What the FCC Should Test For
Martin Fouts (AE6IP)
on
March 5, 2004
View comments about this article!
Amateur radio is, in the eyes of the FCC and the ARRL, a hobby. The FCC defines the amateur radio service as (97.3 (4))
"A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."
It is obvious that the licenses are not the end goal of amateurs; else we would earn our extra ticket and retire from the hobby. Rather, licenses are the starting points of our involvement with the hobby.
The question, then, of what the FCC should test for when determining if an individual should receive an amateur license, comes down to what must an individual know to start being involved in an aspect of the hobby.
After much thought, it has dawned on me that the answer is simple. To start out in some aspect of any other hobby requiring licensing, what is tested for is that the person be able to safely engage in the hobby. Engaging in it learns everything else one learns about a hobby.
It is obvious, therefore, that the contents of the licensing tests should be reduced to the 10th item in each syllabus: electrical and RF safety.
Once it is clear that this is the basis of license testing, it also becomes clear that there is really a need for only two license classes, and that the only distinction between them is the amount of power the operator should be allowed to utilize, and the amount of modification and construction they should be allowed to undertake.
Another thing which is clear is that modern electronics has made it possible for there to be a class of amateur operators who are appliance operators in the sense that their knowledge of equipment construction can be limited to what is needed to assemble a safe station.
I propose, then, that the FCC should streamline Part 97 to two classes of licenses, a low power class limited to 100 watts, with all frequency and mode privileges, but restricted to using unmodified commercial equipment, and a high power class limited to the maximum legal power, with all frequency and mode privileges, and the ability to modify commercial and construct own equipment.
Access to the first license class should be granted upon completion of a 50 question multiple-choice test on electrical and RF safety, with an emphasis on low power operation, and station assembly and an assumption that the operator will not modify equipment.
Access to the second license class should be granted upon completion of an additional 50 question multiple-choice test on electrical and RF safety, with an emphasis on high power operation, with the assumption that the operator may modify equipment, perform technical experiments, and develop their own equipment.
I believe that this license structure more accurately reflects the current state of affairs than any of the other proposals before the commission, and is consistent with the commission's goals.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The FCC dosn't need any more proposals. The ARRL has the BEST proposal now. I will my General soon. Thanks ARRL. Please no more proposals, just support the ARRL not this extremist extra.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Talk about OBE. I wrote and submitted this a while before I actually set down and wrote the petition that is the subject of the news article. oh well. i'm sure we'll all enjoy rehashing this material ;)
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by N6AJR on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The Fcc decides what is good for testing, and you do have the opportunity to submit questions already for the question pools if you choose to do so, this is sufficient, and I doubt you have submitted any questions 73 tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NE0P on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
They should also test for knowledge of the rules, at least. It seems that my written drivers license test did cover that.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The government really only has two reasons for licensing.
First, to prevent chaos in the radio spectrum. Second, to provide an easily recognized pool of radio operators for military service in time of war.
You may not find that in Part97, but the Selective Service still exists, and should it be needed...can you guess what list would be used to locate selectees qualified as radio operators?
So how does this reflect on licensing requirements. In the first part, simply requiring a license ensures that there will be rules followed, or penalties applied. That's easy, just like a drivers' license and that's about all "safety training" would be needed for.
In the second part...Once upon a time, a military radio operator needed to know CW. Needed to be able to field repair equipment. Now, equipment is largely not field repairable, it is IC's and SMD's that either work or not and spares can easily be carried by other men, they are no longer huge crude boxes.
As for CW...it is a security risk, no longer considered a means of communication. Military communications has largely gone to spread spectrum rigs to prevent interception, and satellite uplinks and narrow beams to prevent the enemy from locating the transmitter. (Not all--but that's where it has been going.)
And code? Come on now, how many licensees really USE code, sending it manually instead of using computers and memory keyers? How much does CW really accomplish these days, that packet and digital forms can't accomplish faster and cleaner, now that the home computer has become WAY cheaper and more common than the average ham radio?
So with the military need for electronic skills and CW arguably one or highly diminished, there's not much reason to continue a system which provides people with those skills. By removing those requirements, the government loses nothing.
Sure, testing and skills keep out the riff-raff [sic] and the folks who aren't willing to be dedicated to pursuing the skills. But making the club more elite isn't a goverment goal, AFAIK.
I'm settling down to try learning the code, but if there had been no code requirement 30 years ago, I'd have passed the exams for all classes 30 years ago. What's the value of code TODAY, besides keeping people off the air?
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NE0P on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What's the value today of a written test, other than keeping people off the air?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nothing new here...this is the same garbage that Marty has been putting out for a long time.....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA5N on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any multiple choice test only demonstrates the ability to memorize. Assuming this idea has any merit (which it doesn't) passing such a test would not even insure the ability to pick up the correct end of the soldering iron.
When you use a soldering iron, you should pick up the
A. Cold end
B. Hot end
C. The opposite end
D. The non-smoking end
Ham radio is a hobby (which I've had for 50 years) and has room for many types of people and many interests, but it is just a hobby. The choice of how much effort one puts into a hobby is his choice.
73 Allen KA5N
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KD5NVC on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This may be one of the best examples of how we react to each others comments. If we better work at getting along and work together for a common goal, things just might go a bit better for us all.
This is a hobby, we are intrusted with a spectrum to be used safely, with respect, by the rules and most of all, have fun doing what we love.
Off color remarks and comments that meant to hurt or anger others is not the way show how good of an operator your are but it shows everyone that we just don't work together for a common goal.
If each of us would take a good look at our hooby, you just might see how much we all need each other and how important it is that we work together of a common goal.
It's up to us to make the difference!!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Any multiple choice test only demonstrates the ability to memorize."
Any test demonstrates the ability to memorize, not just multiple choice. The first step in learning code is memorization. The first step in learning the alphabet is memorization. The first step in learning to drive is also memorization (you have to remember what each control is for). Speed and the ability to recognize without stopping to think only comes after practice and repeated useage.
It is far past time to keep harping on "memorization". And if you don't think so, stop a minute and think about how you came to be able to use your computer--YES! Memorization again. 73!
|
| |
|
KC2MMI writes...
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And code? Come on now, how many licensees really USE code, sending it manually instead of using computers and memory keyers? "
I do. Of the roughly 185,000 active amateurs on the air weekly, about 1/3rd of them do. Do not underestimate what you have not yet experienced yourself.
"How much does CW really accomplish these days, that packet and digital forms can't accomplish faster and cleaner, now that the home computer has become WAY cheaper and more common than the average ham radio? "
It accomplishes adding to the operator's innate desire for a sense of accomplishment, and to the human need of communicating with another person on a more transcendant level. Ever study Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Faster and "cleaner" (whatever that means) isn't always the goal of communicating, or we wouldn't have books and magazines, either.
I don't carry a computer with me to help me communicate. I have gray matter and wetware that does much better, and I _always_ have that with me.
Many people, apparently including yourself, who feel that Morse is nothing more than a barrier to entry, just don't get it. Try to be more open-minded.
|
| |
|
RE: KC2MMI writes...
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are other fundamental requirements for a beginner in addition to operator safety. For the sake of argument I will list safety first, but these other requirements are equally important:
1. The operator can safely use and work with the equipment in his station.
a. Knows when harmful/dangerous voltages are present in or around the equipment.
b. Knows the fundamentals of RF exposure protection.
c. Knows basic safety procedures for installing/working on an antenna.
2. The operator does not cause harmful interference to other stations (both in the amateur service as well as other services).
a. Maintains frequency within the authorized band of operation.
b. Does not generate unwanted/spurious signals.
c. Operates at minimum power level necessary to accomplish the desired communication.
d. Knows how to determine when the above requirements are not being met.
3. The operator operates his station in accordance with accepted amateur procedures.
a. Knows what types of communications are permissible in the amateur service and which are not.
b. Knows when it is permissible to break into a net and when it is not.
None of these lists are complete, nor is this intended to be a complete list of basic subject material required of the beginner. It is merely intended to illustrate that there are many more issues than safety which are required to be addressed in order to enter ham radio.
73 Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by W7HV on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are two reasons for the written test.
Safety is a big one.
The other is to help insure that hams don't cause harmful interference to other radio services. They need to know the regulations and, since hams are permitted to build and modify radio equipment and antennas, they need some basis of knowlege in radio theory so that they stand some chance of complying with the regs when they do.
Lou W7HV
|
| |
|
RE: KC2MMI writes...
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X transcendentally missed my point entirely.
"[CW] accomplishes adding to the operator's innate desire for a sense of accomplishment, and to the human need of communicating with another person on a more transcendant level."
OK, given that CW needs some magic "correct" amount of equipment, and it accomplishes some "magic" feeling for you...all of that is irrelevant to federal licensing! That may be why you enjoy using CW, but your *enjoyment* is not a valid reason for government licensing of the readio spectrum.
And while you may think it is a big point that you don't carry a computer around--you still carry oddball radio equipment around! I can carry one laptop and "communicate" with higher bandwidth than CW, or with greater personal contact than CW (using VOIP to get full voice communication WITH pictures), all at less expense. Don't tell me CW needs just the right magic amount of equipment--you're still carrying a special box, not communicating one on one with anyone.
Put the box down and talk to the bell boy. Now you're communicating!
As I said, the government has two valid reasons for licensing--valid from their point of view, which is keeping things running in an orderly manner. Your feelings of happiness and accomplishment are NOT relevant to the licensing, when you try to enforce your personal subjective feelings over everyone else, that's just a power trip. Hang your accomplishments on your wall, not other people's necks.
If you are correct when you claim 1/3 of the licensees still regularly use the code, and use it with just manual keys and no tech toys...Then you are still wrong to disagree. You've just said, 2/3 of the licensees effectrively DON'T USE CW. Gee....Maybe that says it all.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by N5XM on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have mixed feelings about all of this. One one hand, if you can safely operate your radio without harming yourself, your neighbors or without interfering with other Hams signals, and you stay within your priveleges, you can't do a lot else to satisy the FCC. On the other hand, I cannot fathom why so many will not upgrade. I LOVE radio and want to learn as much as I can within my own limitations. I wasn't interested in learning CW but got into it because of the many Hams who came before me. Some 15,000 CW contacts later, CW is 99%+ of what I do on radio. People nowdays seem to have less patience than they used to have. It takes patience and time to become a FB operator. I don't build because I am scared I would like it and it would take time away from operating. That being said, I love radio theory, so for me it doesn't make sense to remove more advanced theory from testing. I don't care if most of us are only appliance operators. If you really care about radio, you will learn much more than only what you need to learn to get a basic license.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC2MLF on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Woohoo! Another No-Code vs Know-Code fight! That didn't take too long.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If it ain't broken, don't fix it, and stop trying to make Kellogg and General Mills our license administrators.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All I wanted was more Dead Electrical Dudes!
All I'm getting is more dead horses to beat.
Please! My arthritis is painfull enough already!
Can't we put all of the dead horses where they belong,
in School lunches? (It's a tradition, folks!) :-D
Okay, I've had my say. We now return to Season's
Beatings! Now get in there and tussle!
Enjoy the TROLLER COASTER RIDE!
73, Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by N7XCF on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't forget you also need to demontrate a knowledge of the rules to show you know which side of the road to drive on. (ie. which frequencies)
Eric N7XCF
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When you use a soldering iron, you should pick up the
A. Cold end
B. Hot end
C. The opposite end
D. The non-smoking end
uh, ... C.. no wait a sec.. uh B
Ok B is my final answer.
Can I have my upgrade now?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Gentlemen as I see it in today's America "instant gratification" is the primary bi-word and "political correctness" is the rule of the land and "something for nothing" is what everybody wants!!!
With that pointed out I say HURRAY for the ARRL's newest licensing proposal!!!
The only ones getting "screwed" are the present duly-licensed Generals, but what the Hell they'll get over it!!!
:-)))
EE
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When operating your station on 75 meters you should:
a) Make barnyard animal sound effects
b) Start a QSO 2kc away from other stations
c) Identify your station only once in a while
d) Discuss your medical ailments for 2 hours
e) All of the above
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NN6EE on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Geeezzzzzzsh that's an easy question!!!
e. all of the above!!!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Which of the following accomplishments should you pursue within two years after receiving your first amateur radio license?
a.) log on to eHam and pontificate on your expert knowledge and wisdom concerning your new hobby.
b.) perform (a) on QRZ.COM and get yourself booted off the site.
c.) devise a new band plan for all amateur operators
d.) Employ your wealth of experience and propose new testing and licensing requirements to the FCC.
e.) all of the above
|
| |
|
Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jared KC2MMI wrote:
"And while you may think it is a big point that you don't carry a computer around--you still carry oddball radio equipment around!
My oddball radio is a RockMite, which is built into an Altoids can.
"I can carry one laptop and "communicate" with higher bandwidth than CW, or with greater personal contact than CW (using VOIP to get full voice communication WITH pictures), all at less expense."
At less expense? Expense to whom? A $500 used laptop with "borrowed" software is great as a communications tool only when connecvted to a $40 billion IP communications infrastructure.
"Don't tell me CW needs just the right magic amount of equipment--you're still carrying a special box, not communicating one on one with anyone.
Put the box down and talk to the bell boy. Now you're communicating! "
Jared, your (and my Dell D400 Centrino 802.11 and Bletooth equipped) computer is not a radio, and it doesn't need a license to operate. It just takes money, and billions of dollars of commercial infrastructure for you to hook up to. Otherwise it's a power-hungry paperweight.
My Elecraft K1 needs: a piece of wire.
The FCC regulates RADIOS, and test for licenses to operate them (that IS the thread we're on, remember?) and you need a license to prove you won't mess anybody else's radio up when you operate. That includes me, when I'm on CW, which you as a licensee should know at least enough of to hear when I am identifying, and when I'm done talking.
"Your feelings of happiness and accomplishment are NOT relevant to the licensing, when you try to enforce your personal subjective feelings over everyone else, that's just a power trip. Hang your accomplishments on your wall, not other people's necks. "
Spoken like a true no-coder.
Morse isn't an accomplishment, Jared. It's a skill, like typing. You have no business being a medical tyranscriptionist if you can't type, and frankly IMHO, you have no business being a ham unless you can at least hear IDs, turnovers, and ends of transmissions. I was against the no-code VHF ticket in 1990 and commented back then that this sort of attitude would become preponderant ... and, of course, I was right.
If Morse is such a burden to you, even at today's basic basic recognition speed, I cannot fathom why you maintain such an interest in the hobby. WHAT is the appeal?
"If you are correct when you claim 1/3 of the licensees still regularly use the code, and use it with just manual keys and no tech toys...Then you are still wrong to disagree. You've just said, 2/3 of the licensees effectrively DON'T USE CW. Gee....Maybe that says it all. "
Jared, if you really must transmit megabytes of information instantly, you can't do that on HF anyway (even witha PACTOR-III modem, which I own). I think what you want is a cable modem, not a ham radio license. My advice: Go build a Glowbug, come down to 7.040, and see who you can scare up. Your world will change forever.
|
| |
|
Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jared KC2MMI wrote:
"And while you may think it is a big point that you don't carry a computer around--you still carry oddball radio equipment around!
My oddball radio is a RockMite, which is built into an Altoids can.
"I can carry one laptop and "communicate" with higher bandwidth than CW, or with greater personal contact than CW (using VOIP to get full voice communication WITH pictures), all at less expense."
At less expense? Expense to whom? A $500 used laptop with "borrowed" software is great as a communications tool only when connecvted to a $40 billion IP communications infrastructure.
"Don't tell me CW needs just the right magic amount of equipment--you're still carrying a special box, not communicating one on one with anyone.
Put the box down and talk to the bell boy. Now you're communicating! "
Jared, your (and my Dell D400 Centrino 802.11 and Bletooth equipped) computer is not a radio, and it doesn't need a license to operate. It just takes money, and billions of dollars of commercial infrastructure for you to hook up to. Otherwise it's a power-hungry paperweight.
My Elecraft K1 needs: a piece of wire.
The FCC regulates RADIOS, and test for licenses to operate them (that IS the thread we're on, remember?) and you need a license to prove you won't mess anybody else's radio up when you operate. That includes me, when I'm on CW, which you as a licensee should know at least enough of to hear when I am identifying, and when I'm done talking.
"Your feelings of happiness and accomplishment are NOT relevant to the licensing, when you try to enforce your personal subjective feelings over everyone else, that's just a power trip. Hang your accomplishments on your wall, not other people's necks. "
Spoken like a true no-coder.
Morse isn't an accomplishment, Jared. It's a skill, like typing. You have no business being a medical tyranscriptionist if you can't type, and frankly IMHO, you have no business being a ham unless you can at least hear IDs, turnovers, and ends of transmissions. I was against the no-code VHF ticket in 1990 and commented back then that this sort of attitude would become preponderant ... and, of course, I was right.
If Morse is such a burden to you, even at today's basic basic recognition speed, I cannot fathom why you maintain such an interest in the hobby. WHAT is the appeal?
"If you are correct when you claim 1/3 of the licensees still regularly use the code, and use it with just manual keys and no tech toys...Then you are still wrong to disagree. You've just said, 2/3 of the licensees effectrively DON'T USE CW. Gee....Maybe that says it all. "
Jared, if you really must transmit megabytes of information instantly, you can't do that on HF anyway (even witha PACTOR-III modem, which I own). I think what you want is a cable modem, not a ham radio license. My advice: Go build a Glowbug, come down to 7.040, and see who you can scare up. Your world will change forever.
|
| |
|
Oh no, not again!!!
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've heard this stupid proposal before. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Come on Marty, how many times do we have to hear you idea?
Well tnx fer sharing your little over 1 Year experience as a licensed ham. How have we ever survived all these years without you? You must be the new savior of ham radio. I think NCI should give you a free, no work required, membership. You have made the claim that E doesn’t =IR, you were kicked off of QRZ.com and you have made vicious attacks against other hams on this site. So, am I to assume you are the new voice of ham radio and what we have to look forward to on HF? I hope not!
|
| |
|
RE: Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X, you're still choosing to ignore the point, aren't you?
I don't care what code means to you. The issue here is whether code means anything to the FCC and the government. The issue here is whether the government has any reason to tie knowledge of Morse Code to issuing civilian radio licenses.
Maybe they should require knowledge of four languages and the ability to play two instruments (one stringed, one wind) as well as Morse Code?
That might make licensed radio operators a very interesting bunch of people to talk to, but none of those requirements are relevant to the question of why the government should issue civilian radio licenses.
Or, for that point, why passing a CW test gives you access to PHONE bands instead of access to CW-only bands.
For all of your emotion, you're not using any logic here. CW means a lot to you, fine. It means a lot to many people, fine. I never attacked or questioned that, but you're being awfully defensive about it. And all you've said is that the airwaves beong to you and you don't want "any girls in the treehouse".
Well, it ain't your treehouse. You'll need better logic than that to impress a government licensing agency, and so far, you haven't mentioned any one thing that gives a valid reason for tying Morse to radio licensing for phone bands, in this day and age.
Morse Code? Go learn Spanish, Mandarin, Hindu and Russian, and you'll open up more contacts than you will with Morse Code. Perhaps your license should be confined to narrow band slivers until you can master four more languages?
I presented a logically valid supposition that there's no purpose to tying Morse to the license any more. You still haven't made any logical attempt to refute that. That usually means, you've got no reasons. When you find some, let us all know.
|
| |
|
RE: Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X:
Wow! I like your response to Jared. I'll insert just one comment. Jared said: " I can carry one laptop and "communicate" with higher bandwidth than CW..." Jared, virtually any communications mode will take up more bandwidth than CW. Occupying bandwidth isn't an accomplishment. Conversing with people in the tiny bandwidth occupied by a CW signal is. I do hope you will consider KZ1X's invitation to try it someday.
73 to both,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by KD5NVC on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This says it all, it matters not what we as indidviduals want, it's what the whole hobby needs. And of course what the FCC and big brother let's us have...
Glenn
KD5NVC
|
| |
|
RE: Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X:
> You have no business being a medical tyranscriptionist
> if you can't type, and frankly IMHO, you have no
> business being a ham unless you can at least hear
> IDs, turnovers, and ends of transmissions.
So, by extension, hams must be able and equipped to
receive every type of transmission to hear IDs,
turnovers and ends of transmissions? We'll all need
very well-equipped stations indeed to be able to read
transmissions in every possible mode! Or is there
some reason that this need to understand the content
of the transmission applies only to CW?
|
| |
|
RE: Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck, don't make the mistake of looking at call letters and assuming someone is totally new to ham radio. One of my good friends was licensed in the late 60's and I've had the pleasure of "experiencing" Morse for 40 years now. And, I've worked with electronics for that long in various ways.
You think CW has good bandwidth? OK, remember now, we're talking about Real Men pounding Real Keys, no computers allowed. Let's you and me try to send the entire text of "War and Peace" to Mongolia, you via CW and me with a computer and other newfangled resources, and see who can transmit the book in 24 hours--regardless of all other issues. Can CW do the job at all? Gee, no. It just can't.
Bandwidth can mean a lot more than "how many kilohertz do I have to take away from the rest of the universe while I'm online all weekend". Find a way to multiply your cpm count by your frequency bandwidth, and see how what your "real" bandwidth is for CW. CW is, when all is said and done, simply the lowest form of binary DIGITAL PACKET communications. Translating from words into binary data is what we call "donkey work" in the computer world. A burden for most men, but a trivial task done better and faster by the donkeys (computers) in most cases. And even a $50 PDA these days carries an incredible load of computer power.
And, if you're a CW purist, are you going to work A1? Or A0? This modern A1-emission stuff, that's just not pure. How dare you abandon spark gap!? (Just kidding!)
Morse? Gee, everyone is so hot to defend it...But all they've got to defend it with is emotional ties. Remember, the FCC is not *allowed* to make decisions on the basis of emotional ties.
Which brings us back to the issue again:
I notice you also have no suggestions for why the government should tie Morse to the continued issuance of civilian radio licenses, except emotional ties. The silence speaks volumes. I'd be the first one to ask the FCC to require a 30WPM Morse test before any license was issued at all.
IF anyone could demonstrate a logical purpose for it.
Still waiting.
|
| |
|
RE: Oh no, not again!!!
