From: on Wed 31 Aug 2005 13:23

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.

True, and gutted and scaled, tossed into a frying pan with
potatoes, it makes a TERRIBLE "sill och potatis" for
Scandinavians. Totally tasteless. :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, all that paranoic mumbling about "WE GONNA
LOSE THE WRITTEN TESTS!" is really only bullsnit
MISDIRECTION to avoid discussing the ONLY subject of
NPRM 05-143, the elimination of the morse code test.

TRY to stay focussed. Show a good image.


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.

Congratulations on joining the NEC Question Pool Committee!

What a wonderful surprise for all. I'm sure you've gone
and taken every single new written test as it was generated
by the VEC QPC and passed by the FCC!

Er, you HAVE taken each new written test element as it has
come out, haven't you?


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...

The NCVEC didn't get ALL it wanted, did it? Neither did eight
other Petitions which were GRANTED IN PART. Seven other
Peitioners were just DENIED. Denied as in Defunct. :-)

The NCVEC Petition is RM-10870. Did you Comment on it?
[it didn't take down my CD which has all of that to look]

If you didn't Comment on it, that's your tough luck. The
Commission left open plenty of time to file your Comment.
The Commission doesn't leave everything open to re-argue and
re-re-argue and re-re-re-argue matters which you love to do.


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!

What "point" are you tring to push into folks?

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.

For most of the morsemen, they reach into their creels,
yank out those smelly red herrings and yell, "SEE? I
told you!" as if it were some "new discovery."

There are only TWO kinds of tests required by the FCC:
Manual International Morse Code proficiency (test element
1) and the written, multiple-choice tests (test elements
2 through 4). There haven't been any others in the FCC
regulations...no "practical" (whatever they are) and no
"whatever" (whatever the whatevers were).

Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed
rebuttal.

I'm sure it will be regarded as a Landmark Paper, right
up there with Shannon, Nyquist, and others...?

snip

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".

How about in 1912? Before the FRC added the code test? :-)

Note: The FCC would never have considered it in 1912. Not
only that the FCC was never considered in 1912!

Now look where we are! :-)

Now look where we are.

We are in the year 2005, 71 years after the FCC was created
and - FINALLY - seeing the very distinct possibility of
ending the old, archaic, outmoded, unneccessary code test
for the U.S. amateur radio service (a HOBBY activity done
for personal recreation).

The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less
testing overall.

Nah. It's a "trend" to more and more very sour whine
pressed from old grapes by morsemen. Grapes old and
whithered on the vine, ones that should have been picked
and processed as raisins long ago...with all the other
dried fruit.

Of course, you are free as anyone to FILE YOUR OWN PETITION
with the FCC...to make written testing waaayyyyy tough to
match YOUR CONCEPT of the amateur radio service licensing.
BTASE (But That's Another Subject Entirely). It isn't part
of NPRM 05-143, never was.

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
cut
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.

Now you are simply lying Jim

I want a test that covers the need of the FCC and US Govt need for
there purposes wether that is harder or easier I don't realy care

But No I don't believe the test should amout to S&M as advocated by
Stevie and to some extent by you

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.

Shaving can be done by touch. Reading can't.

So I say yes they should at least be required to know from
memory where at
least the regulations allow them to be.

You make a valid point, Dee.

The read the chart/bandplan concept has the underlying
assumption that one
will be operating from a fixed location with access to
reference materials.

Not necessarily. But it does assume you'll have the
info with you when you need it. Or at least a close
approximation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote:

Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test
that I can't pass myself.


That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the
rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS...

I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand where I
stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or betters... If I
took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of
others--I could end up rather lonely...

I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL amercians can
pass--more or less like a drivers license...

John

John Smith wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote:

Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test
that I can't pass myself.

That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS...

They are open to all who can pass the required tests. In fact
a nonresident noncitizen can get an FCC amateur radio license.

I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand
where I
stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or
betters...

All an IQ test shows is how well you take IQ tests. There
are many different kinds of intelligence, and trying to
describe them with a single number is ludicrous.

If I
took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of
others--I could end up rather lonely...

The amateur radio tests I've taken, and others I've seen, are
nowhere near a full test of my abilities. I don't know about
yours...

I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL
amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license...

Why?

And when you say "95% of all [Americans]" - does that include
those under the age of, say, 5 years? How about those with
severe developmental delays and deficits? Does it include those
Americans with dementia or Alzheimer's disease? How about those
who are illiterate or barely literate, those for whom English is
a foreign language, and those with all sorts of other problems
and limitations?

Or do you mean 95% of all healthy, educated, "average" Americans over
the age of, say, 10 years?

More important, how much are you willing to water down the written
tests to reach that goal?

wrote


Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level
exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious.


The very best idea ever to come out of FCC, bar none, was the original Novice
license. The "technical content" consisted of very low-tech questions like
"What is Ohms Law?" and "What is the purpose of a key-click filter?". No
formulas to calculate, no schematics to interpret, just the simplest
"familiarization" topics.

While I am passionately interested in INCREASING the techical content of the
Technician, General, and Extra examinations, I also believe that a very
"un-technical" non-renewable entry class license (with power limits similar to
the original Novice) is an excellent idea.

