Why Technical Competence?
James Orleff (KE0SM)
on
July 5, 2003
View comments about this article!
There is a reason technical knowledge is required to be a Ham…
You are K-007; you have a "License to Build".
In this off-the-shelf age, it is easy to forget the homebrewing origins of ham radio, and the special privileges we still retain. In a nutshell a CBer cannot legally build or even modify his own radio. A ham can.
Do you new hams realize the implications of this?
Every ham should know that injecting a pure audio tone into an SSB transmitter is spectrally equivalent to CW. Every ham should understand emission designators and the rules for RF exposure. Why? -- Because you are RESPONSIBLE for your signal. If you irradiate your neighbor and cause harm, you had better be able to prove you were legal. A CBer can claim ignorance. You cannot.
Ham radio is the only service where you are legally allowed to tear apart a TV, string together the resulting parts, and TRANSMIT with the results! You are responsible for understanding what you are doing and ensuring the resultant signal meets FCC requirements and will not harm others. Even while using "off-the-shelf" certified equipment and antennas, hams are still responsible for their emissions. Not the manufacturer, not the Elmer who helped you put together your station, not even your spouse who helped you cram for the test so you could use 2 meters. You.
You simply cannot do this without technical knowledge.
ALL other services must prove in advance to the FCC that the equipment they are using is correct. They do this by using equipment pre-approved by the F.C.C. with a type acceptance certificate. Users in other services may NOT modify the resulting certified transmitters in ANY WAY. A separately licensed technician must perform all adjustments and repairs.
But you can repair, adjust, and even build your own equipment. You don't have to ask anyone! Think of the power this gives you! And the responsibility…
That's the true difference in the Amateur Radio Service.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KD7VKB on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good Article. Yup, one of the reasons I like about this hobby is being to craft circuits from scratch. I have built and etched my own circuits on other projects and as new amateur, can't wait to build something for my new station.
73, Doug, W7MEX
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BRAVO !!!!
Great article. We are also inventors and many patents
concerning communications and electronics belong to
HAMS. Those with EE degrees can even be called
"Scientists". What a diverse hobby.
Thanks for the article .
73 - Tim
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K0BG on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not only license to build, but license to experiment, operate the rare modes, or just about anything else that turns your crank as long as you do it professionally.
Isn't this a great hobby?
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KY6R on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a B.S in Computer Science, but just for fun, I took one of the "101" level physics courses in college - which was Electronics.
The course started out with solid state physics and then went into a survey of circuits and the math employed to create and measure such circuits. We did have labs - which is where I did the best in the class. (The solid state physics part - for a non EE or Physics student - was INTENSE).
The professor used a textbook AND the ARRL Handbook as the reference material. He said the ARRL Handbook was one of the best "surveys" of electronics. That really made me comfortable in the class, and I then realized just what an amazingly wide field of knowledge that hams can learn with our priviledge to build.
And even better yet - we then can experiment and learn and invent. We can take our homebrew gear and experiment on as much band space as what we have.
I sure hope this tradition is allowed to continue in this age of wireless / digital / cell phone devices. I initially wanted to be an EE, but somehow ended up as a Computer Programmer. My interest in science (and my career interest) started right around the time I got my novice license, which was when I was 13.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KZ1X on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yup, that's why I got my license 25 years ago. I wanted to be legal when I transmitted.
It's also why I knew how important it was to know Morse. It's just too useful a skill, like soldering., I don't think you can be a ham without it.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by WB9GKZ on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find it interesting that there are CB-ers who are technically capable of stringing 30 or so power mosfets together to make a multikilowatt amplifier, install 3-phase high-output alternators in their mobile setups, create big multielement arrays. Check some of the CB-Ring websites, amazing!
However, how many times has one of our ham bretheren
posted inquiries on bulletin boards pleading for help on how to install a mike connector?
Will the future of ham radio be like 60-meters where we are so dumbed-down that we become a bunch of channelized idiots?
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well written, Jim.
Now that ITU has removed the international Morse requirement, I think we can expect some kind of change in the Amateur licensing structure. FCC will surely be bombarded with petitions to change the rules. Hopefully, they won't just take the easy route and abolish all code tests, but rather, will actually take the time to carefully consider some alternatives.
One alternative would be to require classroom instruction or 'apprenticeships' instead of, or in addition to, written exams. These courses could cover the basics of practical electronics, home construction, how to solder a PL-259, etc..
You will never be able to 'test in' quality in new hams, no matter how hard you make the exams. Instead, we have to build in that quality by teaching the newcomers the skills we think they should have. And, the skills required to build equipment are going away too. We need to preserve and enhance them.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KE6SCR on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like K0RGR's idea.
It does make sense, and would increase the technical level of new hams to make them more comfortable with what they're using. There's times I get stuck with something that calling a more technical friend answers easily and let's me learn more about that problem.
While I'm comfortable using my soldering station, reading a circuit, and solding parts in place, there are others that are not, and having someone show them this would be a great benefit to the hobby.
Kel
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I posted this in response to the news article about the removal of the CW restriction..however, I think it deserves an airing here as well....
"It will be very interesting to see which camp can rally the largest number of troops once the FCC releases an NPRM. It will also be interesting to see what the ARRL has to say...after all, I'd suspect that a lot of thier lifetime members are code-slingers."
"Opinions aside, I think this is a watershed event in the history of ham radio. Irregardless of the outcome of the CW issue, we are now faced with the prospect of what comes next."
"Hams rallied for better, more available testing..we got it. A no-code entry level license..we got it. Removal of the CW requirement...we (maybe) got it. What next? Online testing? No testing whatsoever? Or will there be someone to stand up and say "ham population be damned, it's not how many of us there are--it's what we know".
"My point is this: at what point in the whole simplification process does our certification by the Federal government become invalid? At some point in the future, will it be possible for someone (maybe wanting our spectrum) to say "Due to simplification in amateur testing, we no longer feel it is safe for amateurs to (fill in the blank)"?
"It could be ERP. It could be mobile operations. It could be microwave experimentation. Our continual march towards an ever increasing ham population, easy testing, and effortless licensing may make us more hazardous to ourselves due to our ever increasing ignorance and in the process open the whole amateur service up for dismantling."
"Do we want someone attempting to use a 1.5 kW amplifier with NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER in accordance with his newly earned "Extra" or "General" class license privledges? If so, how is that any different than CB?"
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W4CNG on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another good article to see here. The other option is to know when to call or ask for help. There is nothing wrong with asking, I have. The really bad thing is not to ask, grow the problem larger and never recover. I have done 3 mods for rigs for 60 meters, and have two more coming to be done. 4 of the 5 are for folks that do not have soldering skills, one does not have good eyesite, but the competence to ask for help. He also has many years of experience to share.
Steve W4CNG
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W4WB on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good post James. I note that most hams don't seem to know that the FCC recognizes the Amateur Radio Service as the sole Experimental Radio Service for the U.S. Government. Rather cool isn't it? Think of the numerous pioneering contributions hams have made to the communications field over the past 90+ years. Yes it is a hobby, but far more ... it is a privilege that we each have earned, but also can be lost!
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great post! Its time we realized just what our amateur licenses give us.
I'm not even going to bring up that other topic here, but I personally know of an extra class operator who breezed through the 20 wpm code test and then passed the theory test BY MEMORIZING THE QUESTION POOL. That operator now brags about having an extra ticket and is also a staunch code requirement advocate, BUT CANNOT EVEN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESISTOR AND A CAPACITOR. He blew the power supply of a fellow hams HF rig by connecting a morse key to the wrong jack on the back of it. He fried the finals of another hams rig by running the rig at full power without checking to make sure the antenna was properly tuned. He has made a technical nuisance of himself and has been told so--to the extent he has walked out of the club.
Is that the type ham that should have an extra class ticket? I think not. He "memorized" the code--fine. But he also "memorized" the questions--and his way into that 'extra' ticket.
The testing should be made more difficult and intensive, but not in a "classroom" way. There are hams who have time on their hands (retired?) who would probably be overjoyed to have something to do, who would make excellent Elmers. Applicants could study with their Elmer when they could and as long as they needed to gain the needed practical knowledge. Then when the applicant went to be tested, he would be able to pass the more intensive testing. That procedure worked in the past and will work today.
The license, while granting privileges, only assumes technical competence. It should instead be a declaration that the licensee has the ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, not just the ability to "memorize".
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why do we need technical competence? I don't plan on making a radio, fixing a radio, or even making adjustments. I plan on operating a 100watt radio so I don't need to know about amps or anything else. I am going to buy a vertical and read the instructions to put it up. Why do I need to learn electronics or code? I shouldn't be questioned on satellites or digital modes either because I am not going to operate any of these modes. I think that we should only have one class of license and it should be easy and short enough that we can memorize the exam.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by NC8F on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I completely agree with K1CJS. The people that don't understand what they're doing shouldn't really have a license.