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2MMI on March 5, 2004
“You think CW has good bandwidth? OK, remember now, we're talking about Real Men pounding Real Keys, no computers allowed. Let's you and me try to send the entire text of "War and Peace" to Mongolia, you via CW and me with a computer and other newfangled resources, and see who can transmit the book in 24 hours--regardless of all other issues. Can CW do the job at all? Gee, no. It just can't. “
It sounds like you should let your license expire and just use AOL or MSN. This is Ham Radio not Ham Microsoft MSN. I use a computer for logging and digital modes, not as a means of communications.
When all the computer networks are down and SSB won’t get thru the QRM, CW will still be able to pass information, but only if we have trained operators.
|
| |
|
WA1M writes:
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So, by extension, hams must be able and equipped to
receive every type of transmission to hear IDs,
turnovers and ends of transmissions? We'll all need
very well-equipped stations indeed to be able to read
transmissions in every possible mode! "
Indeed, that would be great, but I'm not suggesting that.
"Or is there some reason that this need to understand the content of the transmission applies only to CW? "
Yes. Because there are two modes of operation which are intended to be sent and received by humans: phone and CW. The others, except RTTY in some cases, cannot be "decoded" by ear and therefore one cannot be expected to "hear them. Although, in practice, I can 'hear' the tell-tale end-transmission sounds of most digital modes, and SSTV. My station is equipped to rx and tx all modes except Clover.
|
| |
|
Jared continues to tilt away from his initial poin
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He writes, in part:
"Maybe they should require knowledge of four languages and the ability to play two instruments (one stringed, one wind) as well as Morse Code? "
I speak fluent English and Spanish, and a little Italian and Japanese. I play the trumpet (and a few other Bb treble clef brass instruments) and can manage on the piano, also. Thanks for setting the bar for me. Can I talk about my two awarded, and 14 patents pending?
Jared, your "logic" is mired in two central, and invalid points:
1) the Government (that's us) has no use for a portion of its citizenry to be able to lash together the most rudimentary of radio gear and be able to communicate with it; and,
2) the speed of communications is the essence of all goal in creating media for same.
#1 is demonstrably false, as is proven by the USASC Special Forces training center at Ft. Huachuca, AZ.
#2: After 22 years in the broadband industry, I can safely say that the latter isn't true, also. I'm one of FOUR people in the WORLD who hold voting rights in BOTH IEEE P802.3 and also P802.11, so I feel pretty qualified to state that speed is only a metric, not an edict, in communications efficiency.
Since Alfred Vail figured out how to standardize the manual sending of time-modulated OOK, nobody's been able to out-do it. Fighting it makes little sense, and especially so, when the guy doing the fighting is unarmed with experience.
|
| |
|
RE: Jared continues to tilt away from his initial
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> the Government (that's us) has no use for a portion of its citizenry to be able to lash together the most rudimentary of radio gear and be able to communicate with it;<<<
Hey, don't you ever watch McGiver??
|
| |
|
RE: WA1M writes:
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X:
>> Or is there some reason that this need tounderstand
>> the content of the transmission applies only to CW?
>
> Yes. Because there are two modes of operation which
> are intended to be sent and received by humans:
> phone and CW.
How the signals are intended to be received doesn't seem relevent here; if it's *necessary* for all hams to be able to copy callsigns and other transmission content, it must be important for *all* modes. Conversly, if it's not necessary for all hams to be able to copy, say, PSK31, then it can hardly be necessary for them to be able to copy CW.
> The others, except RTTY in some cases, cannot be
> "decoded" by ear and therefore one cannot be expected
> to "hear them. Although, in practice, I can 'hear'
> the tell-tale end-transmission sounds of most digital
> modes, and SSTV. My station is equipped to rx and tx
> all modes except Clover.
I'm guessing you mean "most popular modes." Are you equipped for PUA-43? G4GUO digital voice?
The point here is that it's certainly not necessary for all hams to be able to receive all modes. Our emotional attachment to CW aside, code is just another mode, and there's no more reason to require that all hams have Morse competency than there there is to require that everyone is able to receive SSTV.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NJ0E on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2MMI:
> And code? Come on now, how many licensees really USE
> code, sending it manually instead of using computers
> and memory keyers? How much does CW really accomplish
> these days, that packet and digital forms can't
> accomplish faster and cleaner, now that the home
> computer has become WAY cheaper and more common
> than the average ham radio?
well, i don't know how many, but I do. in fact i
hardly use anything else. and i have no trouble
finding an abundance of others to converse with,
all over the world.
in, fact, it's been -weeks- since i've used any other
mode.
and when i'm on one of my weeklong backpacking trips
in the gila wilderness area, there's no way in heck
i would drop a laptop into my backpack to decode
morse. have to carry the gray matter along with me
anyway, so might as well use -it- for that purpose.
use ssb instead? if you consider the current
consumption of the ft-817 or ic703; they are about
28x more than my cw xcvr - and they also weigh more
than triple that of the little cw rig!
all the various modes have their values and uses;
cw not excepted.
73
scott nj0e
|
| |
|
WA1M writes:
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You wrote:
"I'm guessing you mean "most popular modes." Are you equipped for PUA-43? G4GUO digital voice? "
I am equipped for both; I have not used either, yet. Nobody to talk to that I've found. And, I made a mistake. I also do not have the ability to use G-TOR or its relatives. (In other words: no HAL and no Kantronics)
Next point:
"The point here is that it's certainly not necessary for all hams to be able to receive all modes."
True, so far.
"Our emotional attachment to CW aside, code is just another mode, and there's no more reason to require that all hams have Morse competency than there there is to require that everyone is able to receive SSTV. "
That is a frequently preached, but wholly inaccurate statement.
First, you state it, making an assuption that an 'attachment' to CW exists ONLY due to emotion. That's just not true.
My use (and indeed most people's use) of CW is purely pragmatic. #1, I can find lots of other stations who can use the mode, and #2, I can use the mode more frequently than I can use other modes. Both of these reasons that CW should remain a requirement, at least for some grade of licensure, is true for me, you and everybody else, and it's an undeniable fact ... whether anybody likes it or not.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey KC2MMI, I have a couple of questions:
A) The first reason the government issues licenses it to prevent chaos?? There are ample examples of "license-free" spectrum access by individuals.
B) The second reason is old "pool of trained radio operators" argument. How is a ham license relevant to a modern military communication system? In the vast majority of instances it's not.
C) And then there's the War And Peace going to Mongolia. You're right. CW won't make it to Mongolia in 24 hours. But neither will whatever else mode you try (including the internet, I'd wager). HF is way too slow, and UHF doesn't have the range. And I wouldn't bet on a DSL connection to Mongolia, either.
So to put it in a nutshell, the government really has no overriding reason to license hams...nor has any real reason to bother itself about what we should and should not know. Why do you think they gave up testing in the first place?
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NE0P on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember, the only thing that justifies the amateur service is our ability to provide emergency communications. The FCC has already decided that if you want to just get on and talk, you can use CB radio, or FRS. The purpose of each is different.
Now given our purpose, the FCC can dictate whatever requirements they want to in licensing, as they see fit to help us meet that purpose. That is one reason why CW was required for all licenses, and is still required for General and Extra class licenses. In the case of a severe natural or terrorist disaster, digital communications might not work too well. CW has repeatedly been demonstrated to get through under the worst of conditions, using a minimalist setup.
Remember, amateur radio is a hobby, which makes it a priviledge. It is not a right, and the liberal courts have yet to find that it is a right in the US Constitution, but give them time. Therefore, since it is not a right, there is no requirement that everyone has equal access to frequencies. If you refuse to learn morse code, fine with me. Just understand the limitations that it will place on you in terms of frequencies.
So far, there is no evidence that the current licensing requirements are broken, so why go fix them?
Here is a question for all of the pre-1990 licensed readers, like myself. You remember when we were debating the no code license back around 1990 (not done on eham.net because Algore hadn't invented the internet yet), we kept hearing about all of the technologically competent people who would get licenses once we removed the CW barrier. OK, we did, by making the technician license code free. How many of you can say that the average conversation on your local repeater went up in knowledge and competency since 1990?
|
| |
|
RE: Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2MMI claims: "I've had the pleasure of "experiencing" Morse for 40 years now."
Tell us about your "experience." We're all waiting to hear.
In addition to having a big chip on your shoulder, you seem to be confused concerning information rate and bandwidth.
I also feel no need to defend Morse testing for amateur licensing to you personally. My public comments to the FCC on the matter are available should you choose to look them up.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm raising my hand, because I have the answer: NONE.
Having been continuously active for going on 39 years now, it's very evident that the technical knowledge base among amateur radio operators has done nothing but decline on average, and that's still occurring.
A multiple-choice test never demonstrated proficiency in anything, which is why there's still a behind-the-wheel driving test and a left-seat flying test. If those are ever eliminated, I'm giving up the streets and the skies!
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB-
TO answer your question, from http://coranet.radicalparty.org/pressreview/print_right.php?func=detail&par=5449
"According to the Chinese official news Xin-Hua News, more than 700 Internet cafes have been subjected to government intrusion and intimidation since April 1, 2003 as a result of a region-wide government initiated 'Internet Cafe Rectification Movement' in Inner Mongolia. Many have been permanently shut down."
I don't know, that's a report of 700 public internet access sites in Inner Mongolia. Perhaps there are 700 licensed CW operators in Inner Mongolia, but I suspect there aren't. Perhaps the number of CW operators in Inner Mongolia outnumber the internet cafes and internet connections now, too.
From http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0HKV/4_10/82880557/p2/article.jhtml?term=
"This particular Internet cafe, one of dozens in Ulaanbaatar, is an island of high-tech free enterprise tucked into the display-windowed front corner of what had once been the gilded headquarters building of, of all things, the Communist Party of Mongolia. "
And how come so many CW operators are here, on a computer web site, when they could be working CW on the air instead?
|
| |
|
RE: Jared ... hello? Are you home?
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by NI0C on March 5, 2004
KC2MMI claims: "I've had the pleasure of "experiencing" Morse for 40 years now."
"Tell us about your "experience." We're all waiting to hear."
KC2MMI is a Technician who was issued his license in Jan 2004. That’s his experience. He and Marty are the new, welfare, saviors of ham radio.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There seems to be 2 types of people that are hell-bent on repudiating the very foundation of ham radio. To them, Morse is an archaic hindrance to the future of ham radio. The first group is those of the CB mentality who only wish to operate their appliances. To them, ham radio is plug-and-play, key the mike and talk. The other group is those who feel that ham radio without use of a computer has no place in the Twenty-first Century. All the anti-code Techs licensed between 1991 and yesterday feel they know what's best for our hundred-year-old hobby.
In the spotlight at present is KC2MMI, who's been licensed an entire 36 days at the time I am posting this. Jared, what makes you qualified as the authority on what's best for our hundred-year-old hobby after being licensed for 36 days?
For everybody's information, especially those of the anti-code mentality, it is YOU who wish to effect change to American amateur radio licensing procedures, not us CW aficionados. It is up to YOU to convince the FCC that Morse testing should be eliminated. It is NOT up to us to justify keeping it. IMHO, the FCC will do what is best for their budget and what is most convenient for them. My best educated guess is that the status quo will be maintained with the only one minor change. NCT's will be grandfathered to Technician with Morse Code (Tech Plus). Such change requires only that a minor revision be made to Part 97. No change in the FCC database and no mass-mailing of auto-upgraded license certificates would be required. No change in licensing structure, and no changes to testing are necessary either. I do hope the Commission is reading this. Just in case they aren't, I intend to file these recommendations in my comments to the ARRL petition.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NE0P on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ulan Bator is in Mongolia, also sometimes referred to as "Outer Mongolia". This is an independent nation, and uses the prefix JT. Inner Mongolia is a province of China, uses the prefix BY, and does not contain Ulan Bator.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gosh! I use a Vibroplex Gold Deluxe Presentation Bug AND a computer on my IC-756PRO.
Does that make me a "mixed" ham. I am mixing old and new!
What next? Burn me at the stake for this final and unforgiveable blasphemy?
YUP. I'm a heretic I am.
Philip
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KB1IVU on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone make a decision....if the code/no code stuff dosen't stop I'm going to kill myself......
|
| |
|
RE: WA1M writes:
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X:
>> "I'm guessing you mean "most popular modes." Are you
>> equipped for PUA-43? G4GUO digital voice? "
>
>I am equipped for both; I have not used either, yet.
You own some pretty esoteric hardware. Good for you.
>>"The point here is that it's certainly not necessary
>> for all hams to be able to receive all modes."
>
> True, so far.
You seem to have abandoned the idea that CW proficiency is crucial so hams can copy ongoing CW QSOs.
>>"Our emotional attachment to CW aside, code is just
>>another mode [...]
>My use (and indeed most people's use) of CW is purely
>pragmatic. #1, I can find lots of other stations who
>can use the mode, and #2, I can use the mode more
>frequently than I can use other modes.
You've recited a couple of nice qualities of the mode, and excellent reasons for you to personally like and value the mode. They are not, however, very good reasons to require CW proficiency.
Why should the FCC mandate code proficiency? In order to guarantee the new licensee plenty of chances to make CW contacts? You'll need a better regulatory rationale than that.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Safety
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To abide by the new safety rules, I'm hanging a sign over my stuff:
DANGER. 50,000,000 OHMS.
That should do it.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by "dualgatemosfet":
"All the anti-code Techs licensed between 1991 and yesterday feel they know what's best for our hundred-year-old hobby."
Here we go again, the nameless, callless wonders who say "our" hobby. If you can't even give other people on this thread the courtesy of actually showing your call and therefore your experience, please refrain from claiming part of "our" hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS said " If you can't even give other people on this thread the courtesy of actually showing your call and therefore your experience, please refrain from claiming part of "our" hobby."
Chris, there are many valid reasons why someone may not want to use their callsign here. If they have a valid point it really doesn't matter ... does it ???
As for AE6IP and his "ideas"...there is nothing new here...Marty seems to think that he can save ham radio all by himself, and it really doesn't matter to him what others may think...he will just use the >>>>> keys more and more if you argue with him.
and as for KC2MMI, I don't think 36 days as a ham qualifies you to speak for the majority here...you need to find a good elmer and LISTEN and LEARN....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"and as for KC2MMI, I don't think 36 days as a ham qualifies you to speak for the majority here...you need to find a good elmer and LISTEN and LEARN.... "
"RADIO123US" or "John Smith" or whatever alias you need to hide behind? I never said I spoke for anyone here, certainly not for a majority. I never said I spoke "for the hobby" much less knew what was good for it.
The airwaves belong to all of us, and "the hobby" has no claim on them. Remember that when the FCC takes away more bands "again" and "next time". You don't own the airwaves, and your amateur license or the length of time you've had it has no bearing on the topic, which so few of you seem capable of responding to.
Namely, what payback does the government get by requiring CW proficiency from licensed radio operators?
Apparently all it gets is a batch of trained CW operators, who can't make a logical argument without denigrating into personal name-calling.
Keep it up, guys. I'm studying CW, but the more you attack me and my short license (without knowing anything else) the more you convince me that CW needs to be dropped, and the airwaves given over to folks who can be more civil.
Where I've been and what I've done in the last fifty years has got no bearing on the question. What payback does the government get by requiring CW proficiency from licensed radio operators?
Special Forces Training? Right, an elite school which the majority of the Army couldn't qualify to attend and won't be offered admission to, that helps explain why CW should be given to an elite few--and absolutely not required of all licenses.
If you can't think of anything at all...you can expect the FCC to drop code. You want to keep a code requirement? Then try, really hard, to stop casting aspersions, stop making assumptions, and come up with logical answers.
I asked nicely. I said, I can think of two reasons and neither one is relevant any more. Surely, if so many of you know good reasons to keep the code, or any reasons beyond elitism and obsolesence, you can share them without being offensive?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2MMI, why should we keep the CW requirement...one very good reason is TRADITION...it is the one thing that all of us (at least the one's licensed before 1990) share in common. A common bond you might say.
Another good reason is it is the one test that cannot be memorized (except by AE6IP)...you have to actually put forth a little effort to learn it...what does that show ??? It shows at least the person has some level of DISCIPLINE and DEDICATION. Is that such a bad thing to have these days ???
Regardless of a person's language, the Q codes are universal in CW...this allows one person to communicate with another even though they may speak different languages. Not a bad thing to be able to do in an emergency.
CW is also the thing that separates us from the CB crowd...we have many of them on our local repeater, who memorized and passed the Tech exam...there is nothing keeping them from upgrading except the code exam....these CBers have used their lingo and slang on the repeater to a point where the control operator will shut the repeater down until they go away....Is CW a perfect filter ?? NO...but I would hate to think what the HF bands would sound like if we didn't have it as a requirement.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2MMI:
Earlier you said: "One of my good friends was licensed in the late 60's and I've had the pleasure of "experiencing" Morse for 40 years now. And, I've worked with electronics for that long in various ways."
Now you say: "Where I've been and what I've done in the last fifty years has got no bearing on the question. "
Whatever.
I think that most of us in this forum are frankly tired of arguing the CW testing question, no matter which opinion we hold. The matter is before the FCC and many of (as I mentioned earlier) have weighed in with comments on the various proposals, in addition to lengthy heated debates here on eHam. Perhaps you are new to this forum and feel you have leaped into a hornet's nest.
I would invite you to read the excellent writeup by ZS1AN on the subject. It is available in a PDF file which you can get from my friend N9BOR's website:
http://www.qsl.net/n9bor/
Since you are studying the code, you must see some value in learning it. I wish you the best.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA4KOE SAYS,
>>>>>>>>>YUP. I'm a heretic I am.<<<<<<<<<<<
Heretic, Theretic, everywhere a tic tic,
Old McMarty had a forum, E I E I O....
And on this forum there was an MMI,
E I E I O....
With a spout off here and and spout off there,
here a spout, there a spout, everywhere a spout spout-
Old McMarty had a forum, E I E I O....
And on this forum there was IP and MMI,
E I E I O
With pedantic verbage they spout to you and I,
E I E I O
With a spout spout here, and nonsense there,
a no-code here, a no-brainer there, hate and
discontent for everywhere, Old McMarty had a forum....
E I E I OOOOOOOOO NO!
Just a little more dead horse meat for those starving
school kids!
Now Philip, inspire us with the story and wisdom of
another Dead Electrical Dude. Leave the instant
gratification kick to the lids, the kids and the
space cadets who have *THE* answer for all of the
world's woes! I don't need them for all of that
knowledge and wisdom. I still have three teenagers!
They keep me well informed as to what is wrong in this life!
73seseseses! Cal K4JSR Just happy to be here.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K1CJS, you don't have to know who I am. You are just another one of those anti-code Technicians who are looking to make trouble. If you want HF privs, go learn some code to the tune of 5 wpm. Don't look for something for nothing. 5 wpm code is not too much to ask someone to learn if you love this hobby enough. Put up or shut up. This is not CB.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS, you don't have to know who I am. You are just another one of those anti-code Technicians who are looking to make trouble. If you want HF privs, go learn some code to the tune of 5 wpm. Don't look for something for nothing. 5 wpm code is not too much to ask someone to learn if you love this hobby enough. Put up or shut up. This is not CB.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
The FCC Should Test For...
|
|
|
by NE1Z on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reading
Spelling
Sentence structure
Punctuation
Proper Use of "there, their & they're"
100 questions, no multiple choice...
That would keep the true trash out
CW testing does NOT prove any level of intelligence above breathing...
Just look at the new wave of Extras, of whom might ask you "how much current you puttin' out?"
The clueless parade of agony continues...
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: The FCC Should Test For...
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Don't know where you're listening at, but I've never heard that kinda garbage on the bands.
|
| |
|
RE: The FCC Should Test For...
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"CW testing does NOT prove any level of intelligence above breathing..."
And neither does passing a simple 25 or 50 question multiple guess test....so I suppose we should get rid of all testing...right? Why not?
It is, however, kind of hard to transform the word "linear" into "LEEEN-yer" on CW.
Or to continually ask "does this sound better...or does this?"
Or to tune up your rig with "Hellloooooo Ray-dee-oh!!!"
The beauty of CW (and all digital modes) is that all we have to gauge an operator on is the content of his transmission. Not how good his audio is...not how strong his signal is. Not the sound of his (or her) voice.
As a result, CW and digital ops spend more time listening to what a person really thinks, rather than how he says it.
All too often in today's world, we care more about style and less about substance.
"It was the best of times...it was the worst of times."
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K0CBA on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How about a multiple choice on which crayon to use when coloring the sky blue? A tear off pad of medical waivers would be supplied by the VEs in the event someone wanders in that claims color perception difficulty. This is probably a little tougher than the present tests and heck of a lot tougher that the ARRL (and some other) proposal(s) but may be workable.
|
| |
|
RE: The FCC Should Test For...
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"CW testing does NOT prove any level of intelligence above breathing..."
Yep, and it's pretty obvious that the current written tests do not, either.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KB1IVU on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Cyanide in one hand...gun in the other...any suggestions???????
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB said "As a result, CW and digital ops spend more time listening to what a person really thinks, rather than how he says it."
Absolutely true....this is why I prefer to operate the digital modes...much more interesting conversations...
|
| |
|
RE: Oh no, not again!!!
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The myth that ham radio is dying and desperately needs more members is being perpetrated by the no-code group to try and disillusion the unknowing into believing that eliminating the code is the only way to save ham radio.
Late breaking news: Ham radio is not dying. There are more hams now then ever before. There are more Generals and Extras now then ever before. The hams that want to put forth the effort required to upgrade are doing it. They are actually rising to the challenge and not just crying that they can’t/won’t learn the code. They are not demanding that the standards be lowered so they can get on HF without showing any dedication, drive, or determination. We have the quantity; we need to keep the quality.
Yes, there are a few whiners out there that keep crying about how the super easy, introduction to code at a mere 5wpm is holding them back, but most are simply spending a month and learning the code on the path to becoming consummate ham operators.
|
| |
|
RE: Oh no, not again!!!
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oldfart, you are correct. Unfortunately, the ones that are lazy and unmotivated seem to make the most noise these day... it is probably because those that have received their General or Extra ticket are on the air enjoying the priviliges that they EARNED, instead of whining and complaining in these forums...
