| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
August 31st 05, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. cut "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. When are you going ENGLISH Obsolete is not useless, ask the marines from Leyte about the uselessness of the obseltete Batteships tat rendered gunfire support Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#62
August 31st 05, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill Sohl wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. cut "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. When are you going ENGLISH Obsolete is not useless, ask the marines from Leyte about the uselessness of the obseltete Batteships tat rendered gunfire support Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#64
August 31st 05, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. cut "Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode in HF amateur radio. When are you going ENGLISH Obsolete is not useless, ask the marines from Leyte about the uselessness of the obseltete Batteships tat rendered gunfire support Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. It is only valid if the point is made with the FCC. So far I don't see that being a valid question to the FCC. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. You appear to be the champion of the idea/question in this RRAP forum. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. The future I can't be responsible for. As you properly point out...it is NOT an issue now because the FCC has dismissed the ide. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... Gang of Four??? But in any case, your analogy hasn't had any effect on the FCC and they are the only ones that count. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#65
August 31st 05, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: on Wed 31 Aug 2005 08:23
Bill Sohl wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. Paranoia loves company... PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. Hello? Who ya gonna call? Test Busters? The VEC Question Pool Committee, all licensed radio amateurs, make up ALL the questions and answers. Nasty evil FCC doesn't make them up, they only approve the Pools. Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Paranoia NEEDS company? Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Nasty old VECs! What do they know? :-) Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). "What evil lurks in the hearts of men...it is the VEC!" Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Run for office at the ARRL! Get a political appointment as Commissioner at the FCC! Show 'em who's Boss! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. Not from Jimmie, Mighty Macho Morseman! Mount the barricades, the Enemy are approaching! I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. "Come with us now to the days of yesteryear, before RF exposure and NO BANDPLANS!" - intro to "The Lone Stranger" of the wild, wild east when real men were morsemen, feared throughout all radioland. "Hi-yo Silverplate!" but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... Only "four?" :-) Count again, using both hands' fingers... |
|
#66
August 31st 05, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. no it isn't but no you are not the only one using this red herring Except it's not a red herring. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. WHY? Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. why does anyone need to memorized what Inductor do? or how caps ad in paralell? Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Elcetronics is the only thing techinal? Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). and there is not enough Pratical stuff Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to agree on what the rules say. But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear limited power etc That's what NCVEC wanted... Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. no it isn't we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door and the keep em out with hard tests Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point! For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written, code, practical, whatever. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed rebuttal. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... That's what they called themselves in the "21st Century" thing... There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a "red herring" and "something FCC would never consider". Now look where we are. The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less testing overall. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#67
August 31st 05, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for those who chose not to build their radios? Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner. Same old tired analogy. It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only one asking it. no it isn't but no you are not the only one using this red herring Except it's not a red herring. PLEASE...if you want electronics taken off the written test, then say so. I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new exams myself if needed. WHY? Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test that I can't pass myself. No why should we all be tested a=on more electronics why does anyone need to memorized what Inductor do? or how caps ad in paralell? Failing that, your wasting your time and effort dragging up this tired argument. It's not me who is bringing it up. Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious. Elcetronics is the only thing techinal? Even better, look at the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper, which was in CQ and also on the 'net. That one says the future of amateur radio depends on an easier-to-get entrylevel license. Says there's too much math and theory in the current Tech (!). and there is not enough Pratical stuff Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just require a signed statement that the licensee had read and understood the rules. not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to agree on what the rules say. But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear limited power etc That's what NCVEC wanted... Is that acceptable to you, Bill? It's not acceptable to me, with or without code test! Fortunately, FCC denied NCVEC's idea. This time. But I'll bet we haven't heard the end of it. no it isn't we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door and the keep em out with hard tests Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point! For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written, code, practical, whatever. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed rebuttal. I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces of the band plan in general pool I am reading now I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen cut Yup, Jim's smoke screen anyway... :-) :-) Not a smoke screen - a valid analogy. Ask the Gang of Four at NCVEC... That's what they called themselves in the "21st Century" thing... There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a "red herring" and "something FCC would never consider". Now look where we are. The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less testing overall. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#68
August 31st 05, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. You know, I'd object to a ham trying to read charts and bandplans while they are driving. It's just as bad as reading a newspaper or trying to shave. So I say yes they should at least be required to know from memory where at least the regulations allow them to be. The read the chart/bandplan concept has the underlying assumption that one will be operating from a fixed location with access to reference materials. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#69
September 1st 05, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee, it's nice to know you don't shave while driving to work... :-)
|
|
#70
September 1st 05, 01:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] I actually agree that memorizing band edges is a waste. Far better to have a schart of the bands, beand edges and permitted uses and then ask questions which have the test taker use the chart as a resourse to answer questions. Band edges are dynamic and change over time. Better yet, a chart that shows the regs *and* a chart that shows the current bandplan. ('Bandplan' meaning current recommendations, not regulations). It's done for RF exposure already. You know, I'd object to a ham trying to read charts and bandplans while they are driving. It's just as bad as reading a newspaper or trying to shave. So I say yes they should at least be required to know from memory where at least the regulations allow them to be. why when they can program there rigs to know it in many cases The read the chart/bandplan concept has the underlying assumption that one will be operating from a fixed location with access to reference materials. You are simply wrong there nothing about a fixed location is assumed that one prepares for operation is assumed Most hams would assume the would carry a log book with them and the rig so a page or 5 is charts Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Headline: Brain Dead Woman Gives Birth To Baby Girl | General | |||
| Breaker 1-9 good buddy! I got a Dead Leprechaun on my tail! | CB | |||
| Wanted Dead or alive Communications receiver,s and radio equipment | Shortwave | |||
Linear Mode