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: on Sep 3, 1:55 pm

John Smith wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:23:26 -0700, N2EY wrote:

Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test
that I can't pass myself.
That is awfully big of you, however, keep it mind that amateur radio (the rf bands) should be open to ALL AMERICANS...

They are open to all who can pass the required tests. In fact
a nonresident noncitizen can get an FCC amateur radio license.

Don't forget cute little 6-year-olds who passed their WRITTENS.

I happen to have been favored by my creator. If I understand
where I
stand on IQ charts, roughly 5% of people are my equal or
betters...

All an IQ test shows is how well you take IQ tests. There
are many different kinds of intelligence, and trying to
describe them with a single number is ludicrous.

OK, so now we all know that Jimmie didn't score high on a
Stanford-Binet IQ test! :-)

If I
took a test which fully tested my abilities, then required the same of
others--I could end up rather lonely...

The amateur radio tests I've taken, and others I've seen, are
nowhere near a full test of my abilities. I don't know about
yours...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Federal Communications Commission is NOT
chartered as an "academic institution" for testing anyone to
their "full test of abilities." Never was, not in 71 years.

A license test is for the Commission's purpose...to determine
if, TO THE COMMISSION, an applicant is considered worthy of a
license grant.


I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL
amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license...

Why?

And when you say "95% of all [Americans]" - does that include
those under the age of, say, 5 years? How about those with
severe developmental delays and deficits? Does it include those
Americans with dementia or Alzheimer's disease? How about those
who are illiterate or barely literate, those for whom English is
a foreign language, and those with all sorts of other problems
and limitations?

Or do you mean 95% of all healthy, educated, "average" Americans over
the age of, say, 10 years?

The present written tests are simple enough for two SIX YEAR OLDS
to pass their license tests under the watchful eye of kindly,
grandfatherly-looking VEs. Imagine, two SIX YEAR OLDS with perfect
understanding of all regulations and the MATURITY to act
responsibly on their own!

More important, how much are you willing to water down the written
tests to reach that goal?

Why have YOU already accepted and passed "watered-down" written
tests sufficient that some kindly VEs could pass two SIX YEAR
OLDS so that they could - legally - operate radios all by them-
selves?

But, on that matter, you challenge any challenger on their
"expertise" of knowing SIX YEAR OLDS' capability. However,
YOU have NEVER stated YOUR "qualifications" in regard to grading
SIX YEAR OLDS on their "maturity" to be responsible, federally-
licensed radio amateurs. You could do us all a great service by
revealing your "expertise" in rating childrens' "maturity."

wrote:
John Smith wrote:
cut

I think the test should be one which at least 95% of ALL
amercians can pass--more or less like a drivers license...

Why?

Because it the right full property of all american (in the USA outside
your milage may vary)
cut

More important, how much are you willing to water down the written
tests to reach that goal?

As usaul you turn the question upside down. the written should gaged to
that needed in order toallow those americans there rightfull access,
while preserving the abilty to operate safely

wether that results in rasing or lowering the level of the tests I
doesn't matter to me, nor I suspect to John

John Smith wrote:
Len:

ahhhhh....

I like to build antennas... I like to experiment with them...

But, I am a software engineer, not a hardware engineer (some of the
math interests me) and frankly, anyone who will pay attention to my
rants about the either consider me a loon frown... something has to seem
like "magic" to me--or I will lose faith altogether! grin

WHATEVER you do, don't ask for any antenna advice from these "higher"
hams on RRAP. I made that mistake. Once!

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Look at NCVEC's second proposal. They wanted an entry-level
exam with even less technical content. They were dead-serious.

The very best idea ever to come out of FCC, bar none, was the
original Novice license.

Except I don't think it came out of FCC. I think it was an
idea from hams (maybe ARRL, but maybe not).

The "technical content" consisted of very low-tech
questions like
"What is Ohms Law?" and "What is the purpose of a
key-click filter?". No
formulas to calculate, no schematics to interpret, just the
simplest "familiarization" topics.

Not really "low-tech" to a beginner, though.

The old Novice test also contained questions on regulations
and operating practices, so it wasn't just technical.

Also required 5 wpm Morse Code, sending and receiving.

At least, the original Novice was like that. By its 25th
anniversary, the Novice written was more technical....

While I am passionately interested in INCREASING the techical
content of the
Technician, General, and Extra examinations, I also believe
that a very
"un-technical" non-renewable entry class license (with power
limits similar to
the original Novice) is an excellent idea.

Perhaps - but that's not what NCVEC wanted. Their proposal
included things like no homebrewing allowed and that
incredible "30 volt" rule.

For the first 20 or so years of its existence, the Novice was
a one-shot license. No renewals. A prospective Novice could not have
ever held any class of amateur license, and once the Novice expired, it
was gone. One year until 1967, then two years until the mid 1970s.

But it's all really moot for now. FCC specifically denied all
of the suggestions for changes to the entry-level license class.
Your comments are specifically mentioned in the NPRM, Hans - but
FCC didn't act on any of them besides proposing to drop Element 1.

73 de Jim, N2EY