![]() |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: snip 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think we can agree to differ on that last point. Perhaps. Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur radio, particularly on HF? Well? Agreeing that something is a big part of amateur radio does *not* mean that something deserves its own stand-alone test. As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test. Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements. 5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US, but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5. Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently". I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it. The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were. I was operating above 30MHz on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had the same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs. Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a little radio and some regs. Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand. Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the actual license arrived in the mail, though. Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving. Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens, with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up with Advanced instead of General. That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or Advanced to even *try* the Extra. This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months. Bingo. How long do you think it would have taken *you* to get to 5 wpm, tested the way the USA does? Hmm? Note that Mike got there in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and it took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of months later. To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on the other hand it's pointless. Not at all. If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway). Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill as a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum, when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway? Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge? 5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all. Why is it too much to ask? I think that one major reason some people are so against the code test is that it isn't something you can learn by reading a book or watching a video. Tradition? That's a weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone . And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place, just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground. Let's boil it down to basics: Your argument is that nobody should have to learn Knowledge A in order to do Activity B if Activity B can be done without Knowledge A. In this case Knowledge A = basic Morse skill, Activity B = amateur radio HF phone The problem is that if you accept that reasoning, you must logically a accept a lot mo Knowledge A = radio theory, Activity B = operate modern manufactured rig Knowledge A = limits of Band X, Activity B = operate on Band Y Knowledge A = SSB theory, Activity B = operate Morse Knowledge A = high power RF exposure safety, Activity B = operate QRP and much more. Despite all the colorful false analogies with buggywhips and such, no one has been able to show why the above arguments don't follow. In fact, the NCVEC proposal takes it to that level, not only dumping code testing but further watering down the *written* requirements to an almost absurd level. Do you think NCVEC has the right idea? Suppose someone proposed to eliminate the Extra and Advanced class licenses, give those hams Generals - and give all Generals full privileges. And suppose the proposal argued that since a General was qualified to use all modes, bands and power levels allowed to Advanceds and Extras, there was no need for the two higher level license classes. How would you counter that argument? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was traveling at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the families of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a good safety program. If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be liable? Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I tend to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak for this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the trucks too close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and the sometimes tragic consequences? The speeds were well over 70. A truck that was passing the line of traffic jackknifed and the rest is history. The police did not see fit to issue any citations. All were traveling over the speed limit, and when the storm blew up, they were waaayy too fast for the conditions. As for who is at fault, I have several times had to speed up to ridiculous speeds to not get run over by truck drivers who want to get a run for the next hill At speeds of 85 and more, they will get close enough for you to count how many bugs were caught on their radiators. I've seen a number of accidents where a truck has simply run right over the car in front of them I carry a CB, and I must say that there is an urban myth, believed by most truck drivers, that they *never* do anything wrong. What was especially funny was the time a truck jackknifed in front of a line of cars during a bad snowstorm - about 10 years ago - also on I-80, and by the time ten minutes had passed, the story passed around by radio was that a 4 wheeler had passed the truck, and cut him off, causing the jackknife. The offending 4 wheeler was never found. Not surprising to those of us who were close enough to see the accident happen! Truck drivers are professionals, and almost always much better drivers than those in the automobiles. But that doesn't mean they are never to blame. - Mike KB3EIA - Did not mean to imply that truckers are never to blame. I too have had truckers run right up on my bumper at excessive speeds and then honk to attempt to bully the other drivers to move. Just noting that I have all too often observed drivers in cars behaving like idiots around trucks and then blaming the trucker. I actually saw a case where a woman was circling a truck and causing a hazard to everyone on the road because she was bound and determined to find the phone number on the guys truck so she could turn him in. All that he had done was make a left turn onto the street that I was traveling on. Naturally, something that big is going to impede traffic slightly no matter what he does. He did NOT cut in front of any of us. We all had sufficient time to see him and adjust our speeds. This woman apparently thought he ought to wait until there was no one whatsoever on the road before entering it. Well he'd have been sitting there until he died of old age as that street is NEVER clear regardless of the weather or time of day. After this truck got on the road, the woman first sped up and pulled in front of him and looked in her mirror. When she couldn't find a phone number, she pulled over into my lane and braked and slowed down to examine the side of the truck. She paid no attention to the cars already in the lane and created a major hazard. The car ahead of me had to brake severely to keep from hitting her. When she found no phone number, she braked even more causing a major slowdown on a busy street and pulled in behind the truck to try to find it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote: Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. 1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio. 2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number and the percentage correct for passing. 3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-) The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate despite FCC regulations to the contrary. |
|
|
"bb" wrote in news:1109208496.863217.225020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: wrote: Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. 1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio. 2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number and the percentage correct for passing. 3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-) The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate despite FCC regulations to the contrary. Not exactly. It's Farnsworth method with an overall speed of 5wpm. That gives the brain longer to decode each character, and the hgiher speed of the individual characters still doesn't force you to read the character as a whole. It's still possible to read the individual dots and dashes. Bearing all that in mind, I have no problem with it. What did annoy me was that the NCVEC did eliminate the multi-choice option in direct response to the abolition of the 13 and 20wpm tests, so the 5wpm test is now harder than it was before, for no other reason than to make it harder. |
"Kim" wrote in news:tPbTd.56982$iC4.24423
@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up. Presumably the only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT button. "Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those owners have to know where to get the PTT control fixed! :-) Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they would know how to read. You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never "depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone with bare, dirty feet and yell into it. People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails. For it is written. I think I just found Larry Roll. Kim W5TIT I almost plonked him before I realised it was just Lenny being sarcastic! Alun N3KIP |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: "bb" wrote in news:1109208496.863217.225020 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: wrote: Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. 1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio. And that testing includes both written and code testing. FCC has decided that both are necessary for HF/MF license privileges. Of course that could have been changed any time after mid-July of 2003, but so far FCC has decided not to. 2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number and the percentage correct for passing. INCORRECT! *ALL* questions in the written exam pools have to be approved by FCC, both for inclusion and removal. While the questions, answers and distractors are created by the QPC, they must be approved by FCC. 3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-) The plain, simple fact of the matter is that the same arguments used against the code test can be used - and are being used - against almost all of what is in the written test. The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate despite FCC regulations to the contrary. INCORRECT! The use of Farnsowrth-spaced Morse is simply a recommended practice, not a requirement. If someone wants non-Farnsworth Morse for Element 1, the VEs will accomodate them. Not exactly. It's Farnsworth method with an overall speed of 5wpm. That gives the brain longer to decode each character, and the hgiher speed of the individual characters still doesn't force you to read the character as a whole. It's still possible to read the individual dots and dashes. It may be possible for *some* individuals to count dits and dahs at 13-16 wpm character speed, but for most people who have been evaluated it is easier to hear the letter or number as a unit of sound. The exaggerated spacing between the letters/numbers allows more recognition time, and particularly more time to write or type the letter/number. Hence Farnsworth spacing usually makes it *easier* to pass the test. Bearing all that in mind, I have no problem with it. Nor I. What did annoy me was that the NCVEC did eliminate the multi-choice option in direct response to the abolition of the 13 and 20wpm tests, so the 5wpm test is now harder than it was before, for no other reason than to make it harder. IIRC, FCC outlawed multiple choice code tests. While NCVEC may have commented against them, FCC makes the rules. Multiple-choice was eliminated because FCC decided it didn't really test the skill as required. There was a *lot* of comment against the multiple choice code test. 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... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com