From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 12:11 am
wrote in message
roups.com...
A real "communicator" will say 'key the mike', or 'key the
circuit'.

Dan/W4NTI

Sorry, but real "communicators" refer to "key" when they load an
encryption code.

BOL, bb

Poor Dan never got his crypto clearance... :-)



Oh dear....here he is again. Your right. I've been meaning to turn
in my
decoder ring to the arms room ever since I left the KY-7 on the floor
of the
room.

"KY-7?" Is that some kind of jelly? :-)

You must mean KY-57 at least (that's about to go obsolete and
replaced with already-operational newer crypto things)? How
about VINSON? Want some more alphabet-soup names? :-)

Dan, you are about as up-to-speed on today's crypto devices
as you are about on-line TTY rotor machines or the M-209 Code
Converter. Geez. :-)

Screw off dip****.

Go back to the corner and pop some more brews with your bros
as you wait for someone small to come by, ones that your gang
think they can beat up, OK? :-)

wrote in news:1109527218.137133.13160
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:




It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations

You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the
calculations either.

http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html

w3rv


I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the
same attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't
see anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I
think

people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be
a test on copying code by ear.

. . "Test questions on Morse"? . . "People should know about Morse"?
How many WPM izzat??


Zero

You obviously didn't spend much time cruising the link I posted. You
don't have to have Mathcad to solve transmission line problems to get
away from the primitive paper and pencil nonsense. There are freely
available Excel and Java routines which will do the job too.

Mathcad . . ah, yes . . If you do any engineering math which gets
complicated in Excel you need Mathcad Alun. I've been using it for
about ten years and it's become absolutely indispensible. Maybe only a
half hour after I first loaded and fired Mathcad up those ten years
ago and started messing with it I was running rapid-fire "what-if's" on
a double integral I'd dreamed up as an exercise. Very intuitive.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to run it. Heh.

'Tis an incredible solver which has saved me hundreds of hours of grunt
number crunching (and curve plotting BS) labor both on and off the job.
Don't believe the prices for it you see floating around the Web. My
latest iteration is v.2000 Pro ($800) which I bought in a
shrink-wrapped package for $65 at a local computer show after it was
one version outdated.

w3rv



You're right, I didn't notice that there was a Java routine and an Excel
spreadsheet.

I'm a patent agent these days. I may write patent applications for
communications systems that have complex equations in them, but that's
about as close as I get to having to solve mathematical problems, except in
the hobby of course.

Smith charts are actually most useful for designing stubs. I suppose I
could design a stub match for a beam using a Smith chart if I felt so
inclined, I know how to do it, but 9/10 of hams only follow someone else's
published designs, or they might adjust the stub or other matching circuit
by trial and error.

For this reason I'm actually not sure of the value of testing hams on Smith
charts, but I felt pretty sure I had seen a question on them in the pool?

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

A real "communicator" will say 'key the mike', or 'key the
circuit'.

Dan/W4NTI

Sorry, but real "communicators" refer to "key" when they load
an
encryption code.

BOL, bb

Oh yes indeed they do, as in KAC codes or the old antique KY-7
stuff, eh?
Well bb we are talking about ham radio. Of course I understand,
LEN
the
LOON, that you have no understanding of that subject.

Tweek twit.

Dan/W4NTI

Now Dan, you're mixing metaphors.

You're either talking about "real communicators" or you're talking
about "ham radio" ops.

Which is it?

In either case it's doubtful you're covered, so why sweat it?

Steve, K4YZ

Then you agree that the two classifications are different.

Phil Kane wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:


Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............


With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to
correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere "suggestions".

Isn't that where weird science was invented?

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: "Phil Kane" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 8:23 am
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............

With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to
correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere
"suggestions".

Phil, with some of the AMERICAN trained RF folks I've
worked with, the Smith Chart presentation on paper or on
the display screens of various RF instruments is an
indispensable tool for quickly observing both narrow- and
wideband behavior of RF structures.