I've helped out at many test sessions for two of the local clubs, and there have been many people that have taken the tech test, tried the general, but failed that. If you actually study and learn the material for the tech test, then you should have no problem with the general test. People just memorize the questions BECAUSE IT'S EASIER.
I'm also listening to the local club repeater, and one of the hams who basically doesn't associate with any of the clubs, went and used the autopatch, and tried talking to the answering machine. My dad, who is the club license trustee, was about to hang it up on him, but he hung up before my dad got to the radio.
I got my extra license because not only did I just want to be able to operate anywhere and be a control op, but I was also interested in just learning some of the theory. It took me a while, but I finally did pass my extra test. Yeah, it's nice to be able to say "I have my extra ticket!" but it was also useful to learn the material required.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W8MW on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
James: Very well said. This is the kind of straight shootin' info we need to see more of. The question pools for amateur exams don't seem to be illuminating points such as these.
Amateurs are expected to have their RF signals in compliance with federal regulations (and good amateur practice) BEFORE transmitting over the air. The rules are clear that it's not enough to presume "somebody will tell me if something is wrong with my signal".
Years back it was common to see not just radio gear but test instruments in ham shacks. Oscilloscopes, signal generators, frequency meters, grid dip meters and the like. These are the tools of hams who were (some still are) quite serious about their technical operations and compliance with rules.
This part of being a ham does not have the widespread interest it did. Modern transceivers make it easy to get on the air. As slick as the new technology is, in a way it does a disservice to new hams. Lashing up the clunky old boat anchors had a way of forcing us to deal with technical aspects of radio stations that are now essentially invisible unless you go looking to find them.
I have never felt that being a ham means you need to be an electrical engineer or electronics technician. But we do need to have greater technical competence than a consumer.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The license, while granting privileges, only assumes technical competence. It should instead be a declaration that the licensee has the ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, not just the ability to 'memorize'."
I agree. When you go for a driver's license, you have to pass both a written test and a road test. Upon the abolition of the CW requirement, a hands-on proficiency requirement would be in order in addition to the written theory test. So would requiring a ham to spend some time in his/her current license class prior to upgrading, so that we don't have Extras who know nothing about electronics and radio blowing radio equipment sky-high.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ham and cheese, You do what ever you want. You have that priveledge( if you have a ticket!!) and can do or not do as you please.
I like to home brew stuff now and then, I help folks with their Legal CB's when asked, and do satalites, HF ssb, 2 meter weak signal, 6meter ssb, and Psk31, not to mention build my own antennas, and actually built a Handi talkie a few years ago. I do what I like , you do what you like. OK.
A good article, and each to his own. The nice part of being a ham in a country that supports Freedom is the ability to do what you like. Remember , folks in North Korea can't do this, and how many of the folks there would like to do as we do.
Good dx and enjoy your freedoms to build or not build as you please. tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hamescheese was, as usual, just putting out hot air. He won't identify himself, but claims to have a license as an extra class operator. If I had an extra class license, I would be proud to say who I am. I still am even though I'm just a tech.
He hides, he spouts, he's an irritant. Ignore him, he'll go away.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N6AJR, I'm glad that you like to work on gear and have an interest in electronics. I don't, so I don't think that I should have to learn it. No one is saying that you can't learn electronics if you want to, I'm just saying that it is outdated for today's amateurs. In the old days hams had to make their own gear and repair it when necessary, but today we all just buy our gear, hook up an antenna and talk. There is no need to study electronics.
Reality is that most hams just memorize the test. Any idiot, like me, can just memorize an exam and not learn anything and pass the general exam. Learning CW actually requires work and shows a dedication to becoming a ham. I believe that the theroy should be eliminated and just one easy test is all that is necessary. It could cover the bandplans and some radio operating procedures. This is progress. We don’t have to make the gear, we only have to operate it.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Your right, we don't HAVE to make the gear, but some of us CHOOSE to. I don't care if you are an appliance operator, and I'm am not, but Ham Radio, ( with its testing as is) gives me and you both the opportunity to do what we want. you do your thing and I'll do mine. Unlike a cb'er or a business band, who have to do only what is specified.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KC2IXE on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE If you can pass the Tech, you can pass the general (if you actually learned the stuff)
You know what tripped me up? Simple - Band allocations. How many of you actually remember what the band allocations are, or do you do like almost everyone else I know - have a chart on the wall that you look at when you need it? Honestly, even thought I still have not gotten the code down (lack of TIME and a tin ear), I think that knowing code is more important than knowing the exact band limits by heart
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You mean we should be able to wire our own mikes and solder our own pl259 connectors. I have been paying the local radio shop for years to do this for me. I guess next you will be telling me that I should be able to string up my own dipole or even make a coffe can quarter wave two meter ant. You take all the fun out of it. I never thought about it before but that might not be a bad idea for a club to have a class on the basic hands on experience. Even if a person studies to take the test instead of just memorizing the questions he doesn't learn much about these basic things. I bet there are a lot of new hams out there who have never operated a solder iron. Don't know what a multimeter is and can't operate their swr meters if they have one. I bet a lot of them have never seen a dipole ant. I wonder if anyone would show up if you had the class. I know I might. Maybe someone could give me a tip on how to solder these eight connector mic. on. With by stiff hand and old eyes it isn't the easiest thing to do. My old heathkit only had two connectors.
Terry
WB4QNG
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You mean we should be able to wire our own mikes and solder our own pl259 connectors. I have been paying the local radio shop for years to do this for me. I guess next you will be telling me that I should be able to string up my own dipole or even make a coffe can quarter wave two meter ant. You take all the fun out of it. I never thought about it before but that might not be a bad idea for a club to have a class on the basic hands on experience. Even if a person studies to take the test instead of just memorizing the questions he doesn't learn much about these basic things. I bet there are a lot of new hams out there who have never operated a solder iron. Don't know what a multimeter is and can't operate their swr meters if they have one. I bet a lot of them have never seen a dipole ant. I wonder if anyone would show up if you had the class. I know I might. Maybe someone could give me a tip on how to solder these eight connector mic. on. With by stiff hand and old eyes it isn't the easiest thing to do. My old heathkit only had two connectors."
That's sad. I can't imagine hams not knowing how to do these basic things. Welcome to the age of appliance-operating plug'n'play amateur radio! I learned how to do all these things on my own within a few months when I got into CB in the late Seventies, long before I was even a ham. Anyone who is into radio, whether ham or CB should know how to solder a PL-259 or a mic connector, and should know how to check SWR and tune an antenna. I strung my first dipole as a CBer. All my antennas are homebrew. I use a shortened 40m dipole with ladder line and a tuner on HF, and a coat hanger groundplane for 2m/440. No one taught me anything. I learned on my own, by tinkering and experimenting. I remember the first time I ever soldered. It was also the first time I wired up a microphone. When I found out how much the shop wanted just to wire up a mic, I said "sell me a mic connector, a soldering iron and some solder. I'll do it myself." Granted, my first soldering job looked as if a chimp did it, but I got better with practice. Its just a matter of wanting to learn and being willing to try something new. I do agree that ham clubs should offer hands-on classes for those who don't know things but are willing to learn.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The interesting thing about hobbies is that people tend to be comfortable picking *their* level of competence and demanding that others live up to it. We seem to have lost our understanding of the conditional clause:
*If* you are going to modify equipment _then_ you should understand how to modify equipment.
I would guess that very few amateurs have the equipment or skills necessary to do real RF far and near field measurements on their radiation patterns, for example. (And most of those that do are probably broadcast engineers.)
I would guess that very few amateurs have the equipment or skills necessary to design RF ICs. (And most of those that do are probably RF designers.)
I would guess that very few amateurs could write their own antenna modeling software derived from the underlying physics. (And most of those are probably physicists or numerical mathematicians.)
Once upon a time *looong* ago it was possible to scratchbuild your entire station and actually be at the leading edge of the state of the art. The leading edge move away years ago, and while it's fun to think of crafting AO-40 downlink antenna out of C-band dishes is building from scratch, it's a lot more like what model railroaders call 'kit bashing.'
This hobby is a kick, and I enjoy all the time I spend in it. But I do realize that 'technical competence' is a matter of degree, and all one needs is enough comptence to participate in the part of the hobby one wants to.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W4NTI on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes...I think that is the wave of the future. The dumbing down of the written and the probably total removal of the CW test will insure the SERVICE will be turned into CB. Why you ask? The real hams are dying out.
Dan/W4NTI
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sorry Dan, I disagree with you. The CW'ers are dying out. The removal of the CW requirement will mean the real, experimenting, innovating hams who think CW is a dead mode will finally be able to have access to the lower bands--if they want it. Amateur radio is alive and well. The CW bug, while still infecting some hams, will no longer have the ability to infect all who want access to the HF bands--unless those hams want to use the CW allocations. Thanks to the WRC for permitting CW free testing--at long last. Hey FCC, please follow the trend and let that ol' testing requirement die. CW will still survive--with those who want to use it. AS IT SHOULD BE.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why do we always have people on these threads that are too lazy or too stupid to learn the code that have to bring up the CW issue. Yes, we realize that you are happy that you may soon be able to work on HF without earning the privilege. But please leave it on the CW threads and not every thread there is.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KC7GR on July 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Read the original post again. YOU are responsible for your signal, and how it affects others.