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NI6G on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
New licensees, such as the author of this article, should be required by the FCC to undergo random and mandatory drug testing by peeing into a cup at the Federal Building of their choice. Clearly, this is not a Fourth Amendment issue. Those found in violation will be summarily dismissed from eHam, attend compulsory psychological counseling, and receive a free governement-issued 49 MHz Archer Space Patrol Base Station.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by W5HTW on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sad to say, I agree with Marty on this one, at least on the basic points. Ham radio is no longer the technical hobby/service it once was, and it never will be again. The need for in-depth knowledge of basic electronics has totally disappeared.
I would, though, modify his two-tier licensing format.
The basic license I would change to prohibit Morse code operation, either manually or by machine. Consequently these basic operators would be allowed only data and voice, but no Morse operation of any kind, and no access to the CW frequencies at the low ends of the bands, now reserved for Extra Class. I would increase the power limit to 200 watts, to accomodate some of the current transceivers that are 200 watts. This class of ham must use off-the-shelf commercial and unmodified radios.
The advanced license I would modify to be more technical in nature than Marty has suggested. This license would be the one that allowed hams of this class to experiment, to install and maintain repeaters, to repair, restore and operate boatanchors, to homebrew radio equipment, etc. These operators would also be excluded from the CW portions of the bands (as currently defined) unless they passed a special Morse test and received a written license endorsement (similar to the radar endorsement for the commercial ticket.) They would, though, be permitted data and voice, at the maximum power levels under the rules.
Too many of us are trying to hang onto the idea ham radio is a technical hobby. Interestingly, this comes not only from the old timers who wish it were still so, but from the newcomers who think that having passed a very simple test they are somehow graduated to radio engineers, or have received a crash course on college electronics. Too many are led to believe that knowing how to plug in a sound card makes one an electronics expert. The percentage of real electronics experts in ham radio is decreasing rapidly, as the need for that kind of skill no longer exists.
Yes, the ones who think they are such experts because they can plug in a radio and connect it to a computer will dispute my words here. However, the ham that understands 'radio' and how it works, is becoming a relic of the past. For basic operating, we no longer need to have any kind of detailed test. Safety, antenna installation, the rules, and how to keep within the band edges is all that needs to be covered. Frankly, if anyone remembers the original CB licensing, when you got a warning about putting up antennas near power lines, and you signed a statement you had read the rules and would comply with them, then you get the picture of the proposed basic ham license.
We've come a long ways, baby.
Ed
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by W8BBS on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've passed 9 FCC exams in the past 18 months (all the amateur and commercial elements 1,3,7,8,9). I've written a study guide for the current Tech (element 2) exam, and the previous Tech exam, and am currently working on several others.
The problem with people memorizing the question pool can be solved by having 2,000 questions in each question pool. That way, it will be easier to learn the material than to memorize the question pool. Also, questions like Ohm's law shouldn't have choices like 5V, 8V, 15V, 20V. They should be choices like 1) less than 6 V 2) between 7 and 9V. You get my drift.
But, the question pool is maintained by VECs, and why would VECs want to create more work for themselves? And powerful interests like the ARRL sell study materials for the question pools like they currently are.
Remember too, the US is part of the ITU, and the FCC can't just do anything they want. Also, a tech license is all that is required to build your own transmitter. If we remove questions testing one's ablity to build or modify their equipment, do we require hams to use only type certified equipment? I don't think so.
Ham radio has been dumbed down enough! Giving General licenses to Tech licenses is a travesty. The new general question pool has lots of stuff not covered by the tech exam, such as antennas and the amateur auxiliary. Don't General licensees need to know this material?
All licensees need to know the rules for their license privileges. I've read the rules throughly, and there is a lot that could be added to the question pools.
Bruce
W8BBS
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA1LDD on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The multiple choice exam is an excellent way to test for license exams. Of course this assumes that the questions and answers aren't published before hand. You can't memorize it if you haven't seen it before. When I had my novice exam, my elmer WB1GJI administered it to me. As I recall it was 50 multiple choice questions in a sealed envelope. After taking that he then administered "his" exam. This consisted of things he thought I should know, figuring simple ohm's law problems with a schematic, operating practices, frequency allocation, tuning a rig, COURTESY on the air, how to call CQ properly (not the half hour long calls on top of a QSO that is frewuently heard these days), antenna construction and theory. After he was satisfied, then he sent my stuff in and let the FCC decide. Oh, and by the way by this point I was well above the required 5 WPM.
The exams need to be a surprise type exam, not from a question pool. Operaters need to be proficient, and they need to gain experience. The old novice bands were perfect for this. I rememeber wanting to learn more and more, not just to be able to use any frequency or mode, but to become a better operator.
One more thing Pete, WB1GJI, taught me was that ham radio isn't one hobby. Its hundreds of hobbies all rolled into one. Its antenna making, rag chewing, DX chasing, CW operating, satellite. Every operator doesn't need to be an expert CW operator or a wiz at packet, but being licensed it says that you are familiar with everything. A guy that loves CW and doesn't understand how to do a satellite QSO is just as bad as a ham who can't copy 5 WPM and just operates packet. I suppose I am just as guilty as most. I operate 95% CW, and I am very unfamiliar with all the digital modes.
One final thing Pete always said, "It's a hobby, make sure you have fun."
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>I would hate to think what the HF bands would sound like if we didn't have it (CW) as a requirement. <<<<
Yeah, I would hate to imagine what 75 meters would sound like if they dropped the CW requirement...
There would be animal barnyard sounds from operators, stations starting a QSO 2kc away from other stations, stations would only identify only once in a while, people would start discussing medical ailments for 2 hours at a time - etc etc..
Good thing that good 'ol CW is stopping 75 meters from sounding like the CB band eh?
(yeah right)
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
$%%^((((&*(&%%%$^#
A Minute rice extra thinks he knows what is best for testing. You have been a ham for what... a year?
It's like getting a crackhead to run the methadone clinic! Hi-HI
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by W5RB on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Perhaps , above all , what should be tested for...since we are talking about communications....is whether the candidate has anything worthwhile to say.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM, you sound just like most of the no-code whiners... I wonder how many these no-coders have actually listened to 75 meters ???...I'm going to guess VERY FEW... I've got news for you..there are bad operators on every band, INCLUDING 75 meters...so what ??? Some bad apples are always going to get through even the toughest of testing requirements.
So KC8VWM, do you want to make it that much easier for more of these "bad apples" to join ?? If they keep making the tests easier and easier, that's eactly what will happen...
So don't try and justify your LAZINESS by claiming 75 meters is messed up. I listen to the HF bands daily, INCLUDING 75 meters...and things are not as bad as YOU would want people to believe....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Radio123US,
I want to thank you for your comments. Firstly, I have to correct you on your preconceived ideas about me as an individual. I would like to point out that I have been very proficient in CW operation since I learned it as a boy scout at the age of 13.
Now, at the age of 39 and holding a different license class from another country, I would like to caution you from making the assertion that my call sign should reflect my years of experience in Amateur Radio.
Secondly, my comments are in the context that CW should not really be the issue of discussion. The real issue is the quality of the operators. CW or no CW requirement aside.
If the intention is true in the fact (and I agree) that we don't want lids operating on HF, then perhaps we should consider doing this by setting an example.
This is not a Tech vs. Extra or vs. General vs Extra discussion. This discussion is more relevant to the future of Amateur Radio and the current "On Air" practices observed on the air lately.
This fact is despite license class, Repeater operation, HF operation on any of the assigned Amateur radio frequencies.
Clearly, my opinion is related to what I feel is really required to improve and maintain quality operators on the HF and any other band for that matter. I feel this is in no way related to CW or no CW as a requirement in itself.
It is the quality of the future operators that's important to the Amateur Radio bands, not CW testing in itself ...
Anyone can learn CW and I would encourage them to do it. However, that alone is not what needs to be done to make the necessary improvements required for FCC Amateur Radio testing requirements.
Don't you agree?
.-. . -- . -- -... . .-. / - .... . / .-- --- .-. .-.. -.. / .. ... / .-.. .. ... - . -. .. -. --. / --... ...-- / -.. . / -.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
for all those who think we "Memorized" the tests...
lets break this down:
element 1: 49 characters (including the "@" symbol)
element 2: 350 questions (in the pool)
element 3: 350 questions (in the pool)
element 4: 500 questions (in the pool)
I wonder which would be easier to memorized....
why element 1 of course so your "Memorization" argument doen't hold water.
|
| |
|
RE: Jared continues to tilt away from his initial
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> #1 is demonstrably false, as is proven by the USASC
> Special Forces training center at Ft. Huachuca, AZ.
This is the same US government that publishes a manual on how to commit suicide. If one were to follow the above logic, one would conclude that the government condones, and approves of people who commit suicide.
> #2: After 22 years in the broadband industry, I can
> safely say that the latter isn't true, also. I'm one
> of FOUR people in the WORLD who hold voting rights
> in BOTH IEEE P802.3 and also P802.11, so I feel
> pretty qualified to state that speed is only a
> metric, not an edict, in communications efficiency.
Last time I checked, there were no credential requirements for participating in IEEE standards bodies (which goes a long way towards explaining POSIX, but that's a different story.)
You remind me of my favorite joke about myself, though: There are only 10 people in the world that can do what I do. Problem is that there's only enough work for eight of us.
|
| |
|
RE: WA1M writes:
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> My use (and indeed most people's use) of CW is
> purely pragmatic.
So's my use of the internet.
> #1, I can find lots of other stations who can use
> the mode,
I can find lots of people using IRC
> and #2, I can use the mode more frequently
> than I can use other modes.
I can use IRC more frequently than I can use other forms of internet communication.
> Both of these reasons that CW should remain a
> requirement, at least for some grade of licensure,
> is true for me, you and everybody else, and it's an
> undeniable fact ... whether anybody likes it or not.
It is, therefor, an undeniable fact that everyone should be tested on IRC before being allowed onto ham radio.
Your "undeniable fact" is based on a non-sequiter.
Amateur radio is a *hobby*. If number of users or ease of communication were measures of radiotelephony requirements, we'd all be tested on how cell phones operate.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Remember, the only thing that justifies the amateur
> service is our ability to provide emergency
> communications.
It is difficult to desire to remember something that is wrong. The FCC lists *5* reasons why it is justified in providing an amateur radio service. It makes *no* requirements than any particular amateur participate in any or all of those requirements.
And of the FCC's reasons, about the only one that is *not* obsolete is being an ambassador of goodwill.
> The FCC has already decided that if you want to just
> get on and talk, you can use CB radio, or FRS. The
> purpose of each is different.
you forgot the cell network and talk radio.
|
| |
|
RE: WA1M writes:
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I always thought of amateur radio as a "service". "Hobby" trivilializes it too much.
|
| |
|
RE: WA1M writes:
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's some extra ones. Use them well and wisely.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> A multiple-choice test never demonstrated
> proficiency in anything,
This is a common misimpression. Repeated research studies have shown that multiple-choice tests are no easier, nor no more effective than any other kind of test.
> which is why there's still a behind-the-wheel
> driving test and a left-seat flying test.
The driving test and flying test are both good examples of one-time-only tests which are then relied on for far too long.
> If those are ever eliminated, I'm giving up the
> streets and the skies!
You may want to give up on the medical profession then, as they require no demonstration of surgery in order to become licensed; or the legal profession, as their bar exam does not require any courtroom demonstration of profficiency.
It is reasonable to require tests of proficiency for activities which can be directly life threatening on a regular basis, as piloting and driving are.
It is not as reasonable to require such tests with respect to hobbies like amateur radio. You may say, but wait, amateur radio is dangerous, but I will point out that setting up and using an amateur station is no more so that setting up and using an in-building cell phone repeater, or home entertainment system with a satelite connection, neither of which require training or licensing.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NE0P on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So why have a written test? If amateur radio is not dangerous, and proficiency exams are not need, then what is the point of the written test?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Another good reason is it is the one test that
> cannot be memorized
This argument always cracks me up, since there is only *1* way to learn Morse code, and that's by rote memorization.
Element 1 is, in fact, the *only* test that can *only* be passed by memorization.
|
| |
|
RE: The FCC Should Test For...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The beauty of CW (and all digital modes) is that all
> we have to gauge an operator on is the content of
> his transmission.
Morse code is not a digital mode, and, actually, if you look at signal reports, there are *more* subjective quality measures for Morse transmissions than phone.
> Not how good his audio is...not how strong his
> signal is.
Both appear in the signal report for Morse.
> Not the sound of his (or her) voice.
right. no voice. instead, on the quality of the sender's "fist". This is why there are 3 numbers (and a possible letter) in the Morse signal report, but only two numbers in the phone signal report.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Marty (aka "The Minute Rice Extra"),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
... And we are all busy fighting one another and worried about the proposed FCC testing requirements for Amateur Radio?
http://www.bigradios.com/avis/
(Here's 70,000 WATTS of complete stupidity on the air)
|
| |
|
code vs no code
|
|
|
by N3TVV on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been a General for about 6 months and although I'm not proficient at the code,but, I still use it often. The only way to get better is to practice.
And ,So we have the never ending code vs no code controversy.There are many sides to this issue which,could take days to type it all out,which, leads me to these next couple of notes.
#1 NCT's would have to take a written exam for Hf operation and would be limited to proposed sections on each band.If you Don't want to use cw Don't,but,Should you decide you want to try it out and get your feet wet,a section at the bottom of the General's cw privledges would be open for you to try it out.
Tech+`s would also have to take the written exam for Hf,but,would gain full access to the General Class portions of Cw and voice on hf,due to passing the 5 wpm test
Due to the Many facets of Hf such as Rf exposure,resolving intereference and the many other things involved with hf,operators should know what these things are and how to use them, before getting on Hf.
#2 Generals- Would gain advanced privledges as proposed.
#3 Advanced- would be grandfathered to extra also, as proposed.
#4 Extras- Would have reserved sections of bandwidth on voice and cw portions,where applicable.
To graduate from the new general class to the extra class ,you must take the written exam and have passed the 5 wpm test.
The Harder you work, The More you get.
I realize, of course that not everyone is going to agree these ideas and they may need some polishing here and there,but,I wanted to put it up on the thread for the heck of it.
73's all
Eric
N3TVV
DOWN WITH BPL ....................................
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I wonder which would be easier to memorized....
why element 1 of course so your "Memorization" argument doen't hold water."
If the code requirement is so easy then, why are all the no-coder whining about it ??? There must be something about the the code requirement that is working, or it wouldn't be such a big deal to the CBers...
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said "Morse code is not a digital mode, and, actually, if you look at signal reports, there are *more* subjective quality measures for Morse transmissions than phone."
Marty, you better re-check the General and Extra question pools....there are specific questions regarding this (questions G8B09 and E8C01)...I'm going to guess you probably missed these questions when you took the test 2 years ago...
You really need to review you statements for technical accuracy BEFORE you post...there is an old saying that applies to that..."It's better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and erase all doubt"
Your statement above erased all doubt in my mind...
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, I forgot to add >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to my posts...
sorry about that......
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You may want to give up on the medical profession then, as they require no demonstration of surgery in order to become licensed; or the legal profession, as their bar exam does not require any courtroom demonstration of profficiency. "
I'll be sure not to get cut on or defended in that part of the country. This is scary stuff. This is why you hear about those horror stories about dentists doing plastic surgery.
Notice the use of quotes instead of arrows.
In the same vein, I would NOT want a newbie cracking open the HV cage of a kilowatt amp. Can you say crispy critters?
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If the code requirement is so easy then, why are all
> the no-coder whining about it ???
Because code proficiency is no longer relevant as a prerequisite to amateur licensing. It is a vestige and a tradition, but it's simply not a skill which is needed in order to legally, safely and effectively operate an amateur station.
I'm endlessly entertained by the vehemence with with the current 5wpm code requirement is defended by some; 5wpm is no "proficiency" at all; it's only enough familiarity with the code to allow an operator to practice and attain a useful speed.
Of course, once one has passed the 5wpm, you can go all the way to Extra without every copying another dit or dah,and many do.
Here's a news bulletin, folks: no-code is already here, for all practical purposes.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...since there is only *1* way to learn Morse code, and that's by rote memorization."
That statement is misleading. Memorizing a tablet of characters or a bunch of sounds will not enable you to learn morse code to the point where it is actually of use.
Actually, as a CW op, the best analogy I have is it is very similar in process to learning to touch type, which I also am doing right now.
The key is continual PRACTICE!!
Just my 2.4934543 cents worth.
If I ever "cracked up", they'd put me in the boobie hatch.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> ...since there is only *1* way to learn Morse code,
>> and that's by rote memorization.
>
>That statement is misleading. Memorizing a tablet of
>characters or a bunch of sounds will not enable you to
>learn morse code to the point where it is actually of
>use.
That's right, it isn't of much use. But that's exactly how most people copy code at 5WPM. They hear a "dididahdit", and in their minds they look up .._., and say "ooh, that's an 'F'", and they write it down -- Just in time for the next character to come along! That's why people plateau at around 9 or 10 WPM, because you can only go so fast that way.
Tell me again why 5 WPM code is so crucial?
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not how I learned it at all. How do you know "most people" do it that way? Is this an opinion? Cite your source please.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Not how I learned it at all.
Good for you. You get a gold star.
>How do you know "most people" do it that way? Is this
>an opinion? Cite your source please.
Yes, my friend, that is my opinion. I have no citation to offer you, just my observations.
I wonder if you avoided the 10 WPM hump that so many people encounter when trying to increase their speed.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1M said "Because code proficiency is no longer relevant as a prerequisite to amateur licensing." and
"I'm endlessly entertained by the vehemence with with the current 5wpm code requirement is defended by some; 5wpm is no "proficiency" at all; it's only enough familiarity with the code to allow an operator to practice and attain a useful speed."
Again, if it's not such a BIG deal, then why is this the ONLY test that the CBers are whining and crying about ??...it is because it obviously WORKS....it keeps SOME (not all) of the CBers off of the HF ham bands...even if it prevents only 50 percent of the "10-4 Good Buddy types" from getting an HF license, then that makes it "relevant as a prerequisite to amateur licensing"...
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Again, if it's not such a BIG deal, then why is
> this the ONLY test that the CBers are whining
> and crying about ??
I dunno. I do know that I'm not a CBer, and I believe the code requirement is a good 15 or 20 years past its expiration date.
> ...it is because it obviously WORKS....
You allow no possibility that a reasonable person might consider the code requirement an anachronism?
> it keeps SOME (not all) of the CBers off of the HF
> ham bands...
But in the same breath, most code proponents would say that anybody who wants a ham ticket can easily learn the code to a 5 WPM level. You can't have it both ways -- either it's a significant barrier to entry, or it's so easy that anyone can do it. Choose one.
> even if it prevents only 50 percent of the "10-4 Good
> Buddy types" from getting an HF license, then that
> makes it "relevant as a prerequisite to amateur
> licensing"...
No, if your goal is to somehow determine the candidate's suitability to hold a ham license, the code requirement is still irrelevant; the ability to learn code is no barometer of character. Character qualification might take the form of requiring personal recommendations from, say, 3 VE's, or maybe a monitored "probationary period" during which a new licensee's on-air conduct is evaluated, or any of a dozen other forms. A code test measures nothing but the ability to copy morse.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By dualgatemosfet:
"K1CJS, you don't have to know who I am........This is not CB."
Pal, I don't care who you are. All I see is another no-name wonder who claims they are better than most--and with the cutesy CB handle to boot. Why don't you go peddle your nonsense somewhere else, like an internet chatroom.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1M said "But in the same breath, most code proponents would say that anybody who wants a ham ticket can easily learn the code to a 5 WPM level. You can't have it both ways -- either it's a significant barrier to entry, or it's so easy that anyone can do it."
You are right on one point, anyone that really WANTS a ham ticket can easily learn the code...the code test just tells us how MUCH they really want it...some people call that DISCIPLINE or DEDICATION...which I think you will agree we need more of... so in effect, the CW requirement IS "significant barrier to entry" for those that lack the DISCIPLINE and DEDICATION to the hobby, but it IS "so easy that anyone can do it" for those that REALLY want it....you REALLY can have it both ways on this one... :)
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From an eariler post:
"If the code requirement is so easy then, why are all the no-coder whining about it ???"
"Because code proficiency is no longer relevant as a prerequisite to amateur licensing. It is a vestige and a tradition, but it's simply not a skill which is needed in order to legally, safely and effectively operate an amateur station."
At long last, someone who really understands what morse code really is to ham radio.......I'm not alone in my belief. Thanks.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS said "At long last, someone who really understands what morse code really is to ham radio.......I'm not alone in my belief."
I guess that's the answer to my question....you have decided to wait for the freebie HF ticket...
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Radio123, Better. I still failed, but not by as much this time. I think I'll finally get it soon. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by K1CJS on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Replies passed on the net--I'm still trying. But my belief still stands also.
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1M:
As a matter of fact I did avoid the hump. Thank you for the gold star! I LOVE getting them. The shack in here is quite reflective and looks like the Sagittarius portion of the Milky Way.
Be aware that I'm not riding your case or trying to get in an argument with you. When you make statements like that, I, and others I am sure, would be very interested to learn from where you garnered this outlook. That is just one of the rules of polite debate and discourse.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello Phil, dualgate,radioman,cal,and the rest that are the voice of reason.
First off marty is intelligent,he is entitled to his vision of ham radio. As we all.
However when it comes down to major changes in the hobby, I think those that have been in the hobby for many years, have a better idea of what is good for the hobby.
Sorry, I came up with the term minute rice extra.
It is to your credit, you upgraded so fast. You keep talking about how the path does not matter.
It does not matter. HOWEVER.....someone with one year in the hobby, does not know what has happened in the past.
I have almost 30 years in the hobby. NO, IT DOES NOT MAKE ME A BETTER PERSON OR OPERATOR!
However....I JUST SEE HAM RADIO GOING DOWN A CREEK.
THE CREEK HAS A NAME. THE FIRST NAME IS JACK!
IT'S LAST NAME IS A SOLID WASTE PRODUCT THAT THE SIGMOUD COLON USES E-COLI BACTERIA as part of the process.
OK, you now have the first and last name.
One certain matters you do not know this individual!!!!
What thge FCC should test for is a very complex question. Sure RF and high voltage safty are very important.
There is one thing the FCC cannot test for. How well the new ham learns what is needed.
In the old days a novice ticket was good for only 2 years. This forced all of us to learn more.
You Plans(SCAMS)(HI HI MARTY JUST JOKING WITH YOU) have no incentive or logic in them.
