On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX,
Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc.

There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a
test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they
want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat),
packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize
a few answers to "pass" it.

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.

That is not true.

Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW
because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing
to be turned from CW to modern modes. Those who want CW dropped just
want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without
really being tested on anything. Actually knowing anything is so old
fashioned, isn't it?

We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.

You're referring to the Conditional license, right?

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.

You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

So let's have them on the test.

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did. All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios. Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

We self-train.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

It is a continuous process of improvements. You
mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator"
is 100%.

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant
gratification, take your time.

Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of
"gratification".

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

Al Klein wrote:
Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

"I"

There. You just got ONE "character" of several
electronics-related formulas.

Now do something with it without knowing the rest of the
"characters" that go with it.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In some cases, it "could" be said that hairs are being split. To have
"knowledge" of the code - could mean basically - you know it exists and why
it is used. To "know" the Morse Code, usually refers to KNOWING the
characters sufficiently to use them at whatever speed it is you can. On the
other hand, someone who isn't involved could say - that a Ham operator is
"knowledgable" in the code. Heck, to someone not IN Ham radio - they could
easily assume a NO CODE tech - KNOWS code.

Memory plays a big part be it with learning CODE OR Electronics formulas.
MEMORY plays a huge part in "remembering" how to solder correctly and so on.
You have to MEMORIZE these things just like code characters - to be
proficient. Just like MEMORIZING traffic signs and so on - to get your
license to drive.
I think there is too big a deal being made here.

It comes down to - if you want to do ANYTHING - be it do morse code, drive,
parachuting, whatever - you have to MEMORIZE SOMETHING - to make it happen.

Lou/ka3flu

"clfe" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In some cases, it "could" be said that hairs are being split. To have
"knowledge" of the code - could mean basically - you know it exists and
why it is used. To "know" the Morse Code, usually refers to KNOWING the
characters sufficiently to use them at whatever speed it is you can. On
the other hand, someone who isn't involved could say - that a Ham operator
is "knowledgable" in the code. Heck, to someone not IN Ham radio - they
could easily assume a NO CODE tech - KNOWS code.

Just to clarify my point - many "assume" a Ham Operator - regardless the
license - KNOWS code. So, if a "No Code" tech simply says "I"M A HAM
OPERATOR" to someone not knowing the license class structure, the
"assumption is made. AND unless that NC tech clarifies it, the unsuspecting
person will go on in ignorance "assuming" ALL hams "know" code. Morse Code
(per my recollection) has always been and most likely - even if only in
history books - always will be known and associated with HAM RADIO.

lou

clfe wrote:
It comes down to - if you want to do ANYTHING - be it do morse code, drive,
parachuting, whatever - you have to MEMORIZE SOMETHING - to make it happen.

My point exactly! I'm not the one saying that memorizing
is evil.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators
laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to
distinguish the dots from the dashes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

My mother told me stories of learning morse code this way when she worked
for the railroad. She then taught me morse code this way. For twenty yeasrs
after that I always wanted to be a ham and finally got m ylicense at about
age 35. I was fairly active for about 8 years and pretty much lost interest
when my daughter was born. In the last couple of years I have been
sporatially interested again but their alaways seems to be little projects
and interest that pull me away from it.

When I first went to work at tmy present job almost every tech that worked
there was a ham. Just about all of them retired within a few years and nnd
only a couple are still active on the ham bands. They pretty much all say
that they just dont have time for it anymore. This is where ham radio is
going, It is losing out to living.

I havent gotten totally out of it yet and am occasionally involed. Usually
working on an antenna project thinking I will become active again. I have
been asked to assist some girl scouts in getting badges but I am having a
lot of trouble finding scouts that are interested although the requirements
are very minimal

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:


The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators
laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to
distinguish the dots from the dashes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

My mother told me stories of learning morse code this way when she
worked for the railroad. She then taught me morse code this way. For
twenty yeasrs after that I always wanted to be a ham and finally got m
ylicense at about age 35. I was fairly active for about 8 years and
pretty much lost interest when my daughter was born. In the last couple
of years I have been sporatially interested again but their alaways
seems to be little projects and interest that pull me away from it.

When I first went to work at tmy present job almost every tech that
worked there was a ham. Just about all of them retired within a few
years and nnd only a couple are still active on the ham bands. They
pretty much all say that they just dont have time for it anymore. This
is where ham radio is going, It is losing out to living.

I havent gotten totally out of it yet and am occasionally involed.
Usually working on an antenna project thinking I will become active
again. I have been asked to assist some girl scouts in getting badges
but I am having a lot of trouble finding scouts that are interested
although the requirements are very minimal



Yes. That's understandable. Hams these days don't want to act like hams,
they like to be appliance operators. So kids don't see that CW is
important and fun. All they see is hams gabbing on a microphone like any
CB'er can do.

SC

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:35:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

clfe wrote:
It comes down to - if you want to do ANYTHING - be it do morse code, drive,
parachuting, whatever - you have to MEMORIZE SOMETHING - to make it happen.

My point exactly! I'm not the one saying that memorizing
is evil.

No, you're the one misrepresenting "memorizing answers, as opposed to
memorization per se, is wrong" means "memorizing is evil".