"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I presume there is evidence that
Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.


Of course there isn't any evidence of that, Mike. As I said earlier, Hans'
proposal appears to be a solution looking for a problem (an answer looking
for a question). Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

I agree, see more below.

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 that's a logical threshold point in my opinion.

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?

None I know of.

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.

Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the basics of RF,
RF hazards, etc

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.

Stewart, there's no polite way for me to say this. With your QCAO agenda so
thoroughly clouding your thought processes, you wouldn't recognize proof if
Mr. Proof in a monogrammed sweater jumped out of your computer screen and
bit you square on the nose. So you cling to your "unfairness" and
"unenforceable" jeremiads, even though they have both been refuted and
discredited here with elementary logic.

The beauty of the situation is that I don't have to prove anything to you
anyhow. I just have to persuade the FCC. ('Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't
thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. -- Douglas
Adams, THGttG)


With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Actually, after reading what he's said about it in this
thread, his proposal really appears to be nothing more than a way for Hans
to build up his own self-image by belittling Technicians (and to a lesser
extent Generals).

In the inbred world of rrap, there is no self-image to build.

And of course I haven't belittled any amateurs. I've only pointed out the
inadequacies of the current qualification process and suggested an
alternative. That you have decided to start bringing personality into the
argument speaks volumes about the inadequacy of your arguments and logic
skills.

With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Bert Craig wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bert Craig wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.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^)


Lol.


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


I'd bet you would too. I had a slightly unfair advantage, a college avionics
curriculum that culminated in a GROL. However, in order to earn our
sheepskins, we had to pass screening exams...no published Q&A pools. Same
applied to our FAA exams.


BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?


Didn't really notice. Once you review the Q&A pool, the correct answer
stands out like a sore thumb. I reviewed the Q&A pool twice and drove and
hour so to Yonkers, NY...for approx. six minutes of actual exam time. (&
that gave me privies to 1500 Watts on 50 MHz and up?!)

Reminds me of the first time I took the General test. I got up early
and drove to the Hamfest in Butler PA from State College PA. Drank
several cups of coffee on the way. I took the writtens first, and no
problem acing it. Then the combination of the trip and too much coffee
kicked in as I sat down for the Morse code test. As they say in the
Bronx fuggitaboudit! So I had to wait a while for my ticket.

Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

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.


I agree, see more below.


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 that's a logical threshold point in my opinion.


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?


None I know of.


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.


Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the basics of RF,
RF hazards, etc

Seems like we're pretty much on the same page here! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

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.

Exisitng equipment could still be used by LP licensees - they just have to turn
it down by 3 dB.

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.

When the Novice was created back in 1951, the power limit was 75 watts input.
Which works out to about 50 watts output.

In a short time there were many manufacturers making transmitters for the
Novice market. Their resale value was good because there were always new
Novices coming along looking for a bargain.

And those manufacturers had to compete with homebrew and surplus rigs which
were in abundance back then. (One of the reasons Novices were limited to 75 w
xtal control was so that homebrew rigs used by Novices would be kept simple).

In fact many Novices used less than the full power allowed.

Let's see...there was the Ameco AC-1, the Heath AT-1, DX-20, DX-35, DX-40, d
DX-60 and HW-16, the Johnson Adventurer, Challenger, Navigator and Ranger, the
Drake 2-NT, the Hallicrafters HT-40.......to name just a few.

And this was when the amateur radio market was a lot smaller than it is today.


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?

Under Hans' plan, no existing hams would lose any privileges. So they don't
have to worry.

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.

Until a few years ago there were no questions about RF exposure at all in the
pools.

One question is being overlooked, though: Why are most manufactured rigs rated
100 watts? Why not 50 watts, or 250 watts, or something else? (A very few are
rated at other power levels). Why 100.

The answer is about 50 years old.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Bert Craig wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bert Craig wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.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^)


Lol.


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


I'd bet you would too. I had a slightly unfair advantage, a college
avionics
curriculum that culminated in a GROL. However, in order to earn our
sheepskins, we had to pass screening exams...no published Q&A pools.
Same
applied to our FAA exams.


BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?


Didn't really notice. Once you review the Q&A pool, the correct answer
stands out like a sore thumb. I reviewed the Q&A pool twice and drove
and
hour so to Yonkers, NY...for approx. six minutes of actual exam time. (&
that gave me privies to 1500 Watts on 50 MHz and up?!)

Reminds me of the first time I took the General test. I got up early
and drove to the Hamfest in Butler PA from State College PA. Drank
several cups of coffee on the way. I took the writtens first, and no
problem acing it. Then the combination of the trip and too much coffee
kicked in as I sat down for the Morse code test. As they say in the
Bronx fuggitaboudit! So I had to wait a while for my ticket.

Which makes me wonder, I do not do Morse well under stress. I wonder how
some of those who had to do it under some awful condx ever managed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I actually had a pretty good experience with Element 1...once it began. I
had actually kinda over-prepped and was getting pretty nervous. Dick, N0BK
(God rest his soul.) told me to stop practicing, get off my ar$e, and just
give it a whirl.

When I arrived, it was all I could do NOT to throw up, until the code
characters started flowing. I had practiced with the ARRL CD's and they
turned out to be a tad faster than the actual exam. It was like gettin'
ready to bat in the world series only to have the pitcher throw cantaloupe
sized balls in slow-motion...underhand. I went into immediate $hit-eating
grin mode.

Then there's gettin' OTA...whole 'nutha story. ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"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?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.