All your PLANS deal with getting new hams at any cost. Marty do you think convicted felons should get ham tickets?(new service---SHAM OR SCAM RADIO!!!!!)
I guess if we got the entire US prison population Ham tickets.....That would be a good thing by you....right?
Hey I may be totaly wrong!
Maybe a chicken in every pot and a ham ticket for all will save the world!
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA4KOE:
>As a matter of fact I did avoid the hump.
I thought you would; the hump is a symptom of the hear-translate-lookup process. And, as you probably know, the 10 WPM plateau is commonly experienced by hams trying to increase their code speed.
>Be aware that I'm not riding your case or trying to get
>in an argument with you. When you make statements like
>that, I, and others I am sure, would be very interested
>to learn from where you garnered this outlook. That is
>just one of the rules of polite debate and discourse.
That's just the way I took it.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
JJH makes a good point. Ham radio isn’t for everybody. Lets keep it that way. Might I remind everybody that what we here in the United States do has the potential to impact the entire world. The United States has one of the largest ham populations in the world. If we cheapen the requirements for HF access any more than has already been done and open the floodgates altogether with a cheap easy upgrade, we as a nation will be responsible for trashing the amateur bands and turning amateur radio into one big CB cesspool worldwide. Other countries that eliminated code testing have more comprehensive testing than we do. Our written exams are a joke. The only work that one does for a ham license in the United States anymore is learning code. I guarantee that if we went to a licensing system such as the UK has, many NCTs that bellyache about learning code would kick themselves for not upgrading when all they had to do was learn code. There are no dummies in amateur radio in the UK. Those hams have to really know their stuff before they’re issued a license over in the UK. So, don’t look at what other countries have done (eliminating code testing). If we eliminate code testing here in the United States, we need to raise the bar considerably to compensate for the elimination of a requirement. We should do what the UK does; have a mandatory course, followed by a rigid comprehensive written exam. What the ARRL, NCI, Marty (AE6IP) and all the no-coders want is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of the United States. What do you think hams in other parts of the world will say when they hear a quarter to half million new American hams QRMing the bands? We don’t need QUANTITY in amateur radio. We need QUALITY! We shouldn’t be making it easier to get a ham license. We should be making it harder. Operating on the amateur bands is not a God-given right under the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Operating on the amateur bands is a PRIVILEGE that needs to be EARNED.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Hello Phil, dualgate,radioman,cal,and the rest that are the voice of reason."
Thanks Mike for the Kudos. You ain't too bad yourself for a Northerner (notice I didn't say Yankee).
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1m:
One parting thought. I was a 16 year old kid at the time with an HW-8 and having the time of my life. I hadn't even heard of the hump and learned morse from the RS book from 5 to 1000 watts.
Regards.
PAN
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Mike, there's no reason to apologize to Marty for calling him a minute rice Extra. Another good name for it is a Jello instant pudding Extra. He IS one. As such, this rookie has no credibility when he speaks of what amateur radio testing should be. The same goes for the NCTs that have licenses so fresh, that the ink on their certificates hasn't had a chance to dry yet. Also, the fact that Marty went from square one to Extra in 2 test sessions only 2 weeks apart is proof that there's something wrong with the licensing system. The Extra, like every other license has become a cheap cereal box license. I'll be the first to admit that I don't feel that I've earned my Extra with no further code test than the puny 5 wpm test that I had to pass for my General. A waiting period of 365 days for each upgrade needs to be instituted. That way, someone would have to be a Tech for a minimum of one year before upgrading to General, and wait another year before upgrading to Extra. Like I said in my earlier post, licensing needs to be made harder, not easier. Experience in current license class, along with tougher exams would give many that shoot their mouths (keyboards) off a whole different perspective on the issues facing ham radio.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K7HJ on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC at this point should hand out a license to anyone who can fill out a form and sign his or her name. The AARL has succeeded long ago to sell more magazines and memberships by destroying our hobby with their attitude of get’em licensed and make money with memberships.
I sound bitter??? I earned my privilege the old fashioned way and studied for it. What a big waste of time, I could have sat on my but for a few years and waited for the complete destruction by the ARRL.
No I don’t have an attitude that I am “Mr. RF” fact is I was operating interm Advanced the day I received my Novice ticket, and was extra 3 months later, as I remember I went from Novice to extra in 6 months.
What's the value of code TODAY?
ANSWER…I have never had copy that looked like it was being sent by a drunk sailor, the people who use profanity on the air…”I’ll stop at this point!
Have a good day…and 73!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ:
>The same goes for the NCTs that have licenses so
>fresh, that the ink on their certificates hasn't
>had a chance to dry yet.
Nah, the FCC uses (really bad) laser printers theses days... the ink never was wet ;)
> Also, the fact that Marty went from square one to
> Extra in 2 test sessions only 2 weeks apart is proof
> that there's something wrong with the licensing
> system.
No, I hardly think so. I took every written exam from Tech through Extra in a single sitting myself, with only minimal preparation, mostly on the rules, not technical topics. Was it because the test was too easy, or was it because I'd been an avid electronics hobbyist for years before that, and was already well-versed in radio electronics?
> I'll be the first to admit that I don't feel that
> I've earned my Extra with no further code test than
> the puny 5 wpm test that I had to pass for my
> General.
I sometimes feel the same way when I see 5 WPM Generals and Extras, but that's just because I had to make 13 WPM for my Advanced and 20 WPM for my Extra. Just because that's the way it was back then doesn't mean it still makes sense today.
Perhaps I should feel like I didn't earn my privileges because I took my exams in the friendly setting provided by local Volunteer Examiners, instead of travelling hundreds of miles to test in front of an FCC examiner? Nah...
> A waiting period of 365 days for each upgrade needs
> to be instituted. That way, someone would have to be
> a Tech for a minimum of one year before upgrading to
> General, and wait another year before upgrading to
> Extra.
Why, other than some generalized sense that upgrading should difficult, slow and painful as possible? Let's say an experienced RF engineer who holds an FCC 1st-class radiotelegraph license decides to get his ham ticket. He already possesses knowledge and skill well in excess of that required for the Extra class, but you would start him out at Tech and make him wait 2 years to get the Extra. For what possible purpose???
The regulatory purpose of licensing requirements is to ensure that operators have the necessary knowledge and skill to operate a station safely and within the rules. If a person has the requisite knowledge and skills, he *has* earned the privilege of licensure. It's irrelevant where or how or when he comes by his knowledge.
> Like I said in my earlier post, licensing needs to
> be made harder, not easier.
If you think the exams need to be expanded, that's fine. A few more questions on the General and especially the Extra wouldn't hurt.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1M, I thought that post came from Marty with all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. You aren't related to him? Are you? If code testing is dropped and testing is further dumbed down, it will be because of traditional hams banding together with the NCTs and the ARRL pushing to open the floodgates to anyone who has a pulse. Is that what you want? You analyzed and picked apart everything I had to say in the spirit of Marty Fouts, and seem to be in full agreement with him.
There's nothing wrong with making hams spend a year in their current license class before upgrading. It gives them experience before going to the next level. The FCC used to have a 2-year waiting period before taking the Extra exam. IMO, that was a good idea. As for your example of the an experienced RF engineer who holds an FCC 1st-class radiotelegraph license who decides to get his ham ticket, your analogy is apples vs. oranges. Ham radio is not the professional realm, and the professional realm is not ham radio. Yes, I would make the RF engineer with the 1st class RTG lic. wait a year to upgrade. No-one should be given any preferential treatment just because that person holds another license in another radio service.
"If a person has the requisite knowledge and skills, he *has* earned the privilege of licensure. It's irrelevant where or how or when he comes by his knowledge."
I've been through electronics school and obtained a 2nd class RT lic. with radar endorsement back in the early '80s. I've worked in the professional realm with 2-way FM land/mobile gear as radio technician. Does that mean that I should have been given an honorary Extra class ham license, just because I had the knowledge and skill to operate a radio within the FCC's rules? The thought never even entered my mind. I knew that if I wanted a ham ticket, I had to pass the necessary amateur radio exams; that my skill, knowledge, experience and licensure in the professional realm didn't qualify me for any credit toward a ham ticket. The only thing my knowledge and skill would do for me is make passing the exams that much easier, which is why I feel like I did no work for my Extra, despite acing the exam.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ:
>WA1M, I thought that post came from Marty with
> all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
It's standard net practice to quote in this form. You might even say it's one of the nets oldest, most cherished traditions, kinda like CW. So you'll probably want to treat it with all attendant reverence.
>If code testing is dropped and testing is further
>dumbed down, it will be because of traditional hams
>banding together with the NCTs and the ARRL pushing
>to open the floodgates to anyone who has a pulse.
>Is that what you want?
I'm not in favor of dumbing anything down; I'm quite receptive to expanding the written exams, at least for the General and Extra. I am in favor of dropping code, as it is no longer relevant as a prerequisite. It's said that 2/3 or hams do not operate CW regularly or at all. In other words, the majority of hams study CW for the sole purpose of passing the exam, and then put it aside. If 2/3 of hams don't operate CW, it's hard to make the case that CW is crucial to ham radio.
>Yes, I would make the RF engineer with the 1st class
>RTG lic. wait a year to upgrade. No-one should be
>given any preferential treatment just because that
>person holds another license in another radio service.
I wasn't suggesting this hypothetical candidate should be given special treatment; I was using him to illustrate why your proposed start-with-Tech-and-upgrade-once-a-year system serves no useful purpose by excluding qualified candidates, with no discernable benefit to the waiting period.
>I've been through electronics school and obtained a
>2nd class RT lic. with radar endorsement back in
>the early '80s. I've worked in the professional
>realm with 2-way FM land/mobile gear as radio
>technician. Does that mean that I should have
>been given an honorary Extra class ham license,
>just because I had the knowledge and skill to
>operate a radio within the FCC's rules?
Absolutely not. You should take and pass the same exam as anybody else. Why would you think otherwise?
>The only thing my knowledge and skill would do for
>me is make passing the exams that much easier, which
>is why I feel like I did no work for my Extra,
>despite acing the exam.
Feel free to make it up to the universe by working public service, or teaching a Technician course, serving as a VE, publishing an original design for a transceiver, writing a ham-related computer program or whatever floats your boat.
As for me, I don't feel anybody has to "earn" a ham license, any more than a driver's license, a pilot's license or an electrician's license. One doesn't earn a license -- one qualifies for it.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Its important to earn a ham license, because if its not earned, it is not respected and cherished. Some people just can't grasp this concept. As for code testing, I will repeat myself. If code testing is dropped, it needs to be replaced with something. That something needs to be a more rigid written exam. A mandatory course prior to testing would be advisable, like they do in Britain.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As for the AE6IP protégé, I don't wish to get into an endless debate with you, as is usually the case with Marty. I refuse to get into any endless debates with him either. It takes up too much of my time. And here's my quota of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this post in keeping with your Internet tradition. BTW, where do I go for my Internet forum posting license? I want to make sure I'm proficient in >>>>>>, so I don't offend Marty or his protégé. Hi-Hi!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As for the AE6IP protégé, I don't wish to get into an endless debate with you, as is usually the case with Marty. I refuse to get into any endless debates with him either. It takes up too much of my time. And here's my quota of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this post in keeping with your Internet tradition. BTW, where do I go for my Internet forum posting license? I want to make sure I'm proficient in >>>>>>, so I don't offend Marty or his protégé. Hi-Hi!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ:
>Its important to earn a ham license, because if its
>not earned, it is not respected and cherished. Some
>people just can't grasp this concept.
I grasp that concept quite well, myself, but I do have some trouble reconciling the sentiment above and the assumption that you "respect and cherish" your license with your previous statement:
>I feel like I did no work for my Extra, despite
>acing the exam.
If you did no work for your Extra, may I assume that by your definition you did not "earn" it, and therefore you cannot respect and cherish it?
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by W8UR on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The role of gov't isn't to protect people from themselves.
The airwaves are a shared public resource. Regulation is necessary to ensure they are equitably available for public use.
License testing should, and does, primarily focus on knowledge of those regulations, which primarily ensure efficient spectrum utilization and minimal interference. Testing also focuses on the technical knowledge required to ensure self-compliance with those regulations.
It's fine as it is.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Disclaimer: This is my humorous attempt to identify what I consider as real problems in the Amateur Radio service today.
I have come to the conclusion that Amateur Radio will always have the following predetermined qualifying factors in place by some individuals:
FCC licensing requirements should cover the following prerequisites before issuing a license:
1) People should all think morse code is the only thing that will save Amateur Radio from certain doom. Morse Code is clearly the only single and most important factor that accurately determines the quality and skill of all radio operators in the Amateur Radio Service..
2) Amateurs should all believe we are constantly under attack on the Amateur bands by trillions of imaginary alien CB operators in existence that are poised and ready to strike and "take over" the Amateur Radio Service. When this cannot be proven or is in doubt, blame the GMRS and FRS operators instead.
3)Amateur Radio licensing should be the final conclusion, and should never be the starting point. F.C.C. licenses should always be hung on a wall next to four year PhD. and other related university degrees.
4)Amateur Radio should only allow highly technically skilled electronic experts into the hobby. All others should stay out of our boys club and they should have no business in possessing any FCC license at all. No exceptions.
5)Amateurs are not to be treated as equals or as fellow colleagues. When communicating with other fellow Amateurs of different license class, you must only project a human intelligence level equal to that persons class of license.
6)It is impossible for a lower class licensee to posses more knowledge and operating skill than a higher class licensee in the Amateur Radio Service. This is against all laws of quantum physics and is impossible to occur. Even by one's stretch of imagination.
7)When individuals cannot politely disagree with facts that make common sense, then automatically start reverting to references about "no code whiners."
8)Amateur Radio is always in a state of perpetual doom and the total number of licensees are always dropping. This is a general licensing requirement and must be adhered to at all times. Real facts are always irrelevant to this matter and should never be discussed.
9)Always draw conclusions about Amateur Radio based on what every one else says about it. Never attempt to think for yourself, or draw your own conclusions or you will be disliked by others by default.
10) Always blame everything that is wrong with Amateur Radio on CB'ers with LEEENARS and the lack of good Elmer's around these days. When situations like BPL roll along, just start complaining to everybody about it without writing one single letter to the FCC. Always let the "other guy" do it first.
... And remember, everyone has the right to voice their perspectives and opinions on any of these matters.
You are always allowed to agree or disagree with opinions expressed. You will never be judged as an individual for expressing an open opinion in an open forum.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AB2OL on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Di-dit
di-dah-di-dit dah-dah-dah di-di-di-dah dit
dah-dah dah-di-dah-dah
dah-di-dah-dit di-dah-dah
Dah-dah-di-di-dit di-di-di-dah-dah
Dah-di-dit dit
Di-dah di-dit di-di-di-di-dah di-dah dah-di-dah-dah
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM, although you and I disagree on most of these, I do believe you forgot one that most of us can agree on....
11) Regardless of the topic AE6IP is the expert on it, so NEVER question his authority or your posts will get the >>>>>>>>>>>
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If the code requirement is so easy then, why are all
> the no-coder whining about it ???
If it's so hard, compared to element 4, how come there are *any* general license holders?
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Marty, you better re-check the General and Extra
> question pools....there are specific questions
> regarding this (questions G8B09 and E8C01)...I'm
> going to guess you probably missed these questions
> when you took the test 2 years ago...
Thanks for pointing G8B09 and E8C01 out. They're probably the source of many license holder's misunderstanding about makes something 'digital.'
I've sent a note off to the pool committee.
(If *you* don't understand why Morse code isn't 'digital', there's a great article in the help forum of QRZ that explains it.)
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I'll be sure not to get cut on or defended in that
> part of the country.
There's no bar exam in the US that requires one to demonstrate profficiency in a court room to pass it; nor is there any medical license in the country that requires one to demonstrate profficiency in order to obtain it.
> This is scary stuff. This is why you hear about
> those horror stories about dentists doing plastic
> surgery.
In the united states, the licensing requirements for dentists are as rigourous as those for MDs (which was a good TV series, which I miss.)
> Notice the use of quotes instead of arrows.
An amusing thing for someone favoring traditionalism, duely noted.
> In the same vein, I would NOT want a newbie cracking
> open the HV cage of a kilowatt amp. Can you say
> crispy critters?
This differs from cracking open and modifying high wattage musical amplifiers in what way?
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> ...since there is only *1* way to learn Morse code,
>> and that's by rote memorization.
> That statement is misleading.
No it's not.
> Memorizing a tablet of characters or a bunch of
> sounds will not enable you to learn morse code to
> the point where it is actually of use.
I don't recall claiming that it was.
> Actually, as a CW op, the best analogy I have is it
> is very similar in process to learning to touch
> type, which I also am doing right now.
Yes, it is. I learned how to touch type many decades ago. It is done by rote memorization.
> The key is continual PRACTICE!!
Which, in these two instances (and also learning to play a music instrument,) is a form of rote memorization.
(So that's how you get to Carnegie Hall...)
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB2OL,
I will always love my CW too.
73
Radio123us,
OK, I agree in this case..
I hereby agree;
(provided that this policy should cover such inclusions and that the Eiffel tower should not fall over before 12:00 noon on March 16th 2008 - This agreement shall remain in effect, until such effect, or before the effects shall remain in this agreement.)
KA4KOE,
Was that congent enough... Hey? where are the new electrical dudes ..dood?!
dah-dah-dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit-dah-dah
dah-dit-dit dit dah-dit-dah dah-dit-dah-dit
dah-dah-dah-dit-dit dit-dit-dit-dah dit-dah-dah dah-dah
|
| |
|
RE: code vs no code
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You are right on one point, anyone that really WANTS
> a ham ticket can easily learn the code...
This turns out not to be true either.
> the code test just tells us how MUCH they really
> want it...
The FCC dismissed that argument years ago. You may believe it, but it ain't gonna help you keep element 1.
> some people call that DISCIPLINE or DEDICATION...
It took me slightly over 7 hours spread over 14 days to learn enough Morse code to pass Element 1. That required no dedication and very little discipline.
All it really required was a two week period with enough time in it.
> which I think you will agree we need more of...
not in a hobby, no. Hobbys are for relaxation and recreation, or, as the FCC puts it "solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest".
You get out of a hobby what you put into it, and it's no one's choice but yours how much that is.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> However when it comes down to major changes in the
> hobby, I think those that have been in the hobby for
> many years, have a better idea of what is good for
> the hobby.
There's a fancy latin name for the logical fallacy behind that claim.
> HOWEVER.....someone with one year in the hobby, does
> not know what has happened in the past.
You've hidden two unsupported assumptions in that statement.
Let me give you a hint: If your logic was correct, than the only people allowed to do heart surgery would be those who've had both the proper training *and* a heart attack; since, otherwise, they couldn't know what a heart attack really is, or how to deal with it.
> There is one thing the FCC cannot test for. How well
> the new ham learns what is needed.
Of course not. The FCC specifically *defines* the amateur service as being for individuals "solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest". The FCC can't test whether you, or I, are approaching the hobby in our best interest.
> In the old days a novice ticket was good for only 2
> years. This forced all of us to learn more.
Actually, it didn't. It *did* make it obvious how many people were dropping out of the hobby -- something that's more difficult to measure now -- but it never "forced" anyone to do anything.
> Your plans have no incentive or logic in them.
The incentive in the hobby is *not* the license. It's what you do once you have it. That is, as the FCC reminds us in the definition of the Amateur Service, a personal matter -- as it should be.
> All your PLANS deal with getting new hams at any
> cost.
Not really, no. The reality is that my 'plan' merely recognizes the *reality* of the ARS and brings the testing scheme into alignment with the real world of amateur radio.
> Marty do you think convicted felons should get ham
> tickets?
Now you're on to a different topic, and one that's not relevant to what the FCC should test for -- even the current testing regime asks now questions about an indviduals past, other than whether they've had licenses before andd if so whether they were revoked.
> I guess if we got the entire US prison population
> Ham tickets.....That would be a good thing by
> you....right?
I guess you'd rather drag in red herrings than discuss the issues.
You might not want to admit it to yourself, but my two-tier, relaxed testing plan is merely bringing the regs into line with the reality.
You don't need to be a clever experimenter to safely use ham gear any more, and there's nothing wrong with appliance operators -- after all, they provide most of the service provided by hams.
On the other hand, very few hams today -- and most of them are RF professionals in their 'real life' -- are in a position to do any advancement of the transmit/receive aspect of amateur radio, and experimentation that is done by hams is more related to software (new digital modes) than hardware, so electronics expertise may not even be relevant -- look at psk31 and aprs as examples.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> JJH makes a good point. Ham radio isn’t for
> everybody.
I don't recall anyone saying that it was.
> Lets keep it that way.
But let's adjust the Regs so they match who the hobby *is* for, now.
> The United States has one of the largest ham
> populations in the world.
Second largest, as I understand it, about half the hams in the world live in Japan, about half the rest in the US, roughly.
> If we cheapen the requirements for HF access any
> more than has already been done and open the
> floodgates altogether with a cheap easy upgrade, we > as a nation will be responsible for trashing the
> amateur bands and turning amateur radio into one big
> CB cesspool worldwide.
The floodgate argument was made at the last restructuring. And yet, no hoard emerged.
Meanwhile, the US CB population has declined dramatically since the 70s. There are, at best industry estimates, no more than 100,000 CB users in the US, and probably 95 or more percent of them are perfectly legal in their usage.
> Other countries that eliminated code testing have
> more comprehensive testing than we do. Our written
> exams are a joke. The only work that one does for a
> ham license in the United States anymore is learning
> code.
The FCC dismissed these arguments. Why haven't you realized that they're false. A quick sanity check: If code was the *only* "work" towards a ham license, why are there any general license holders? Surely, if there was no work to the theory tests, everyone would just do element 3 and 4 on the same day, andd go directly from tech to extra.
> I guarantee that if we went to a licensing system
> such as the UK has, many NCTs that bellyache about
> learning code would kick themselves for not
> upgrading when all they had to do was learn code.
This might be true. However, you've given no viable reason for why we should; merely trotted out ancient, exhausted arguments that the FCC has already dismissed, and that even a moment's reflection can find the glaring deficiencies in.
> There are no dummies in amateur radio in the UK.
What percentage of the UK ham population would you say you're familiar enough with to judge?
I've encountered, here and on QSL, a very small sampling of UK hams. Let's just say they don't break the bell curve.
> So, don’t look at what other countries have done
> (eliminating code testing).
You've conveniently neglected the largest ham population without a code test: Japan. They do not have rigorous technical tests, nor have they had a code test for some time, and yet, they seem to manage.
> If we eliminate code testing here in the United
> States, we need to raise the bar considerably to
> compensate for the elimination of a requirement.
Why? You've given no reason for doing so.
> What the ARRL, NCI, Marty (AE6IP) and all the no-
> coders want is an insult to the intelligence and
> integrity of the United States.
Wow. Jingoism even. Come on, d00d, it's a hobby. Get a grip on your sense of perspective.
> What do you think hams in other parts of the world
> will say when they hear a quarter to half million
> new American hams QRMing the bands?
Um, your logical slip is showing again. There are, probably, around 200,000 active hams in the US. 1/3 of these are technicians. The proposals at hand don't make it any easiere to become a technician (other than mine) and the last time there was an easing of the license requirements, there was no inrushing hoard of poor performers. So all you get out of relaxing the morse code requirement is some unknown percentage of tech license holders getting onto HF.
> We don’t need QUANTITY in amateur radio. We need
> QUALITY! We shouldn’t be making it easier to get a
> ham license. We should be making it harder.
The FCC has dismissed the argument that testing acts as any sort of quality barrier, especially the Morse test.
> Operating on the amateur bands is not a God-given
> right under the Bill of Rights in the US
> Constitution. Operating on the amateur bands is a
> PRIVILEGE that needs to be EARNED.
The airwaves belong to all. The FCC manages them for the common good. Amateur Radio is a *hobby*. Testing for access to the amateur bands has *never* been a way of "earning" a privilige -- it has always been merely a way of testing whether or not someone could utilize the privilige without wrecking havoc.
The communications landscape is a lot different than it was 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Equipment is higher quality, it's harder wreck havoc by accident, and testing doesn't keep those who wish to wreck havoc intentionally away (c.f. freebanders.)
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Mike, there's no reason to apologize to Marty for
> calling him a minute rice Extra. Another good name
> for it is a Jello instant pudding Extra. He IS one.
> As such, this rookie has no credibility when he
> speaks of what amateur radio testing should be.
A classic example of ad hominem. Invariably produced by someone who is incapable of making a logical argument in rebuttal to the point being raised.
Well, that, and the fallacy of experience, but the ad hominem, alone, is enough to demonstrate that the author is aware that they have no answer to the points raised.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I sound bitter???
Yes, indeed you do.
> I earned my privilege the old fashioned way and
> studied for it.
If that's what you need for validation, than I'm glad you got it.
> What a big waste of time, I could have sat on my but
> for a few years and waited for the complete
> destruction by the ARRL.
It strikes me that what you are bitter about isn't that testing is now easy, and about to become easier.
It appears very much that you are saying that in the time between when you "earned" your privilege and now, you have not gotten sufficient satisfaction from the hobby to justify the effort you put into studying.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are the only person who can be responsible for your satisfaction in a hobby.
The FCC defines the ARS as being for those with soley a personal aim. If you have not satisifed a personal aim over the years you've been licensed, you have no one to blame but yourself, and no reason for taking your bitterness out on those who come later, with different personal aims.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Also, the fact that Marty went from square one to
> Extra in 2 test sessions only 2 weeks apart is proof
> that there's something wrong with the licensing
> system.
Given that you have no idea what my credentials were walking into those exams, there's no possible way you could make that judgement.
I will say that I got into the hobby *because* it *is* easy and relaxing, compared to what I do for a living though.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> There's nothing wrong with making hams spend a year
> in their current license class before upgrading.
There's no value in doing it, either.
> It gives them experience before going to the next
> level.
You're making two assumptions that aren't necessarily true: the first being that they'll do anything with the license, except sit on it for a year, the second being that what they will do with the current license gives experience of value towards the second license.
The current band plans make the latter quiet unlikely.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> License testing should, and does, primarily focus on
> knowledge of those regulations, which primarily
> ensure efficient spectrum utilization and minimal
> interference. Testing also focuses on the technical
> knowledge required to ensure self-compliance with
> those regulations.
It should do, but it doesn't. The current technical content of the exams is appropriate to the state of the radio art thirty years ago, not today.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Again, repeat this...
Amateur radio is a SERVICE, that happens to be a hobby for many.
Its more than just a hobby, d00d.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> JJH makes a good point. Ham radio isn’t for
> everybody.
I don't recall anyone saying that it was.
AE6IP,
Now Marty.. you are starting to sound a little defensive in your "quoted" arguments.
Firstly, the above comment wasn't even directed at you, It was directed at JJH.
Secondly, I fail to understand what the purpose this response is serving?
Honestly,... what is all the defensive quoting about what people say all about?
I don't dislike you at all Marty... I am just curious as to you actions.
Could you reply to this in a non-argumentative and non quoting way?
How about it Marty.. Let's talk about this my friend.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
the FCC should do psych evals! hI-HI!
Marty does serve an important service. He represents the left wing of ham radio.
Ham radio for all, with no class's or operating privledge distiction. AN Un POPULAR VIEW, YES>>>>>>>>>>>>BUT SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>
we also need a standard of exceSSIVE ARROW QUOTIng!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually when I was 15 years old, I thought FCC testing was unfair. I wanted my HAM-CB!!!
nO I did not walk 5 miles with no shoes in the snow to the FCC field office. It was a nice 45 minute walk.
When it was cold, I took a cab!
I thought 13WPM to have HF voice was so unfair!!>>>>>>!!!!!!!<<<<<<<<<<<<
Took me four times, bfore I passed 13WPM!
I actually got into CW. WORKED countless of contacts on a P.O.S EICO-753! The rig was giVen to me by a technician class ham I met on CB.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He could not fix the rig. He got the rig for nothing. So I got the rig for nothing.
took me days to fix the POS rig. I felt an feeling of accomplishment that I was able to get a rig . destined fot the trash heap to work!!
>>>>>>>EVERYDAY I WOULD LISTEN TO 20m PHONE. I thought it was so unfair that I was a novice for a year, and could not use thr rig on HF phone!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>
However during those days of CW only, I learned my general, advanced, 3erd and 2nd class commmercial phone theory.
I finally passed my 13WPM, GOT MY ADVANCED AND 2ND CLASS PHONE weeks later. a FEW DAYS ATER I TURNED 18.
I THEN SAW THE WISOM OF DELAYED GRATIFICATION!
My father bought me a new fangled ts-520s FOR ALL MY HARD WORK. Passed my extra on the firt shot.
Looking back, I am glad I was jsut not given everything on a golden platter!
The only BREAK I got from the FCC was on the 2nd class phone. Little known loop hole.
I got a 73 on the 2nd class phone. The FCC would make you wait a whole month to test! The passing grade was a 76.
My high school electronics teacher told me about the loop hole. If you failed a test by one question, you could ask for a time waiver!
I did. Took the 2nd class 4 days later and passed!
At BKLYN TECH HS, if you passed you 2nd or 1st phone you got an A in broadcasting!
YOUR ALL ASKING, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE FCC SHOULD TEST FOR!!!!!
IMO, THE FCC WERE TESTING FOR GOOD OLD YANKEE DETERMAINATION!!!! IMO, THE HARD WORK AND WAITING, MAKES FOR A GOOD HAM RADIO OPERATOR!
THE WAITING TIME TEACHES BALANCE. THE WAITING TIME OFFERS MORE TIME TO STUDY. MORE TIME TO PRACTICE AND EXPERIMENT!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
However when all is said and done, MARTY OF COURSE IS ENTITLED TO HIS HF PHONE FOR ALL INSTANT GRATIFICATION PATH!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I AM GLAD I TOOK THE HARD ROAD>>>>>>>
73 mike>>>>>>
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This differs from cracking open and modifying high wattage musical amplifiers in what way?"
None at all. Both have nasty B+ in them (assuming vacuum tube amplifiers), along with good ole 120VAC, which will kill you quicker than you can say "OH S***!"
Aside from changing out bad tubes, poking around inside anything electronic without some good knowledge under the belt is just plain stupid. At the least, you may damage something. On the other end of the spectrum, you're worm food. Or you may just get lucky and the angels will protect thee.
A lot of this is just plain common sense. Of course, you know this yourself as an obviously savvy individual.
Inexperienced hams need the guidance of elmers. Read the new article on near electrocutions. There's fire in dem wires.
In the same vein we don't let kiddies play with shotguns, or drive automobiles before their legs can reach the pedals.
A curricula in the ham testing pantheon must include a goodly section on basic survival around electronics.
Charles, more dudes will come. I haven't been in a creative frame of mind for awhile.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"An amusing thing for someone favoring traditionalism, duely noted."
We're just poking fun at you because of your fondness for the arrow quote in this and other like forums.
I'm all for traditions...such as taking your hat off when the color guard comes by, or stopping by the side of the road when a funeral procession comes by the opposite direction, opening doors for ladies, celebrating Ronaldus Magnus' birthday, that sort of thing, and the use of quotation marks.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike,
I appreciate your comments. The fact of the matter is that we are ALL Amateur Radio operators despite our particular license class.
CW or no CW we all need to stick together in this big mess were in together.
Like everything else there are good and bad operators out there. It is up to people like you and me Mike to ensure that the quality of operators in the Amateur Radio service is maintained on the bands.
Yes, there will be always be those with certain "deficits" that will be operating on the bands. But it up to us - the true Amateurs in this hobby/service that will exhibit and display the tolerance that is necessary to take these individuals under our wing and show them the ropes.
After all, this is what the true spirit of Amateur radio is all about. We are a self regulated service, and gosh by darn - we better start helping others to understand these learned philosophies we have acquired over the years or go out of business.
We have a choice. We can be angry, or we can do something about it to make it better.
What is your choice?
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For ATTN K4JSR
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Cal,
I had some ad hominem this morning at the Breakfast Club at Tybee with the bride...also
Eggs, over easy
Bacon
Grits
Hash
Coffee
Heavy on the protein, light on the carbs, losing weight and I can get just now get my fanny into my old jeans again.
Doncha wish you were there this AM?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For ATTN K4JSR
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> ...since there is only *1* way to learn Morse code,
>> and that's by rote memorization.
> That statement is misleading.
No it's not.
Yes it is - PAN
> Memorizing a tablet of characters or a bunch of
> sounds will not enable you to learn morse code to
> the point where it is actually of use.
I don't recall claiming that it was.
HEY, I wasn't addressing this to you, I WUZ a talkin' to 1M. Quit buttin in on these subthreads.
> Actually, as a CW op, the best analogy I have is it
> is very similar in process to learning to touch
> type, which I also am doing right now.
Yes, it is. I learned how to touch type many decades ago. It is done by rote memorization.
> The key is continual PRACTICE!!
Which, in these two instances (and also learning to play a music instrument,) is a form of rote memorization.
Of course, playing a musical instrument WELL also takes TALENT and determination and desire.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~purplebob/
I am so proud of my oldest brother. Old rock n roller done good.
(So that's how you get to Carnegie Hall...)
Helps to have an agent too.
Final question: Now that you're past Element 1, are you going to abandon it or use it.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For ATTN K4JSR
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> ...since there is only *1* way to learn Morse code,
>> and that's by rote memorization.
> That statement is misleading.
No it's not.
Yes it is - PAN
<<<>>>>I don't agree with either one of you in this particular case....
> Memorizing a tablet of characters or a bunch of
> sounds will not enable you to learn morse code to
> the point where it is actually of use.
I don't recall claiming that it was.
HEY, I wasn't addressing this to you, I WUZ a talkin' to 1M. Quit buttin in on these subthreads.
<<<<>>>>>Hey, why are you quoting in my quoted message thread in here?
> Actually, as a CW op, the best analogy I have is it
> is very similar in process to learning to touch
> type, which I also am doing right now.
Yes, it is. I learned how to touch type many decades ago. It is done by rote memorization.
<<<<>>>>> What's does "Anology" mean? Is that a CW term?
> The key is continual PRACTICE!!
Which, in these two instances (and also learning to play a music instrument,) is a form of rote memorization.
Of course, playing a musical instrument WELL also takes TALENT and determination and desire.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~purplebob/
I am so proud of my oldest brother. Old rock n roller done good.
<<<>>>> What does your brother have to do with this quotation arguement anyways?
(So that's how you get to Carnegie Hall...)
Helps to have an agent too.
<<<<>>>> Whatever you say, next thing you know you will be installing your own handprint on Hollywood Blvd.
Final question: Now that you're past Element 1, are you going to abandon it or use it.
<<<<>>>> Is that your final question?
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
<<<>>>> I have too subscribed. What the hell are you talking about???
Related News & Articles
How to put the FCC in check!
Malicious Interference Cases Top FCC List
How to Get a Duplicate License:
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
A Win-Win Situation for Amateur Radio
<<<>>>> Has anyone seen - Rileys, "Believe it or Not"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Opinion Articles
Amateur QSO's PSK-31
Why Does Used Ham Equipment Cost So Much? -- A Reply:
Which HF Transceivers are 'Perceived' to be Superior:
SK Ham Callsigns
Remember When?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For ATTN K4JSR
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said "Thanks for pointing G8B09 and E8C01 out. They're probably the source of many license holder's misunderstanding about makes something 'digital.'
I've sent a note off to the pool committee.
(If *you* don't understand why Morse code isn't 'digital', there's a great article in the help forum of QRZ that explains it.)"
Hey everyone !!! Marty is going to re-write the amateur exams because he doesn't like the answers to the questions. He even want to make the QRZ forums the source for the "truth" on any questions regarding the exam questions. I wonder why Marty would pick QRZ as the source of "all truth" though...since he has been banned from the site ???
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Even though the word “Code” did not appear in the original article, this thread has basically become another “Code vs No Code” debate.
I’m sure glad that amateur radio didn’t exist at the time of Christ, because if it had, The Resurrection would have been forgotten, as the Hams of the era steered the debate to “Code vs No Code”!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VWM:
Charles-
Actually, since there are a lot of non-sequitors flying around anyway, I figured that one or two extra wouldn't hurt a bit. Ergo, I threw in the link to my bro's page since an analogy was made between cw and music.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K8AG on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not that I have bothered to read all of the responses, but has anybody thought about testing for the ability to not get screwed when buying used equipment. I think applicants ought to be required to buy a $100 piece of used equipment from ebay or eham or qth and if it sucks they fail the test.
Apparently technical knowledge and the basics are not important anymore. So if we are all going to buy our appliance radios, we should be tested on those skills.
:)
John Pawlicki, K8AG
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>AE6IP said "Thanks for pointing G8B09 and E8C01 out. They're probably the source of many license holder's misunderstanding about makes something 'digital.'
I've sent a note off to the pool committee.
(If *you* don't understand why Morse code isn't 'digital', there's a great article in the help forum of QRZ that explains it.)"<<<
Morse code not digital? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that Morse code is digital. What is the characteristic of something digital? When something is either on or off, it is not analog. It is digital. Continuous wave makes the Morse code characters by being on and off. Case closed. Marty, go soak your head in water.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by N2MG on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP wrote:
> If *you* don't understand why Morse code
> isn't 'digital', there's a great article in
> the help forum of QRZ that explains it.
How about a link Marty? I'd love to see the "logic" behind this argument.
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by G7HEU on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I must not join in, I must not join in, I must not join in.
AW heck:
AE6IP:
><><><><><><><>< I've encountered, here and on QSL, a very small sampling of UK hams. Let's just say they don't break the bell curve. <><><><><><><><><>
Trip-trop, trip-trop. Who's that walking over MY bridge?.....
Glad to see that our VE ( and champion of a brave new ham world ) pal is not making sweeping statements or assumptions based on a tiny sample!
Steve
M0HEU / G7HEU
p.s. I rather like <><><><><><><> as opposed to <<< and >>>. Could it catch on? What does everyone else think?
><><><><><><>><><>>>< <><><><><><>><><> <><><><><><><>
><><>>< <><><><> ><><><><> <><><><>< <><><><>< ><><><>
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks,
debating Marty is like going on your honeymoon and
staying in a perpetual state of foreplay!
73, Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oops. I almost forgot the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Debating Marty is like trying to tell a telemarketer that you are not interested in whatever they are selling.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Debating Marty is like Chinese water torture. >>>>>>>. I didn't forget the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>><<<<<<DEBATING MARTY IS LIKE A PRISON MOVIE>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>DEBATING MARTY IS LIKE NAILING JELLO TO A TREE>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>DEBATING MARTY IS LIKE BOBBING FOR FRENCH FRIE'S IN HOT OIL!>>>>>>>>>
DEBATING MARTY IS LIKE WEARING WHITE SHEETS IN HARLEM>>>
DEBATING MARTY IS LIKE SPITTING IN A STATE TROOPERS FACE AFTER YOU JUST STUFFED IT WITH hot steamy NEW ENGLAND CLAM CHOWDER!!!!!!.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DEBATING MARTY IS LIKE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH AN AUTOMATIC!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THiS ALL BEGS THE QUESTION...WHY DO WE DEBATE HIM ANYMORE!!!!
all jokes aside ,Marties proposal just plain stinks!
OK it is a conspiracy! THE ARRL paid MARTY off to write a real el stinko proposal. This proposal makes the ARRL proposal look good by comparison!
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty, lets put the shoe on the other hand!
Lets say the FCC want's to stop freebanding and offer amnesty.
All freebanders and GMRS users with over 1 year of experience, get the NCG(no code general).
Your the one that is always saying it is the journy, not the testing.
Lets say somebody got a 3 WPM EXTRA in 6 months, instead of your 1 year wonder minute rice-a roni VEC testing? would you be happy with their journey?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If the exam were for our ability to not be suckered in by a troll we would all loose our license.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd like to know where Marty came up with the brilliant discovery that Morse code is not a digital mode. If it ain't digital, its analog. If it ain't analog, it still ain't digital. It's called Marty's Law. According to Marty's Law, Marty is always right, even when he's wrong. Put much simpler, "when in doubt, make it up".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Part 2 of Marty's Law states that any statement criticizing Marty is "ad hominum". Marty, I wish to sell my "hominum". I think I'll purchase an "ad" for it in the classified section of my local newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KN6Z on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[especially those of the anti-code mentality, it is YOU who wish to effect change to American amateur radio licensing procedures, not us CW aficionados. It is up to YOU to convince the FCC that Morse testing should be eliminated. It is NOT up to us to justify keeping it]
Well, I guess you can just sit back and relax then, eh?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KN6Z on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[I'd like to know where Marty came up with the brilliant discovery that Morse code is not a digital mode.]
Hot, damn, Sherlock, I didn't even know Morse was a mode.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KN6Z on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[THiS ALL BEGS THE QUESTION...WHY DO WE DEBATE HIM ANYMORE!!!!]
What you mean is "raises the question." Begging the question is something else.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KN6Z on March 9, 2004
"Hot, damn, Sherlock, I didn't even know Morse was a mode."
KN6Z, are you going to nit pick? The terms "Morse code" or "code" and "CW" are pretty much interchangeable in ham circles.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Amateur radio is a SERVICE, that happens to be a
> hobby for many.
The word service does not mean to the FCC what you imply it means. To the FCC, a "service" is a collection of spectrum segments and the rules governing their use. No more, no less.
> Its more than just a hobby, d00d.
No, actually, it's not. It's a hobby. Just like the service provided by the FCC to R/C users is used in a hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> This differs from cracking open and modifying high
>> wattage musical amplifiers in what way?
>> None at all.
And so should require no more testing than is required in order to crack open the high wattage musical amplifiers.
The attitude that newcomers "need" mentoring is a charade. People manage to modify guitar amps all the time without benefit of "elemers". They manage to do things which are at least as dangerous, such as using power tools, without benefit of "elemers".
In fact, it's unfortunate that some amateurs have this attitude that the general populace is somehow too dumb to deal with electricity without benefit of their tutelage.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I'm all for traditions...such as taking your hat off
> when the color guard comes by, or stopping by the
> side of the road when a funeral procession comes by
> the opposite direction, opening doors for ladies,
> celebrating Ronaldus Magnus' birthday, that sort of
> thing, and the use of quotation marks.
alas, you say one thing and do another. how ironic.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For ATTN K4JSR
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Of course, playing a musical instrument WELL also
> takes TALENT and determination and desire.
alas, no. It takes *either* talent *or* determination. If you have the one, you don't need the other -- as many of my students have found out.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Morse code not digital?
That's right.
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the
> conclusion that Morse code is digital.
Anyone can come to an incorrect conclusion.
> What is the characteristic of something digital?
That it's represented by a numeric encoding. (IE, that it is presented as *digits*)
> When something is either on or off, it is not
> analog. It is digital.
Digital and analog are not opposites; you've confused 'digital' with 'modal'.
> Continuous wave makes the Morse code characters by
> being on and off.
I suspect that Shannon would be rolling around on the floor laughing his ass off at this point.
But no, they don't make characters by being on and off. They make characters by the relative time in which they are on and off. It isn't dit = on, dah = off, it's short = dit, long = dah, short silence is intercharacter space, long silence is interword space.
It is a common misunderstanding, which makes the mistake of associating analog with continuous and digital with discrete, and then drawing analogies based on Boolean algebra. Alas, "analog" does not mean continuous, and "digital" does not mean discrete.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> How about a link Marty? I'd love to see the "logic"
> behind this argument.
How about using a search engine? But don't worry, I've outlined the logic (see, no quotes needed,) in another post in this thread.
In case you missed it:
digital == symbolic representation in a number system.
Morse, no matter how it is presented, is not digital.
It's also not on/off, as many people mistakenly claim. It is short sound/long sound plus short space/long space.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Lets say somebody got a 3 WPM EXTRA in 6 months,
> instead of your 1 year wonder minute rice-a roni VEC
> testing? would you be happy with their journey?
Not my journey to be happy with or not.
The FCC defines the amateur service as being for "persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim".
Not my place, or yours, to judge another person's personal aim. (Not even if it results in illegal activity -- we've got a legal system for that.)
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I'd like to know where Marty came up with the
> brilliant discovery that Morse code is not a digital
> mode.
It was obvious the first time I had the encoding of Morse code explained to me.
> If it ain't digital, its analog.
That's a false dichotomy. You're making the common mistake of assuming 'analog' means continuous and 'digital' means discrete and jumping from there to the assumption that since morse uses discrete sounds, it must be digital.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Part 2 of Marty's Law states that any statement
> criticizing Marty is "ad hominum".
Very good. You are on your way to understanding the meaning of ad hominum.
In a discussion or debate, or attempt to apply logic, critizing *arguments* is appropriate. However, criticizing the *individual* who makes those arguments is boorish, poor debating tactics, and bad logic.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Hot, damn, Sherlock, I didn't even know Morse was a
> mode
There is, within the amateur community, a certain sloppiness of language that routinely interchanges "Morse code", and "CW", meaning "Morse code on CW", and calls any of the three "a mode."
Morse code is a code. As such it is not a digital code. It is the only form of content currently imposed on CW in the amateur service, which is why "Morse code" and "CW" are used interchangably -- even though it is *also* used on other modes than CW, as when IDing a 2m repeater, for example.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said "How about using a search engine? But don't worry, I've outlined the logic (see, no quotes needed,) in another post in this thread."
N2MG, I guess we got our answer...when pressed for facts, Marty can't produce them. As for his explaination as to why morse isn't digital, I'm with one of the previous posters who said "Marty, go soak your head in water"
The real question here is....how much longer do we have to put up with this nonsense from Marty ???
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by N2MG on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2MG wrote:
>> How about a link Marty? I'd love to see the "logic" behind this argument.
and AE6IP responded:
> How about using a search engine?
Not a good answer.
In case you care, I had already searched on QRZ. Using "digital" and "CW" and/or "Morse" in various combinations, do you want to guess how many hits I get? YOU try it.
When I refer to something available on the web, I usually supply a link - especially when it seems to form the basis (or part) of one's argument. This is so that others may see the full reference and see it in context. Just saying "it's on QRZ" is not very helpful.
Besides, it's being on QRZ somehow gives it (or you) credibility? If a post on QRZ based itself on "some post" on eHam, would that make the QRZ post more credible?
Marty continued:
> But don't worry, I've outlined the logic (see,
> no quotes needed,) in another post in this thread.
Why do I get the feeling that you are saying, in essence, "Don't worry, I'm from the government and I'm here to help..."
> In case you missed it:
> digital == symbolic representation in a number system.
> Morse, no matter how it is presented, is not digital.
This depends where one looks up "digital".
Here's one definition of digital I got from the web:
"A description of data which is stored or transmitted as a sequence of discrete symbols from a finite set, most commonly this means binary data represented using electronic or electromagnetic signals"
( Here's the link:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=digital )
So, with this definition, Morse-encoded CW (now there's a term) fits the definition fairly well. It contains "a sequence of discrete symbols from a finite set."
> It's also not on/off, as many people mistakenly
> claim. It is short sound/long sound plus short
> space/long space.
No, what it is NOT is "binary". Morse *is* "on/off" - there is no in-between. Perhaps you are wrongly assuming that "on/off" is the equivalent of "binary". What we have in Morse is much more complex than binary.
But all this is a red herring. Whether or not Morse code is binary, on/off or digital, has no bearing on its importance to the history and culture of ham radio which some seem to want to trash summarily.
Mike N2MG
PS: Here's another definition of digital (same URL)
"Of or performance to the fingers, or to digits;
done with the fingers; as, digital compression;
digital examination."
So using your fingers to "drive" a key/paddle/keyboard makes Morse digital. ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"alas, you say one thing and do another. how ironic."
So, are you calling me a hypocrite, dear Marty? Or are you saying being conservative and patriotic are mutually exclusive? Either way, you're out of line. Personal attack, could it be???????
So this means that you're resorting to AD HOMINEM yourself....the one thing you scream about over and over when people call you to task.
HORRORS!!!! The heavens are opening up!!!! RUN!!! THE END TIMES ARE HERE!!!!
At least I admit when I am mistaken (Mike, Cal, Mr. Stephen, and Charles keep me in line, as I do them), but you, dear Sir, project an ivory tower know-it-all attitude that does not endear you to people on this forum.
Ya' need to make some friends here. The way you're acting isn't the way the do it.
I would put a label on your behavior, but I shant. Don't want to be accused of ad hominem myself.
Although it is good with eggs and bacon at the Breakfast Club, especially on a weekend morning at Tybee, Georgia.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by N2MG on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP wrote:
>>> This differs from cracking open and modifying high wattage musical amplifiers in what way?
>> None at all.
> And so should require no more testing than is required in order to crack open the high wattage musical amplifiers.
If you mean you are against testing safety knowledge, than I agree. I, too, do not relish the idea of the government trying to protect us from ourselves.
> The attitude that newcomers "need" mentoring is a
> charade. People manage to modify guitar amps all the
> time without benefit of "elemers". They manage
> to do things which are at least as dangerous, such
> as using power tools, without benefit of "elemers".
Again, if you are referring to safety, I agree. If you mean that new hams should somehow be expected to jump into a world like ham radio with long-standing culture, procedures, buzzwords and the like, and do so with out some help, I disagree.
It's "elmer", BTW.
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP:
CW can clearly be described as a digital modulation scheme. Carrier on=1, carrier off=0; conceptually no different than RTTY's mark and space.
Morse, of course, is an encoding used over CW. It consists of 5 symbols: dit, dah, intra-character space, inter-character space and inter-word space. Every character encoded in Morse is defined by a unique sequence of these symbols.
In Morse-over-CW, the symbols are defined as a carrier state which has a given duration: 1-element on=dit, 1-element off=inter-character space,3-element on=dah, and so on.
Yes, the symbol definition includes information derived from the time domain, but that is no disqualification for status as a digital encoding. Symbols may be represented by any means desired. I refer you to http://eagle.auc.ca/~dreid/ for an interesting example.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by W2DUG on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reading this thread is like spending a day in junior high school...watching the jocks gang up on the nerdy smart kid because their fragile egos can't deal with the possibility that someone is actually challenging their long-standing beliefs and misinformation--and he may actually be right.
What's next...are you guys gonna give Marty a "swirlie" in the girl's bathroom?
Totally senseless and embarassing to all hams, new and old. Yet somehow I can't look away...
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W2DUG, the difference here is that Marty isn't the "nerdy smart kid"...he's WRONG and he refuses to admit that fact...most folks would have more respect for him if he would admit his mistakes instead of giving us more of his nonsense...
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marty's Law:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When in doubt, make it up.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AD6WL on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Its more than just a hobby, d00d.
"No, actually, it's not. It's a hobby. Just like the
service provided by the FCC to R/C users is used in
a hobby."
Perhaps you are not familiar with part 97
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike N2MG said:
"But all this is a red herring. Whether or not Morse code is binary, on/off or digital, has no bearing on its importance to the history and culture of ham radio which some seem to want to trash summarily."
Yes. Along comes an upstart who's only been a ham for little over a year, and he's going to tell us how ham radio should be. An Austrian upstart did the same thing with Germany in 1933.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WL:
On his WL, we must disagree. Its appropriately called "The Amateur Radio Service" for obvious reasons. It's not officially referred to as "The Amateur Radio Hobby".
You quoted me out of context. I said, its a SERVICE, that also happens to be a hobby.
Of course I'm splitting hairs. 'Nuff said.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to AE6IP: "criticizing the *individual* who makes those arguments is boorish, poor debating tactics, and bad logic."
It is certainly not poor logic or boorish to question the qualifications and experience of an individual who proposes sweeping changes to the practices and culture of the amateur radio community. I (as well as several others) have already done that on this thread.
On an earlier thread I recall making a point concerning the relative effectiveness of CW versus SSB communications. In order to illustrate my point, I compared the number of QSO's by the World record holders (Multi-op, single transmitter category) in the CQ WW DX SSB and CW contests. The sum of the QSO's was around 15-16 thousand as I recall. Marty, you dismissed this as "a single data point." I'll wager, though, that your lifetime amateur radio QSO total would only amount to a tiny fraction of one "data point." Until you have achieved at least a "data point's" worth of QSO's, and until you have demonstrated that you have actually operated on all the bands and modes you propose to bulldoze over, I certainly do not consider you qualified to devise bandplans and propose licensing changes.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can’t believe how many of you rise to Marty’s bait, over and over again!
I hope all of you are at least having fun with this, because otherwise you are simply wasting your time.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes Kent, It is like the voyeuristic viewing of a
honeymoon in a perpetual state of foreplay.
Totally sick to watch, but fun and engrossing also!
I guess we are just "dirty old hams"! ;-P
And Philip, ad hominem with eggs, bacon and toast is
a very Gritty statement! Mr, Potato Head, Mike's
friend, may want to "hash" that out with you!
Intermission is over. Back to the foreplay! This time
with more feeling and sincerity!
73, Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, its kinda hard NOT to do that since he authored this article.
I've myself been called to task when I put my neck out there and posted my DED and other articles. Believe me, the guys and gals out there are sharp, and found errors even I missed. Although, to be fair, I shouldn't probably write these things late at night. But, I acknowledge my errors cheerfully. I once mentioned Edward Armstrong in Tesla's bio. OBVIOUS typo (its Edwin). I was called to task, and dern it, they were right. Should've I have known better? YES, especially since I helped my daughter on a great science project on the very man. BTW, that 11 year old loves the film, Empire of the Air.
Make you own value judgement. Debate can be spirited.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Kent, you are very right. I fell for IPsh--ts tactics many times. NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
If we ignore him, maybe he wil go back to pestering QRZ! IP-sh--has a rationalisation for why he was made persona non grata on QRZ.
FOLKS, he gets off starting controversy. To him this whole thing is a sick way of getting attention.
MANY do fall for the fact that he knows a thing or two. WHAT A WASTE!!!!!!
THE FCC SHOULD DO PSYCH EVALS ON THOSE THAT HAVE A RECORD OF DISRUPTIVE BEHAVOR! THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS ARE TOO LOW!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Marty made 10 consecutive posts this morning all with his >>>>>>>>>>>'s. Is this all he has time for? Does he really think I read all this fodder? When he arrow quotes you and picks apart your post, he's looking to snare you into an endless debate. The best way to deal with someone like this is to ignore his nonsense when he arrow quotes you. Debating Marty is like killing ants one at a time and thinking you'll get 'em all.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by G7HEU on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OFF TOPIC.
ATTN ALL THE CLEVER HAMS I DO AND DON'T KNOW:
I bought a MASSIVE a.t.u. today - just the job I hope for my new doublet, balanced antenna. Prob is it was 'homebrewed' by somebody else and doesn't tune as I expected. I'm not bothered 'cos the components are worth more than I paid. It's a bit of strange beast though and some of the connections are undone so I'm a bit confused as to what is going on 'under the bonnet'.
The design is not in any of my books, including the ARRL hand book.
I'm about to sketch out the circuit(s) and take a digital photo and then mail both to all the nice people from E-Ham who I have a e-mail friendships with. If anybody else would like to assist please e-mail me ( address on my profile).
I can promise you that the 'broadcast' mail will be 'bcc' so nobody else will see your address. Also I am over-run with firewalls and virus protection so there shouldn't be any nasty surprises.
Please don't be too cross with me for not posting this on the elmers section. 1. I'm sure it might get more attention here, 2. It seems like a good idea to make some wothwhile use of this thread and 3. I can't post the pic and circuit in the elmers area.
Thanks for your time,
Steve
M0HEU / G7HEU.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AD6WL on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KOE: “Its more than just a hobby, d00d.”
IP: "No, actually, it's not. It's a hobby. Just like the
service provided by the FCC to R/C users is used in
a hobby."
WL: “Perhaps you are not familiar with part 97”
KOE: "Its a SERVICE, that also happens to be a hobby."
That previous post was to IP that it is most definitely a service and not just a hobby. KOE, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
73, Jim
AD6WriteLog
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH said "FOLKS, he gets off starting controversy. To him this whole thing is a sick way of getting attention."
I agree 100 percent....I am hoping that eventually the webmasters/moderators here will get tired of the >>>>> and take care of this issue.....apparently, this has already happened on QRZ.COM...I know that this web site is not a democratic forum, but I'll put my vote in now for the removal of the >>>>>> issue.....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would be a good survey question.
Should marty be banned from eham?
1.) Yes, he's a troll and I'm sick of reading his nonsense.
2.) No, he's a troll but I just skip over his mindless postings.
3.) No, I like <<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4.) I don't care because I'm not stupid enough to read posts made by him.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That's a great idea OLDFART13....!!! I'm going to guess that answer #1 would get at least 70 - 80 percent....maybe more.....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
...you could probably easily figure out my vote...choice #1 for me too.....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll pick #1 also. Threads on eham.net would load quicker if AE6IP was banned.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K0EWS on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this thread is fun to watch, but shall refrain from commenting; a wise old sage once told me to never get into a pissing contest with a skunk. I think that advice holds true here on this thread. 73 fellas!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KN6Z on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[> What is the characteristic of something digital?
That it's represented by a numeric encoding. (IE, that it is presented as *digits*) ]
If I spell words by speaking decimal numbers 1 thru 26, corresponding to the letters of the alphabet, would that be sending a digital message?
What is the origin of the confusion between digital and discrete (especially as in on/off)? Is it because digital representations in the binary system are so common and familiar?
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
of course my knee jerk reation is <<<<<<<<<ONE>>>>>>>>>>!!!!
TOO bad,Marty is a smart guy, He could be heling out newbies in the elmER section.
Just banning someone sets a bad president.
Marty is strategic with his trolling.He calls it his right to free speech, and not trollIng.
iF HE WOULD JUST ARROW QUOTE LESS. HAVE TOLERANCE TO OTHER OPINIONS, AND NOT ALWAYS HAVING TO HAVE THE LAST LAUGH, HE WOULD BE OK.
His behavior patterns that bother the most are very clear.
Yet somehow I do not think that Marty cares that he ruins the EHSM experience for many. It turns into his little bully pulpit.
The EHAM staff are powerless, because Marty is not a total troll. He is just a disruption in day to day activity.
Marty would you be open to "lightening up a bit"
Would you like to share exactly why you were thown off of QRZ. Did QRZ offer to take you back if you stopped doing something?
IF QRZ WOULD TAKE YOU BACK, HOW ABOUT SPLITTING THE MISERY BETWEN QRZ AND EHAM!
iN THE MEAN TIME PUT ME DOWN FOR NUMBER ONE!
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
of course my knee jerk reation is <<<<<<<<<ONE>>>>>>>>>>!!!!
TOO bad,Marty is a smart guy, He could be heling out newbies in the elmER section.
Just banning someone sets a bad president.
Marty is strategic with his trolling.He calls it his right to free speech, and not trollIng.
iF HE WOULD JUST ARROW QUOTE LESS. HAVE TOLERANCE TO OTHER OPINIONS, AND NOT ALWAYS HAVING TO HAVE THE LAST LAUGH, HE WOULD BE OK.
His behavior patterns that bother the most are very clear.
Yet somehow I do not think that Marty cares that he ruins the EHSM experience for many. It turns into his little bully pulpit.
The EHAM staff are powerless, because Marty is not a total troll. He is just a disruption in day to day activity.
Marty would you be open to "lightening up a bit"
Would you like to share exactly why you were thown off of QRZ. Did QRZ offer to take you back if you stopped doing something?
IF QRZ WOULD TAKE YOU BACK, HOW ABOUT SPLITTING THE MISERY BETWEN QRZ AND EHAM!
iN THE MEAN TIME PUT ME DOWN FOR NUMBER ONE!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DUG:
Swirlies tend to knock one off the proverbial high horse they're on. They do serve a purpose. So let's not rule this one out. Its better than using firearms, or pepperspray, or calling his mommie.
At least we didn't throw a blanket over the perp and pound him like they do in basic training (at least as portrayed in the popular culture).
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If some one discusses morse code testing, and an upcoming digital exam, I personally would run like hell.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Philip said,
"If some one discusses morse code testing, and an upcoming digital exam, I personally would run like hell."
Any of us men over forty would be well advised to run if the wrong person offered to give us a "digital"
exam! :-@
That was *NOT* my idea of a perpetual state of
foreplay! :-P
Get me out of here before I say something that might embarrass one of us! :-P
Oh, before I go, Marty, it looks like you have been voted for #1 in the poll! Your fame has also reached back to QRZ. You, sir, are infamous! Well Done!
Just one question, Marty. If A1 transmissions are
not digital as you explained, how would you describe serial data? Please explain as I would prefer a
mixed drink to a mixed metaphor.
73, Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve on the other side of the pond said,
>>>I'm about to sketch out the circuit(s) and take a digital photo and then mail both to all the nice people from E-Ham who I have a e-mail friendships with. If anybody else would like to assist please e-mail me ( address on my profile). <<<
That's a great Idea. Be sure to send me an email about it too.
Perhaps, you should consider writing an entire article dedicated to this "unusual" antenna design here on eham (since you may already have photos and all) I think it would make an excellent addition and users could comment and provide more insight into it's overall design.
I have been up late building a new antenna myself right now. I am curently taking some digital photographs of it at the various stages of its design.
I want to show it from start to final installation and tuning on the tower.
I am hopeful that this would encourage others to build one too. I think it might make a good homebrew article here on eham.
I think we need to see more of that sort of thing going on here on this website.
73 and good luck
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KD7ZRO on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I for one find code a very important part of Amature Radio history, and I am still just a Tech. Why am I still just a Tech you ask? My callsign was issued on Febuary 23, 2004. I have had an intrest in Ham radio AND code for about six years now, just never had someone to give me that little push! I still don't see why code is a big issue, I mean, come on! learn five words per minute to pass and never use it again. IT IS THAT EASY! I, however, choose to make code a part of my station so don't try and tell the 33+% of U.S. Amatures that CODE IS DEAD.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD7ZRO:
I can’t find a single post in this thread that says that you can’t use Code if you want to!
In this particular case, the opinions of others have no power to determine your actions. Enjoy the hobby as you see fit, and don’t let other points of view upset you! This is still America, and they are as entitled to their opinions as you are to yours.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AD6WL on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KD7ZRO
Congrats on your license. Good luck with the code and upgrading. Passing the CW exam, element 1, is nothing more than being introduced to morse code. I have noticed that most newer hams and techs that I know are eager to learn the code and are not going to let it hold them back. It’s good to see that you and many others are spending the time to learn the code. It only takes about 1-3 months to learn it. We need more new hams like you.
I had the distinct pleasure of working a /AG station this past week. He had just passed his elements 1, and 3 the previous night and I was his first CW QSO. Awesome!
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Say Cal,
Isn't serial data what you find on your box of Wheaties in the morning?
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KD7ZRO,
Congrats on getting your ticket. My hat is off to you for your great attitude regarding Ham radio and CW. Those who have the desire, commitment and determination to learn Morse code will succeed at learning it. Those who look at Morse code as a bitter pill to swallow say they can’t learn it. They can’t learn it because they don’t want to learn it. You can learn anything if you want it bad enough. You appear to be the type that wants to learn and wants to make the most of ham radio. With an attitude like yours, you will be an asset to this great hundred-year-old institution. Welcome aboard. Welcome to the fold. AD6WL is right. We do need more new hams like you.
73 de Mark
AG4RQ
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KD7ZRO on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I find amazing is I posted my previous post just to let off some steam and I get so many congrats on getting my ticket! I want to thank all of you who congradulated me.
Oh, KB9YZL, there was a post in this thread saying morse code is not used much any more(it was posted by KC2MMI)
Rod KD7ZRO
|
| |
|
RE: ATTN N1OC
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck, I hate to be the one to tell you, but the
California Raisens are all dead! Sad but true!
They, along with Snap, Crackle and Pop!
A cereal killer got them all!
And that is all the data I have! :-)
Steve, HEU, get back to work on that transmatch and
quit fooling around on the interweb, sir! You have
conjugate matches to make, complex impedances to deal
with and vectors to spin. Not to mention all of those Smiths to chart! (Go ahead, just try to normalize 'em!)
Get busy, lad! You are burning up daylight! (Whip crack!)
73 and as all of the slugs in my garden sing, "Happy
Trails To You..." Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: ATTN N1OC
|
|
|
by G7HEU on March 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Cal and Co
G5RV gone, doublet up.
Transmatch appears to have been built by a MW pirate. I was seduced by massive vari caps ( high power rating ) forgot to consider actual capacitance.
Doh!
I have a good sig on 80Mtrs and nothing else.
Got my first R.F. burn today. Am now hoping I might be considered a real radio ham.
Day light long gone.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz............
|
| |
|
Enjoying the quiet....
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Has anyone noticed that there hasn't been a post from Marty in a couple of days ??? I wonder if he finally got banned from eham ???
|
| |
|
RE: Enjoying the quiet....
|
|
|
by NJ1K on March 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Could be but ya never know.. sMarty hides away sometimes and then pops up when ya least expect it.....
|
| |
|
RE: Enjoying the quiet....
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AHA! Caught you, Tom! You can post over here!
Wait 'til HEU sees this!
73 Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: Enjoying the quiet....
|
|
|
by G7HEU on March 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Somebody call?
What, what?
What's up with that NJ1K posting here? Have we met? Forgive me if we have, am tired after an evening of capacitor dieting.
Tha massive vari-cap for my new trans-match turned out to be 1800pF ( really ). Am now certain that the previous owner was either an AM broadcast pirate or a 160Mtr fanatic.
Took the capacitor to pieces ( not for the faint hearted ) and removed every other stator and rotor. Re-used all the spacers and had lots of stats' and rot's left over! It now looks much more suitable for HF and has a value of, um, less...
Tune in tomorrow night for the next exciting installment of HEU's trans-match.
Thank you for listening.
Steve
M0HEU / G7HEU @ 01:34 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........
|
| |
|
RE: Enjoying the quiet....
|
|
|
by G7HEU on March 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NJ1K
Now I remember. Welcome to Eham!
Steve / half asleep.
|
| |
|
RE: Enjoying the quiet....
|
|
|
by NJ1K on March 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, thanks for the welcome....
1800pf??? Wowzir that's a big cap.... Just think, iffin' ya remove the stats & rots in just the right manner, you can get that old plate spacing big enough to handle some really high voltages.... Can we say 20KV??
|
| |
|
RE: Enjoying the quiet....
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He's gone for the night, Tom. It's nearly 0400 over
there. So now that you're here, don't be a stranger!
73, Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
sMARTY lives!! THANK HEAVENS FOR sMARTY!
|
|
|
by K3FT on March 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those who do now know...
(OH yes.. before I forget! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>)
sMARTY is ACTUALLY a healing kind of a guy!
Why, his posts provide NO END of laughter and merriment to me and others! <Why is this good?>
Because laughter releases endorphins!
Endorphins are the body's natural painkillers AND they help reduce blood pressure and make you feel good!
Endorphins promote cardiac health so sMARTY is doing all our hearts a good favor!
THANKS, sMARTY!
Continue! You ARE perfroming a valuable service. (OOPS!! HOBBY!!!! since it's non-pecuniary what he's doing!) a valuable HOBBY to us all!
73
Chuck K3FT
|
| |
|
In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by K3FT on March 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I provide this little ditty..
(Sung to the tune of 'The Great Pretender' by Mr. Jackson Browne. Lyrics (C) K3FT)
'THE GREAT DEBATER'
Oh yes! He's the great debater!
On most any topic around!
He'll surely respond,
To most anyone..
And loudly and longly expound!!
(And spreading his wisdom around!)
AHH YES! He's the great debater!
His style and his words show great wit!
But others may find,
That his words jar their minds,
And seem like a load of bull------
(you thought, I was gonna say IT!)
So please! Thank the Great Debater!
For helping our health and our minds!
Endorphins that he,
helps us all to release!
By laughter, providing for Free!
So we can all be
quite healthy!
Thanks, sMARTY
take a bow!
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ROTFLMAO! HAW! CHORTLE! GASP! WHEEZE! CHOKE! WHEEZE!
STOP IT, Chuck! You're killin' me!!!
Oh dear, don't let HEU, KOE, JJH or VWM see me like
this! WHEEZE! GUFFAW!!!
So what you are saying, Chuck, is "the means justify
the endorphins!"?
Up until today I thought that "Endorphin Annie" was
a comic strip! :-D
73, Cal K4JSR
COUGH! Blow coffee out of nose and ears! WHEW!
That's rough!
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by NJ1K on March 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hay check this out... Go to the sMarty bio page and see what he says at the bottom... He claims he "earned" his VEC......
This is hilarious I think... As far as I know, a VEC is an organization whereas a VE is the individual.....
Imagine that........
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ad hominem? Ummm...no. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum? Ummm...yeah.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by HFDUDE on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Hay check this out... Go to the sMarty bio page and see what he says at the bottom... He claims he "earned" his VEC......
This is hilarious I think... As far as I know, a VEC is an organization whereas a VE is the individual..... "
"Hay"...???
Maybe it stands for "Volunteer Examiners Certification" ?
Funny how all you people jump all over Marty for various things. Maybe you should read all your own posts.
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Naw, HFDUDE, We will just laugh at you instead!
HAW! HAW! HAW!
Now go get a real name and call and quit being a
chicken. BUCK! BUCK! BUCK!
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think HFDude is actually marty trying to stir it up again. Who else would post such nonsense.
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by HFDUDE on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah, good answer.
And here I thought horses bucked and chickens clucked.
Thats ok, I guess you just couldn't think of anything more intelligent to say.
No offense to the owner of this site, but he wants people to pay to put up with this?
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HFDUDE is just a bedwetting creep. He knows it.
He loves it. He is also a tightwad wad cheapskate
chicken. His IQ is equal to what he is willing to pay
to come on this site and anonymously insult others.
And that appears to be zero! Now Mr. HFPUNK, probably
a freebander, since you are so cheap and so scared of
identifying yourself, go back and play in the traffic.
I think your Marty is calling you!
|
| |
|
RE: In HONOR of sMARTY..
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Boring. So boring. We want dinner and a show, we do, aye laddie?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those people interested in the QRZ article I mentioned (which was about the "difference" between analog and digital -- something one needs to understand *before* one can understand why Morse code isn't digital, The article appears at
http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=4054089852caffff;act=ST;f=5;t=48340;st=10
and is quoted below, with permission of the author.
The distinction between digital and analog in circuits can best be understood by stepping back and considering what it is we are trying to get electronic circuits to do for us.
An analog device, electronic or otherwise, is one that attempts to model a property of the real world by analogy. For example, you can make a physical circuit that solves a certain differential equation, and it will do so quiet easily. You can do the same thing, if you're very clever, by plumbing up a bit of hydaulics, and get a solution that way -- this latter, in fact, is how many process control systems are managed, at least in part.
The problem with solving problems by analogy is that if you want to solve a different problem, you have to physically swap parts in and out of the system. Analog systems are great for solving a single problem, or through the addition of variable controls, like a valve in a hydraulic system, or a variable rheostat in an electronic system, they can solve a range of related problems. But eventually, if you want to solve a problem that's not very much like the last one, you need to redo the plumbing.
What most people seem not to realize, is that digital systems are analog systems, but ones with special properties. They are analog in the sense that they too solve problems by analogy to the physical problem that is interesting to solve.
This is why attempts to define digital and analogy as opposites in some way always fail.
You see, digital systems also solve problems by analogy, they just add one more level of indirection.
This works because of what physicists call the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the sciences. There are two important aspects of this:
1) to date we have always been able to build mathematical systems that allow us to predict the behavior of physical systems. Something as simple as F=ma, is no more than a mathematical system that allows us to predict a bit of physics. We call such systems models. Models have particular properties, the main one of which is that they accurately predict the behavior of physical systems. (The jargon for this is that physical systems are empirical and can be modeled mathematically.)
2) Mathematical models can be (approximately) solved by numerical methods -- this is where digital comes in to play. Every digital system, in fact, is merely a numerical approximation of an analog one.
Now this wouldn't mean anything, except for one detail: We're much cleverer at building systems that solve numerical approximations than we are at building systems that solve analogies. But not always: the digital speedometer on a car, for example, is a hybrid system -- it is an analog system right up to a final analog-to-digital converter that drives a bit of logic to display the speed.
Notice the word aproximately a couple of paragraphs ago? That's the downside of digital systems. They are inherently limited to less accuracy than a correct analog system.
There are two exceptions to this inherent limit: digital systems are more accurate for problems that require discrete solutions, like how many coconuts each monkey gets in those math word problems; and not all physical systems have exact analog matches that we can build models of. There are certain problems in aerodynamics, for example, that we can't model with wind tunnels as well as we can model them with computers.
The trick then, in electronic design, and in ham radio, is to understand which parts of the problem we're clever enough to solve by analogy and which we're better off relying on numerical solutions for. The tradeoff engineers have to make, then, is between the limitations of analogy models (difficult to adapt to changing problems) and the limitation of numerical approximations of analog models (may be too commutationally expensive, may be too unstable to produce an accurate answer)
The fun part is that as our understanding of physical systems and their models changes, the tradeoffs between what should be done with an analog system and what should be done with a digital system change.
50 years ago, it would have made no sense to use a digital system to reproduce music, for example, since they were unreliable, too large, and too slow. Now digital reproduction of music is taken for granted.
We are now at an interesting time in radio design. Most antenna transmatching circuits are still analog, for example, while most current noise reduction circuits are digital -- with the exception of certain filters, where analog is still superior to digital.
These tradeoffs change all the time, but one can expect a mixed analog-digital amateur radio for some time into the future.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> In case you care, I had already searched on QRZ. Using "digital" and
> "CW" and/or "Morse" in various combinations, do you want to guess how
> many hits I get? YOU try it.
I tried "analog AND digital" and found it on the first try. Posted it
here.
> When I refer to something available on the web, I usually supply a
> link - especially when it seems to form the basis (or part) of one's
> argument.
If something is complex enough to not be quickly sumarized, that is
useful. However, if the argument can be stated accurately, there's no
reason to point to an expansion.
> This is so that others may see the full reference and see it in
> context. Just saying "it's on QRZ" is not very helpful.
More helpful than saying "google for it", and yet, "google for it" is
often the best answer to give..
> Besides, it's being on QRZ somehow gives it (or you) credibility?
No
>> But don't worry, I've outlined the logic (see, no quotes needed,)
>> in another post in this thread.
> Why do I get the feeling that you are saying, in essence, "Don't
> worry, I'm from the government and I'm here to help..."
I dunno why. I would hazard a guess that you're being deliberately
obtuse because you're miffed at my not being "helpful" enough.
> Here's one definition of digital I got from the web:
> "A description of data which is stored or transmitted as a sequence
> of discrete symbols from a finite set, most commonly this means
> binary data represented using electronic or electromagnetic
> signals"
That's an interesting definition. I guess, then, that the shorthand
used to describe bridge hands qualifies as "digital", since it is
"transmitted as a sequence of discrete symbols from a finite
set". Err, actually, anything written in almost *any* alphabet would
be "digital" by that definition.
The author of the above definition seems to have missed a fairly
important qualifier that distinguishes "digital" from other forms of
sequences.
> So, with this definition, Morse-encoded CW (now there's a term) fits
> the definition fairly well. It contains "a sequence of discrete
> symbols from a finite set."
So, by that definition, does sheet music.
> No, what it is NOT is "binary". Morse *is* "on/off" - there is no
> in-between. Perhaps you are wrongly assuming that "on/off" is the
> equivalent of "binary". What we have in Morse is much more complex
> than binary.
Morse is *not* on/off. If that were true, then you couldn't tell the
difference between O (on,off,on,off,on,off) and S
(on,off,on,off,on,off), nor could you tell the difference between the
end of a character and the end of a word.
> But all this is a red herring. Whether or not Morse code is binary,
> on/off or digital, has no bearing on its importance to the history and
> culture of ham radio which some seem to want to trash summarily.
Um, no, the "red herring" is all this dragging the history of Morse
code into a discussion which isn't about code, but rather, about
whether the FCC should *test* for Morse.
Unless, you believe that Morse Code's popularity is so fragile that it
would disappear if the FCC stops testing for it.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> alas, you say one thing and do another. how
>> ironic.
> So, are you calling me a hypocrite, dear Marty?
Nope. I'm describing your behavior as ironic. I'd have thought that was pretty clear from the sentence you quoted.
> Personal attack, could it be???????
Nope. But you certainly do seem to be looking for one
> but you, dear Sir, project an ivory tower know-it-
> all attitude that does not endear you to people on
> this forum.
I find that I have no problem at all endearing myself to people I find worthy of respect.
> Ya' need to make some friends here.
Why?
> I would put a label on your behavior, but I shant.
> Don't want to be accused of ad hominem myself.
No, of course not.
I was wrong, by the way. The word shouldn't have been "ironic", it should have been "droll."
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> CW can clearly be described as a digital modulation
> scheme. Carrier on=1, carrier off=0; conceptually no
> different than RTTY's mark and space.
Unless, of course, you want to use NRZ encoding...
> Morse, of course, is an encoding used over CW.
and other mediums as well, such as MCW.
> It consists of 5 symbols: dit, dah, intra-character
> space, inter-character space and inter-word space.
> Every character encoded in Morse is defined by a
> unique sequence of these symbols.
The roman alphabet consists of around 26 symbols. Every word encoded in the roman alphabet is define by a unique sequence of these symbols.
> In Morse-over-CW, the symbols are defined as a
> carrier state which has a given duration: 1-element
> on=dit, 1-element off=inter-character space,3-
> element on=dah, and so on.
Indeed.
> Yes, the symbol definition includes information
> derived from the time domain, but that is no
> disqualification for status as a digital encoding.
In other words, it's not "on/off", but rather, "short/long x on/off"
> Symbols may be represented by any means desired.
Indeed. I can, in fact, invent a representation of Morse code using the inter-letter spacing of text in a typeset document.
> I refer you to http://eagle.auc.ca/~dreid/ for an
> interesting example.
I prefer Jaquarde's loom, myself. (My apologies to Jacquarde, for failing to spell his name correctly.)
Maybe this will help: The roman alphabet is *not* digital. However, being finite, it *can* be represented by a one-to-one mapping with a digital encoding. ASCII and UNICODE are examples of such encodings. The alphabet is *not* digital. ASCII, which maps characters directly to numbers *is*. Morse code, which is also a mapping of the roman alphabet is not.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> No, actually, it's not. It's a hobby. Just like the
>> service provided by the FCC to R/C users is used in
>> a hobby.
> Perhaps you are not familiar with part 97
Familiar enough to know that there's nothing in it that makes it any more than a service provided by the FCC to amateur radio hobbiests.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It is certainly not poor logic or boorish to
> question the qualifications and experience of an
> individual who proposes sweeping changes to the
> practices and culture of the amateur radio
> community.
It is poor logic. The arguments stand or fail based on their merits, not the merits of the indivual presenting them.
> Until you have achieved at least a "data point's"
> worth of QSO's, and until you have demonstrated that
> you have actually operated on all the bands and
> modes you propose to bulldoze over, I certainly do
> not consider you qualified to devise bandplans and
> propose licensing changes.
Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the community, you're not the person who gets to judge who is, or isn't, qualified to make proposals to the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If A1 transmissions are not digital as you
> explained, how would you describe serial data?
I never claimed that A1 was not digital, only that Morse code is not. And I usually describe serial data by the name of its encoding.
> Please explain as I would prefer a mixed drink to
> a mixed metaphor.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Marty is strategic with his trolling. He calls it
> his right to free speech, and not trollIng.
I don't troll, and I don't believe that "free speech" applies to posting on someone else's web site -- nor, despite your claim above, have I ever claimed that it does.
> iF HE WOULD JUST ARROW QUOTE LESS. HAVE TOLERANCE TO
> OTHER OPINIONS, AND NOT ALWAYS HAVING TO HAVE THE
> LAST LAUGH, HE WOULD BE OK.
Damn. There goes another irony meter.
> Marty would you be open to "lightening up a bit"
Remind me. Aren't you the guy who wished that I'd get cancer and implied various other threats of violence? Somehow, I don't think you're the best person for suggesting that people "lighten up."
> Would you like to share exactly why you were thown
> off of QRZ.
No. Unless they've scrubbed the thread, it's there on QRZ for anyone who cares enough to find it.
> Did QRZ offer to take you back if you stopped doing
> something?
No.
> IF QRZ WOULD TAKE YOU BACK, HOW ABOUT SPLITTING THE
> MISERY BETWEN QRZ AND EHAM!
If I recall correctly, you're over 21. If you don't like what I post, don't read it.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> That previous post was to IP that it is most
> definitely a service and not just a hobby.
So are the Citizen Band Service, the Family Radio Service, the Radio Control Service, and the General Mobile Service.
The word "service" does not mean to the FCC what you imply it does.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Yes. Along comes an upstart who's only been a ham
> for little over a year, and he's going to tell us
> how ham radio should be. An Austrian upstart did the
> same thing with Germany in 1933.
Judges, I think we need a ruling here. Does this qualify for Goodwin's Law?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhh !!!! I was hoping that Eham had taken care of the >>>>>>>>>>>> issue....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP said "I find that I have no problem at all endearing myself to people I find worthy of respect."
You can't get much more ARROGANT than this folks....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NJ1K on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh sure sMarty can indeed... You'll learn soon enough....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> CW can clearly be described as a digital modulation
>> scheme. Carrier on=1, carrier off=0; conceptually
>> no different than RTTY's mark and space.
>
>Unless, of course, you want to use NRZ encoding...
Careful, careful... NRZ encoding introduces the time domain into the mix.
>>Yes, the symbol definition includes information
>>derived from the time domain, but that is no
>>disqualification for status as a digital encoding.
>
>In other words, it's not "on/off", but rather,
>"short/long x on/off"
I believe I stated that quite clearly. As I said, this is no disqualification; many digital modulation schemes rely on multi-dimensional representations of their symbol set. A modem may use a combination of phase and amplitude, for example. The serial protocol used on the ubiquitous RS-232 async serial ports on our computers defines a "break" as a long space condition.
>Indeed. I can, in fact, invent a representation of
>Morse code using the inter-letter spacing of text in
>a typeset document.
Sure you can. Hey, why not do something really silly and represent it as columns of holes punched in a paper card of tape? Oh, wait, that's been done...
>Maybe this will help: The roman alphabet is *not*
>digital.
OK. Nobody claimed it was, so far as I recall.
>However, being finite, it *can* be represented by a
>one-to-one mapping with a digital encoding. ASCII
>and UNICODE are examples of such encodings. The
>alphabet is *not* digital. ASCII, which maps
>characters directly to numbers *is*. Morse code,
>which is also a mapping of the roman alphabet is not.
I just knew at the root of all of this, you were going to trot out a semantic split hair. Your argument seems to boil down to the following two objections:
(a) Morse does not use simple binary (on/off) signalling;
and,
(b) Morse doesn't map characters to numeric values
As already demonstrated, many digital modulation schemes aren't simply binary. As for numerical mapping of the symbol set, this is a trivial objection. Any finite symbol set can obviously be represented by an equivalent set of numeric values. If I write:
A => 1
B => 2
C => 3
.
.
.
Z => 26
and so on, I have defined a Morse character-to-numeric value mapping which is just as valid as the ASCII code. By doing so, did I convert Morse into a digital code? If not, why not?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WA1M, it's useless to try and argue with sMarty, he will NEVER admit he is WRONG....even when he is wrong....which seems to be most of the time lately...
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KN6Z on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[(b) Morse doesn't map characters to numeric values ]
That is the issue, not the on/off business.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>[(b) Morse doesn't map characters to numeric values ]
>
>That is the issue, not the on/off business.
I would argue it's not. AE6IP's insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, the distinction between a digital and an analog system is that digital systems deal with discrete values, and analog systems deal with continuous values. There is no requirement that digital systems must treat those discrete symbols (or digits) as numerical values, although the ability to do so is very handy.
Even if we accept the idea that a digital system must only process symbols which represent numerical values, this is no argument against Morse as digital code, as it is a simple matter to construct a suitable symbol <=> value map. Under this argument, if such a map can exist for Morse, then Morsecan be considered a digital code.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One question: Is there realy anyone here who bothered to read all of Martins ramblings?
I think not.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WAITER, CHECK PLEASE! Oh, your head chief puts too much<<<< ARROW ROOT>>>> in the sauce! You may also want to check the lobster bisque! Strange salty/uraic acid taste to it!(yes, I stole thAt from the movie FIGHT CLUB)
I am hitting the ejecter seat after this post!
BTW.......this thread was supposed to be about what the FCC should test for, EH!
Why it turned into YET ANOTHER MARTIES DEBATE CLUB, IS BEYOND ME!
73 TO ALL MIKE
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NJ1K on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1M,
You be the man.. I was just about to say what you did but you beat me to it... Of course sMarty will ALWAYS disagree but would you expect anything different??
Discrete components is what makes the difference... And it was definetely a digital reason why he got kicked off of QRZ....
Imagine that.....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>WAITER, CHECK PLEASE! Oh, your head chief puts too
>much<<<< ARROW ROOT>>>> in the sauce!
It's pretty clear this quoting style seems to bother some people, but I'm mystified as to why that should be. It is, after all, the most common and accepted quoting style used in email, newsgroups and other online fora. (see http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html)
Can somebody explain to me the antipathy this style of quoting generates?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by NI0C on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quoting AE6IP's response to me: "Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the community, you're not the person who gets to judge who is, or isn't, qualified to make proposals to the FCC."
I, as well as many other experienced hams, are certainly in a position to judge your qualifications to make proposals to the FCC concerning ham radio. By the way, it is not (as you suggest) "poor logic" for us to exercise our common sense in this way. The fact that you have the right as a citizen to make such proposals does not imply that you are qualified to do so. You simply are not. Alas, you seem not to have the good sense to recognize it.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by G7HEU on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<< Can somebody explain to me the antipathy this style of quoting generates? >>>>
Yes, I can. It's been 'done to death' by an individual who 'gets off' on starting arguments on forums. He uses the ' < ' and the ' > ' as part of his attempt to irritate other people.
He's happy and proud of himself for his actions.
Sometimes he appears to be satisfied when he thinks he has won an argument. Another time he will allude to being above the people he is arguing with. So, even in ~~~some text deleted~~~ head there must be a conflict somewhere.
I suggest you ask Napoleon how many posts he has made to the Elmers forum on this site. I don't think he's got much to add to amateur radio or he would direct his energies there.
I'm sick of seeing his crap on Eham. I guess the joke's on people like me though for rising to his nonsense.
Check out his claim to fame about being banned from QRZ here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/venividi/
Steve
M0HEU / G7HEU.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"alas, you say one thing and do another. how
ironic."
"So, are you calling me a hypocrite, dear Marty?
"Nope. I'm describing your behavior as ironic. I'd have thought that was pretty clear from the sentence you quoted."
-Major backtracking here.
"Personal attack, could it be???????"
"Nope. But you certainly do seem to be looking for one"
-Again, major backtracking.
"but you, dear Sir, project an ivory tower know-it-
all attitude that does not endear you to people on
this forum. "
"I find that I have no problem at all endearing myself to people I find worthy of respect."
-From your multitude of postings here, you respect no one but your own "sage counsel".
"Ya' need to make some friends here."
"Why?"
-Exactly my point. You're behavior is inherently anti-social and a detriment to this ham community. Notice I didn't label the person, just the behavior.
"I was wrong, by the way."
-The second coming is at hand. Prepare thyself, sinner.
-This is the first step in the long recovery process.
"The word shouldn't have been "ironic", it should have been "droll."
-Again, major backtracking after being "outed".
And for my many friends on this web site, notice not ONE, NOT ONE, arrow quote.
P
|
| |
|
and now for something completly different(MONTY PY
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
marty, your a smart guy. OK. You do not have to prove it.
How about doing a rig review, or something else. Broaden your writting edevors.
Since this thread has covered everything from the anti reciprocal of pickled herring to how dehydration systheseis when two amino acides form a peptid bond!
I think I can stray from the subject!
You seem to be a fellow guitar player too.
What kind of prices have you seen pre-CBS(1964 or lower stratocasters going for.
this is not a trick. I just want one for my collection. I have been told I will never get one for under $4000!
I also have a 1960's vinage bigg muff fuzz box. Jimi
Hendrix used that one. Electroharmonics is reintroducing the big muff. However they are now using shcotkey diodes instead of the original germsiniums.
I am going to mod mine. It should sound like real tube fuzz.
Maybe we can reverse the negitive vibes by finding common ground.
You do not have to prove how smart you are. Hey, when you were geting your BSEE did you not hate the profs that were condesending!
