Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message some snippage Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or even monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen. Kim W5TIT While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the legal limit. But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will handle the limit already on the market. Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts? Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100 watts is something most people are comfortable with. And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts power? And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to advocate that. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#282
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote: (snip) I want added test material for the advanced licenses to fill the vacuum left by the departure of Morse Code testing. I don't want the additions as a way of keeping people out - indeed if there are some more questions, it is just a matter of studying a little more. I want it to show that we are not just getting rid of things, and thereby simply making things easier to get a ticket. (snip) Several have said that, but I just don't see what can be added that wouldn't fundamentality change the nature of the Amateur Radio Service. 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. Since the first two (and international goodwill) don't seem to be a consideration, I'll ignore those for now. Could be simply some more questions added to the test. This leaves the last and a question about how far that should be taken. Most are not clear at all about that. Some seem to suggest we add content to more closely fit a college degree program. If so, do we add science, history, social studies, general math, politics, language, art, economics, health, and the other things colleges require? If not, can we honestly claim the license is comprehensive training? But if we add those things, what happens to the avocational nature of this activity? Wow, you slippery sloped that one pretty well, Dwight! I'm not looking for the equivalent of an engineering degree, and would never suggest such a thing. I don't think that the addition of some relevant questions to the writtens is at all a bad thing. And even an EE degree is only partly relevant to the ARS. 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. This brings up something that I have wondered about for a while. What is the basis for so many people avoiding education with a passion? It isn't like even the Extra test is all that difficult. Takes some study and time, but it isn't like the SAT's or the like. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#283
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote
And there it is. WHY? Mike, I know it scares the bejeebers out of the professional-entry-level licensees out there who have essentially zero interest in whatever electrical thing happens when they mash the PPT switch, but by their license grant they are responsible for a ensuring that their transmitted signal meets a set of technical parameters beyond what the little blinky digits on the faceplate read. The current qualification process is woefully inadequate to ensure they can fulfill that responsibility. The current rules have kept most of these QCAO members in parts of the spectrum which have mostly local propagation, even with 1.5KW output. However, we can soon expect rules changes which may extend their turf to parts of the spectrum where their ignorance can have worldwide visibility and consequences. And that scares the bejeebers out of me. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Pee equals eye-squared are. It's not just a good idea, it's the law! |
#284
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Bert Craig wrote: "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." When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! 8^) 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. Big deal! There will have to be a study guide, which will have the answers in it in text form. I'd read it and know it. Probably quicker and better than the pools BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the actual test as compared to the question pool? Q. Do what? A. Require just a hair more cerebral activity than rote memorization. Maybe for some. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#285
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote
Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts? I think they would if the market existed. In JA there is a class of 10W HF hams, and there are all sorts of nice 10W HF rigs available there. But let's just suppose that the manufacturers continue to build only 100W HF rigs for the US market. It's not the manufacturers responsibility to comply with the power limits. That responsibility lies with each individual licensee. In my experience, hams are almost universally scrupulous in observing the limitations that their license grant imposes on them. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#286
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#287
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"KØHB" wrote:
I have no agenda. Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring the rest. (snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility when you consider that the successful applicant for *any* amateur license is authorized to build his own station. (snip) The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled, obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants, but there is no mandate to do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#288
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system with stiffer tests for newcomers? Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications for newcomers. The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled, obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants, but there is no mandate to do so. But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of QCAO-unfriendly things like signal purity, etc. 97.307(a) thru (e) come to mind. Personally, I don't believe that your (misnamed) Technician qualification examination is adequate to ensure that you can carry out that mandate. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#289
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Wow, you slippery sloped that one pretty well, Dwight! I'm not looking for the equivalent of an engineering degree, and would never suggest such a thing. I don't think that the addition of some relevant questions to the writtens (snip) If you've been following the discussion in this thread, and in general over the last couple of years, it wasn't slippery sloped that much. It was only a very slight exaggeration of what some (I'm not saying you) seem to want. This brings up something that I have wondered about for a while. What is the basis for so many people avoiding education with a passion? It isn't like even the Extra test is all that difficult. Takes some study and time, but it isn't like the SAT's or the like. I can't speak for others, Mike. But, in our case, it's not avoiding education per se. Education is a routine in this household. We're both college graduates. Correspondence courses, college courses, and technical seminars, are endless. We're both looking towards retirement and want to change directions in our lives. To do that, we've both recently went back to school. I just completed an associate degree in electronics (thought I'd play around with it a little more seriously) and my wife just completed a BA (math major/history minor) and will start her masters degree program in January (secondary education). On top of that, we own several businesses, have a full social life, and have several volunteer activities we're involved in. Plus we like to have a little time for other things (like this newsgroup, spending time together, and so on). That leaves very little time for other things. Since we don't really have a place to fully exploit HF, and don't want to waste time learning code, getting another license class is just not that high on our list of things to do. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#290
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" wrote: Yes, it is required by 97.1(e). Well, goodwill is certainly important. So, by all means, go. :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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 |