Suppose your rig, for whatever reason, starts spewing spurious emissions all over the bands? Do you have the technical know-how to use a spectrum analyzer to test for that problem? More importantly, do you know how to fix it?
Suppose that same rig, for whatever reason, starts causing TVI or RFI to your neighbor's telephone or stereo? Do you have the 'technical competence' to know how to track the problem down, and deal with it?
I sure hope so, because your neighbor will be perfectly within their rights to yell to the FCC if you just tell them to lump it, and the FCC will come right back to you.
"I just want to operate" is not, in my eyes, a valid position for any ham. If you just want to "operate," without taking any responsibility for your signals, then you will probably find FRS, GMRS, or CB much more to your liking.
On that note, another question: If you had no interest in the technical side of things, why did you bother to get your ham license in the first place?
73 de KC7GR
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KA4TMB on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In an earlier post, HAMCHEESE said:
"Why do we need technical competence? I don't plan on making a radio, fixing a radio, or even making adjustments. I plan on operating a 100watt radio so I don't need to know about amps or anything else. I am going to buy a vertical and read the instructions to put it up. Why do I need to learn electronics or code? I shouldn't be questioned on satellites or digital modes either because I am not going to operate any of these modes. I think that we should only have one class of license and it should be easy and short enough that we can memorize the exam."
"Why?" You ask? Well, on "The Beverly Hillbillies" Jethro Bodine thought he was really smart because he "gradgeeated sixth grade". He had aspirations of becoming a "brain surgeon". It's too bad that attitudes like this have to exist: To be a brain surgeon with a sixth grade education - or to be allowed to operate a 100 watt "radio" without the slightest hint of electronics or code, not to mention Part 97 of the FCC rules and regulations, or "amps or anything else".
However, as people grow, mature, and learn about this wonderful service/hobby, perhaps the attitude of "I don't plan on making a radio...(so)Why do I need to learn...?" will fall by the wayside and a new aire of intellect and adult maturity will take its place.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again! The CW crap hasn't even gone to FCC and look at the crowd that don't want technical knowlege jump up! If you don't believe me look back at the last dozen posts.
How much dummer is ham radio going to get guys?
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by VK3KCG on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think Hamescheese belongs on the CB Band, ever listened to the CB band? The amount of technical knowledge by CB'ers would still leave free space on a pin head. Sure there are many technically competent Ex CB good buddies, they are now on the Ham bands.
At least they put in the effort to learn about their hobby. You sound like a person that would issue driving licences with no requirement to sit a test...
An old ham once told me that the Morse Code requirement was a good way to keep the Riff Raff off the air, maybe there is some merit to that statement..
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes I know which end of the solder iron to use and my attic at last count had 6 variations of antennas I put up there. I believe in the past I wired every power mike and set the swr for every CB within a 5 mile radius of my house. My old HW101 had the cover off as much as it had it on. I know I was one of the few who had a digital read out on their 101s. Wired a freq. meter up to it. I have built many of kits and fixed many of radios and other old electronic equipment in my day. Then again like I have said on other post I did and still do all the mechnical work on my 78 Gremlin. That is a car for you kids. At the same time I won't touch my 2000 Ford nor would I even try to repair my new ICOM. I think the equipment itself has turned a lot of us to being appliance operators. I can remember when Wilson came out with there little HT years ago. A lot of guys was so excited about it because it was so small. HT were big and heavy back then. Anyone remember the Regency. I remember an OT comming on the air and saying while it was great that it was so small but he said it was a sad day for him. He said he saw it as the begining of the end. He said the day the ham repaired, modified and built his own equipment was soon coming to an end. He said the parts were going to be so small and so complicated that the average ham just won't be able to do it. That was 25 years ago and I think his prediction came true. I do know and agree that we are responsible for our signals but having the knowlege to fix our rigs. I don't think so. As for as fixing TVI on my neighbors TV or Phone. I could see me touching them. Their 20 year old $159 TV would become a $20,000 Pasma TV when it breaks because I put a filter on the antenna line 5 years ago. Should hams be Technical competent. I think most were 30 years ago. Now I am more concern that that they know the rules and follows them then I am conerned about if he can homebrew a modern SSB transciever. My main concen now is I am getting close to retirement and I want someone on the air that I can carry an intelligent coversation with it doesn't have to be about the interworkings of my rig.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think I'm going to ignore ham and cheese for now. I did a search on the name he uses here as his Eham id and that comes back with no ham listed. ( do a name search on qrz) somwhat ever you are Mr. hamescheese, see ya.. if you won't even be honestas to a name, how can I trust what you type... how can I
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by ID10T on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article!!!!
There is alot to be said for building your own gear,
and being able to legally modify it. (60M!!) Thanks
for the thoughtful article and to those with relevant comments!
Sorry to see this thread (like most others) quickly devolve into bashing CBers, dredging up the waning CW requirements, and generally de-railing the topic for their own childish rants.
788
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How is this for an idea?
If hams don't meet your "technical competence" expectations, show us your review of the question pools, along with the questions you've submitted so that future hams will meeet your expectations.
At times I wonder why hams don't know the answer to questions they post here. But, then I remember, the 1X3s are really only Novice operators.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by ID10T on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
----------------------------------------------------
by X-WB1AUW on July 6, 2003
How is this for an idea?
If hams don't meet your "technical competence" expectations, show us your review of the question pools, along with the questions you've submitted so that future hams will meeet your expectations.
At times I wonder why hams don't know the answer to questions they post here. But, then I remember, the 1X3s are really only Novice operators.
Bob
-----------------------------------------------------
Where is the "idea"???
What does a 1x3 call have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with building your own gear?
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I apologise to the people on this thread. I am so sick of the "code at any cost" group that when I see a post to that effect I answer it--and I did go off the topic of this thread.
So, I say again, MAKE TESTING HARDER, include some old fashioned essay type questions and some diagramming questions. Make it so a applicant HAS to show technical competence, not just the ability to memorize everything to do with getting a license.
The world is moving ahead--so should the ham radio service, but not to the point of having licenses given away. We certainly should not be required to comply entirely with past ideals--there are current and future ideals that are every bit as valid as those of the past--some are even more valid than the past ones. Base testing on those. Don't single out one or two modes for special attention--give them all equal attention.
Thanks and 73 to EVERYONE!
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W5HTW on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote:
Why do we need technical competence? I don't plan on making a radio, fixing a radio, or even making adjustments. I plan on operating a 100watt radio so I don't need to know about amps or anything else. I am going to buy a vertical and read the instructions to put it up. Why do I need to learn electronics or code? I shouldn't be questioned on satellites or digital modes either because I am not going to operate any of these modes. I think that we should only have one class of license and it should be easy and short enough that we can memorize the exam.
unquote, from "hamandcheese?"
A complex situation. As hams we "were" technically competent. Following WW-II, we hams needed to know how to piece together radio equipment, keep it on the air, substitute components, and operate according to standardized procedures similar to those used by the military. We needed to know CW. All that was because we were the "reserve" operators in case of national emergency. We could be drafted (or join) into the military and be put into the field in communications with very little training. That was largely why ham radio in the US was reinstated following the war.
Times have changed. The military no longer uses "jack of all trades" personnel. They have a specialist who does nothing but operate at a keyboard, another who knows nothing but speaking into a microphone. Still another repairs computers, and another strings antennas. But none of them do it all. We did. Now that skill, where one person puts up the antenna, fixes the transmitter, tunes it up, puts it on the air, and operates it, is no longer needed anywhere. The Army can find a secretary who can type and she can be a communications expert because all she has to do is sit at a keyboard.
Meanwhile in ham radio, our rigs became solid state and eventually digital. Very few hams have the technical expertise, and even fewer the technical equipment, to design or repair digital radio equipment with components so small many of we older guys can hardly see them, let alone work on them. Tubes are gone. The baling wire and chewing gum repair is long gone. Barring and end-of-the-world event, they will never come back.
While we OTs, and many newcomers, lament the passing of the golden age of ham radio in which we had to solder, figure out resistors, actually dip the plate, and smell the heat of the filaments, the age is gone. It isn't anyone's fault; it is technology and time. Just gone. A few of us keep it alive through operating and maintaing boat anchors, but we are a tiny minority. We find it really hard to admit CW is not the silver spoon of amateur radio anymore. We miss the tradition, most of all.
We also miss the 'elite fraternity' ham radio once was. It isn't anymore. There are hams I pass on the road, who have no idea I, too, am a ham, despite the antennas on my car and the ham license plates. There is no closeness, not automatic friendship between strangers who hold ham licenses. That, too, is gone. Toot the horn at a car with ham tags and you'll get (a) a blank stare, (b) an upraised finger (c) a fearful look like "Did I do something wrong?" or (d) an attempt to ignore you. But no friendly wave, no return toot. It's gone.