Ohm's Law of Resistance is universally accepted in the radio
and electronics community worldwide...but there are some
huge exceptions with "foreign" concepts such as the Smith
Chart. Olde-tyme hammes haven't a clue on what the
wonderful chart tells them nor can they see the relationship
between complex quantities nor understand "normalization"
of impedance. Something involving algebra of three or more
quantities is apparently "rocket science" to them. shrug

I could do complex quantity calculations on my little
AMERICAN-made HP-25 and HP-67 pocket calculators
(made in HP's old plant in Oregon) and can still do them
on the Singapore-constructed HP 32S II (but designed by
HP) I have now. A few keystrokes is all. No "special
education" in Russia or any other foreign country needed
to do that. No PC is needed either, such as finding a
"calculator" Java script thing to find reactance at a
frequency (I can't believe some folks never progressed
far enough in self-education to learn the simple formulas
for reactance...or are afraid to learn and apply them).

If the Coslonaut thinks Smith Charts are obsolete then,
in this newsgroup, he will be "correct." In here the PCTA
extras are always right, anyone against them hate ham
radio and are always wrong. Rules of the Court as it were.

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109527218.137133.13160


Mathcad . . ah, yes . . If you do any engineering math which gets
complicated in Excel you need Mathcad Alun. I've been using it for
about ten years and it's become absolutely indispensible. Maybe
only a
half hour after I first loaded and fired Mathcad up those ten
years
ago and started messing with it I was running rapid-fire
"what-if's" on
a double integral I'd dreamed up as an exercise. Very intuitive.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to run it. Heh.


I'm a patent agent these days. I may write patent applications for
communications systems that have complex equations in them, but
that's
about as close as I get to having to solve mathematical problems,
except in
the hobby of course.

OK, you've explained that before but I forgot what you're doing to earn
your daily bread. It's the guys developing the systems who need to
crunch the numbers, not thee. I've gone off on a couple career tangents
over the years and got into the marketing and sales game and went for
several spells in which I seldom even needed a handheld calculator. But
in the past 15 years I've been almost 100% back to the design and build
end of the biz and much of it has involved some fairly serious
analytical work. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have bothered with
Mathcad. Now that I'm semi-retired and just sniping a project here and
there I've acquired a whole collection of design tools like Mathcad,
CAD and some bits and pieces of structural design FEA I can really
focus on hobby sorts of things.

Smith charts are actually most useful for designing stubs.
I suppose I
could design a stub match for a beam using a Smith chart if I felt so

inclined, I know how to do it, but 9/10 of hams only follow someone
else's
published designs, or they might adjust the stub or other matching
circuit
by trial and error.

Agreed. I've been pecking at HF wire antenna modeling via Nec Win Plus
and am getting all sorts of two-decimal-place accuracy results which I
bloody well know from experience are probably at least 3-5% off one way
or another. Back to the diagonal cutters & soldering gun . . as usual.


For this reason I'm actually not sure of the value of testing hams on
Smith
charts, but I felt pretty sure I had seen a question on them in the
pool?

Beats me, I haven't spent much time poking around the pools. I don't
see the point to testing for "Smith chart operations"any more than I
see the point to test questions on using sliderule log scales to
calculate decibles up/down. Based on some of the absolutely idiotic
posts about antenna matching issues by duly licensed individuals I've
seen in other venues indicate to me that if nothing else more test
questions on transmission line theory and practice need to be "loaded"
into the QPs.

w3rv

wrote:
From: "Phil Kane" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 8:23 am
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law..............

With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has
to
correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere
"suggestions".

Phil, with some of the AMERICAN trained RF folks I've
worked with, the Smith Chart presentation on paper or on
the display screens of various RF instruments is an
indispensable tool for quickly observing both narrow- and
wideband behavior of RF structures.

Ohm's Law of Resistance is universally accepted in the radio
and electronics community worldwide...but there are some
huge exceptions with "foreign" concepts such as the Smith
Chart. Olde-tyme hammes haven't a clue on what the
wonderful chart tells them nor can they see the relationship
between complex quantities nor understand "normalization"
of impedance. Something involving algebra of three or more
quantities is apparently "rocket science" to them. shrug

I could do complex quantity calculations on my little
AMERICAN-made HP-25 and HP-67 pocket calculators
(made in HP's old plant in Oregon) and can still do them
on the Singapore-constructed HP 32S II (but designed by
HP) I have now.

