Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? 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 to get to 5 wpm, tested the way the USA does? 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? 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. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ups.com... Alun L. Palmer wrote: [snip] 12 wpm random groups with 96% copy The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so stringent. The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes - plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25 years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added. Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too easy to guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall when I took my 20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only possible answer out of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only letter that I had copied was the W. Some of us were too good at deduction and guessing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo posted on Mon, Feb 21 2005 4:31 pm
Alun L. Palmer wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in stuff sinpped for trying to figure out who said what.... most of Coslo-multi-quote-copying snipped as redundant Funny in a macabre sort of way, but hard to see the connection. Back when I originally made the "Jump frog jump comment, it was about people making an incorrect or bizzare conclusion from plain evidence. Retention of the morse code test for an amateur radio license is bizarre, outdated, with NO logical connection. Where people Might say that the No-Code technicians quit because The had a license that didn't have Element 1 as a test requirement. It would seem that those "who might say" that are PCTA! PCTAs have been insisting and insisting that the "no-code" Technicians would be expiring en masse 12 years after the 1991 creation of that class. They didn't! Sunnuvagun! Fact: The Technician class license number keep INCREASING! According to www.hamdata.com for 22 Feb 05, the Technician class is GROWING at an average rate of 27 per day! General class growth is about 2 per day, Extras about 5 per day. No-code detractors (such as "N2EY") used to say the Tech numbers were "meaningless since the Tech-Plus renewals were being tossed into the Tech category" and that was supposed to indicate the "meaninglessness." :-) Isn't so. Hamdata.com's latest tabulation (direct from FCC database, publicly available) shows that there are 723,551 individual amateur licenses (732,945 less 9,394 Club licenses). Of those, 290,874 are Technician class and 58,999 are Technician-Plus class. Very near 2 out of 5 individual amateur licenses are Technician class. From the hamdata tabulation of a year ago, Technician license growth was 9899 and Technician-Plus license decrease was 9521. The delta is 378 to indicate no-code Technician license minimum growth or at least 2 every 3 days. The chief of the numbers-game players ("N2EY") is still going to insist (if past is truly prologue) the no-code Tech numbers are "falling"...from some kind of inventive rationalization. :-) Since it isn't PC to show losses of any class but the evil no-coders (as AH0A does/did), he will continue to maintain the no-coder "loss" is "there." :-) If Tech+ classes were "upgrading" their license classes, then the no-code Tech numbers would be increasing even more! [sunnuvagun!] The sky has NOT fallen on the no-coders...except in the minds of the Chicken Little PCTAs. Paradigms were punctured and fell on those mighty instead... :-) |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: wrote in message ups.com... Alun L. Palmer wrote: [snip] 12 wpm random groups with 96% copy The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so stringent. The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes - plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25 years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added. Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too easy to guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall when I took my 20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only possible answer out of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only letter that I had copied was the W. Some of us were too good at deduction and guessing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE That's how I passed. Never said I was any good at Morse, quite the opposite in fact. I found that 70% copy was good enough for 7/10 multiple guess. If there hadn't been multiple guess I would never have passed 20wpm, for sure. When you're asked was the operator's name Hank, Frank, Bert or Gert, and you copy _ANK you have got the 50/50 like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire on TV. The other trick that I assume still works is listening for .. ,,, (IS), which precedes every answer. Name is _____, Ant is _____. And another thing. Copy IS Y____ and you know that either the rig is a Yeasu or the antenna is a Yagi, and if you know how many characters came after the Y, you know which of those is right. I miss the beginnings of words, but I know that ____OOD is Kenwood. It's still Kenwood even if you miss the D but just copy the OO. I approached it like a crossword puzzle. I couldn't make a minute solid copy at 20wpm to save my life. |
#58
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? And there we have the crux of the situation, expressed in a simple question. If a person wants to operate phone, and that is it, then what do they need to do that? Nothing. The Citizen's Band is adequate proof of that So are all branches of the U.S. military operating on HF. So are all civilian aircrew flying long routes using HF. So are all private boat owners using HF. So are various other civilian PLMRS users on HF. 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! :-) The test requirements are there to give us some basic exposure to elements of the hobby that are considered important by knowledgeable people. While there may be argument about how well the tests function for that purpose, there they are. Right...cast in concrete...protected by armor plate... forbidden EVER to change! [time no march on very fast for some...tsk, tsk] And what of people who only intend to operate phone QRP? The RF exposure questions are kind of a waste of time for them. Satellite operations? Just how many Hams do satellite operations? Why test on band allocations, we can look them up in a book. Why should a person have to do any basic electronics questions if they only want to buy a rig and antenna and operate phone? We can eventually argue away most of the test. Of course to all PCTA, eliminating the morse code test means "ALL tests are eliminated!" Oh, my. That old merry-go-round started up! I was able to overcome my own physical limitations and pass the darn thing. Your "hero of the American Amateur Corps" medal is being struck right now. Watch for the event's announcement in all leading news sources.... I don't advocate changing the rules because I had trouble with one of them. Right..."no gain, no pain." Not to mention NO GUTS to try eliminating it by lawful means like "democratic principles guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." You wanted to buy into the old beliefs. You did it. Now you can have fun sneering at all who don't care to buy that. You're a "somebody" in a radio hobby activity! [applause, applause...] :-) The ARRL is proud of you. |
#59
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... ;-) 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. FCC doesn't mandate morse code skill as being necessary to operate about 30 MHz. Technician class licensees don't have to take morse code tests and they are banished to the radioland above 30 MHz. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. " F U L L Y Q U A L I F I E D ! " G o t t a l o v e i t ! Olde tymers had to test for morse..."ergo," newbies have to test for morse code!!! Excellence in U.S. amateur radio is all about morse code ability!!!! "Real" hams are MORSEMEN! U.S. radio amateurs are the keepers of the living museum of morsemanship! [all other radio services have given up on morse code for main communications] Olde tyme hamme morsemen need playmates. Keep the test to subsidize the "CW" playground for the olde tymers! Screw the newbies to HF...MAKE them learn code to please the elitist olde tymers! |
#60
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Your Sing, Africa, ReSpirit the World | Shortwave | |||
IBRA Radio B04 | Shortwave | |||
Channel Africa A04 | Shortwave | |||
Channel Africa A04 | Shortwave | |||
( OT ) Quite a bit... ;-) | Shortwave |