A perfectly god answer is.....I do not know, I will get back to you.
The price quote on the strat. would be a solid!
SORRY TO ALL OTHER HAMS THAT HAD TO READ THIS. I JUST CANNOT STAND CONSTANT WASTE OF TIME ON BICKERING!
Actualy maybe a thread on all our other hobbies might unify us, instead of bickering. We are people first, hams second. It would be nice to know about what
we do for fun besides ham radio.
TNX DE MIKE
Old zen saying always keep the tea cup half empty, so more tea can be poured in.
A saying of mine...Anybody who thinks they have all the answers, all the time, for all people IS INSANE!
73 mike
|
| |
|
RE: and now for something completly different(MONT
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Mike, I'm a guitar player too.... I have a Taylor acoustic guitar (800 series)...have you checked the prices on those lately ??? Big ouch to my wallet !!! Can't help you much on the Strat though..would like to own one someday....
Since we have talked about just about everything in this thread, I think guitars would be a much better subject than anything else that Marty has to argue about...and much more fun to discuss too....
73
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KN6Z on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[>> CW can clearly be described as a digital modulation
>> scheme. Carrier on=1, carrier off=0; ]
Help me out here. It is the amplitude-discrete part of CW that we can call digital. Si? There are only two amplitude states, off and on, so we cannot map to the whole alphabet. We CAN map to the presence or non presence of a particular power of 2 in a place holder in a binary number. There are unlimited binary numbers for mapping to the alphabet, light levels in a pixel, or whatever you want. That is what is usually done. Binary code CAN be sent strictly by modulating CW (no time information required), but not Morse code.
Morse relies on time discrete dits and dahs. That Morse is not digital is consistent with the following, from "Linear Systems and Signals," by B.P. Lathi:
"The terms 'continuous-time' and 'discrete-time' qualify the nature of a signal along the time axis (horizontal axis). The terms 'analog' and 'digital,' on the other hand, qualify the nature of the signal amplitude (vertical axis)."
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM IS SAFETY YOUR LIFE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE SO SAFETY SHOULD BE THE MAJOR TEST SUBJECT MATTER TESTED ON.then followed by FCC rules and regulations. and then related theory. the life you save may be your OWN. i believe safety should be PRIORITY # 1. AS THERE ARE A LOT DANGERS INVOLVED IN OUR HOBBY. so that is just my 2 pence worth. TOM N2NZJ 73
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KN6Z:
> It is the amplitude-discrete part of CW that we can
> call digital. Si?
Yes, we can call that part alone digital, but that part alone won't describe Morse. As we can all agree, Morse consists of not only on/off states, but also the relative duration of those states.
> There are only two amplitude states, off and on, so we
> cannot map to the whole alphabet. We CAN map to the
> presence or non presence of a particular power of 2
> in a place holder in a binary number. [...] Binary
> code CAN be sent strictly by modulating CW (no time
> information required), but not Morse code.
Remember that digital does not mean binary. We are accustomed to equating the two, because modern digital electronic design has standardized on binary logic, and for very good and practical reasons. Digital circuits can be built for any convenient base. ENIAC, arguably the first digital computer, used base-10 circuitry.
Also bear in mind that digital systems need not be electronic systems. A old-fashioned adding machine or a Curta calculator is a digital device, albeit mechanically implemented, using cams and levers and gears to represent the digital states of the machine.
In the abstract, we can define symbols in any way we wish. In modern digital circuits, we define a low voltage as a 0, and a high voltage as a 1, but this is just a consequence of what is convenient with technology in use. We could just as easily define base-7 system in which each value is represented by a musical note. In the same vein, there are no rules requiring our symbols to be defined by a single attribute. QAM relies on the combination of phase and amplitude; why can't Morse use amplitude and duration?
> Morse relies on time discrete dits and dahs. That
> Morse is not digital is consistent with the
> following, from "Linear Systems and Signals,"
> by B.P. Lathi: [...]
Lahti is discussing modern digital electronic design principles, and he's perfectly correct in that context. But modern digital electronic design does not encompass the entire digital domain.
Let's keep in mind that Morse was invented in 1838 or so, long before radio and long before electronics. We shouldn't expect its implementation to resemble a modern digital system.
Morse certainly doesn't look like any digital modulation scheme that a modern designer would create using a microprocessor or TTL logic, to be sure, but it still meets the generic definition of a digital code.
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Radioman!
I have cut my collection down to 9 guitars.
I do have a 1970's vintage strat. White finish. I sometimes feel like stringing it like Hendrex. High f reversed with low.
When I ask my pro guitar friends, how come nowbody can come close to hendrix? They all shake their head, and go hey man we cant even go there!
I do not like this strat. I have an ESP strat copy, the action and sustain is much better. It also has a Humbucker in it! Also the treble single coil is at a 45 degree angle. The total opposite of a strat.
ESP strats run about $800. They put fender to shame.
The neck is thinner too. Got mine as a gift.
The strangest guitar is a casio MIDI strat. Also has a humbucker in it ans a 5 way switch. You plug in these cards. The guitar will sound like ant musical instrument from drums to a pipe organ. There is a special pick up to determain how much you bent the string.
So if your playing a pipe organ solo the pitch will change with how much you bent the string!
Also have a Fender lead one. The series was discontinued. They tried to make a strat with humbuckers in it! There was a coil tap switch for single coil sound.
Gotta fix the big muff, I am going to put in the shcottkey diodes for clipping. The .15 foward bias is an electroharmonics mod. They are still in business.
Live 6 blocks away from ELECRTIC LADY LAND RECORDING STUDIO. Hendrix had a major problem when the studio was designed. A major subway station induced ultra low frequency sounds. COST A FORTUNE TO SOUND PROOF!
73 mike
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on March 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Mike, I've seen the ESP Strat, I'm sure that is fun to play...I bought an electric guitar awhile back made by Hohner...it's not a pro instrument, but it has 2 humbuckers on it that sound great...it's a copy of the Gibson 335 hollow body...I can remember seeing Chuck Berry playing a hollow body electric when I was much younger...and I've always liked the more mellow sound of a hollow body guitar... I currently own 2 acoustic guitars, and 1 electric...don't think the wife will let me buy anymore for awhile...you know, this guitar hobby can cost more than ham radio....and it is just as addictive....
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by KN6Z on March 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[Remember that digital does not mean binary]
Yes, I made that point earlier in the thread.
[why can't Morse use amplitude and duration?]
It does, that's why it isn't consistent with Lahti's definition of digital.
[it still meets the generic definition of a digital code. ]
If so, that's fine with me, but what is that "generic" definition? Reference?
So it seems the central issue is whether a digital code can use time information. I guess we can just keep broadening the definition until we are just one big happy family.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KN6Z:
> So it seems the central issue is whether a digital
> code can use time information.
Sure -- pulse duration modulation, or pulse width modulation if you prefer, is a very common example of a digital modulation scheme using time information. Combine that with amplitude modulation, and you've got Morse over CW.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This thread isn't dead. It is just resting!
You know, pining for the Fjords!
My apologies to all of the Dead Parrots out there!
Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Unless, of course, you want to use NRZ encoding...
> Careful, careful... NRZ encoding introduces the time domain into the
> mix.
Any serial streaming mode introduces the time domain into the mix.
> (b) Morse doesn't map characters to numeric values
> As already demonstrated, many digital modulation schemes aren't simply
> binary.
You are confusing an encoding scheme specific to a medium with the
information content being imposed through the encoding scheme. It's
not "semantic hairsplitting", it's a fairly important aspect of
communications, cf, the ISO 7 layer model
> and so on, I have defined a Morse character-to-numeric value mapping
> which is just as valid as the ASCII code. By doing so, did I convert
> Morse into a digital code? If not, why not?
Yes, you have *encoded* Morse into a *representation* in digital form.
In much the same way that an ADC *encodes* sound into a
*representation* in digital form. Is sound now digital, just because
there is a digital representation of it? Is ASCII the same as the
roman alphabet, or is it a digital representation of it? Is MP3 the
same as sound, or is it an digital represenation of it?
Morse code, as designed by Samuel FB Morse is *not* digital. It is
auditory, although that was a side effect of the original
implementation, and it consists of a symbol set (long/short
sound/silence) that itself isn't digital.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> AE6IP's insistence to the contrary notwithstanding,
> the distinction between a digital and an analog
> system is that digital systems deal with discrete
> values, and analog systems deal with continuous
> values.
That's the most common misunderstanding, but no, that's not the difference. Actually, as anyone who has ever done computational fluid dynamics will tell you, digital systems are just a special case form of analog systems.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I, as well as many other experienced hams, are
> certainly in a position to judge your qualifications
> to make proposals to the FCC concerning ham radio.
Actually, you're not. You know nothing of my qualifications in this area.
> By the way, it is not (as you suggest) "poor logic"
> for us to exercise our common sense in this way.
You're conflating two issues, and wrong on both. It is poor logic to argue that a person's "qualifications" are relevant to judging the arguments they make It's such a common logical error that it even has a fancy latin name.
On the other hand, you are very wrong to assume that the qualifications for setting a matter about the ARS before the FCC are predominately time of amateur license possession.
> The fact that you have the right as a citizen to
> make such proposals does not imply that you are
> qualified to do so.
Well, as I said, you don't get to be the judge of that. You have an opinion, of course, and one that's based on a very poor judgement.
> You simply are not. Alas, you seem not to have the
> good sense to recognize it.
You can repeat that assertion as often as you like, but you have yet to provide any evidence in support of it.
Your argument has the same flaw as the argument that one can not be qualified to treat heart patients unless one has suffered from the same disease.
Sometimes, the best view *is* the one from outside.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> And for my many friends on this web site, notice not
> ONE, NOT ONE, arrow quote.
Now there's a statement that speaks volumes about the author; especially in the context of his professed admiration for tradition.
You know what d00d? you *really* need to look up the difference between "ironic" and "hypocritical".
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I'm sick of seeing his crap on Eham. I guess the
> joke's on people like me though for rising to his
> nonsense.
Wow. That's got to be the shortest period between one of your claims you wouldn't respond to me and one of your responses. ;)
So, how much time did you spend surfing the web looking for stuff by or about me?
|
| |
|
RE: and now for something completly different(MONT
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You seem to be a fellow guitar player too.
> What kind of prices have you seen pre-CBS(1964 or
> lower stratocasters going for.
Haven't looked recently. Last time I bought one I got it for around $1500, but that was 10 years ago.
> this is not a trick. I just want one for my
> collection. I have been told I will never get one
> for under $4000!
This doesn't surprise me at all. 3000-5000 seems to be the price range for 'vintage but available' guitars like the pre-CBS strats.
The last guitar I seriously considered buying was $16,000, but I'm not playing steel string accoustic enough to justify it. (The bi-annual Healdsberg Luthier show is a most excellent place to check out the best of North American accoustic guitar making.)
> Maybe we can reverse the negitive vibes by finding
> common ground.
I doubt it. Sooner or later I'm going to say something you disagree with; you're going to become offensive; and I'll be subjected to another torrent of incoherent abuse.
> You do not have to prove how smart you are.
I haven't tried.
> Hey, when you were geting your BSEE did you not hate
> the profs that were condesending!
Don't have a BSEE.
Doesn't bother me when people are being condescending; any more than when they're being offensive. It's their loss.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For the pleasure of my fan club, I hereby concede that, given the most common usage of "digital" in the online amateur radio community, Morse code qualifies as a digital encoding.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You are confusing an encoding scheme specific to a
> medium with the information content being imposed
> through the encoding scheme. It's not "semantic
> hairsplitting", it's a fairly important aspect of
> communications, cf, the ISO 7 layer model
Non-sequiter. The ISO OSI is a handy framework for designing modern networks and protocols, but it is hardly the only model possible. Conformance or non-conformance with OSI has no bearing on whether a system, encoding, modulation or protocol can be considered digital.
> Morse code, as designed by Samuel FB Morse is
> *not* digital. It is auditory, although that was
> a side effect of the original implementation
Explain why "auditory" should exclude Morse from qualification as a digital scheme. My modem translates data into audio form; is this not a digital modulation?
> and it consists of a symbol set (long/short
> sound/silence) that itself isn't digital.
Which part (long/short or sound/silence) isn't digital? You have already granted that sound/silence (on/off) is a digital modulation; PWM uses long/short. Or is your objection based on the combination of multiple signal attributes? In that case, our computer modem's QAM poses a problem.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> For the pleasure of my fan club, I hereby concede that,
> given the most common usage of "digital" in the online
> amateur radio community, Morse code qualifies as a
> digital encoding.
Considering that the ARRL Handbook and the VEC Question Pool Committee classify Morse as a digital mode, that concession might have come a bit earlier.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Now there's a statement that speaks volumes about the author; especially in the context of his professed admiration for tradition."
Yes, the author actually has friends on this site. The responder, in all likelihood, has nothing but a few weak-minded lap dogs at his disposal. Volumes, nah, maybe a few sentences at most. You assume too much. You get out of touch with the groundlings from that perch up there in the high Himalayas.
"You know what d00d? you *really* need to look up the difference between "ironic" and "hypocritical"."
No thank you. I have better things to do than to head to the OED....OMIGOSH!!!! SARCASM AGAIN!!! WHAT WILL WE DO???
To get a measure of the general mood around these digs, you don't find people writing things like the following about me...Let me quote KG6ZZZ in the Anonymous Posters article:
"Go to any thread, which AE6IP has posted and you will soon find out that a callsign doesn’t mean anything when it comes to making decent and sensible posts. On the other hand some anonymous posters behave quite well and contribute to this site."
Wow, that's a powerful bit of verbiage in only two sentences. I wager you'll find a greater than 90% percentage of those in this small ham community that agree with ZZZ's simple but elegant statement.
Anyway, this article has run its course like a bad case of the clap. Time to write DED #10 for this site. Next up is DeForest, set to splash here any day now.
Checkmate.
P
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SO WHAT SHOULD THE FCC TEST FOR.
IMHO
1)WHAT IS THE HAM RADIO SERVICE FOR.......The original 1934 draft manifesto is good! IMHO
2)RF and HV safety. Laser saftey in 10 years(optional)
3)Proper HF and VHF protocol.
4)the types of QSO's and mode proceedure's
5)Bands and modes for your class of ticket.
6)Rules and regs for your class of ticket
7)Basic-advanced eletronics
a)basic for NO code novice and no code tech.
8)Advanced for general. IT WOULD BE FREFERABLE IF THE SAID ELECTRONICS IS LEARNED. IF LEARNED AN ADDITIONAL TEST. IF PACTICAL TEST IS TRULEY PASSED BY COMPREHENSION....NEW PRIV'S- ADVANCED CLASS TICKET
LEARNED BY CRAMMING-GENERAL TICKET. OR PASS 10WPM CW
EXTRA-LATEST HAM RADIO TECHNOLOGY TEST, AND PASS 13WPM
ALL 5WPM EXTRA'S WILL BE GRANDFATHERED.
REACE AND 73 DE MIKE
|
| |
|
What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on March 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
iN RECOGNITION OF EHAM REVAMPING......SEE ARTICLES FROM EHAM STAFF, I HAVE ALSO DECIDED TO RENEW FOR A FEW MORE YEARS.
MAYBE THIS IS WHAT THE FCC SHOULD TEST FOR..... TOLERENCE! 73 AND STARTING A-NEW MIKE WA2JJH
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> You are confusing an encoding scheme specific to a
>> medium with the information content being imposed
>> through the encoding scheme. It's not "semantic
>> hairsplitting", it's a fairly important aspect of
>> communications, cf, the ISO 7 layer model
> Non-sequiter.
Not really, no.
> The ISO OSI is a handy framework for designing modern
> networks and protocols, but it is hardly the only model
possible.
That's right. But it *does* highlight the fact that it is not
'hairsplitting' to separate a code from a method of imposing that code
on a media.
> Conformance or non-conformance with OSI has no bearing on whether a
> system, encoding, modulation or protocol can be considered digital.
That wasn't the point of the comment.
> Morse code, as designed by Samuel FB Morse is *not* digital. It is
> auditory, although that was a side effect of the original
> implementation
> Explain why "auditory" should exclude Morse from qualification as a
> digital scheme. My modem translates data into audio form; is this not
> a digital modulation?
Sorry, should have been two separate paragraphs. Didn't mean to imply
that being auditory was related to whether it was digital or not, only
that the code itself is an auditory code, and should be distinguished
from the way of imposing it on various media.
> and it consists of a symbol set (long/short sound/silence) that
> itself isn't digital.
> Which part (long/short or sound/silence) isn't digital?
Every part. If I play the cello line from the introduction to the
Morse TV show, is what I'm playing 'digital'? And yet, that cello
line contains the Morse code for "MORSE".
> You have already granted that sound/silence (on/off) is a digital
> modulation; PWM uses long/short. Or is your objection based on the
> combination of multiple signal attributes? In that case, our
> computer modem's QAM poses a problem.
<sigh> Let's try this over from scratch.
Is the roman alphabet digital? No.
Can it be mapped onto a digital encoding? Yes, of which ASCII
and Unicode are examples.
Notice that the same number in ASCII doesn't necessarily represent the
same character of the roman alphabet as it does in Unicode. ASCII and
Unicode are digital encodings of the roman alphabet, but neither of
them *are* the roman alphabet. (The map is not the terrain.)
Now consider Morse code. It's auditory in nature. It's composed of
tones of certain durations, and silences of other durations. I can,
in fact, encode it in music, as Baylis did in the music for the Morse
TV series. (He even encoded clues to the mystery in the incidental
music of some episodes, most notably the one involving Mozart's "The
Magic Flute.") Does being encoded in a cello part make Morse code music?
Does being able to then sample that cello part with an adc and store
it as an mp3 stream make music digital?
digital does *not* mean 'drawn from a small set of symbols.' it
*does* mean 'represented numerically'. (Technically, it doesn't even
mean that the representation is limited to rational numbers, but
that's a whole other discussion.) Morse code is no more digital
than a Bach fugue is. (although Morse is a whole lot easier for me to
play on my guitar than Bach; especially the Lute Suites.)
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Yes, the author actually has friends on this site. The responder, in
> all likelihood, has nothing but a few weak-minded lap dogs at his
> disposal. Volumes, nah, maybe a few sentences at most. You assume too
> much. You get out of touch with the groundlings from that perch up
> there in the high Himalayas.
Um, didn't you get the memo? Life as a popularity contest ends when
you graduate from high school. You did graduate, I assume.
> To get a measure of the general mood around these digs, you don't find
> people writing things like the following about me.
Oh? Guess you're being selective in what you read. Not at all
surprising.
> Wow, that's a powerful bit of verbiage in only two sentences.
Actually, as put-downs go, it's far beneath the standard for the net.
I suggest a few weeks reading alt.flames or alt.religion.kibology as a
first step towards developing skills in that area.
> I wager you'll find a greater than 90% percentage of those in this
> small ham community that agree with ZZZ's simple but elegant
> statement.
and the reason you think this matters? Oh. Wait. I know. You're
going to mention your email support, next, aren't you?
> Anyway, this article has run its course like a bad case of the
> clap. Time to write DED #10 for this site. Next up is DeForest, set to
> splash here any day now.
I'll have to take your word for that. Unlike yourself, I've no
experience with STDs.
d00d, guess what? I concede the popularity contest. You may now sit
at the cool table, with the rest of the permanent 6th graders.
It really bothers you that you didn't know the actual definition of
Ohm's law and someone had the chutzpah to point that out, doesn't it?
If it makes you feel better, I'm sorry I didn't know your ego was so
fragile when I made that remark; if I had known, I would have treated
you with the kid gloves such egos require.
I will give you credit for better control than your buddy though. It
did take you much longer to become unstrung. Don't know if that's
good for you though. I hear holding onto grudges shortens people's
lifes.
Looking forward to DeForest -- where better to hand a dipole than
among DeTrees?
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by AE6IP on March 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Considering that the ARRL Handbook and the VEC
> Question Pool Committee classify Morse as a digital
> mode, that concession might have come a bit earlier.
What? and deny our DED buddy his opportunity to foam at the mouth? Nah, him and his pals were having too much fun.
Anway, the last time I checked, the ARRL didn't qualify as expert on what is and isn't digital. Hell, they can't even keep their nomenclature straight between a code and a mode.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on March 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No, my ego isn't fragile. However,
Your grip on reality is. I didn't even bother to read your entire rant, and it is a RANT, by the way. Mr. Hawes, G7HEU, alerted me that you had gone off the deep end, AGAIN.
Seems Mr. Hawes, a decent English chap, by the way, had run-ins with you on QRZ, in which you lost the war and were subsequently barred from that forum forever.
Anyway, I know you must always have the last word, so I expect you will pick this post apart and try to again refute all that I say and edit my use of the language and somehow try to prove to those who no longer care that you are always right.
And they don't care. Take a poll. You'll lose big time.
Notice my lack of ad hominem again, as I am not criticising you, just your behavior.
This is my last post on this thread. Please don't bother issuing any comments on any forthcoming articles as I will request they be removed by the webmaster, as you seek to merely sow discord and somehow feed the ego monster that is ruling your behavior.
Again, checkmate.
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC Should Test For
|
|
|
by WA1M on March 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6IP:
I think I will retire from this argument, since it's pretty clearly going nowhere.
|
| |
|
RE: What the Marty Thread Does Test For
|
|
|
by K4JSR on March 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well just gosh, folks. Here we are again! I tried
to tell everyone that debating Marty was like going
on your honeymoon and staying in a perpetual state of
of foreplay! Marty is the master at foreplay.
Why else would he say something like,
"I'll have to take your word for that. Unlike yourself, I've no experience with STDs."
You cannot get STDs from foreplay!
Insanity is not an STD, except for teenagers! :-)
A song in honor of this thread:
Troll, troll, troll yourself
gingerly through this thread...
Surly, Surly, Surly, Surly,
Debating Marty is quite a dread! :-@
Thank you! Thank you very much! This one has left the building also!
|
| |
|
RE: What the FCC should test for
|
|
|
by W6AJ on May 30, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Most people could learn the code well enough to pass the current tests in little more time than they spend arguing against the requirement.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
'Know-Code' Opinion
A Morse Exam Compromise
FCC Approves Low Power FM Radio Service
Restructuring Petitions Go Public
Hams Subject of RF Exposure Study
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