It was made in Indonesia Sweetums. Get SOMETHING right at least onece
in awhile WILLYA?

shrug


A few keystrokes is all. No "special
education" in Russia or any other foreign country needed
to do that. No PC is needed either, such as finding a
"calculator" Java script thing to find reactance at a
frequency (I can't believe some folks never progressed
far enough in self-education to learn the simple formulas
for reactance...or are afraid to learn and apply them).

If the Coslonaut thinks Smith Charts are obsolete then,
in this newsgroup, he will be "correct." In here the PCTA
extras are always right, anyone against them hate ham
radio and are always wrong. Rules of the Court as it were.

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Perhaps a compromise could be used. Suppose the code test
were replaced
with a test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line
problems with
the Smith Chart...

There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool

You must have missed this one, Alun:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...cy/msg/0206dcd
6822763ed?dmode=source

It's quite whimsical,

I'll take that to mean "funny". Thanks!

but hardly really comparable with CW.

In some ways I agree. The use of Morse Code/CW in amateur radio is far
more common than the use of the Smith Chart, mostly because most hams
spend more time operating than designing.

And the Smith Chart is hardly a necessity for RF work. As W3RV points
out, there are many software tools which do the job better and faster.
The Smith Chart's ingenious graphicality was whiz-bang stuff in its
time - just like the old ARRL Lightning Calculators. And Morse Code.
All are still useful today. But make no mistake, they're *OLD* methods
- all of them.

But if a Smith Chart skill test *were* substituted for the Morse Code
test, you can bet that the same sort of debate would arise, and for
exactly the same reasons.

I would be
happy with just theory tests where both the Smith chart and CW were
in the
question pool.

I suspect many would agree. I don't.

If there had to be a skill test it ought to involve
soldering and/or putting on a PL 259, IMHO, but I don't think even
those
things as essential, in fact for my money you could just put those
things
in the theory test too.

Why are they needed? PL-259s aren't needed to build a ham station - I
know many hams who avoid PL-259s like the plague, preferring type N and
BNC for their superior RF and waterproof characteristics.

There are also solderless PL-259 equivalents.

When it comes to doing them, people learn quickly
enough.

*Some* people do. Others don't even have the sense to file the nickel
plating off before soldering, or to buy silverplated connectors.

Point is, *any* test of skill is going to raise the hackles of some
folks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

wrote in news:1108637750.922635.205620
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in
. 30:


wrote in news:1108578593.250795.201100
:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Yes, South Africa has abolished the code test! One more domino

has

fallen.

How many countries does that make now, compared to those who

still

have it?


It's getting a little difficult to keep track. However, I
think at
least the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, the
Netherlands,
Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore,
Australia,
New Zealand, Papua Niugini, Hong Kong and South Africa have
abolished the code test so far. I think that of these only

Austria

and the Netherlands even retain an entry level licence that
doesn't give HF privileges.
That's only 17 countries, but I expect I may have missed some

out. I make the combined ham population of the above something

over

260,000 (possibly more than half of them no-coders), so

probably

a little less
than half the number of hams in the US.

260,000/670,000 = about 38.9%


Quite a bit less than half.

However, there are well over
50,000 hams in Canada, which is also likely to abolish the code

test

very soon.

Yep. But there are two big points about Canada:

1) The proposal would increase the written test level


This is a biggie. Simply proposing to drop the code test is *not*
the
same thing as proposing to drop the code test *and* beef up the
writtens.

I'd like that quite a bit.

But that hasn't been proposed in the USA.

IIRC, one of the things proposed in Canada was to make the code
test
optional in that if you passed code you didn't need as high a grade
on
theory to get the license.

Now that just seems strange.

How so? It's simply an option.

The test should either be or not be. Not
some kind of bonus that allows you to be less technically proficient.

Then why require more technical knowledge for an Extra? That license
does not
allow the holder to use any more modes, power, or bands than a General.
Just a few additional slices of spectrum.

