William wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Bill Sohl wrote:


Proposed entry level transmitter power is proposed to be 100 watts
when the operation takes place below 24 MHz; 50 watts above. This is the
same as the ARRL proposal.

I still want to see the people (tech's specifically) that have been
harmed by RF.


It makes sense in light of the present rf hazard calcs that we have to perform.

But I've not seen anyone claimed to have been harmed by rf.

I was nailed by maybe 50 watts of RF one time on the tip of my finger.
I was tuning up a MFJ tuner, and there was a problem somewhere. The
metal band on the tuner apparently capacitively coupled me to the tuning
cap and shazam! Darned if RF burns don't hurt a LOT.

I think that NCVEC and ARRL and others are missing the boat here. With
the likely disappearance of Morse as a requirement, they are simply
proposing *another* caste system, in which there is an elite, and an
underclass ghetto of people with what to me seem to be radically reduced
privileges. I don't have anything against different levels, but this
seems like too much discrimination.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures
of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and
the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is
just the creation of another group of "great unwashed"

We DON'T learn do we?


- Mike KB3EIA -

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

(quoting the NCVEC proposal)

In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final
transmitter amplifier stage

What about the 110 AC line?

and that only commercially
manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees.

Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it.

Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question
multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and
certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules.

This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it
*really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on
the 20 question test!


Agreed

It is precisely this sort of thing that messed up cb.

The VECs Question Pool
Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what
would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination
questions.

The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I
did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could
safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these
additional limits today?

This petition was reviewed prior to submission by all 14 of the
VEC's around the country, and was approved by a 2 to 1 margin.

Which means a third of them disapproved. Were the individual VEs
polled?


No, I wasn't

This NCVEC thing is very similar to the "Amateur Radio in the 21st
Century" paper by KL7CC. I wrote a detailed commentary on it some time
back.

NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying
much...

73 de Jim, N2EY




It has some improvements over the League's plan, but that all depends on
your perspective.

I'm not in favour of making the theory requirements easier. Both of these
plans upgrade all the Techs to General just to add a lower class licence
without increasing the number of classes. This is because they know the FCC
won't accept anything that makes the end result more complicated.

I don't think we need an easier theory test to attract people. If someone
is genuinely interested they will learn the theory. What we need is simply
publicity. Most people are scarcely aware that ham radio even exists.

The code test does need to be dumped to get over the hurdle of potential
recruits who immediately lose interest when it is mentioned. No-code
licencing for VHF+ did not eliminate that problem, no matter what anyone
says to the contrary. Any intelligent person knew that code testing was
only postponed if they wanted HF. However, most people don't even get that
far. Our visibility is zero. Besides, I am sure that the FCC will eliminate
Element 1 anyway.

By all means restructure, but these petitions are misguided.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Hambone the Magnificent" wrote in
groups.com:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
(quoting the NCVEC proposal)

In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final
transmitter amplifier stage

What about the 110 AC line?

Good glub OM, where did you get your technical facts?
110 VAC was the standard line voltage in 1927!
Today the standard is 125 VAC. Update your notes.

and that only commercially
manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees.

Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it.

Sour grapes. Poo-Poohs. Cry me a river.
Same shi+ different day. Blah Blah Blah.
You old ham farts think everyone should know
code just because YOU had to learn it 40+
Years ago in a smoke filled room. OyVey
Bitch-****-and-Moan.....(playing my violin)

Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question
multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read
and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules.

This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it
*really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on
the 20 question test!

How do you know that? You don't even know
what the present day standard Line Voltage is!

The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I
did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could
safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these
additional limits today?

That was THEN - this is NOW.

I got my licence in 1969 btw and my first xmitter was
a DX-60B (which I built from a kit) and a Drake 2B.
Would I burden today's hams to do the same? No way.
It's a different era.

As someone said at a Bond Traders Luncheon I was
at 2 Months ago: "Glue-ing feathers to your ass
DOES NOT make you a rooster in the hen house".

NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying
much...