So is "hamandcheese" right? Unfortunately, yes I think he is. It isn't a CW issue. It is simply that right now the majority of hams are Techs who simply turn on a box, sometimes not even knowing what brand it is, and talk, frequently just with the spouse. They really don't need to know how to build antennas, repair VFOs, check modulation.
Many others have technical expertise that ends with the wire that plugs into the microphone jack and the other end into the computer sound card. In their minds, with that skill, they are electronic experts, but that is far from reality.
There are exceptions to the above situations, of course, but if we really knew the reality of the hobby today, it would be that the majority of us are appliance operators. We may put up antennas, but then so does the guy trying to receive the over-the-air TV station. Or just listen to a SWBC station. We buy the radio, read the manual on how to set it up, and we follow those instructions, and we are on the air.
Is there a "communicator" type of license in our future? Probably. And it will be the license for the vast majority of hams. A simple test on how to avoid getting killed, how to stay in the band limits, and how to avoid inferference to other services. Presto! Ham radio operator. Not a boxtop license, but very close. I say that with both regret and resignation.
What I do see, though, is the additional "type" (it won't be a 'class') of ham license for those who seek to do more technical things, like build and maintain repeaters, experiment with the technical end of electronics, and run the older tube type gear that actually requires operator intervention to get it on the air. In the long run, I think we could wind up with a very simple "Amateur Radio License" (no class at all, and encompassing all current classes.) Then, for those with technical and special interests, I would see endorsements; "antique radio endorsement" which would allow the rebuilding of and operating tube type equipment; "repeater technician endorsement" which would allow the maintenance and certification of repeaters; "experimenters endorsement" which would allow design and repair of radio devices.
Certainly the FCC is going to leap at any presented oppoortunity to further simplify their procedures. The removal of the Morse requirement will do that, allowing them to combine the Novice, Tech and General into a single class and the Advanced and Extra into a single class. With those two being the only class of licenses possible, it is an easy step to a single class of amateur radio ticket. Then, with strict and difficult testing, directed a specific areas of interest, the majority of hams can simply get on the air and talk. Those few who have a special interest can test for that and, if approved, be awarded the privilege of working with boat anchors, repeaters, and other technical areas.
Ham radio is no longer what it once was. Those who were not in it then can not possibly comprehend what that statement means. They see today as the glory days of ham radio, and they are mistaken. But they can never live it the way it was, for that way is no more. And we who did live it that way can't do so again.
So we go ahead to some point in the future. What that will look like is open to some speculation, but one thing for certain is it will never look like the technically-qualified and operationally-trained ham radio of the past.
What is worse, it isn't even needed!
73
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC7GR writes: [my comments interspersed]
> Read the original post again. YOU are responsible for
> your signal, and how it affects others.
Not sure who this post was aimed at, but thought I'd respond anyway.
> Suppose your rig, for whatever reason, starts
> spewing spurious emissions all over the bands? Do
> you have the technical know-how to use a spectrum
> analyzer to test for that problem?
Yes -- but I think this is a good example of the difference between the mystique of ham radio and the reality of ham radio. How many hams have (or have easy access to) Spectrum Analysers (SAs) with appropriate probes, et cetera, capable of wideband rf analysis of signals taken near a transmitting antenna?
> More importantly, do you know how to fix it?
Yes. I have the 800 number of the service center.
> Suppose that same rig, for whatever reason, starts
> causing TVI or RFI to your neighbor's telephone or
> stereo? Do you have the 'technical competence' to
> know how to track the problem down, and deal with
> it?
Tracking down and solving TVI/RFI problems can be done using a simple step by step cheat sheet. It's a whole different problem that using an SA to determine if transmitted signals are in conformance with regs and practice.
> I sure hope so, because your neighbor will be
> perfectly within their rights to yell to the FCC if
> you just tell them to lump it, and the FCC will come
> right back to you.
> "I just want to operate" is not, in my eyes, a valid
> position for any ham. If you just want to "operate,"
> without taking any responsibility for your signals,
> then you will probably find FRS, GMRS, or CB much
> more to your liking.
"I just want to operate" is a fine position for a ham to have -- so long as they recognize their limitations, have access to Elmers who will help them solve problems that come up, and feel responsible. It is, after all, the attitude of most of the people who are in amateur radio mainly because they want to do emcom.
> On that note, another question: If you had no
> interest in the technical side of things, why did
> you bother to get your ham license in the first
> place?
I do have an interest in the technical side of things. But that's not why I got my license in the first place.
I got my license in the first place because I do a lot of hiking in the Santa Cruz mountains on the San Francisco Penninsula and the cell coverage there is poor, but 2m repeater coverage is good. The reason why I have my extra ticket, VE credentials and ARRL instructor certification is that I like to teach and I get a kick out of helping others get their license.
There are a lot of reasons to be a ham, like emcom, elmering, and providing service, that aren't about 'technical competence'.
But then my whole point is that 'technical competence' is a wide range of skills, and you require a lot less if you want a tech ticket to be involved in emcomm than if you want to take your extra ticket and design your own 60m transceiver and antenna.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W7COM on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think that all classes of hams should learn the code:
Black, Brown, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet, Grey, White.
-Joe
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sigh.
Well Robert, re-read the original post. Pay particular attention to the sentences and paragraphs containing and related to the phrases:
“….technical knowledge is required to be a Ham.”
“Do you new hams realize…”
“Every ham should know that…”
“Every ham should understand….”
Now, if “every ham” meet the author’s expectations, of technical ability, he wouldn’t have written the “article”.
Who or what determines what technical ability every ham must posses? Simply, the FCC by way of the questions in the question pools.
Anyone can make suggestions on what questions should be added to the question pool, by submitting the question(s) along with the multiple choice answers. One can even suggest questions to be deleted from the question pools.
As a result, if hams do not meet anyone’s expectations (remember, all hams have passed the FCC’s expectations), one can change what is included in the test material, and the actual questions used to sample knowledge.
In theory, by submitting questions for the pools, one can shape future hams towards one’s expectations, or find out if one’s expectations are realistic—you’ll get feedback if your question(s) are rejected or accepted.
Eventually though, we wind up back at the starting point—how much knowledge does one “need” to become a novice operator, i.e., to be a “new” operator? And then, how much total knowledge does one “need” if one remains active for three or more sunspot cycles, if one never upgrades from the beginning license? How does that knowledge differ from what is “needed” to be active over the same time as an Extra?
Bob, AE7G
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W7COM Joe writes:
>> I think that all classes of hams should learn the
>> code:
>> Black, Brown, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue,
>> Violet, Grey, White.
Better Be Right Or Your Great Big Venture Goes West.
I think they'd be better off known
Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet
it relates to the spectrum, after all.
Marty
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KF4MKJ on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If W7COM's code was too difficult, try
Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AH2AK on July 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, Amateur radio operators "SHOULD" be able to
demonstrate technical knowledge AND some basic
level of technical competence.
In the "old" days when my dad got his license he had
to draw circuits out on paper. That requirement was
eliminated ages ago.
With the new WARC decision it is likely that the CW
requirement will be eliminated in the near future also.
To demonstrate some level of technical competence I
would suggest a return to some legitimate test of
understanding of schematics, beyond part identification.
I'd like to see a requirement to actually solder a connector,
perhaps tune an antenna, or, from a box of
parts and a schematic, put together a working circuit,
perhaps even a simple receiver and show that it actually
works. These activities could be designed to show the
applicant understands and can use test equipment.
Yes, I understand that many Ham Operators have no
desire to construct or repair equipment. There are
several other options available to these appliance
operators, CB, Family Radio, etc.
I have a commercial general radio class license as
well as an Amateur license. The only demonstration
of "technical" abilities I have had to actually perform
has been sending and receiving Morse Code - yes,
sending... I'm that old.
It is time for that to change - and the elimination of
the CW requirement is a good time to change it!
Bruce
..
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>by KF4MKJ on July 6, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>If W7COM's code was too difficult, try
>
>Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives >Willingly.
Don't forget:
Get Some Now
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I apologies to the people on this thread. I am so sick of the "no-code at any cost" group that when I see a post to that effect I answer it--and I did go off the topic of this thread.
So, I say again, KEEP THE CW TEST. Make it so an applicant HAS to show competence, not just the ability to memorize everything to do with getting a license.
The world is moving ahead--so should the ham radio service, but not to the point of having licenses given away. We certainly should not be required to just give license away--there are current and old ideals that are every bit as valid as those of the new generation--most are even more valid than the new ones. Base testing on what has been proven in the past.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by G3RZP on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been quite surprised by the lack of technical knowledge in a number of Extra Class US licencees that I've met. Doesn't help, I suppose, that last time I looked at the Extra Class question pool, some of the answers were downright wrong! But it seems very sad that ham radio should degenerate into a pure plug and play hobby - strangely, it appears to be usually a phenomena accompanied by worsening manners and attitudes towards others.
