What are we coming to? Dumbing down??

[k0pvw]

OK, **Rant Mode On** I just bought a new radio today, the first new radio since 2000, and as I am being a good ham and reading the instructions on how to program this radio, I find a second book, titled "Glossary of Radio Terms", I find this very disturbing as to what all it describes, I thought we had to learn what FM and SSB were before we got our license! Why do these get included in the box, to me it was a waste of paper and someones time to make these. If you have to put this kind of info in a box with your basic 2M radio, maybe its time to look at how we are issuing licenses. The only things it was missing were the Q-signals and 10 codes! Oh well I guess we have to look at the fact that some are get something for almost no study at all now and have to be reminded of what they should already know before they take a test. **Rant Mode Off**

Just my 2 cents worth. Rob

[n9dsj]

Actually kudos to the maker of your radio for including, ""Glossary of Radio Terms". Educational material is always welcome and oft needed...do not blame the manufacturer for the present state of affairs. It is not a waste of paper if people do not understand the difference between FM and SSB emissions. Hopefully some will learn from it...

73,

Bill N9DSJ

OK, **Rant Mode On** I just bought a new radio today, the first new radio since 2000, and as I am being a good ham and reading the instructions on how to program this radio, I find a second book, titled "Glossary of Radio Terms", I find this very disturbing as to what all it describes, I thought we had to learn what FM and SSB were before we got our license! Why do these get included in the box, to me it was a waste of paper and someones time to make these. If you have to put this kind of info in a box with your basic 2M radio, maybe its time to look at how we are issuing licenses. The only things it was missing were the Q-signals and 10 codes! Oh well I guess we have to look at the fact that some are get something for almost no study at all now and have to be reminded of what they should already know before they take a test. **Rant Mode Off**

Just my 2 cents worth. Rob

[W4INF]

On CW, we use Q codes quite a bit.

[wa9cwx]

Just the fact that it was written with correct grammar may have been a challenge for some.

Frank

[KC6ZLV]

Don't forget, there are a few shortwave and scanner enthusiasts that buy amateur radio transceivers because they have better receivers than most of shortwave receivers and Uniden-based scanners. Since the transceivers have more than AM or FM, SSB may turn out to be something new to these people, and a handy reference gives them the basic information they need to use the radio.

[KI4RVH]

OK, **Rant Mode On** I just bought a new radio today, the first new radio since 2000, and as I am being a good ham and reading the instructions on how to program this radio, I find a second book, titled "Glossary of Radio Terms", I find this very disturbing as to what all it describes, I thought we had to learn what FM and SSB were before we got our license! Why do these get included in the box, to me it was a waste of paper and someones time to make these. If you have to put this kind of info in a box with your basic 2M radio, maybe its time to look at how we are issuing licenses. The only things it was missing were the Q-signals and 10 codes! Oh well I guess we have to look at the fact that some are get something for almost no study at all now and have to be reminded of what they should already know before they take a test. **Rant Mode Off**

Just my 2 cents worth. Rob

I got one with an ICOM V-8000 I bought. I gave it to my wife who used it as a study aid to get her tech license. Give it to someone interested in getting a license. Its a good reference for a noobie. Q codes are used all over the bands. I don't get your comment on that at all.

73,

Chris

[KI4RVH]

Just the fact that it was written with correct grammar may have been a challenge for some.

Frank

Thats a possibility. My Father-In-Law only had an eighth grade education. He served in WWII in the Navy and worked on the electrical systems in planes including the Corsair . He was 82 when he died. He was an avid SWL and knew a lot about radio. He built a couple of his own receivers. He built lots of other electronics projects as well. This guy could have passed a ham test easy. He didn't use good grammar. He didn't spell great either. Just something for you to think about.

73

Chris

[wc5b]

OK, **Rant Mode On** I just bought a new radio today, the first new radio since 2000, and as I am being a good ham and reading the instructions on how to program this radio, I find a second book, titled "Glossary of Radio Terms", I find this very disturbing as to what all it describes, I thought we had to learn what FM and SSB were before we got our license! Why do these get included in the box, to me it was a waste of paper and someones time to make these. If you have to put this kind of info in a box with your basic 2M radio, maybe its time to look at how we are issuing licenses. The only things it was missing were the Q-signals and 10 codes! Oh well I guess we have to look at the fact that some are get something for almost no study at all now and have to be reminded of what they should already know before they take a test. **Rant Mode Off**

Just my 2 cents worth. Rob

Not that I think it would bother most people, but I had to laugh. I see your point.

[W1RFI]

I thought we had to learn what FM and SSB were before we got our license!

There were no questions on FM or SSB in the 1963 Novice exam, and we did have voice privileges on 2 meters.

Oh well I guess we have to look at the fact that some are get something for almost no study at all now

My word, new hams are studying about 80 printed pages of question pools. There are more correct answers to learn in the pool than there were sentences in the 1963 Novice study guide material. New hams are learning things about electromagnetic fields that we old timers never would have dreamed most.

Most old time hams can't answer a simple question about electromagnetics: In the far field of an antenna connected to a transmitter, if the field strength at 100 meters distance is 16 volts/meter, what will the field strength be at 200 meters distance.

One can argue the position that learning the correct answers to a few hundred questions is not teaching concepts, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a lot more work to get into ham radio today than it was for me. I studied the 3-1/2 pages of Novice material for days before taking my test. I studied the 16 pages of General class study guide to get a license that gave me all Amateur operating privileges in 1964.

But they were 16 quality pages, right, so that justifies the attitude of some hams today that hordes of undeserving are getting their licenses by the "no work" method of studying a couple of hundred pages of material?

Ed, W1RFI

[k0cmh]

Here we go again.

I am going to petition the FCC to refund the license fee, plus interest, for those that took their exams during "the hard days".

[KI4NGN]

There were no questions on FM or SSB in the 1963 Novice exam, and we did have voice privileges on 2 meters.



My word, new hams are studying about 80 printed pages of question pools. There are more correct answers to learn in the pool than there were sentences in the 1963 Novice study guide material. New hams are learning things about electromagnetic fields that we old timers never would have dreamed most.

Most old time hams can't answer a simple question about electromagnetics: In the far field of an antenna connected to a transmitter, if the field strength at 100 meters distance is 16 volts/meter, what will the field strength be at 200 meters distance.

One can argue the position that learning the correct answers to a few hundred questions is not teaching concepts, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a lot more work to get into ham radio today than it was for me. I studied the 3-1/2 pages of Novice material for days before taking my test. I studied the 16 pages of General class study guide to get a license that gave me all Amateur operating privileges in 1964.

But they were 16 quality pages, right, so that justifies the attitude of some hams today that hordes of undeserving are getting their licenses by the "no work" method of studying a couple of hundred pages of material?

Ed, W1RFI
Ed, your mixing quality with quantity. Given the published question pools, there are without a doubt people who memorize the question and answer text without learning anything. They are not sudying a hundred pages of material; they're memorizing a subset of the text contained in those hundred pages of material.

I understand why they must be published (accountability), but don't understand why the VECs don't increase the size of the pools, making it increasingly difficult to memorize text as the number of questions increase. I wrote to a VEC and asked this very question, and never received a reply.

The memorization of question text and associating it with memorized answer text is not learning anything. I will grant and have said that at least memorizing question and answer text is exposing the candidate to the material, that cumulatively it may actually provide some very rudimentary education, but for most they just memorize words with no comprehension.

You had to comprehend what you studied in that 16 pages, and that is very different from today.

Mike

[W3MIV]

Just my 2 cents worth. Rob

In my opinion, you're due some change.

[N8UZE]

I understand why they must be published (accountability), but don't understand why the VECs don't increase the size of the pools, making it increasingly difficult to memorize text as the number of questions increase. I wrote to a VEC and asked this very question, and never received a reply.

How large do you think the question pools should be?

The Tech pool is over 400 questions of which 35 will be on the test.
The General pool is over 400 questions of which 35 will be on the test.
The Extra pool is over 800 questions of which 50 will be on the test.

[K8ERV]

Here we go again.

I am going to petition the FCC to refund the license fee, plus interest, for those that took their exams during "the hard days".


I think you should go all he way and start a class-action suit. They seem to be in vogue these days. Maybe I will be included. Big bux.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[K8YZK]

Another "Much ADO about Nothing" rant.

So when you buy a new car/motorcycle do you know everything about it and just throw away the manual? I think it is a good idea, because there are new people into the hobby that hasn't learned everything about it, I know I haven't and I have been licensed for 40+yrs.

Look at QST they do the same thing in every issue.

Kurt
K8YZK

[AC0H]

There were no questions on FM or SSB in the 1963 Novice exam, and we did have voice privileges on 2 meters.

My word, new hams are studying about 80 printed pages of question pools. There are more correct answers to learn in the pool than there were sentences in the 1963 Novice study guide material. New hams are learning things about electromagnetic fields that we old timers never would have dreamed most.

Ed, W1RFI

That's just a little too generous.
They aren't learning diddely squat.
They are camping on "test prep" sites and QRZ taking and retaking practice exams until they score 90% or better (pure memorization using repetition) then taking the test.