I'll give you that one. The ARRL is trying to backpeddle
big time as the hobby is dying on the vine with ever month
of the full-page listings of SK's. They should have been doing
this kind of restructuring 20 Years ago!! It's probably too
late now. EXAMPLE: Plunk a teenager in front of a new Yaesu HF station
and a 2 gHz Pentium w/DSL, DVD, CD burner and a Kazaa
account and *try to guess* which one he'll want to play with.....(grin)



It's 120v actually, not 125, and the International IEC standards are
115v/60Hz and 230v/50Hz

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures
of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and
the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is
just the creation of another group of "great unwashed"

We DON'T learn do we?


- Mike KB3EIA -

I can hear Larry now, "I'm a Superior Ham because I have higher voltage finals..."

Or Bruce, "Know Ham = Know Voltage."

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I think that NCVEC and ARRL and others are missing the boat here. With
the likely disappearance of Morse as a requirement, they are simply
proposing *another* caste system, in which there is an elite, and an
underclass ghetto of people with what to me seem to be radically reduced
privileges. I don't have anything against different levels, but this
seems like too much discrimination.

It doesn't sit well with you that you are cast with the pro-code caste?

Some hams NEED a caste system just to prove they are "better"
than others, thus fulfilling a self-deficiency.

For a very long time morse code ability was the caste marker,
having no reasonable value except for some to brag that they
were "better" than no-coders.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...all the pro-coders beginning to cry and whine...?

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

That was for a Novice!

Good questions! And actually not all that hard. Sounds like an
enjoyable test to take.

Easy to say when you've taken all your tests and never have to
take another test (if you renew within time bounds).

Put yourself in the newcomer's place and look at it from their
vantage point -and- that of the FCC.

But, I don't think you will. You will, like way too many others,
look at it from your own personal viewpoint and experience and
desires and by default try to make all newcomers think as you do.

You can't freeze testing as it was in 1976...or 1986, 1966, 1956,
1946, or 1936. The overall environment is constantly changing
even if your personal activities isn't changing.

LHA / WMD

"Hambone the Magnificent" wrote in message
groups.com...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
(quoting the NCVEC proposal)

In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low
voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage

What about the 110 AC line?

Good glub OM, where did you get your technical facts?
110 VAC was the standard line voltage in 1927!
Today the standard is 125 VAC. Update your notes.

and that only commercially
manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees.

Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it.

Sour grapes. Poo-Poohs. Cry me a river.
Same shi+ different day. Blah Blah Blah.
You old ham farts think everyone should know
code just because YOU had to learn it 40+
Years ago in a smoke filled room. OyVey
Bitch-****-and-Moan.....(playing my violin)

Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question
multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and
certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules.

This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it
*really"
means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on the 20
question
test!

How do you know that? You don't even know
what the present day standard Line Voltage is!

The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I
did from
Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could safely build
transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these additional limits
today?

That was THEN - this is NOW.

I got my licence in 1969 btw and my first xmitter was
a DX-60B (which I built from a kit) and a Drake 2B.
Would I burden today's hams to do the same? No way.
It's a different era.


But why forbid them from experiencing such an activity?? That makes no
sense in light of the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in the
current Part 97. They should not be required to homebrew nor should they be
prevented from home brewing.

As someone said at a Bond Traders Luncheon I was
at 2 Months ago: "Glue-ing feathers to your ass
DOES NOT make you a rooster in the hen house".

NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying
much...

I'll give you that one. The ARRL is trying to backpeddle
big time as the hobby is dying on the vine with ever month
of the full-page listings of SK's. They should have been doing
this kind of restructuring 20 Years ago!! It's probably too
late now. EXAMPLE: Plunk a teenager in front of a new Yaesu HF station
and a 2 gHz Pentium w/DSL, DVD, CD burner and a Kazaa
account and *try to guess* which one he'll want to play with.....(grin)


The problem is NOT in the licensing structure. There is no structure that
will dramatically increase the number of amateur radio operators, not even a
no test license. The non-licensed services have proven that. Today CB
activity is way down. It is so low that there are now people who not only
have not heard of ham radio, they haven't even heard of CB!

The actual problem is stems from several elements. 1) Most people outside
of amateur radio have never heard of it. So even if they might be inclined
to pursue this hobby, they will never be involved. 2) Amateur radio, as
with any specialized activity, is only going to appeal to a limited number
of people in the first place. 3) There is a greater multitude of hobbies
and activities available today than ever before. People have to make
choices on how to spend their time and money.

