Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#381
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... "Dwight Stewart" wrote To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120 questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders. My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete it. 73, de Hans, K0HB Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference, other than name, between a Class A and the Extra? If the only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing? Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference in their database if that is all it is? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#382
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote What about vanity calls? No change from current rules. Exactly the idea. A person would have to get a passing grade in each subject area on the same test, so it would still be one test, not three. I'd even suggest doing the something similar to the Class B test. No, my vision for the Class B test is similar to the original Novice exam. Some basic stuff to ensure the applicant has an acquaintence with the subject matter, and not heavily weighted in any single area, and not such a tight screen that it blocks those with 'casual interest'. 73, Hans, K0HB |
#383
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Kim" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_ subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning. Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold much water today: In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get phone subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway. The code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF privileges or should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when one earns HF privileges. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I endured the study of and took the test for CW *just* for the phone privleges on 10M, specifically to join in on a nightly ragchew with a whole bunch of local folks--which is no longer going on but it was neat while it did. That is the *only* reason I did anything involving CW. So, you can word it any way you want, Dee, but what compels one person to work with CW at all, may not be what compels someone else. Exactly! And consider this: I know hams who "endured" the study and *written* tests for the Technician, General, Advanced and Extra, because they wanted the *CW/data* privileges. (Code test was no problem for them). Hans' proposal would cause all new hams to "endure" the study for and taking of a written test just to *keep* an amateur license beyond 10 years. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think I like that idea! Kim W5TIT |
#384
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: So please cite the statistical data that shows people have had enough exposure to Morse code to be able to evaluate it even though they don't know it. I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my comments were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before responding. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ The angle of argument that Dee is trying to use is old, tired and *yawn*.... Kim W5TIT No Kim it is not. He made a statement as if it were fact rather than his personal opinion that most people had had exposure to Morse code. I challenged him to prove it. This is standard operating procedure in debate. Since he is the originator of the statement, then in a debate, he must be prepared to back it with facts. That the subject here is Morse code does not negate debate procedures even if he wishes it did. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc. I think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter) without any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or wouldn't, like that I've never tried: parachuting picking up clothes at a cleaners dropping off babies to daycare raising grandchildren holding snot in my hand bungee jumping parasailing rough sex working in a foundry getting a tattoo being bald all kinds of food spelunking building a computer...or anything for that matter being a man Add countless other things to that list. If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without ever having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like CW without having any real experience with it. Kim W5TIT |
#385
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: No Kim it is not. He made a statement as if it were fact rather than his personal opinion that most people had had exposure to Morse code. I challenged him to prove it. This is standard operating procedure in debate. Since he is the originator of the statement, then in a debate, he must be prepared to back it with facts. That the subject here is Morse code does not negate debate procedures even if he wishes it did. This is a newsgroup, not a debating society, Dee. As such, there are no debate procedures. Instead, simple common sense applies in newsgroup discussions (as in most discussions). Since you're aware that nobody collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from even asking for that. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Nope. I disagree, but only because I approach this venue exactly in the same manner as Dee. I like debating and there are few people who can do it artfully. But, I don't think I've ever expected anyone else to approach it the same way I do. However, to engage one in discourse almost dictates that you must be willing to communicate at their level and in their manner. For example, Waddles is way down below my league, so I don't even get his posts any more. Same for Dan. Larry's just fun... Kim W5TIT |
#386
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Coslo" wrote I'm almost afraid to ask, Hans. What is QCAO? Quarter Century Appliance Operators club, sorta like the QCWA (Quarter Century Wireless Association). See press release below. 73, de Hans, K0HB ----------------------------------------------------------------- News Release: QCAO Reorganizes ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Quarter Century Appliance Operators was founded in the early 1950's by a small group of Amateur Radio operators from the Pacific Northwest. They had been active in their hobby for over 25 years, yet still lacked the basic knowledge of radio electronics and had no idea of how their equipment worked. They banded together to try and protect each others honor and pride. At radio gatherings and club meetings in the 1950s one was considered unworthy of the name Ham Radio Operator if he or she couldn't not only name components, but know how to solder them together and make a radio work, or fix a broken set! When faced with insults and dreision, those few hardy pioneers banded together and formed the First Chapter and National Organization of the QCAO. This was known as the "Cold Solder" Chapter. They even coined the now-famous club byword "e pluribus ignoramae" which is Latin for "We don't have to know how to solder, we just wanna talk on our radios." No veterans of that first chapter are known to be active on the air today. In the late 1950s and early '60s, with the worldwide interest in science and space and technology, the QCAO membership went underground. It is with great pride and dignity that today in the 21st Century the revived QCAO stands ready to rise from the ashes, and become the standard of mediocrity it once proudly was. In honor of those first pioneering members, QCAO hereby invites all eligible applicants to step forward and join! The benefits of QCAO include not only the pride of membership. Think of the warm glow you will feel at club meetings and gatherings showing off your new all-plastic imprinted QCAO pocket protector! And that's not all! For your minimal membership fee, you will also receive a handsome, suitable-for-framing, certificate of honor, with hand-lettered name and Charter Membership Number. Other QCAO memorabilia will soon be available for members, including T-shirts, caps, pins, etc. At this date charter membership numbers are still available. Membership requires a 25 years (more or less) interest in Amateur Radio, coupled with a basic ignorance of how radios work and how to repair them. Think of meeting other QCAO members on the air! No more embarrassing pauses when someone in the QSO mentions an RF choke or a parasitic bleeder...Be able to exchange meaningful sharing, talk about real things, yes, even swap QCAO numbers with each other! And soon perhaps . . . a worldwide QCAO contest! You no longer have to shrink to the back of the room at post- meeting sessions of your radio club. Just display your QCAO protector and others will be able to identify you immediately. Who knows? Perhaps one of the originals from that old QCAO Chapter is just waiting for you to find him. Join now! Remember "We don't have to know how to solder, we just wanna talk on our radios"! Don't let technoids embarrass you and kick jargon in your face. Stand up for what's right! Join QCAO! "e pluribus ignoramae" |
#387
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Dwight Stewart wrote: "KØHB" wrote: Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight. I'd also drop the Extra examination, and institute a **new** Class A examination, similar in difficulty (but with obviously different content) than the current Extra. I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty" to the Extra. But emphasis on different things. However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also took the Tech and General prior to that. Depends what vintage Extra you're talking about. The material on each test is different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests. Yet if lots of time elapsed between upgrades, that's not going to be completely accurate. To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting). Not really. It would only have to cover the stuff not covered in the Class B test. And if it takes a 120 or 150 question test, is that really a problem? We're not talking EE or PE level questions here, just multiple choices from a published pool. So, are you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests. Well said, Dwight. Everything is built on what went before it. So now what sounded kind of easy is not so easy. Someone here, perhaps Jim, pointed out how the Extra license tests did not address RF safety much if at all. I don't recall saying that, but maybe I did. Point is that a Tech today needs to be tested on RF safety at the 1500 W level for VHF/UHF/microwaves, which are obvioulsy present the most hazard (as WK3C says "meat-cooking frequencies"). Generals need to be tested on *all* RF exposure, because they have *all* bands and full power. Meanwhile us *old* (pre-1996) hams never had any RF safety stuff in our tests. (At least some of us - ahem - learned the stuff anyway so we'd be current with the current tests) But is RF safety really that tough a subject? But wait! the Class B tests are apparently not going to address RF safety either because the power is limited to a "safe" amount. So now safety related learning is confined to the second test for class A. Dat's gonna be one big test! If so, is that really a problem? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#388
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bert Craig" wrote I don't know what's so fascinating about it, Kim. It stands to reason that to make an "educated" decision regarding anything, one should be...well, somewhat educated on the subject. Sounds reasonable to me. That includes some practical experience. Not necessarily. I've made decisions to do (or not to do) many, many things without a lick of practical experience. I have decided not to be a surfer, I've decided not to eat chocolate covered insects, I've decided not to engage in same-gender sex, I've decided not to be a vegetarian, I've decided not to be a Hindu, all with some 'education' on the subject but without a bit of practical experience. I'm sure some folks make the same decision about whether to learn Morse code. However, many of these anti-code folks are about to diminish the value (As a whole.) of a hobby I dearly love...despite having a very generous chunk of no-code RF real estate. Bert, with all due respect, how are they diminishing the value of Amateur Radio? I truly enjoy Morse code, and use it frequently, but I'm not persuaded that we need a Morse qualification test any longer. I'm a member of FISTS and I'm a member of NCI. I see both organizations as having goals which advance Amateur Radio for me. FISTS encourages people to use Morse code, and NCI encourages regulatory agencies to modernize the qualification process for new licensees. If some new guy/gal gets on HF without knowing Morse code, the value of Amateur Radio has not been diminished for me. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#389
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc. I think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter) without any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or wouldn't, like that I've never tried: parachuting picking up clothes at a cleaners dropping off babies to daycare raising grandchildren holding snot in my hand bungee jumping parasailing rough sex working in a foundry getting a tattoo being bald all kinds of food spelunking building a computer...or anything for that matter being a man Add countless other things to that list. If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without ever having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like CW without having any real experience with it. Kim W5TIT I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying these things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it. In the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy and should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it. There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply because my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew" that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the end I was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#390
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Alun
writes: Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000 hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC! Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes we've already seen? His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code test is a "barrier"..... 73 de Jim, N2EY It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable). And also without any purpose. I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose all time limits and time in grade requirements. Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off the air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were such awful ideas. However, I doubt FCC will go for either. Just MHO. However, I think that something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and Advanced licences. Why? They're just entries in a database. Since no new ones are being issued, they involve no more admin work than other license classes. At the end of 1952, FCC stopped issuing new Advanceds. They allowed existing Advanceds to keep those licenses, renewing and modifying as needed. Most of the approximately 40,000 Advanceds of that time did just that. Then, almost 15 years later, FCC reopened the Advanced to new issues. It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes indefinitely. How is it messy? I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to both becoming Class As, for example. I doubt that! A rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Renaming isn't going to fool anyone that is against free upgrades. Is the current 50 question Extra test so tough that it presents a serious "barrier" to existing Advanceds? What is the problem of keeping old license classes on the database and rules? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |