, yet to claim that a simple 5 wpm Morse code receiving test is a "burden" and a "barrier" to a license? But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#38
October 28th 03, 02:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
... : BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes, don't : you? It's always been that way, too. If you're speaking of the ITU (nee CCITT) headquartered over here in Geneva, their regulations reads: S25.9 2) During the course of their transmissions, amateur stations shall transmit their call sign at short intervals. In your imaginations perhaps that short interval is 15 minutes. In your YL imagination it perhaps that short interval is several weeks. 73, Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte "All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be construed." |
|
#39
October 28th 03, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