I've seen no evidence of ham radio "dying on the vine". The listing of SK's
has shown no quantum leap. The number of new licensees exceeds the number
of licenses expiring.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low
voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage

How odd! Are the newbies going to not be allowed to use antennas like
Magloops?

Or dipoles? Or antenna tuners? Or line-powered power supplies?

These people have it SO WRONG! Presumably thay are admitting that there
are safety issues involved, which there are. Then teach the newbies
safety, don't avoid the issue, teach them Safety!!

There's a logical inconsistency in this requirement. The purpose of safety
questions in the written test is not so much to protect an amateur from the
consequences of his/her own ignorance as to protect *others*.

Sure. And there is no logical argument that can convince me that safety

shouldn't be practiced from the start. It doesn't have to be safety
officer level, but it has to be there, and it has to be there from the
start.

I agree 100%. Even back in my Novice days there were safety questions on the
test.

I find that the pussyfooting around safety, where these proposals to
limit power are made, is verging on criminal negligence.

Consider this: In most areas that I know of, a homeowner can work on
his/her
electrical wiring without a license or test of any kind. Same for plumbing.
Just can't do it to somebody else's house as a "professional" - meaning for
money.

So a Communicator could legally wire or re-wire his/her entire house, but
could
not legally *operate* a TS-520. Or even a solid-state rig with 48 volt
finals....because he/she might hurt themselves!

That's why they shouldn't be allowed to have electrical tools! ;^)

HAW!

But it just points out how ridiculous that part of the NCVEC proposal really
is.

Here's two mo

1) Audiophiles and radio restorers build and work on all sorts of high-voltage
electronics without any test. Why is a ham transmitter so dangerous if it has
more than 30 volts, but not a ham receiver or a stereo amplifier?

2) Low voltage is no guarantee of safety. A 100 watt transceiver powered by
13.8 volts will typically require 20 A or more to transmit full power. 35 A and
50 A supplies are common. Don't get your rig across those terminals...

and that only commercially
manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees.

This is illogical! What purpose would forcing an amateur to use a
commercially built product be?

1) To sell more commercially built products (read the "21st Century" paper
- it
talks about how we need more hams or the ham equipment manufacturers will
close
up shop).

2) To get new hams in the habit of buying, not building

3) To eliminate even more theory from the written test

zzzzzzzzzz...... now *that* sounds like a much fun as a stick in the
eye.

It's what NCVEC is trying to sell. Some folks here seem to be buying it. I
don't.

Some of the main Basis and Purposes of the ARS are technical education,
experimentation, and related stuff. Limiting *any* class of ham license to
manufactured gear and so many final volts directly contradicts those B&P.

The main reason I am in Amateur radio at
all is for the homebrewing and restoring of radio equipment.

More to the point: How many hams do we lose each year to electrocution from
their transmitters? How many hams cause serious interference problems with
their home-brew or restored rigs?

I propose an addition to the proposal in which Hams of all classes must
drink only Pepsi or Coke, whichever company donates more to the BPL
defense fund.

The Dr. Pepper contingent will have a fit!

If they provide enough money, then maybe they will be the one!

I prefer Sprite or 7Up, myself. Better yet, a Yuengling Black & Tan or a
Guiness Stout.

The communicators should also not be allowed to own a soldering iron or
electronic tools This will keep them out of their commercially built
transcievers, and keep them safe from booboo's that they might get from
foolishly messing with electronics, where they might get shocked or
something

But they would legally be allowed to build power supplies for their
commercially built rigs....

Right! we'll have to work on that! The goal is no booboo's. We have to
protect the new hams from themselves. So I would amend the proposal to
not allow Communicator's to use ANY voltages over 48 volts.

No power tools, no vacuum cleaners..oh wait, what about the CRT in the computer
monitor? Or the ATX power supply in the computer! Oh the humanity!

Maybe they should wear aluminum foil hats too?

Seriously, I think such rules insult those we are trying to attract.

Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question
multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and
certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool
Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would
be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination
questions.

Cannot a person of even limited intelligence take a test of more than
25 questions? I took bigger tests in grade school.