If the nocodetest folks in the USA proposed options like those they
might get a lot more support. But instead, we have folks like NCVEC
telling us we must drop code *and* reduce the written still more.

And how! Let's not forget that NCI also supports lowering the test
requirements.

So do others that support automatic upgrades.

All they have to go on is "gut" feelings. And unfortunately, the
first
wave of no-code Technicians appear to be dropping like flies. "Gut"
feelings can be wrong.

I don't see *any* license class "dropping like flies". Check the AH0A
data on renewals - thousands of Techs are renewing every month, either
before the license runs out or in the grace period.

Note that almost 5 years after the 200 restructuring we still retain
more than 50% of Novices and 75% of Advanceds.

Theirs is a failed and incorrect paradigm.

Maybe. The concept of "lowered entry requirements = sustained growth"
just hasn't happened in the ARS.

We don't need hams that thought that maybe it would be kewl to get a

ham license some weekend between coffee at Starbucks and their
Pilates
classes, and then forget about it. We need hams who want to be hams.

Agreed! But of course people have to know what ham radio *is* to do
that!


2) Commentary to the Canadian proposal showed a clear majority
favored the change. That's not the case in the USA, in any survey
done to date, nor in the commentary to FCC.


Another biggie.


Don't forget that Japan, with a ham population of 1.2 Million
(twice

that of the US, out of maybe a fifth of your general
population), has
long had a no-code HF licence, albeit limited to 10 Watts.

Check your numbers!

Japan has over 3.1 million operator licenses - but they cost
nothing and never expire, so that number is really the number of
ham
operator licenses issued since 1955, not the number of
present-day hams.

Japanese *station* licenses are a bit over 600,000 now, and have
been dropping for a decade. The number of new JA licenses has
also been dropping.
See the AH0A website.


I'm not sure
how many Japanese hams have a no-code HF licence,

Well over 95%.


but they may even
rival all the new ones so far put together, although the new
guys can use more than 10 Watts! It's probably only a matter of
time before Japan lets all of their hams use HF anyway.

All Japanese hams have HF privileges *today*. Been that way for
decades.

But for all classes of ham license except 4th class, JA hams have
a
code test. And there's no move to change that yet.


And for ten years JA ham license numbers have been dropping fast.
*With* nocodetest HF.


Quick! Let's emulate Japan! Except we can do it better by allowing
the
newbies full power privileges.

Japan's obvious success can be our own!

Indeed.

Even without the low power Japanese stations, the number of
no-coders who have full HF privileges right now is probably
about the same as the number of no-code Techs in the US.


Close enough.

And if there are already that number of no-code hams on HF without
any incident, what is the problem with abolishing the code test
here?

The USA isn't Japan. Different society, different culture,
different
rules.

I don't know if any of us geniuses have though about it, but lets say

in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a woman
not
knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning herself when trying
to
hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry Phil, but what if she
simply ruined her dress because the coffee was wet?- negligent design
of
the cup?)

So lets have a newbie ham that fires up his/her kilowatt rig, and is
half fried because no one told him not to touch the wirey thingies on

the back of the box thingy. Ohh, I can see the successful lawsuits
already!

We have that situation today.

I've nailed myself with 50 watts, enough to produce a painful burn
and
a cute little scar on the boo-boo finger. Some dunce that catches a
ride
on a thousand watts might just have a very successful lawsuit if we
don't train them well.

The same is true of ordinary house current.

And it's not just voltage. Get a metal ring a high current supply and
the results aren't pretty. If the ring is on your finger.....

Yet the NCVEC folks say the solution is to create a class of ham that
can't use rigs with more than 30 volts on the electronics...

RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one should be
a
Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the ability to handle full

legal limit.

Why? We don't test people on gasoline-handling safety, nor ladder
safety, nor many other things that injure thousands of Americans every
year.

I agree that every ham should be safety-aware. But a true test of
safety would be far more extensive than even the Extra writtens.

And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or some other
weird thing is the answer, are advised to think about things such as
Technician Hams operating under supervision. It only takes a second
to
drop a paper and reach behind a Rig. Less time than the control op
can
react. I want those Technicians to be exposed to full power safety
requirements.