One reason I won't help the Japanese economy by buying a new transceiver is that I can repair the FT102. Once an ASIC in one of these new boxes dies and spares are no longer available, that's it - a nice shiny box of junk! At least with the FT102, I can cobble something together - even if I have to replace the display (which is made of 'unobtainium') with 7 segment displays. I got the technical know how to do all this becasue ham radio was my entrance to radio engineering as a profession - not so likely a route for future engineers if the technical levels drop and the ability to build your own disappears. We know already that there are in Europe administration people who don't see why amateur equipment should be type approved if it's home brew. Reduce levels of competance too far and this attitude could gather momentum.
I look on CW in the same way as a model engineer looks on going to a CNC lathe - it's a craftsman's skill. The same with the lathe work.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I didn't know anything about electronics until I started studying for my first AR license.
I got my General and am getting interested in kit building. I still don't know enough about circuits or design principles to build my own self-designed rigs.
There are some who probably think I shouldn't have an AR license because I don't know as much about electronics coming into this hobby as they did.
Since there is currently no requirement that we show that we have foreknowledge of electronics when getting into the hobby, we are given a license to learn. Granted, electronics is given a skimming-over in the manuals for the first two licenses. I haven't gotten far enough in the Extra license manual to see how it's treated there.
Some of us are already EE's or have knowledge of electronics and circuit design when they get into this hobby, and others don't. If so many hams are concerned about a newbie's level of electronics knowledge before they get an AR license, maybe they should petition the FCC to keep out any prospective licensee until they are able to show that they can design and build their own transceivers and other station components before we sit for any class of license exam.
The only problem with this approach is that the idea of what level of electronics knowledge should be required of any prospective licensee is quite subjective, and will vary between hams.
I believe that, in the absence of any prior electronics knowledge, a real desire to keep learning and growing in our knowledge base is more important than what you know coming into the hobby. The main reason the license tests are so easy is because we can access the test question and answer pool.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can see why some people have no competence in anything at all, especially those that don't even have the brains or common sense to write their own comments. Its no wonder those people want everything handed to them on a silver platter. They won't identify themselves, either--can't even get an amateur license on their own and don't have the courage to admit it.
Come on, hamescheese--stop hiding behind a false name and a claim to an amateur license you don't even have. Maybe I'll have to call you Jim, and maybe you do have a license--with an N1xxx call. If so, yea, you've got a license but you don't know a damn thing technically and so shouldn't have that license--all you did is memorize the question pool.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To K1CJS, chill out OB. I have never singled you out or said any derogatory comments about you. Perhaps I struck a nerve with you but you should not take it so personally. So we have different opinions. That is no reason to make personal attacks towards me.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KG4GSC on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5HTW wrote:
"It is simply that right now the majority of hams are Techs who simply turn on a box, sometimes not even knowing what brand it is, and talk, frequently just with the spouse. They really don't need to know how to build antennas, repair VFOs, check modulation. "
Beg to differ, Ed. If you had stated "majority of hams of all classes simply turn on a box" I would have agreed. Yup, I'm a tech. I'm tired of being considered a second class ham, insulted, etc. simply because I hold that licence (tho the majority of the insults seem to be here on the 'Net, not on the air...). "Technical competence"? Well...I'm an EE by trade. Probably have more test gear than most Extra class licencees. Restored 5 to 6 tube rigs....repaired bunches of SS gear...even SMT (good mag. glass and a Pace solder/desolder station does help). Got more soldering irons than the local RatShak (tho that probably isn't much of a statement anymore). And I'm a tech. Recently helped a ham set up a multiband antenna on his SUV....he didn't know how to do it. He holds an Advanced class licence. Antennas? Sheesh....had a ham ask me why the R5 which I had at a recent hamfest had those "funny brackets" on it! (they're traps) He's been a ham for years....sits and yaks on 75 phone and 80 CW. His part of the hobby.....why should I condemn him for that? Lack of excelling at his proclaimed hobby, maybe?
Technical and operational excellence should be the goal. Today, many folks would be totally unable to design a decent SSB rig. Doubt I could. But we all should be able to use a soldering iron, fix basic circuits and know how to utilize our gear in the proper/legal/most efficient way possible.
Kits? Ah, the K2....seriously considering one, as soon as I get my CW speed up. Ten Tec offers some great kits, which cover the gamut for ALL hams. But even kits are getting rare. SMT technology (surface mount....those tiny little components which are hard to see, and even harder to work with) has seen to that. But still no excuse....get a dead piece of gear.....TRY to fix it! USE that brain for something other than a hatrack. LEARN something!
We're hams....Novices, Techs, Generals, Advanced & Extras. Quit slinging mud...use it to build up, not tear down. Building walls between classes of licence holders will only divide further those active hams and makes it easier for those who wish to use our spectrum for commercial purposes to do so. You're a ham? Great, so am I! Hope to hear you on the air in which ever format you choose to use!
Cheers;
Andrew
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hamescheese:
Point taken. Apology offered. However, I still see no point in hiding. If you're getting spammed, put the sender on your "blocked" list. Also, you can still identify yourself without an e-mail address. You have to admit, some of the claims you make NEED a name behind them for the sake of authenticity. Otherwise you are just not believeable.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N1RJA on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"But I do realize that "technical competence" is a matter of degree, and all one needs is enough competence to participate in the part of the hobby one wants to."
AE6IP, do you realize the brilliance and wisdom of this statement!? The only thing I could add to this is
"participate (and be completely responsible) in the part of the hobby one wants to." But I suspect that your statement already implies this... you said it all in one profound statement!
73, Rick
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N9MTT on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a new Ham a can state that there are new hams that are trying to gain technical Competence.
Part of the problem is that it is easy and cheap to buy a rig for the Tech allocations and there are few kit rigs for the Tech allocations.
When I looked for a 2m kit rig I only found Ten-Tec's and the DSP-10. I picked the DSP-10 and it is not a entry level kit.
-Matthew
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KG4WRQ on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re:"repair, adjust, and even build your own equipment". I am another new ham. This is one of the things that attracted me to becoming a Ham. I have a lot of pans in the fire, so I am slow to really
get started in this area. My first project (in progress) is building J-poles for 2-meter. Also, I have my late father's SSB CB that I want to convert to 10 meters, just for the education from of doing that. However, I can understand people that have little interest in homebrewing and other technical aspects; I think there are other areas of amateur radio that they can concentrate on and they can become (or have become)
much more valuable to amateur radio than I may ever be.
I will have to admit that I memorized about 10% of the question pool before I took the test. I am not ashamed of that. I've been a computer programmer for 25 years. I had an instructor in college that told us to not try and retain 100% of what he was teaching. He said that when the time came to use it, that we could look it up in the reference manual, and would retain it when the time came from on the job experience. I took his advice, and it has worked quite well for me. Amazingly, the things that I had memorized to pass the tests came back to me while
reading the manuals and applying it in real life. I expect that the same will be true in amateur radio. An exception here may be learning the code. I look forward to passing this test. I have read that it
can be done by memorizing the code, but that is a hindrance to increasing one's speed. I am really tempted to memorize and "just get it over with",
but, so far, I am resisting that temptation and am still studying it by ear.
I guess I have rambled too far here. I have enjoyed this thread more than most others I have been reading. I apologize if I have broken any unwritten protocols here.
Tom
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence? Radio Malpractice...tha
|
|
|
by N9CYS on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me begin by saying I am proud to be a 13wpm fcc office tested general class holder. Why? Because, I failed the code once and the written twice and finally succeeded! I was determined to be a ham. And hard work and discipline weren't about to deter me. And I am not afraid to say that since I was first licensed in 1971, the quality and courtesy of hams has diminished - at even a faster rate than the non-ham public.
Do we need a younger generation of hams to sustain the hobby? Absolutely! Do we want them at ANY price? Absolutely not! Is the value of a 2000 ham ticket cheaper than one in 1960? You bet!
When I failed the general written twice in the 70's, it was a tough test - but not as tough as the exam 15 years earlier. There were no question pools and the study guide was the license manual and the handbook. I remember getting tripped up on pierce, colpitts and hartley oscillators and resonant circuits. These were tough tests! When I saw the Advanced question pool in the late '90s, it was the SAME or easier material as the 70s general. Yeah, ham radio has been dumbed-downed.
Tech competence disappeared with kit makers because (1) hams wanted the easy way and (2) people had more money than time. Garnished with a little instant gratification, too, don't you think? Sounds like a recipe for failure.
Since the gov is dropping morse (I've no beef with that), they need to make the exams MUCH tougher and drop the question pools. Too many appliance operators and lids treat the hobby with too little respect. Because they haven't earned it. An extra ticket 25 years ago commanded respect - now there's too damn many of them to be astonished.
So if you want to come to the ham radio dance, you have to be disciplined and study, work hard and demonstrate proficiency. Just remember, it's easier now than it has ever been to be a ham - so show a little respect for the history and heritage of the hobby.
Im sure YaeKenCom love Gordon West - he has helped sell a lot of radios. But his exploitation of the question pools has put a lot of mics (but probably not a lot of keys) in a lot of unqualified hands.
God help us if the FCC oversees the FAA and private aircraft cost the same as a TS2000. I'll drive EVERYWHERE then!
--... ...--
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence? Radio Malpractice..
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9CYS,
Right on!
I only disagree on one point but it probably won't make any difference. I say keep the minumum CW requirement too.
I got my first ticket in the early sixties. We drew the Hartley and Colpits circuits and had to do calculations.
I would rather see ham radio come to a proud death rather than it just becoming CB.
Now the new hams hope to find a computer program to think for them. If a computer can't do it they don't want to try it. In a few years will they be able to think far enough write a program?
It isn't just ham radio, it is the pure "you owe me" attitude in this society.
By the way, I don't see any right to a ham license in the U.S. Constitution.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N0TONE on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You young whippersnappers are all the same. You complain and moan that the "new hams" have it "easier" than you did. Like it or not, if we regressed things to 20 years before you got your ticket, you wouldn't have made it in!
I remember (joints creaking as he wobbles up from his wheelchair, reaching for his cane), why when I was a whelp and we wanted some wire, we pulled out the maps and found the nearest copper mine, yep, that's what we did, yessirree. And then we'd find the local blacksmith and ask if we could use his stove to melt out the copper from the ore and then we'd pound that copper flat. We didn't use wires, ain't nobody'd heard of ex-troooozhuns by then, we had to use strips cuz' that's what we could make. You punk little spoiled brats that can just waltz into some damned store a BUY pre-made wire just don't know how spoiled you are. When I took MY test, we had to make a tube, do you know how hard it is to suck a vacuum before they'd invented vacuum pumps? That's how we separated the smokers from the non-smokers in those days, no smoker could make a good tube.
And you know what, we LIKED it that way!!!!
AM
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"These were tough tests! When I saw the Advanced question pool in the late '90s, it was the SAME or easier material as the 70s general. Yeah, ham radio has been dumbed-downed."
A couple of questions:
- Do you believe that the new hams (those who've taken the tests since they've been "dumbed down") are to blame because the current tests are easy? I'm specifically speaking of NEW HAMS, not the ARRL, the FCC or long time hams. Do new hams collectively affect amateur radio policy to this degree, or are the vast majority of them getting into the hobby with little idea of how things got to where they are now?
- If you feel that new hams are the reason things are so easy now, can it be lucidly explained how pre-licensed amateurs influenced the current test pool questions to make them easy?
- Do you believe that new hams (whatever their license class) are as entitled to enjoy the hobby as those who took the tough exams?
- Do you believe that all new hams are whiny crybabies who all sport a "I want mine for less work than YOU" attitude?
Please, folks. Let's air our grievances where they're due, for starters. Why should it be against those of us who are new to this hobby, and had no preconceived idea how the tests came to be as they are today?
Many of us new hams just want to enjoy ourselves without a prejudicial attitude from the longtimers in the hobby. Not all of us sport an "I want it for less work" attitude. We are working with what's out there now. If you want to blame someone for the "dumbed-down" state of things in amateur radio, don't point fingers at me or other new hams who are trying to learn and grow-- we had nothing to do with the test question pools; we just had to take the tests as they are given today.
Jackie
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by HAMESCHEESE on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> "Not all of us sport an "I want it for less work" attitude. We are working with what's out there now. If you want to blame someone for the >"dumbed-down" state of things in amateur radio, don't point fingers at me or other new hams who are trying to learn and grow-- we had nothing to > do with the test question pools; we just had to take the tests as they are given today"
Congratulations to all you hams that are working to earn your license and not just crying that you can't/won't learn the theory or code because it is to hard, it's not necessary, it's outdated, (insert any lame excuse here) etc.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't blame the new hams for the questions, etc.
That said, a lot of them have a demanding attitude because they don't like the things the way they are. In other words novices telling the ones that have been around awhile how they want. It's too much work so they want to change the rules.
Next, the reason for the reduced qualifications is twofold. First is ARRL, they are protecting their damn good paying jobs. If you don't belive me go to their web site and check out the audited financials. I'd hate to see them get a real job. When they talk FCC listens for the most part. The second part of the problem was the ham population when the changes were being made. For the most part they sat on their duff and didn't say anything. Now that the problem has grown to gigantic proportions we start to hear from them.
These older hams are still around. They are the ones that moan "I don't know? Don't rock the boat. Don't say anything. Someones feelings might be hurt."
I say to them, "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything." get some spine!
When I was learning to fly spins wern't required. My instructor didn't care. He wouldn't sign me off until I had learned spins. That's the way I Elmer, you learn it's all or nothing. that way we bother learn in the process.
I'd rather see ham radio die a proud death than end up just another form of CB just to protect the jobs at ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's the scoop:
1- I was a SWL for years. I always thought the idea of sending a signal far across the world to be received by who knows who, who knows where, was intriguing.
2- I decided to get an amateur radio license in 2002. I got my Tech, then soon got my General. Am now studying for the Extra.
3- I never thought about not doing what was required for each license; I did what was required and didn't ask "why do I have to do this?" I'm the learner, not the instructor or licensing board, so I do what I understand to be the requirements for the license classes.
I just did what I had to do, worked with the manuals that are currently available, took the tests that are being given and didn't WHINE about any of it.
But I also think it is bad form and a show of ill will to blame new hams for the state of amateur radio. Who's making policy? Who sets the standards for testing? Who decides on the requirements for the license classes?
If you aren't happy with the state of amateur radio testing today, then the answers to the questions immediately preceding this paragraph should help to narrow down and direct you to the proper personnel in the Complaints Department.
I won't take the blame for the current state of amateur radio. I operate cleanly, always within my license privileges, am courteous and considerate, I follow the rules and enjoy myself. I can't yet design my own transceiver or draw a cogent circuit to save my life, but I'm learning.
Jackie
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know a lot of hams, so I don't know whether or not the contention that a lot of new hams have demanding attitudes is true or not. I prefer not to paint large groups of people with one monocolor brush. I just did what was required to get the licenses, which in my opinion are licenses to learn and grow.
Besides, wanting things to change and evolve over time isn't always a bad thing. I'm not talking about the contest of the AR license exams; I'm just talking about having a flexible, sometimes questioning posture, putting that out for discussion and seeing where it can take us. Innovation and forward thinking should always be on our platters.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence? Radio Malpractice..
|
|
|
by KG4WRQ on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4OOA,
Re: Now the new hams hope to find a computer program to think for them.
You're close. We new hams don't want computers to think for us. What we want are brain implants that
encode our thoughts and transmit them via satellite.
Want CW? No problem, your thought process will determine the mode. The satellite will emulate whatever mode & frequency you want! The great part is that your contact can receive your transmission in whatever mode they want, too! There will be only one real frequency, but via emulation, no one will be able to tell the difference.
All tests will be a thing of the past. You'll simply
register and pay the fee. After that, you can get the implant. I imagine that the ARRL will rename the book, "Now you're talking" to "Now you're thinking". There won't be much in the book, though. Probably just instructions on how to register, and a list of clinics where you can have the implant done. Heck, it won't even be a book as we know it now...probably a download via the government mandated implant that you will already have.
- Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence? Radio Malpractice..
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You guys are unreal.
The FCC decides what test we take, (through their auspicies) You can suggest questions for the Question Pool, have you done that yet, if not, hush.
I took my test in the Fcc office in San Francisco when I got my first license (tech with code, back then 1978). Now I am a VE and give test to others, Are you doing any VE work?? if not , hush.
I put my call sign on my post and am proud to be a ham, no matter what your opinion, do you list your call here on your comments, if not, hush.
I support Eham, the ARRL and local hams and school programs, Are you a contributator, if not , hush.
Now if you have any thing to say, and are qualified.. then speak.
The first thing I ask when someone starts complaining about the president/ country/ military/ taxes/ etc. is Did You Vote.
If the don't vote they they have no right to complain.. and remember its all Flordia's fault. They had the swing vote, right Chad...
tom N6AJR :)
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N9CYS on July 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jackie,
You're comments were as thoughtful as my mine. My comments were intended as a response to those who consider their licensing privileges an entitlement - not an achievement. A point not lost on you and other thoughtful posters.
IMHO, I think a lot that is wrong with operating practices has to do with one's passion for ham radio. I think that anyone who is truly passionate about ham radio will do whatever it takes. Machiavelli opined - "The end justifies the means."
FCC policies change and I certainly don't blame ANY hams for that. But, I do object to those hams who lack your passion (and mine) and feel that if they wait long enough, they will be "grandfathered" into more privileges - proficiency or not. Sorry, I don't buy that! I don't want to share my band privileges with any slacker - sorry.
You and I followed the same SWL to Ham path. I'm not an E.E., but I think hams should demonstrate sufficient technical proficiency to understand radio concepts and apply them - or at least skilled enough to refer to the Handbook and understand concepts.
Operating a transmitter should require technical competency. Otherwise, our freq allocations with be full of all the same inconsiderate lids who who drive drunk, speed, and blow red lights. As easy as it is to acquire a drivers license, it's a shame that our ham bands are also populated with reckless operators.
73
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AD6WL on July 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why Technical Competence?
The short answer: Because we are hams.
The slightly longer answer: Amateur Radio is a hobby and a service. One reason for hams is to provide a pool of well-trained operators for emergency communications and to advance the communication and technical skills of radio. We have to pass progressively harder technical exams and pass a CW requirement. Ham radio is not for everyone. For those who do not wish to take these exams there is always CB, GMRS, FRS, and MURS.
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K1OU on July 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What a bunch of drama queens. Turn on the radio and have fun.
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AD6WL on July 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
QUOTE: “What a bunch of drama queens. Turn on the radio and have fun.”
QUOTE: “ROTFL. The bands must be in REALLY bad shape...”
I must have missed the punch line. If you’re talking about propagation: The SFI is down and the K and A indexes are up so the bands have definitely been better. If you’re talking about operators on the bands I think that the bands are in great shape. I have been having great QSO on 40meters CW, 20meters mobile phone, and even got on the 60m band and made some new friends and have heard nothing but great operators on. I worked 6 hours of the DX-DL RTTY contest this past weekend and had a lot of fun. I am interested in all aspects of ham radio, whether on the air or on eham.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by K2JX on July 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would not be employed by the 9th largest police department in the USA if not for Ham radio. I work in the "Technical Services " section,aka "Radio Repair"
Knowledge gained in this hobby is unbeatable. I got the bug back in the 50's, never left.
I operate all modes all bands and enjoy vintage radio restoration in addition to operating.
Good article.
73, Jack K2JX
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N9NRW on July 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What the hell does Morse code have to do with technical competency?
Why not something that makes sense like how important it is to know Ohm’s Law or Faraday’s Law?
Give me a break, the technical world does not revolve around Morse Code!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N9NRW on July 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From K1KZ posts
"It's also why I knew how important it was to know Morse. It's just too useful a skill, like soldering., I don't think you can be a ham without it."
N9NRW response......
What the hell does Morse code have to do with technical competency?
Why not something that makes sense like how important it is to know Ohm’s Law or Faraday’s Law?
Give me a break, the technical world does not revolve around Morse Code!!!
Sorry, it just bugs me that people must always try to some how tie code into every stinking ham radio subject!
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W5HTW on July 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5HTW wrote:
"It is simply that right now the majority of hams are Techs who simply turn on a box, sometimes not even knowing what brand it is, and talk, frequently just with the spouse. They really don't need to know how to build antennas, repair VFOs, check modulation. "
Beg to differ, Ed. If you had stated "majority of hams of all classes simply turn on a box" I would have agreed. Yup, I'm a tech. I'm tired of being considered a
end quote.
Actually it doesn't quite say what you read into it, nor did it intend to. The majority of hams ARE Techs, (over 350,000 of them) and the majority of those simply turn on a radio and use it, and yes, sometimes they don't even know what brand it is. That is particularly true in the 'forced-family' (cell phone) hams.
In your reading of it, though, you are correct in stating a large percentage of all classes of hams simply turn on the radio and use it. That has always been the case, and I do not advocate that hams not be called hams unless they build their own equipment. Plus, I can recall a few guys back in the sixties who had no idea what was in the radio. They were, though, a minority, not a majority. I know of one fellow who bought all new Collins A-line, and had hams from the local club come over and unpack it and install it. He was definitely not typical. At the other end of the spectrum, I knew a fellow who bought a brand new 75A4 and almost stripped it down to the chassis in order to rebuild it with his own ideas. He was not typical, either!
There are some facts. In the forties through the sixties, and well into the seventies, hams had to know how to "operate" a radio. That meant the had to know how to "peak the grid, dip the final" avoid operating in such a way as to cause spurious radiation, and to be within the bands. That they no longer have to is not their fault; it is the 'fault' of advancing technology. That has made the 'mysterious black box' concept of radio the prevalent view today. But no matter, the result is the same; the majority of hams, and yes, the majority of Techs, simply turn on their radios and talk.
Actually that's OK. My point was 'hamandcheese' is correct. He doesn't want to build a radio, so he doesn't have to know how. He doesn't want to run an amplifier, so he doesn't have to know how. He has no need at all, and therefore no interest, in knowing what goes on inside that 'mysterious black box.' He just wants what comes out of it, and that is his voice on the air waves. Many would say that is just CB, and in a way that is exactly what it is. And I say he typlifies today's average ham, Tech or otherwise.
There are exceptions. You appear to be one. But you are well outside the rule. I have known other Techs (of the old style, before the code free Tech ticket came into existence) who were also super good at building, from scratch, receivers, transmitters and TV systems for ham use. They were the exemplification of what the Technician license was originally all about - experimentation. That changed, and the Tech license became pretty much the "communicator" license; the push-to-talk ticket. And back then there were those Techs who simply got on six meters (they weren't allowed on two meters) and chatted, and I knew a few of them as well.
I do not denigrate any individual by class of license. I simply point out that the Tech license is, for the most part, a "user only" form of license. Many have noted that, after the CF Tech ticket came into being, thousands of people got that ticket as a cheap and easy cell phone. Many of them had zero interest in ham radio, but just wanted a quick way to get in touch with the spouse or the kids. And the availability of cell phones so cheaply, including the new throwaway kinds, have rendered many of those Tech tickets valueless.
My guess is the appliance operators of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and early 70s, were a small percentage of the total of active hams, simply because necessity prevailed. We 'had' to fix our gear. We 'had' to know how to test it, how to figure resistance, capacitive reactance, crystal frequencies, plate dissipation, bias voltages, etc. If we didn't know, we weren't on the air. If our rig broke, and we had no idea what those things meant, the rig went into a closet and we took up golf.
That is no longer the case. Those of "hamandcheese" ilk are rapidly approaching being the majority despite the notable exceptions, and in fact, if we take all classes into consideration, they definitely ARE the majority. I know Extras who can't find the DC resistance of a coil. I know Extra who don't know how a relay works. That is why we needed the Novice ticket so badly, and why it was so idiotic to do away with it, as well as to make it a lifetime renewable license. It was an apprenticeship, a time in which one learned those basics. Now that apprenticeship is 2 meters, and for many, (and worse yet) CB. They move from CB to two meters, and in neither place do they learn what ham radio is (or was.)
So I am not running you down, amigo. I am not running down ANY Technician, code or not. I am saying that maybe this guy is right - we don't need to demonstrate technical expertise to get a basic ham license. And, sadly, I think that is fact.
73
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N8MMZ on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Many Dittos!! Good Post!
Why technical competence? Because you can kill yourself or those around you when servicing/testing your equipment!!!
How many hams are aware of the applicability of many articles of the National Electric Code (NEC) to the hobby? Specifically NEC Article 640, "Audio Signal Processing, Amplification, and Reproduction Equipment" (This dictates how we go about wiring the audio stages of equipment --> usually points us straight to Article 725). What about Article 725, "Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 Remote-Control, Signaling, and Power Limited Circuits". Are you guys sizing those transformers and conductors properly?? How about Article 810, "Radio and Television Equipment" - anybody using a suspended half-wave dipole antenna of less than #14AWG?? Note though that the NEC does require certain components to be UL listed, but not the entire radio set that we build. Look at the trust that the guys at the NEC put into our hobby (and I didn't notice a single member of the ARRL listed as such on ANY of their code making panels).
These and many other well referenced standards are what the true "technicians" of the hobby should adhere to - certainly this takes competence to decipher the information in those sorts of standards.
What I would call the true hobbyist might not start out with any of the standards for construction or any of the technical knowledge required to fully build, test, and service equipment - but, the "true" hobbyist desires to learn these skills as he progresses throughout the hobby. Upon entrance to the hobby, other than the bandplans, frequency allocations, operating etiquette, he probably needs to learn the first law of electricity: "Do not become part of the circuit!" If we had a technical competency exam upon entry into amateur radio, speaking for myself, I would not have passed! (Now I'm an EE who’s done a whole lot of commercial distribution design) I would also argue that not many young folks would get a ticket!
Can you practically test for technical competence? That's a pretty dumb question - of course you can't! Perhaps is an "apprenticeship" in order then? Maybe for allowable modes or levels of power output after certain periods of time have passed (and with a written exam)? Quite possibly!
Can you test for idiocy? Unfortunately not. We can only hope that those guys' signals fade quietly in the night because they can't find the sewing needle that their neighbor inserted into their coax to cease the RFI due to splatter.