Me too. You should see the tests they give second-graders here.

The old Novice test was originally 20 questions, then 25, then 30. Most of
the
added questions were concerned with safety and the expanded privileges.
Novices
are allowed to homebrew anything they can legally use on the air.

I have always though that having more questions on a test made the test

easier! If you have a twenty question test, you don't have to miss many
to get a failing grade.

That's one way to look at it.

What this is doing is alarmingly like the citizens band radio I bought
in I think the late 70's or early 80's. At this point, the F.C.C. was
still lamely trying to have some kind of callsign and "rules". I "had"
to read a little pamphlet, and assign myself a callsign by some strange
method that I forget at the moment. Even had places for me to sign.

Where do you think NCVEC got the idea about the rules?

But didn't learn much else. Maybe they should check the aftermath of
that example.

Maybe it's what they want!

If a person can certifiy that they have read and understand part 97,
there is no reason at all that they shouldn't just say they read a book
about the whole process and sign for that.


BINGO!

Testing would certainly be easier!

One wonders what would be left to test!

And here's the bottom line:

If there is *anything* that *must* be part of testing for a ham license of
*any* class, it's safety and the rules and regulations. No exceptions, no
signed statements.

What you are seeing is exactly what I predicted about the anticodetest
arguments being used against the written test.

Check this out:

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

NOVICE (1976)

Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:
(a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter.

Study Question #32:
From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed
by the load be determined?

Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?

Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having
the
following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank,
(c)
high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f)
rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.

Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license
manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question
would
be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf
chokes?"
"what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?"

That was for a Novice!

Good questions! And actually not all that hard.

Not for you and not for me. Even when I was a 13 year old Novice-to-be those
questions were not "hard". Some folks here are obviously stumped by them,
though..

Sounds like an enjoyable test to take.

Challenge is the word I'd use.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low
voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage


How odd! Are the newbies going to not be allowed to use antennas like
Magloops?


Or dipoles? Or antenna tuners? Or line-powered power supplies?


These people have it SO WRONG! Presumably thay are admitting that there
are safety issues involved, which there are. Then teach the newbies
safety, don't avoid the issue, teach them Safety!!



There's a logical inconsistency in this requirement. The purpose of safety
questions in the written test is not so much to protect an amateur from the
consequences of his/her own ignorance as to protect *others*.


Sure. And there is no logical argument that can convince me that safety


shouldn't be practiced from the start. It doesn't have to be safety
officer level, but it has to be there, and it has to be there from the
start.


I agree 100%. Even back in my Novice days there were safety questions on the
test.


I find that the pussyfooting around safety, where these proposals to
limit power are made, is verging on criminal negligence.

Consider this: In most areas that I know of, a homeowner can work on
his/her
electrical wiring without a license or test of any kind. Same for plumbing.
Just can't do it to somebody else's house as a "professional" - meaning for
money.

So a Communicator could legally wire or re-wire his/her entire house, but
could
not legally *operate* a TS-520. Or even a solid-state rig with 48 volt
finals....because he/she might hurt themselves!

That's why they shouldn't be allowed to have electrical tools! ;^)


HAW!

But it just points out how ridiculous that part of the NCVEC proposal really
is.

Here's two mo

1) Audiophiles and radio restorers build and work on all sorts of high-voltage
electronics without any test. Why is a ham transmitter so dangerous if it has
more than 30 volts, but not a ham receiver or a stereo amplifier?

2) Low voltage is no guarantee of safety. A 100 watt transceiver powered by
13.8 volts will typically require 20 A or more to transmit full power. 35 A and
50 A supplies are common. Don't get your rig across those terminals...

I know what you mean. One of my jobs in the deep past involved working
around 5 Volt power supplies. Problem was they were many hundreds of
amps! I couldn't wear my wedding ring or any jewelry, and they bought me
a pair of non-conductive glasses. No metal belt buckles, etc.

and that only commercially
manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees.

This is illogical! What purpose would forcing an amateur to use a
commercially built product be?

1) To sell more commercially built products (read the "21st Century" paper
- it
talks about how we need more hams or the ham equipment manufacturers will
close
up shop).