They are - today, anyway.

Anything else is criminally negligent.

Umm, Mike, you're saying it's the Govt's role to protect people from
their
own ignorance and unsafe behavior.....

It would be interesting to see what the JA 4th class *written* exam
looks like.

And as mentioned before, the number of JA station licenses and new
operator licenses is way down.


That's 18, I didn't count both Austria and Australia!

OK. But it's still a small fraction of the number of hams
and the number of countries.

The big questions: Must all countries drop the code test
because a few have decided to? Or can each country decide for
itself.


Each country can do as it chooses, but the trend is to abolish the
code test.


The trend in most countries is to ban or severely restrict
individual
ownership of firearms, too.


Has the change caused lots of new growth in countries that have
dropped code testing?


No, but it's increased HF activity in those countries


So all it's done is to permit *existing* hams to upgrade. But it
*hasn't* brought in lots of new folks.

Which means the Morse code isn't the "problem" some people make it
out
to be.

Of course!

It's the classic case of a red herring diversion. Blame the code test
for everyhting bad while the real problems are not addressed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in
oups.com:


Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

wrote in news:1108637750.922635.205620
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in
. 30:


wrote in news:1108578593.250795.201100
:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Yes, South Africa has abolished the code test! One more domino

has

fallen.

How many countries does that make now, compared to those who

still

have it?


It's getting a little difficult to keep track. However, I
think at
least the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, the
Netherlands,
Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore,
Australia,
New Zealand, Papua Niugini, Hong Kong and South Africa have
abolished the code test so far. I think that of these only

Austria

and the Netherlands even retain an entry level licence that
doesn't give HF privileges.
That's only 17 countries, but I expect I may have missed some

out. I make the combined ham population of the above something

over

260,000 (possibly more than half of them no-coders), so

probably

a little less
than half the number of hams in the US.

260,000/670,000 = about 38.9%


Quite a bit less than half.

However, there are well over 50,000 hams in Canada, which is also
likely to abolish the code

test

very soon.

Yep. But there are two big points about Canada:

1) The proposal would increase the written test level


This is a biggie. Simply proposing to drop the code test is *not*
the same thing as proposing to drop the code test *and* beef up the
writtens.

I'd like that quite a bit.

But that hasn't been proposed in the USA.

IIRC, one of the things proposed in Canada was to make the code test
optional in that if you passed code you didn't need as high a grade
on theory to get the license.

Now that just seems strange.

How so? It's simply an option.

The test should either be or not be. Not some kind of bonus that
allows you to be less technically proficient.

Then why require more technical knowledge for an Extra? That license
does not
allow the holder to use any more modes, power, or bands than a General.
Just a few additional slices of spectrum.

If the nocodetest folks in the USA proposed options like those they
might get a lot more support. But instead, we have folks like NCVEC
telling us we must drop code *and* reduce the written still more.

And how! Let's not forget that NCI also supports lowering the test
requirements.

So do others that support automatic upgrades.

All they have to go on is "gut" feelings. And unfortunately, the first
wave of no-code Technicians appear to be dropping like flies. "Gut"
feelings can be wrong.

I don't see *any* license class "dropping like flies". Check the AH0A
data on renewals - thousands of Techs are renewing every month, either
before the license runs out or in the grace period.

Note that almost 5 years after the 200 restructuring we still retain
more than 50% of Novices and 75% of Advanceds.

Theirs is a failed and incorrect paradigm.

Maybe. The concept of "lowered entry requirements = sustained growth"
just hasn't happened in the ARS.

We don't need hams that thought that maybe it would be kewl to
get a

ham license some weekend between coffee at Starbucks and their Pilates
classes, and then forget about it. We need hams who want to be hams.

Agreed! But of course people have to know what ham radio *is* to do
that!


2) Commentary to the Canadian proposal showed a clear majority
favored the change. That's not the case in the USA, in any survey
done to date, nor in the commentary to FCC.


Another biggie.


Don't forget that Japan, with a ham population of 1.2 Million
(twice

that of the US, out of maybe a fifth of your general
population), has
long had a no-code HF licence, albeit limited to 10 Watts.

Check your numbers!

Japan has over 3.1 million operator licenses - but they cost
nothing and never expire, so that number is really the number of
ham operator licenses issued since 1955, not the number of
present-day hams.

Japanese *station* licenses are a bit over 600,000 now, and have
been dropping for a decade. The number of new JA licenses has also
been dropping. See the AH0A website.


I'm not sure
how many Japanese hams have a no-code HF licence,

Well over 95%.


but they may even
rival all the new ones so far put together, although the new
guys can use more than 10 Watts! It's probably only a matter of
time before Japan lets all of their hams use HF anyway.

All Japanese hams have HF privileges *today*. Been that way for
decades.

But for all classes of ham license except 4th class, JA hams have a
code test. And there's no move to change that yet.


And for ten years JA ham license numbers have been dropping fast.
*With* nocodetest HF.


Quick! Let's emulate Japan! Except we can do it better by
allowing
the newbies full power privileges.

Japan's obvious success can be our own!

Indeed.

Even without the low power Japanese stations, the number of
no-coders who have full HF privileges right now is probably
about the same as the number of no-code Techs in the US.


Close enough.

And if there are already that number of no-code hams on HF without
any incident, what is the problem with abolishing the code test
here?

The USA isn't Japan. Different society, different culture, different
rules.

I don't know if any of us geniuses have though about it, but lets say

in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a woman
not knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning herself when
trying to hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry Phil, but what
if she simply ruined her dress because the coffee was wet?- negligent
design of the cup?)

So lets have a newbie ham that fires up his/her kilowatt rig, and is
half fried because no one told him not to touch the wirey thingies on

the back of the box thingy. Ohh, I can see the successful lawsuits
already!

We have that situation today.

I've nailed myself with 50 watts, enough to produce a painful
burn
and a cute little scar on the boo-boo finger. Some dunce that catches
a ride on a thousand watts might just have a very successful lawsuit
if we don't train them well.

The same is true of ordinary house current.

And it's not just voltage. Get a metal ring a high current supply and
the results aren't pretty. If the ring is on your finger.....

Yet the NCVEC folks say the solution is to create a class of ham that
can't use rigs with more than 30 volts on the electronics...

RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one should be a
Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the ability to handle full

legal limit.

Why? We don't test people on gasoline-handling safety, nor ladder
safety, nor many other things that injure thousands of Americans every
year.

I agree that every ham should be safety-aware. But a true test of
safety would be far more extensive than even the Extra writtens.

And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or some other
weird thing is the answer, are advised to think about things such as
Technician Hams operating under supervision. It only takes a second to
drop a paper and reach behind a Rig. Less time than the control op can
react. I want those Technicians to be exposed to full power safety
requirements.

They are - today, anyway.

Anything else is criminally negligent.

Umm, Mike, you're saying it's the Govt's role to protect people from
their
own ignorance and unsafe behavior.....

It would be interesting to see what the JA 4th class *written* exam
looks like.

And as mentioned before, the number of JA station licenses and new
operator licenses is way down.


That's 18, I didn't count both Austria and Australia!

OK. But it's still a small fraction of the number of hams
and the number of countries.

The big questions: Must all countries drop the code test
because a few have decided to? Or can each country decide for
itself.


Each country can do as it chooses, but the trend is to abolish the
code test.


The trend in most countries is to ban or severely restrict
individual ownership of firearms, too.


Has the change caused lots of new growth in countries that have
dropped code testing?


No, but it's increased HF activity in those countries


So all it's done is to permit *existing* hams to upgrade. But it
*hasn't* brought in lots of new folks.

Which means the Morse code isn't the "problem" some people make
it
out to be.

Of course!

It's the classic case of a red herring diversion. Blame the code test
for everyhting bad while the real problems are not addressed.

73 de Jim, N2EY



It depends what you mean. Will repealing the code test provide a vast
increase in numbers? No. Will it provide some increase? Yes. Are there
thousands of hams that could pass the General or Extra theory trapped above
30 MHz? Yes. Will there be a large increase in HF use? Yes.