wrote in message
...
wrote:

: Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
: in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

You are failing (or choosing) to understand/acknowledge the difference
between understanding the principles and simply rote memorising the
answers. It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

--
73 Chris Cox, N0UK, G4JEC

Even TODAY'S tests are not the same ie; Answer A in your study guide will
coorespond to Answer A on the exam. ANYONE "memorizing" those answers is
nothing short of a FOOL. It is far better to read that book for what little
it is worth - for what it will "TEACH" you to understand - thereby making
passing the exam almost a done deal. UNDERSTANDING AND REMEMBERING
(Memorizing if you will) the BASE material is what gets you through.

As the man said, at one time - there were no SET of exams. If you had no
clue of electronics or rules and regulations where it came to Ham radio -
you were "guranteed" to fail in front of the FCC. Often - that meant a long
trip. Even at that - tests today - most VEs have at least 3 - 5 sets of
exams per class. OR you could be given a test via computer which is randomly
generated. So, to "memorize" ABCD just isn't going to cut it.

As I said before - ya got to memorize many things to get through life - your
SS number, your birthdate, your name, how to spell, read, write, add,
subtract, driving a vehicle, etc......... the list goes on - SURELY you
didn't "memorize" a simple ABCD answer for MOST of that! Memorizing your SS
number, name and birthdate may equivalate to the ABCD method, but - when you
were tested in school for subjects - you had NO clue what was to be asked.
If you didn't pay attention to what was being taught - you most likely
bombed the test.

Again - we're splitting hairs here on the word "memorize". You can "try" to
memorize ABCD to pass a test without studying (and hope the test conforms to
the pattern you "memorized") OR you can MEMORIZE IT BY STUDYING it -
(committ it to memory for life) -therby understanding the principles and
being able to "honestly" answer the questions based on "knowledge" of the
subject.

I seriously do NOT understand the hang up on this issue. Maybe "I" am
missing something - but it seems to me, I had to memorize (LEARN) a whole
list of **** to be able to function in a meaningful life. Your mind is like
a computer - you have to program it (study) - to learn things TO MEMORIZE
FOR LIFE. Simply trying to recall ABCD on a test without understanding the
concepts - you're still going to be dumb as **** even if you do pass.
Wouldn't you rather "know" what you're supposed to know? Sure makes one look
a bit more inteliigent.
Maybe that is why so many people are so goofy on the highways - they
"memorized" answers to the test instead of actually "learning" what the
principle were/are. Makes sense to me! For those of you who parachute or do
other "life endangering" tasks - I'd sure hate to be you - depending on
someone who simply "memorized" ABCD on a test as opposed to "learning" the
requirements to fulfill the task.

No wonder this world is so screwed up............. TOO LAZY TO "LEARN".

L.

"L." wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote:

: Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
: in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

You are failing (or choosing) to understand/acknowledge the difference
between understanding the principles and simply rote memorising the
answers. It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

--
73 Chris Cox, N0UK, G4JEC


Damned I hate when I screw up - to make a correction here - the word in my
second sentence should be correspond. I didn't catch it before I hit send.
I think I had a "Coors" beer on my mind...

Even TODAY'S tests are not the same ie; Answer A in your study guide will
coorespond to Answer A on the exam. ANYONE "memorizing" those answers is
nothing short of a FOOL. It is far better to read that book for what
little it is worth - for what it will "TEACH" you to understand - thereby
making passing the exam almost a done deal. UNDERSTANDING AND REMEMBERING
(Memorizing if you will) the BASE material is what gets you through.

As the man said, at one time - there were no SET of exams. If you had no
clue of electronics or rules and regulations where it came to Ham radio -
you were "guranteed" to fail in front of the FCC. Often - that meant a
long trip. Even at that - tests today - most VEs have at least 3 - 5 sets
of exams per class. OR you could be given a test via computer which is
randomly generated. So, to "memorize" ABCD just isn't going to cut it.

As I said before - ya got to memorize many things to get through life -
your SS number, your birthdate, your name, how to spell, read, write, add,
subtract, driving a vehicle, etc......... the list goes on - SURELY you
didn't "memorize" a simple ABCD answer for MOST of that! Memorizing your
SS number, name and birthdate may equivalate to the ABCD method, but -
when you were tested in school for subjects - you had NO clue what was to
be asked. If you didn't pay attention to what was being taught - you most
likely bombed the test.