2) To get new hams in the habit of buying, not building

3) To eliminate even more theory from the written test

zzzzzzzzzz...... now *that* sounds like a much fun as a stick in the

eye.

It's what NCVEC is trying to sell. Some folks here seem to be buying it. I
don't.

Some of the main Basis and Purposes of the ARS are technical education,
experimentation, and related stuff. Limiting *any* class of ham license to
manufactured gear and so many final volts directly contradicts those B&P.

Agreed!

The main reason I am in Amateur radio at
all is for the homebrewing and restoring of radio equipment.

More to the point: How many hams do we lose each year to electrocution from
their transmitters? How many hams cause serious interference problems with
their home-brew or restored rigs?



I propose an addition to the proposal in which Hams of all classes must
drink only Pepsi or Coke, whichever company donates more to the BPL
defense fund.

The Dr. Pepper contingent will have a fit!

If they provide enough money, then maybe they will be the one!


I prefer Sprite or 7Up, myself. Better yet, a Yuengling Black & Tan or a
Guiness Stout.

I believe that is *2* Guiness Stout's! For some reason you're supposed
to have 2. I won't argue! Happy St Paddy's day BTW


The communicators should also not be allowed to own a soldering iron or
electronic tools This will keep them out of their commercially built
transcievers, and keep them safe from booboo's that they might get from
foolishly messing with electronics, where they might get shocked or
something

But they would legally be allowed to build power supplies for their
commercially built rigs....

Right! we'll have to work on that! The goal is no booboo's. We have to
protect the new hams from themselves. So I would amend the proposal to
not allow Communicator's to use ANY voltages over 48 volts.


No power tools, no vacuum cleaners..oh wait, what about the CRT in the computer
monitor? Or the ATX power supply in the computer! Oh the humanity!

Maybe they should wear aluminum foil hats too?


Seriously, I think such rules insult those we are trying to attract.

Not that we're arguing, but I'll give you Game, Set, and Match on that
comment.


Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question
multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and
certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool
Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would
be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination

questions.

Cannot a person of even limited intelligence take a test of more than
25 questions? I took bigger tests in grade school.

Me too. You should see the tests they give second-graders here.

The old Novice test was originally 20 questions, then 25, then 30. Most of
the
added questions were concerned with safety and the expanded privileges.
Novices
are allowed to homebrew anything they can legally use on the air.

I have always though that having more questions on a test made the test


easier! If you have a twenty question test, you don't have to miss many
to get a failing grade.


That's one way to look at it.


What this is doing is alarmingly like the citizens band radio I bought
in I think the late 70's or early 80's. At this point, the F.C.C. was
still lamely trying to have some kind of callsign and "rules". I "had"
to read a little pamphlet, and assign myself a callsign by some strange
method that I forget at the moment. Even had places for me to sign.



Where do you think NCVEC got the idea about the rules?

But didn't learn much else. Maybe they should check the aftermath of
that example.


Maybe it's what they want!

rrrgh, (twitching a bit here)


If a person can certifiy that they have read and understand part 97,
there is no reason at all that they shouldn't just say they read a book
about the whole process and sign for that.


BINGO!

Testing would certainly be easier!


One wonders what would be left to test!

And here's the bottom line:

If there is *anything* that *must* be part of testing for a ham license of
*any* class, it's safety and the rules and regulations. No exceptions, no
signed statements.

What you are seeing is exactly what I predicted about the anticodetest
arguments being used against the written test.

Yup! Remember, the tests cannot be simple enough for some people.

Check this out:

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

NOVICE (1976)

Study Question #31:
Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:
(a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter.

Study Question #32:
From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed
by the load be determined?

Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?

Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having

the

following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank,

(c)

high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f)
rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.

Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license
manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question

would

be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf

chokes?"

"what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?"

That was for a Novice!

Good questions! And actually not all that hard.


Not for you and not for me. Even when I was a 13 year old Novice-to-be those
questions were not "hard". Some folks here are obviously stumped by them,
though..


Sounds like an enjoyable test to take.


Challenge is the word I'd use.

I like a challenge! Some people do not. I think that one of the most
damning things about the age that we live in is that somehow, some way,
those who want no challenges are in their ascendancy.

- Mike KB3EIA -