Now let me preface this next statement carefully. My ONLY mode of operation is CW. I enjoy listing to the code for relaxation and I feel that it "takes me back to another time" by having QSO's in that mode. I also got my ticket back when you could get a couple of elmers give you the exam. I have found that the only useful thing CW is for is proving that you have the intellectual capacity to learn a foreign language. Since I went into Electrical Engineering and I also have interests in the medical profession (my wife's an M.D.) I found that I have been able to learn Latin quite well. Unfortunately, such as Latin, CW is dead insofar as a practical mode of communication is concerned (you can use it to satisfy FCC ID requirements when operating on any mode though). And if for some reason all of the prophecy out there that "CW is the only mode that will get through when all Heck breaks loose” comes true - than boys, we are all in trouble. The last place I'll be is at my radio station trying to QSO with CW. I'll be at AVON, buying lipstick so I can kiss my behind goodbye! I would advise you to do the same. Sorry gents, CW serves no other purpose than hazing - if our hobby is dying out, then we need to lower the "hazing" gates.
My two bits worth - A little ragin’ from an ole’ Cajun!
Cheers'
Jonathan
N8MMZ
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N8MMZ on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Addendum to my last post:
There is nothing wrong with just getting the license to "talk on the radio". But let me tell you - it is a whole lot cheaper to get set up on the internet or get a cell phone.
I argue that you don't truly "enjoy" the hobby until you have explored all aspects of it - one of which is the "Technical competency" as demonstrated by design, construction, testing, and servicing of your own dad gummned radio that you built from scratch. That is in addition into exploring all of the different modes that you can use (I've just settled on CW for reasons I stated before).
That's my take home message in my long obnoxious post.
73's N8MMZ
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AD6WL writes
>> Why Technical Competence?
>> The short answer: Because we are hams.
>> The slightly longer answer: Amateur Radio is a
>> hobby and a service.
I think a lot of hams make the mistake about the word 'service' that you seem to be making. Hams are *served* by ham radio, not the other way around. 'service' is just the FCC's way of labeling the resources it provides.
>> One reason for hams is to provide a pool of well-
>> trained operators for emergency communications and
>> to advance the communication and technical skills
>> of radio.
That's two reasons, and the first one is becoming more mythical and less real every day. The second one has been a myth for a long time. While we amateur radio hobiests advance our own skills as we play with radio, amateur radio has been behind the leading edge of radio communications for a long time.
Myth of ham EM-COM: when all else fails, hams will communicate.
Reality of EM-COM: local emergency services communications here are up 24x7x365, with redundant transceiver facilities and very high-tech radio systems (spread-spectrum, digital, trunking, et cetera). Local hams can't get all of the EM-COM repeaters linked for the monthly check in, more often than not.
>> We have to pass progressively harder technical
>> exams and pass a CW requirement.
All three of which are easier than the midterm from my college electronics class 30 years ago. What gets progressively harder to me is the amount of regulatory material you have to know.
>> Ham radio is not for everyone. For those who do not
>> wish to take these exams there is always CB, GMRS,
>> FRS, and MURS
Speaking of EM-COM, you are, no doubt, aware of REACT, which uses CB (less now than before) and GMRS. Our local CERT team uses FRS for their EM-COM role. There are even GMRS EM-COM repeaters around here.
I don't know the history well enough to know when Ham Radio lost its way, but it's been a long time that it doesn't fit the myth.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N3NL on July 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Having the opportunity to build and experiment is the
best part of amateur radio. Let's keep it by having
reasonable technical knowledge requirements for
amateur radio operators.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KG4WRQ on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re: There is nothing wrong with just getting the license to "talk on the radio". But let me tell you - it is a whole lot cheaper to get set up on the internet or get a cell phone.
--------------------------------
N8MMZ,
Can you elaborate? Aren't all the free ISPs a thing of the past? I would think a dial-up ISP is going to be a minimum of $10/month. My budget cell-phone is $20/month. My first radio set-up was a 2-meter HT I found on sale...I added a mag-mount mobile antenna and DC power supply....all this for under $100. Those monthly fees quickly become larger than my first set-up. If a one desired, he/she could "just talk" on 2-meters for many months before that set-up went south.
Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by W8JI on July 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I find it interesting that there are CB-ers who are technically capable of stringing 30 or so power mosfets together to make a multikilowatt amplifier, install 3-phase high-output alternators in their mobile setups, create big multielement arrays. Check some of the CB-Ring websites, amazing!""
It's especially amazing when you look at the actual gain of a CB-constructed yagi, or the spectral purity of a CB amplifier with 30 MOSFET's or anything else.
It is a good example of the garbage and rubbish that can be thrown together and problems caused when techno-morons without skill or elementry electronics understanding are turned loose in a technical field.
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KB8POA on July 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article!!
I totally agree... That's what makes us Hams who we are. Otherwise we'd be on 11 meters or FRS.
But we love radio, we love to experiment, to build. It's in our blood..
I've always enjoyed building and repairing my own equipment and experimenting with different things. It's what makes Amateur Radio so much fun. :)
73 de Walt, kb8poa..
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on July 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Been a ham for 26 years, and a E.E. for 20. I am back in school to get a masters in BIO-MED engineering. The E.E. field is dead now in my area.
I am in school with all these kids! They got their E.E. However they cannot solder. None of them want to know anything about ham radio.
Yeah sure the kids are better than me in the calculas,however not one of them ever built a KIT!
Too add double insult to injury, nobody wants or can fix the university on air FM transmitter, Their FM station is on the internet! I offered my services.....NADA!
The kids are wizards on the blackboard, but dead meat on a breadboard!
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by N8MMZ on July 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom: I'd be happy to elaborate, but first - a couple of questions. How do you log in to eham? Through an ISP or your 2M radio?? Do you have even have the capability to log in on your 2M rig??? Do you really want me to respond to this (because many, many people already have ISP's and don't have 2M rigs)?
To WA2JJH: I too went back to school - granted that I've only been out for 4 years. I decided to start taking a few upper level math courses back at the local university where I worked (actually it was about 70 mi. away, but that's local in north louisiana), before I transferred to Georgia. Since I was still working as an engineer, I'd show up for courses dressed as Dilbert - I didn't exactly look like most of the other students - they don't wear coats and ties. I was traveling to school, so I requested an office and got a key to the EE sr. design lab. I'd sit in there and work on my homework before/after classes - since it was a working lab, many ugrad sr. students would flow in and out. You are correct, they did not know how to properly solder (I learned back at a trade school when I was very young and heathkit was still around) - but I decided to take a little time with them and show them how.
You would be amazed - they were interested in learning about the "construction" aspects of their profession (I didn't show them how to "wave" solder sm boards though). I did talk with them about ham radio and found out that they did'nt know about it but were interested in anything that might help them apply the theory that they learned (For the most part, as I'm sure you did, I only applied about 5% of the theory of EE to do my job - electrical distribution). If I was going to be there longer, I would have worked them into other aspects of electronics (i.e. ham radio).
These kids DO show interest and potential. Too bad that their coursework has been severly curtailed by the friendly guys at ABET (who want to put students' efforts towards more "university" based courses while still retaining a 4 yr engr. degree). Maybe they'd have a chance to learn construction techniques if they had a couple more lab sections. VERY fortunate for them though, that guys like you and me are back in school with our non-textbook skills. I'd suggest you take a few hours out of your week to find a group of guys willing to learn and pass this profession and hobby along. It is very rewarding to mentor those folks and it takes guys like you and me to show the initiative!!
Insofar as the FM station is concerned - if it was anything like my ugrad campus, I don't blame them! Although the FM station was started by EE's in the mid 1950's, it was run by psychology, film, etc... majors (i.e. fruits and nuts). I don't blame the EE's for not wanting to step into that hornet's nest!
Cheers'
Jonathan N8MMZ
|
| |
|
RE: Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KG4WRQ on July 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jonathon,
Re: ...it is a whole lot cheaper to get set up on the internet or get a cell phone....
First, let me say that I am not trying to be obstinate.
And, to answer your questions:
I log into eham at work via T1 line, and at home via cable-internet.
I would say that I am able to log on to my 2-meter radio everytime I check into a traffic net.
After thinking more about this, I will concede the internet connection comparison...one can use the library or a friends internet connection, and many of us have access at work.
I am still at a loss about a cell phone. And I still maintain that a person's personal "home" internet connection is more expensive.
Yes, please elaborate.
Thanks,
Tom KG4WRQ
|
| |
|
Why Technical Competence?
|
|
|
by KC0PUU on July 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As someone who just got his General license after having his Novice license inactive for 12 years I think technical knowledge is important. I hold a General license but am unable to use it. I am not sure how to set up a rig. I don't want to make a nuisance of myself on the air, so I don't transmit. Once I find a nearby club, I hope to join so I can learn the skills I need to use my license. I think a better licensing system would be like the DMV's. You take a written test to get a learner's permit, but you can't drive on your own until you show that you are competent.
73
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Editorial Articles
Project 'Take Back 146.52'
|