Again - we're splitting hairs here on the word "memorize". You can "try"
to memorize ABCD to pass a test without studying (and hope the test
conforms to the pattern you "memorized") OR you can MEMORIZE IT BY
STUDYING it - (committ it to memory for life) -therby understanding the
principles and being able to "honestly" answer the questions based on
"knowledge" of the subject.

I seriously do NOT understand the hang up on this issue. Maybe "I" am
missing something - but it seems to me, I had to memorize (LEARN) a whole
list of **** to be able to function in a meaningful life. Your mind is
like a computer - you have to program it (study) - to learn things TO
MEMORIZE FOR LIFE. Simply trying to recall ABCD on a test without
understanding the concepts - you're still going to be dumb as **** even if
you do pass.
Wouldn't you rather "know" what you're supposed to know? Sure makes one
look a bit more inteliigent.
Maybe that is why so many people are so goofy on the highways - they
"memorized" answers to the test instead of actually "learning" what the
principle were/are. Makes sense to me! For those of you who parachute or
do other "life endangering" tasks - I'd sure hate to be you - depending on
someone who simply "memorized" ABCD on a test as opposed to "learning" the
requirements to fulfill the task.

No wonder this world is so screwed up............. TOO LAZY TO "LEARN".

L.

lid wrote:
It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

It is true that the 1950's License Manuals were not multiple
choice but the exams were. The License Manuals went like this:

Q: What is the unit of electrical resistance?

A: The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm.

The exam then had multiple choices, one of them being "ohm".

It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas. I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.

The difference between memorizing the question pool answers
from the 1950's License Manuals and memorizing the question
pool answers of today is just splitting hairs. I used exactly
the same memorizing techniques to ace the Extra exam in
2000 as I did to pass the Conditional exam in 1953.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

From: on Thurs, Aug 10 2006 8:48 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap


Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.

However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.

That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than
the ability to memorize answers.

Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

Selective amnesia. "No one had to memorize anything" prior 1992.
Not in grade school, not in college, not in industry, not in
real life. Strange perception...


Ummm? There's no Morse Code test anymore?

The International Morse Code test for United States amateur
radio license classes General and Extra have NEVER GONE AWAY.

That is especially true in the perception of the ARRL which
still manages to insert the "necessities" for morsemanship
in nearly everything it publishes. It's been six decades
since Hiram Percy became ultimate DX but they still keep on
with their demand that all [US] amateurs be proficient in
that old mode.

The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.


What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a
test.

So what is it that you fear?

Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence.

Someone who has been a regular worker in electronics (radio is a
subset of electronics) ought to damn well know and recognize
that the state of the art in electronics has been CONSTANTLY
changing. It's sometimes a chore to keep up, whether it be
1950 or 2000 or any time in-between.

You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly.

I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not
the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a
second.

Mmmm. I see. You are a careerist in the electronics industry and it
****es you off that hobbyists have equal "status" as you in amatuer
radio. I've run across a lot of that in the past 20 years...

I've run across a lot of that my entire life. :-)

I think Klein wants recognition as a "professional amateur" or
"amateur professional." I'm not sure which...


What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest
tactics are transparent.

You're the one that forgot the circuit, not me. Get ****ed at your own
self.

When in doubt of an effective reply, these Fundamentalist
Morseodists
must resort to some form of denigration. Sigh, they never learn...


Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and
we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests.

Correct. "WE" weren't discussing it. YOU were. YOU were discussing
how you can't draw what you can't remember.

This is an indicator that Klein isn't used to computer-modem
communications. He isn't looking beyond his own screen and
understanding that others are separated from it in time and space.
"He" was obviously talking about "old days" of "His." He is not
considering that others do not share his viewpoints.

Considering the Type of Oscillator and "names," he has put
Names as somehow "essential" to the circuit. NO SUCH THING.
An oscillator is simply an amplifier of just-barely-past-unity
gain with positive feedback. The Names were tacked on by
academics long, long ago as IDENTIFICATION of the general form
of amplification-with-positive-feedback.

One can build a Colpitts oscillator, make it work, and continue
calling it a Hartley. Won't make a bit of difference to the
circuit...electrons don't give a damn about human labels. They
work by THEIR laws, not humans' with their imperative labels.

By the way, on a quick bit of checking, I've got text references
to about 11 different oscillator forms, not just two (with his
unknown third type)...and I'm not counting free-running multi-
vibrators which are also very much an "oscillator."



Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal
on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show
the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The
bands would be pretty QRM-free.

YES!!!

[ no... ]

If you are ever going to save your beloved Morse Code test, this is the
only way you're going to do it.

The only way to "save his beloved morse code test" is to have the
ARRL exercise some BETTER brainwashing than it has been doing for
decades. The League is still trying to use its old persuasion
and, so far, hasn't been able to get memberships from the 3/4 of
all licensed US radio amateurs who are NOT ARRL members...


I think it is you who don't know where you're going with this
discussion. It's gone beyond your having grief over your favorite mode
to actually having to think about the future of the service.
Conggrats. Another couple of years of RRAP tutoring and you just might
become a rational being.

I disagree, Brian. Klein is a MORSEMAN. They don't change.
They are rooted in old days long gone, brainwashed early into
thinking that morsemanship is "essential" to "best" radio
communication. It isn't...easily proved by ALL the OTHER
radio services giving up on morse code as a mode (if they
had it once) or never requiring it since a radio service began.


Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!

So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the
schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on
14 MHz"? That kind of relevance?

Sure. But you have to ask yourself one question. Can the average VE
administer such an exam? If not, can your average GS-7 FCC employee
administer such an exam? If you set up an exam that only an engineer
can administer, then your government isn't going to accept it. So be
realistic in your zeal.

Klein hasn't considered the simple fact that, by law, the VEs
do NOT have to be trained test-adminsters. They are simply
VOLINTEERS who have the requisite license class and GIVE OF
THEIR OWN TIME to adminster tests. VEs are accountable only
to the FCC in that volunteer testing. VEs' only "penalty"
in mis-administering an amateur test is a reduction in license
class or forteiture of their amateur license.

Klein and his "tests aren't like they were in 'my' time"
bitchers and moaners HAD their chance to keep privatization
in testing from happening long ago. Legal means to stop it
by NPRM Commentary didn't make their case. Privatization
happened for BOTH amateur and commercial licenses. Now
their whine is long past its time and has turned to vinegar.


Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the
example" kind of relevance?

The exam can be anything your VEC wants it to be. We learned this when
the ARRL went from administering a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM to
administering a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM.

True enough, Brian, but expect ten kinds of flak from the
other morsepersons in here on that... :-)

The VEC can LEGALLY generate a Question Pool with ONE HUNDRED
times the minimum required number of questions. With electronic
transmittal over the Internet the Question Pool can be updated
within 24 hours to ALL VE groups.

Say the FCC requires a minimum of 50 questions on a written
test element. If the VEC QPC generates the Question-Answer
pool with FIVE THOUSAND QUESTIONS (and answers), it should be
obvious that mere "memorization" sufficient to pass that
written test element is out of the question. Anyone who CAN
memorize that prodigious amount is already gifted as an eidetic
and those are extremely rare among humans.

What all that concentration on the "written tests" is about is
just a DIVERSION to keep from replying on the singular morse
code test continuation. The morsemen just haven't been able
to come up with sufficently-valid reasons to keep the morse
test (other than the emotional ones) so they smoke-screen by
bringing up the writtens. Old tactic of theirs.



How do you draw a schematic

Memorization.

Correct.

and explain the functions of parts by
memorizing answers?

Memorization.

Correct again.

You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k"
or "coil".

You can't memorize the def of phase shift?

C'mon, aren't you supposed to be in the industry?

We don't know WHERE, Brian, or for WHOM. :-)


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.

I did?

They just gave you a radio and said "use it"?

On/Off and PTT. What else is there???

[ ahem..."volume" and "squelch" to name two... :-) ]

Oh, yeh, a magnetic compass and a chart where the satellite is.

Darn you "kids!" Weren't any of those newfangled gizmos
like "satellites" when I was in the Army. :-)

The AN/PRC-8 backpack VHF transceivers (one of which I wore
in PIP Training) also had VFO frequency control along with a
built-in "crystal calibrator." Nothing like the "channel
selection" of a later synthesized AN/PRC-25 (also FM on VHF).

Interesting engineering feat with that VFO control over a
military temperature and vibration environment. Copied from
the old SCR-300 "walkie-talkie" of WW2, devised by Motorola
(also FM on VHF). But, I digress, that was Practical Theory
as applied by professional engineering, used by professional
military people...didn't have the majesty of AMATEURISM and
all its nobility (and class distinctions).


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.

Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.

When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by
answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a
published answer pool.

Yes, you had to memorize paragraphs instead of multiple choices. Big
deal.

Good grief, all that crying and wailing over Test Privatization!
Maybe we should take up a collection to send him some Kleenex?

Seems to me that COLLEGE-level course tests that I took had a
LOT of memorization. Maybe we should all slam the academic
world for doing the same "memorization?" Hey, why not, all
those who failed college level courses can get a Wailing Wall!

My state drivers' license testing is done from multiple-choice
and that requires MUCH memorization of the applicable laws.
While the CA DMV does not publish the EXACT answers, the have
lots and lots of examples, not only well-publicized but available
free in little booklets at each DMV office. Maybe Klein wants
me to take an ME degree course in automotive engineering just
to drive our Malibu MAXX? :-)


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.

W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.

Point?

All you wonderful OF's taking trips down memory lane forget that some
of your brother hams were bootleggers.

It's only the unwashed No-code Techs that operate illegally. Hi!!!
What a stinking load.

Brian, if you check out the "official" history of the ARRL
you will find out that they BEGAN in trying to circumvent
the commercial telegram system with a relaying of messages
past the commercial boundaries and FEES. If that were
reported today, the journalists would call it "hacking."



If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

I have no problem with that.

Then go for it.

It is the ONLY legitimate recourse you have for retaining the Morse
Code exam.

Best of luck.

I hope he tries it. I'm anxious to find out how much hostility
he will engender from his fellow amateurs who are VEs...how they
have to spend many more hours (of their own time) in testing
each license applicant (separately). Ought to go over like a
concrete balloon...


Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into
digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive.

Are you drawing a pension from it? "Was."

Are you drawing a paycheck from it? "Is."

And it's so typical for Old Timers to forget that not everyone in the
ARS are CAREERIST PROFESSIONALS. Bitching and Moaning about how
everyone else doesn't know as much as them.

Klein has yet to define his own label, whether it is "professional
amateur" or "amateur professional." He seems undecided.

I'm one of the (chronological) Olde Fahrts in this group but I
pray to God that I won't ever get as bad as some of them with
their retro attitudes and fixations with modes of their long-
ago youth, the ultra importance of CLASS and RANK. Geez.

You'd think that some of them regard amateur radio like the
USMC! ["the few, the ultra proud (of morsemanship)"]


Let's have a test that
shows whether the testee knows anything.

Remember that you are handsomely compensated for your professional
knowledge. Amateur Radio is a non-compensated hobby.

Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on
some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work.
They be BETTER than the pros and keep reinforcing each other
with that pipe-dream. After all, the ARRL keeps reminding
them of their greatness, their "service to their country"
(by having their hobby). To hear them talk the nation would
immediately fall apart without these federally-licensed
hobbyists!

We'll have to get Mr. Webster to work coming up with a better
definition of the hobby. Is it "professional amateurism" or
"amateur professionalism?" I opt for the latter but others
may differ.

Beep, beep...

On 10 Aug 2006 20:05:25 -0700, wrote:

You denigrate the resistor code.

Not at all. It's a lot better than having the value printed on the
resistor in numbers. Even with MIL quality and transparent coatings,
the numbers on 1/8 watt resistors are kind of hard to read.

On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:55:09 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas.

No one but you even mentioned "first principles" in this discussion.
It's certainly not part of the discussion.

I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.

You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:15:55 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:56:05 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On 10 Aug 2006 18:53:36 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect

Is that a statement or a question?

yes it is a stament and yes it is a question

And on what do you base your statement? Your extensive familiarity
with dozens of Earth-like planets?
made no such claim

You said, "earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer
effect". What did you base that claim on?

you passion for efaration of statment

Who of which? I know the internet is an international thing, but
could we keep it to HUMAN languages, please? Or at least languages
used by mobile beings? I don't speak Tree.

lid wrote:
wrote:

: Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
: in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

You are failing (or choosing) to understand/acknowledge the difference
between understanding the principles and simply rote memorising the
answers. It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

--
73 Chris Cox, N0UK, G4JEC

I learned the formulas and worked the probs longhand. Trying to
memorize all those answers was just too much work.

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
You denigrate the resistor code.

Not at all. It's a lot better than having the value printed on the
resistor in numbers. Even with MIL quality and transparent coatings,
the numbers on 1/8 watt resistors are kind of hard to read.

Even with the resistor color code, most of us *MEMORIZED*
a jingle like:
Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly
I believe the military used to teach their technicians
to *MEMORIZE* that jingle. Exactly how does one develop
the resistor color code from first principles?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp