"Dwight Stewart" wrote

I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're
lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Len Over 21" wrote:

I just hope everyone in "the pool" can stand
all the chlorine necessary to keep it sanitary... :-)

For anyone wanting serious thinking (a novel
concept in here), there's always Brooks AFB in
San Antonio, the USAF School of Aerospace
Medicine. So far, the folks at Brooks haven't
touched on aliens, not even the green-card
types.


As for the chlorine, you might want to poke around Northeastern Utah and
Southeastern Idaho. The Defense Department in that area has been hiring a
lot of people with biology and chemistry degrees over the last decade or so.
Considering the number of job listings, I cannot help but wonder what
they're up to.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
(snip) Clearly, those with no interest are not
exactly highly motivated to study up for a
license exam.

Sloth! Abomination unto the god of ham!

Clearly such infidels have NO reason for existance!

But the fact that some have no interest in code,
and would freely choose not to learn it, really
seems to bother some of the "most vociferous and
abusive" pro-code folks.

Antichrist = anticode? :-)


A vision of Samuel Morse told me to go forth and spread those words. I
doubted my vision, so I prayed in front of my radio, but saw no more
visions. I then crossed myself in the shape of a code key and posted what I
had been told. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote:

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician,
I've almost got the General Class test memorized.
Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."


Very funny, Hans. However, as previously stated, I have no interest in
getting the General at this time. In fact, I'm not even that active with my
current license. I've looked over the license tests several times over the
last few years, the most recent to was when the tests were redone to see if
any significant changes were made.

Only one situation might immediately cause me to consider a new license
class - if there was a possibility for us to go overseas again for a length
of time where getting another license would be difficult. In that case, I
would get a General, and perhaps even the Extra, in case I might want that
capability while overseas.

Other than that, my interest in the other license classes will probably
not go beyond casual curiosity anytime soon.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where
they're
lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Hammer, meet nail."

I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the published
Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it.

Q. Do what?

A. Require just a hair more cerebral activity than rote memorization.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

As I see it, this is an amateur activity designed with three basic goals
in
mind - provide some radio services to others (public service), some
benefit
to the participants (recreational radio activities), and a mild
introduction
to the field of electronics.

That may well be as *you* see it, but according to their rules going back at
least 50 years, FCC goals aren't about "a mild introduction" to electronics.
From 1950's Part 12, paragraph 12.0(d) "Expansion of the existing reservoir
within the amateur radio service of ...... ELECTRONICS EXPERTS". From the
contemporary Part 97, paragraph 97.1(d) "Expansion of the existing reservoir
within the amateur radio service of ...... ELECTRONICS EXPERTS".


Some seem to suggest we add content to
more closely fit a college degree program.

I haven't seen any such suggestion here (or anywhere else). My proposal
suggests that the standard full-privilege qualifications should be
essentially equivalent to the current Amateur Extra written examination.
Since there are numerous examples of pre-teen children who have met that
level of qualification, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a "college
degree program".

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

That may well be as *you* see it, but
according to their rules going back at
least 50 years, FCC goals aren't about
"a mild introduction" to electronics.
From 1950's Part 12, paragraph 12.0
(d) "Expansion of the existing reservoir
within the amateur radio service of ......
ELECTRONICS EXPERTS". From
the contemporary Part 97, paragraph
97.1(d) "Expansion of the existing
reservoir within the amateur radio
service of ...... ELECTRONICS
EXPERTS".


Nice editing to fit an agenda, Hans. However, the actual wording of
97.1(d) talks about expanding the existing reservoir of "trained operators,
technicians, and electronics experts," not just "electronics experts." The
FCC never intended for this radio service to be made up of electronics
experts, or for all operators to become electronics experts. Thanks to the
introduction to electronics Amateur Radio offers, some will become
interested enough to seek outside education in some field of electronics -
the real experts. Most will never be interested enough to go that far
(home-brewing or lesser electronics jobs). And perhaps the vast majority
will happily go through life as trained operators. Whatever the case, the
goals of 97.1(d) are fulfilled.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

From the perspective of an FCC license requirement, is it necessary for
you to participate in that event?

Yes, it is required by 97.1(e).

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Nice editing to fit an agenda, Hans.

I have no agenda.

And perhaps the vast majority will happily go through life as trained
operators.

This convenient ploy is the rallying cry of the QCAO but it
lacks any foundation of credibility when you consider that
the successful applicant for *any* amateur license is authorized
to build his own station. Would you want me putting my homebrewed
"creation" on your favorite VHF band if I hadn't even demonstrated
a working knowledge of Thévénins theorum? Get real!

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"

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.
You
have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.

The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

73, de Hans, K0HB