How can I tell?
In VE sessions I've proctored I invariably would get complaints from the testee's that the questions weren't in the "approved" order (who's approval I never could get) and that it was "unfair". The howling went up 10dB if they failed.

It was a mistake of biblical proportion ever publishing the question pools. The Amateur Radio testing regime doesn't instill the same confidence in a candidates knowlege base that an open book test does.

It's OK though, we're selling lots of "study guides".

[ky5u]

My word, new hams are studying about 80 printed pages of question pools. There are more correct answers to learn in the pool than there were sentences in the 1963 Novice study guide material. New hams are learning things about electromagnetic fields that we old timers never would have dreamed...

Ed, W1RFI
Yep and if you ask them about the electromagnetic field around a transformer and what the current flows are called, they'd answer "C".

[kb9rqz]

Here we go again.

I am going to petition the FCC to refund the license fee, plus interest, for those that took their exams during "the hard days".


what license fee or is that the joke?

[K8YZK]

"what license fee or is that the joke?"

At one time there was a license fee(not to be confused with the testing fee you pay now), plus what about us with vanity call sign's.

Kurt
K8YZK

[KC2PBJ]

You'' never get the money back. How about a personal apology from the FCC for applying a double standard?

[KA4DPO]

There were no questions on FM or SSB in the 1963 Novice exam, and we did have voice privileges on 2 meters.



My word, new hams are studying about 80 printed pages of question pools. There are more correct answers to learn in the pool than there were sentences in the 1963 Novice study guide material. New hams are learning things about electromagnetic fields that we old timers never would have dreamed most.

Most old time hams can't answer a simple question about electromagnetics: In the far field of an antenna connected to a transmitter, if the field strength at 100 meters distance is 16 volts/meter, what will the field strength be at 200 meters distance.

One can argue the position that learning the correct answers to a few hundred questions is not teaching concepts, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a lot more work to get into ham radio today than it was for me. I studied the 3-1/2 pages of Novice material for days before taking my test. I studied the 16 pages of General class study guide to get a license that gave me all Amateur operating privileges in 1964.

But they were 16 quality pages, right, so that justifies the attitude of some hams today that hordes of undeserving are getting their licenses by the "no work" method of studying a couple of hundred pages of material?

Ed, W1RFI

As I recall EM field strength diminishes with the square of the distance from the source. Square the distance, take the inverse, and multiply it times the EM field strength in volts per meter. Or something like that.

Who says old guys are dumb???

By the way, some of the smartest engineers I have ever known are also the worst spellers...:D

[KA4DPO]

OK, **Rant Mode On** I just bought a new radio today, the first new radio since 2000, and as I am being a good ham and reading the instructions on how to program this radio, I find a second book, titled "Glossary of Radio Terms", I find this very disturbing as to what all it describes, I thought we had to learn what FM and SSB were before we got our license! Why do these get included in the box, to me it was a waste of paper and someones time to make these. If you have to put this kind of info in a box with your basic 2M radio, maybe its time to look at how we are issuing licenses. The only things it was missing were the Q-signals and 10 codes! Oh well I guess we have to look at the fact that some are get something for almost no study at all now and have to be reminded of what they should already know before they take a test. **Rant Mode Off**

Just my 2 cents worth. Rob


So did it have terms like LID in it? :D

They used to put similar booklets in with CB radios that defined terms like Smokey and Double Nickel....:p

[k9xr]

I think you should go all he way and start a class-action suit. They seem to be in vogue these days. Maybe I will be included. Big bux.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

Yep, Big $$$$$, For the Lawyers!!!

[KA4DPO]

There were no questions on FM or SSB in the 1963 Novice exam, and we did have voice privileges on 2 meters.



My word, new hams are studying about 80 printed pages of question pools. There are more correct answers to learn in the pool than there were sentences in the 1963 Novice study guide material. New hams are learning things about electromagnetic fields that we old timers never would have dreamed most.

One can argue the position that learning the correct answers to a few hundred questions is not teaching concepts, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a lot more work to get into ham radio today than it was for me. I studied the 3-1/2 pages of Novice material for days before taking my test. I studied the 16 pages of General class study guide to get a license that gave me all Amateur operating privileges in 1964.

But they were 16 quality pages, right, so that justifies the attitude of some hams today that hordes of undeserving are getting their licenses by the "no work" method of studying a couple of hundred pages of material?

Ed, W1RFI


I know this is a lot of posts in a row but I have to address this.

ED, no doubt the number of questions one must memorize is much larger than what you and I had to do. That said, when I was a novice I knew how to build a simple power supply, I knew how a triode vacuum tube worked, I knew how to construct and match several different simple wire antennas, and I knew how to build simple antenna matching devices.

I can't begin to tell you the number of posts by general and extra class licensees that have shown up on this board asking how to build a dipole and other incredibly basic stuff. We may not have had as many questions to answer but I'm betting that as a novice you knew enough to build and operate a simple radio station and antenna system.

John..

[WW3QB]

I passed the Advanced test in 1974 when I was in the 9th grade (and I had to walk 30 miles in the snow barefoot to the FCC office). I studied the ARRL license manual. It was one book that had sample questions for all the tests. These sample questions VERY CLOSELY resembled the actual questions on the test. It was really all most of us had at the time to study from. Any math needed for the tests was trivial (I was still in Algebra 1).

I have a 1975 ARRL license manual. Here are some statistics from it:

Novice: Covered on pages 13-20. 49 sample questions.

Technician: Covered on pages 21-22. Technicians took the same test as General.

General: Covered on pages 23-35. 63 sample questions.

Advanced: Covered on pages 39-54. 70 sample questions.

Extra: Covered on pages 55-73. 90 sample questions.

I am studying for my Extra now after being Advanced for 34 years (aging sucks). The current study guide for Extra is over 375 pages of concepts and explainations NOT COUNTING THE QUESTION POOL. The question pool is another 150 pages for 800 questions.

I wish I had taken the Extra in 1975. It would have been much easier. The 20 WPM code kept me from it.

We are confusing the testing of knowledge with experience.

[K8YZK]

I know a guy who quit school in the sixth grade, can't spell worth a damn, but when it comes to money, if I have a question, he is the one I contact, because he knows how to invest and make it.

Just becasue you did good in school doesn't mean your smart, I would rather work/talk to someone with common sense and hands on knowledge, then bokk learned.

Kurt
K8YZK

[W1RFI]

How large do you think the question pools should be? The Tech pool is over 400 questions of which 35 will be on the test. The General pool is over 400 questions of which 35 will be on the test. The Extra pool is over 800 questions of which 50 will be on the test.

If anyone contends that it is not work to memorize all of those questions and correct answers without understanding, they have a very distorted sense of reality, IMHO. What is ironic is that many of those that feel that new hams are lazy for memorizing all of that material feel that those same hams would have accomplished something worthy if they had memorized 26 letters, 10 numerals and assorted punctuation and prosigns.

Let's see, that's 1600 questions. Speaking only for myself, I could not memorize 1600 of anything, with or without understanding. I don't believe it to be possible for most people.

If anyone feels otherwise, they are welcome to prove it to me by memorizing the spelling of 1600 words in Russian. If such mass memorization really is as "no work" as some claim it is, surely they wouldn't mind doing some "no work" themselves, just to prove their point.

When I studied for my General, I was FAR from understanding all of the concepts. I didn't know what a parasitic oscillation was, except that it was bad and that it might cause interference. I knew not what caused it, or how to fix it, just that when I saw that question on the test, I should select the answer that had something to do with interference.

Ed, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

Yep and if you ask them about the electromagnetic field around a transformer and what the current flows are called, they'd answer "C".

The order of the answers and distractors is scrambled so one cannot memorize A, B, C and D. That is why none of the distrators say "all of the above" or "none of the above" because that distractor could appear as "A" on the exam. The pools have to say "All of these answers are correct" or "none of these answers are correct."

If they are memorizing, they are memorizing the actual correct answer. There are more correct answers in the pools than there were sentences in the study guide I used as my sole study material in the 1960s.

Ed. W1RFI

[WW3QB]

I can't begin to tell you the number of posts by general and extra class licensees that have shown up on this board asking how to build a dipole and other incredibly basic stuff. We may not have had as many questions to answer but I'm betting that as a novice you knew enough to build and operate a simple radio station and antenna system.

This adds to my earlier posts about experience. There were very few "how to" questions on the tests. In the "old days" we could not ask on the internet how to do something for all to see. We asked our Elmer, so only one other ham knew of our ignorance. When I got my Novice, I copied my Elmer's antenna (same lot layout, he was my next door neighbor). After doing it once, I was then an expert too.

There was also a waiting period to get the Extra, so Extras had at least some experience and would have put up a dipole by the time they took the Extra test. That is what is missing today, the waiting period.

[W1RFI]

ED, no doubt the number of questions one must memorize is much larger than what you and I had to do. That said, when I was a novice I knew how to build a simple power supply, I knew how a triode vacuum tube worked, I knew how to construct and match several different simple wire antennas, and I knew how to build simple antenna matching devices.

Perhaps you did, but not one single example you provided was required on the Novice test you took. I knew plenty of Novices that were less smart than you and I were, and I was asked some pretty dumb questions by some of my peers. I asked a few dumb questions myself.

The Novice exam contained no questions on antennas, feed lines, propagation and most of the other subjects that hams typically use as examples of how much one had to know in the good old days.

The old time hams of that era must have bemoaned the fact that hams were being let in without sufficient techncial knowledge and a mere 5 wpm code test. I am sure some were convinced that Amateur Radio was ruined forever for having let in the likes of me.

http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/novice63.html

Ed, W1RFI

[WW3QB]

Yep and if you ask them about the electromagnetic field around a transformer and what the current flows are called, they'd answer "C".

As pointed out before, the answers are scrambled on each version of the test, so no one can memorize "C". Even if you took the same test twice at the same session, the answers would be in a different order (and it would be mostly a different set of questions). This has been pointed at many times, but there are those on this forum that always want to say the same untruth. I've corrected KY5U on this before but he continues to want to mislead everybody that one can memorize "C" for a given question.

[N2RJ]

My word, new hams are studying about 80 printed pages of question pools.

Yes and no.

They don't have to study 80 printed pages of question pools. Learning the material is sufficient. However, it does take a bit of effort, and arguably more than studying the question pool.

The question pool is easy to study - you don't have to study the whole pool, just use a drill website like QRZ.com or hamtestonline and it is easy to do.

[W1RFI]

As I recall EM field strength diminishes with the square of the distance from the source. Square the distance, take the inverse, and multiply it times the EM field strength in volts per meter. Or something like that. Who says old guys are dumb???

Not dumb, but wrong. In the far field, field strength decays with the inverse of the distance, not the inverse of the distance squared. So if one starts with 16 volts/meter at 100 meters, the field strength will be 8 volts/meter at 200 meters distance.

Very few old timers get it right, yet this is part of the body of knowledge required to be a beginner in ham radio today.

Ed, W1RFI

[KA4DPO]

Not dumb, but wrong. In the far field, field strength decays with the inverse of the distance, not the inverse of the distance squared. So if one starts with 16 volts/meter at 100 meters, the field strength will be 8 volts/meter at 200 meters distance.

Very few old timers get it right, yet this is part of the body of knowledge required to be a beginner in ham radio today.

Ed, W1RFI

I thought the inverse square law where power density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source also applied to EM field strength.

I humbly stand corrected..

[K8MHZ]

Very few old timers get it right, yet this is part of the body of knowledge required to be a beginner in ham radio today.

Could you please post a question out of any of today's required exams that cover this?

[KV6O]

OK, **Rant Mode On** I just bought a new radio today, the first new radio since 2000, and as I am being a good ham and reading the instructions on how to program this radio, I find a second book, titled "Glossary of Radio Terms"...

Just my 2 cents worth. Rob

A good, complete manual that goes beyond just how to turn on and off the radio is no reason to get upset! How could this be a bad thing?

Anyway, if somone wanted to get nit-picky, your avatar is in violation of several parts of the United States Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, which is turn violates the First Amendment... But I am just being picky! :D

Steve
KV6O

[ky5u]

As pointed out before, the answers are scrambled on each version of the test, so no one can memorize "C". Even if you took the same test twice at the same session, the answers would be in a different order (and it would be mostly a different set of questions). This has been pointed at many times, but there are those on this forum that always want to say the same untruth. I've corrected KY5U on this before but he continues to want to mislead everybody that one can memorize "C" for a given question.
I've just ignored your obviously stupid point hoping that it might eventually dawn on you that I never said "C" was from the study guide. You were in such a hurry to "correct" you committed an "A-felony" dumb-ass. ROFLMAO!!!

[W1RFI]

Could you please post a question out of any of today's required exams that cover this?

Now it is me who must stand corrected. :-) The specific example I had provided is not covered that directly in the current question pools. I guess we may have dumbed down Amateur Radio after all if we no longer require newcomers to know the basics of electromagnetic field theory.

Ed, W1RFI

[AE6IP]

This argument over which test was harder is like arguing over which speed bump in the neighborhood is bigger as if you were trying to debate whether annapurna or k2 were harder climb.

The amount of technical knowledge needed to pass an amateur radio exam in the United States has never amounted to more than a small amount of high-school level electronics.

The only difference now is that available off-the-shelf technology makes it rarely necessary to put even that small amount of knowledge into practice.

[W1RFI]

I thought the inverse square law where power density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source also applied to EM field strength. I humbly stand corrected..

There seems to be a bit of standing corrected going around. :-)

The power density of a transmitted EM wave is proportional to the inverse squared of the distance, as would be the received signal level.

In the far field region of a radiating element, power density can be calculated from the field strength, using any of the following:

Pdensity = E X H
Pdendisy = E * E / 377
Pdensity = H * H * 377

where Pdensity is the power density in watts/square meter, E is the electric field strength in volts/meter and H is the magnetic field strength in amperes/meter.

So although power density will decrease as the inverse of the distance squared, electric or magnetic field strength decreases as the inverse of the distance.

It was a pretty simple concept, and it's unfortunate that the specifics were removed from the question pools. It used to be covered in the older Tech pool, but not on the exams that old timers took. Does this mean that those that passed the older Tech exams are the only "real" hams we have? Who would'a' thunk it? :-)

Ed, W1RFI

[K8MHZ]

I thought the inverse square law where power density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source also applied to EM field strength.

I humbly stand corrected..

I am not so sure you have been corrected.

If we are talking about an isotropic radiator the signal strength will have a fixed potential divided by an area that changes relative to the distance from the source. With an isotropic radiator the radiation pattern is a sphere and the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the distance.

I am curious as to how Ed has come up with his assessment which seems to defy convention. Also, I can find no question on any of the tests addressing the issue which is contrary to his statement as well.

I don't mind being corrected but I need more than just a single statement for that to happen.

[N9MOQ]

...and reading the instructions on how to program this radio, I find a second book, titled "Glossary of Radio Terms", I find this very disturbing as to what all it describes, I thought we had to learn what FM and SSB were before we got our license! Why do these get included in the box, to me it was a waste of paper and someones time to make these. If you have to put this kind of info in a box with your basic 2M radio, maybe its time to look at how we are issuing licenses.

This doesn't have much to do with licensing or exams. One can buy a clock radio, TV or calculator (without a license or test) and the instruction manuals often say things like: "If unit is not working, check to make sure power switch is turned on and unit is pluged in, or batteries are installed."

There are usually diagrams showing where the power switch is located, and instructions on how to plug the power cord into the wall outlet.

Most of the time all this stuff is just to help them in court when someone tries to sue them.

For instance, a warning that shampoo is for external use only, or not to eat the silica gel packets that are packed in the box with radios and electronics when you purchase them.

Erector Sets and Chemistry Sets (with real chemicals, not baking soda and all edible stuff) can no longer be sold, because even if they put these instructions with the toys, if a kid eats or gets hurt on these toys, the parents will sue the company for millions, and a jury of their peers will award it to them.

If a toy is found to have lead in it's paint, everyone is horrified and massive recalls and news bulletins are broadcast. Yet I remember when toy soldiers were made out of solid lead. And they were small enough to fit into our mouths.

When will someone finally discover that there are rocks outside that not only have sharp corners, but are dirty and small enough for small kids to put into their mouths and swallow? Will we have to call in agencies with special suits to clean up all these rocks and replace them with giant bright colored plastic smooth shapes?

Either society has to stop allowing stupid people to have kids, or it has to stop allowing people to sue companies for doing stupid things with their products.

Another thing to ponder...

If kids are not allowed to play with anything other than huge safe giant smooth brightly colored plastic shapes, how can we also then demand them to have the intelligence to pass the same type of Ham Radio exams we did?

If anything, we will have to start manufacturing Ham Radios by the Fisher Price company. And if someone wants to play with a Ham Radio and doesn't want to take the test, if they cry or scream real loud, why shouldn't they be allowed to use Ham Radio without passing an exam, if we are raising and teaching kids from little on, that this is how they can have everything else they want?

Why would Ham Radio be any different?

You could try to explain it to them, but if they start to scream, you better shut up and just hand them the radio.

You can't raise people like this, then suddenly when they turn 18, expect everyone to start a new system of society with rules and customs that are completely different.

[WW3QB]

I've just ignored your obviously stupid point hoping that it might eventually dawn on you that I never said "C" was from the study guide. You were in such a hurry to "correct" you committed an "A-felony" dumb-ass. ROFLMAO!!!

So you did not write this?:

Yep and if you ask them about the electromagnetic field around a transformer and what the current flows are called, they'd answer "C".

Note that you were first licensed in 2003 (30 years after me), making you part of the "memorize the question pool" hams that you hate.

You always resort to name calling when the objective evidence proves you wrong. We go on about technical testing, but too bad there is no psychological testing required.

[K8MHZ]

N9MOQ,

I have a 14 year old daughter. I have helped her with her homework for many years and have found that, especially in math, what is required of her is far in excess that what was required for me at that same age and I was in an advanced academic program.

I never had homework in elementary school, very little in junior high school and comparatively little in high school. She has been doing homework, sometimes hours worth each night, since about 4th or 5th grade.

I will agree that some things are safer in her life, but other dangers have come into play that I never encountered as a child. Society in general is much more dangerous for a child to be in, for one thing.

If kids seem less educated today than those of days gone by it is not because of a lack of offered information. Rather it is due to the resistance of a particular child to learn the offered information and that is usually a result of a lack of parental compulsion in that regard.

I tend to blame it on the effect of the 'I'm OK, You're OK' trend that was prevalent in the generation preceding the current generation now attending school. People starting at my age have become proud of their lack of knowledge and hold in contempt people attempting to bring quality into society by pointing out intellectual flaws of others.

The result of this trend has placed the U.S. in an ever decreasing position in the ranks of scholastic achievement in respect to the rest of the world.

[KA4DPO]

I am not so sure you have been corrected.

If we are talking about an isotropic radiator the signal strength will have a fixed potential divided by an area that changes relative to the distance from the source. With an isotropic radiator the radiation pattern is a sphere and the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the distance.

I am curious as to how Ed has come up with his assessment which seems to defy convention. Also, I can find no question on any of the tests addressing the issue which is contrary to his statement as well.

I don't mind being corrected but I need more than just a single statement for that to happen.

Mark, you are correct and as I have always understood it EM radiation power density eminating from a point source in space does in fact diminish inversly to the square of the distance from the source.

[KA4DPO]

There seems to be a bit of standing corrected going around. :-)

The power density of a transmitted EM wave is proportional to the inverse squared of the distance, as would be the received signal level.

In the far field region of a radiating element, power density can be calculated from the field strength, using any of the following:

Pdensity = E X H
Pdendisy = E * E / 377
Pdensity = H * H * 377

where Pdensity is the power density in watts/square meter, E is the electric field strength in volts/meter and H is the magnetic field strength in amperes/meter.

So although power density will decrease as the inverse of the distance squared, electric or magnetic field strength decreases as the inverse of the distance.

It was a pretty simple concept, and it's unfortunate that the specifics were removed from the question pools. It used to be covered in the older Tech pool, but not on the exams that old timers took. Does this mean that those that passed the older Tech exams are the only "real" hams we have? Who would'a' thunk it? :-)

Ed, W1RFI

Ed, watts per meter is power density.................. I thought I said that.

[KI4RVH]

So you did not write this?:



Note that you were first licensed in 2003 (30 years after me), making you part of the "memorize the question pool" hams that you hate.

You always resort to name calling when the objective evidence proves you wrong. We go on about technical testing, but too bad there is no psychological testing required.

ROFLMAO!

Chris

[K8MHZ]

Ed,

Take a look at this link. The formulas therein do not agree with you. Instead, they seem to support the 'inverse square' application:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/estatics/u8l4b.html

Another Electric Field Strength Formula The above discussion pertained to defining electric field strength in terms of how it is measured. Now we will investigate a new equation that defines electric field strength in terms of the variables which affect the electric field strength. To do so, we will have to revisit the Coulomb's law equation (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/estatics/u8l3b.html). Coulomb's law states that the electric force between two charges is directly proportional to the product of their charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. When applied to our two charges - the source charge (Q) and the test charge (q) - the formula for electric force can be written as
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/estatics/u8l4b4.gif(Bold print added for clarity)

[ka5s]

Most old time hams can't answer a simple question about electromagnetics: In the far field of an antenna connected to a transmitter, if the field strength at 100 meters distance is 16 volts/meter, what will the field strength be at

Hi, Ed!

When I was a kid in short pants, my Dad taught me about the inverse square law in connection with setting a camera for flash pictures. I didn't know it by that name and a few years later, when I took a class (at age 13) on radiological monitoring I remember asking "What is Inver's Square Law?"

Most people understand, when (if) they think about it, that when a given amount of power is radiated, and allotted per unit area on the surface of a sphere of some diameter, the power, and thus the voltage, per unit of area must decrease at a greater distance. We don' need no steenkeeng Invers.

Heh!

Cortland
KA5S

[ka5s]

So if one starts with 16 volts/meter at 100 meters, the field strength will be 8 volts/meter at 200 meters distance.

Very few old timers get it right, yet this is part of the body of knowledge required to be a beginner in ham radio today.

Ed, W1RFI

P = E^2/R takes care of the problem.

Cortland
KA5S

[K8MHZ]

P = E^2/R takes care of the problem.

Cortland
KA5S

Not quite.....

Power and force are two different characteristics.

Ed's assertion is that E, a force, does not decrease with the square of the distance. He does acknowledge that P, (ExI) does, however. Coulomb's Law as stated in the reference I have used as context states the force decreases at a squared rate. Ed's statement uses 'volts per meter' as a unit of measure, not 'volts per square meter'. 'Volts per meter' can only mean a difference in potential, not a quantity of charge force as the meter is a one dimensional measurement.

Therein may lie the rub. If there was anything that would qualify as a 'trick question' this may indeed be it. Perhaps that is why the question was dropped from the pool.

[ka5s]

Ed's statement uses 'volts per meter' as a unit of measure, not 'volts per square meter'. 'Volts per meter' can only mean a difference in potential, not a quantity of charge force as the meter is a one dimensional measurement.

Therein may lie the rub. If there was anything that would qualify as a 'trick question' this may indeed be it. Perhaps that is why the question was dropped from the pool.

This is the vernacular use among EMC professionals and is not quite correct, as you note.

[added in edit] If I radiate (say) 100 watts into a sphere with diameter 10 meters, the area is about 314 square meters (4 pi * r^2) , and power per square meter is 100/314 or about .318 watts per square meter. But (assuming far field) the VOLTAGE per square meter is the square root of (.318*377), or about 10.9 volts per meter. Now double the radius to 10 meters, and the area increasing by a factor of four to some 1256 (square) meters the power is now only .079 (100/1256) watts per square meter, voltage 5.47 v/[square]m. E^2/R holds true.

Cortland
KA5S

[AE6IP]

The difference between theory and practice in this case being a nonisotropic radiator and a nonuniformly conducting space.

[k0cmh]

Well, I guess I am breaking the rule.

I got my Tech in 2004, General in 2005 (both with 5wpm CW).

I am working on my Extra. I can pass the practice tests every time now, but I H\have to guess at a few qeustions to do it.

I will not take the test until I can answer the questions because I know how to get the answer, not just memorize it. However, there is a large amount this is simply memorization. That is the frequency allocations, names of components, names of circuits, and other terms that one just has to remember. Example oscillator circuits. They have person's names and the only way to answer the question is to "memorize" which is which. Ditto component parts and field names (H field, etc.). These things one simply needs to remember because they are a name, just like the name of that round fruit that grows on trees and is named after its color, an "orange". Also, how many lines in a fast scan TV image. You just have to remember the standard that was decided back when.

But for those questions that require theory, like calculating the Q of a parallel resonate circuit, ERP, the angle of phase, etc., I am learning the theory so that I don't care what the printed answer is, I can calculate it and then find the right answer.

When I don't guess at any questions (just skip those I can't work out) I still pass about 80% of the time.

So all us "light" guys (5wpm, and I am now at 20 wpm), and those that are taking the test without just pure memorization, aren't "loafers".

Will I ever be an electronics engineer? No. But will I know what is happening when I build/install an antenna, make an interface for digital work, resolve an SWR probelm, etc. -- yes.

[K0DXC]

I will not take the test until I can answer the questions because I know how to get the answer, not just memorize it.


Bravo!!! :) I admire you!

[W1RFI]

Therein may lie the rub. If there was anything that would qualify as a 'trick question' this may indeed be it. Perhaps that is why the question was dropped from the pool.

It's not a trick question at all; field strength is expressed in volts/meter or amperes/meter. Volts/meter squared has no more meaning in terms of field strength than it would in terms of expressing the simple voltage in a circuit bewteen an infinite number of points. It is only a trick question if one doesn't understand the concept. The concept of power density in a given area is also specific, and it describes the amount of power flowing through a unit area. It is valid only under far-field conditions, where E and H are orthogonal and are related by E/H = 377.

The only reason I can think of that it was dropped from the pool is that the QPC generally wants to see the technical content of the Technician pool kept to a minimum. I believe, however, that knowing that in general, field strength will decrease linearly with distance is a fundamental aspect of electromagnetics that is important to the concepts involved with evaluating a station for RF safety. I will do what I can to press the ARRL VEC to press to have a few questions about field strength vs distance put back into the pools.

I do know that the concept was included when the FCC had mandated that the Tech exam incluce 5 RF safety questions. When that requirement was dropped, the number of questions related to RF safety were reduced. The way it was done in that version of the pool was, however, unnecessarily complex. IMHO, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction.

Ed, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

Ed, watts per meter is power density.................. I thought I said that.

Actually, your answer was expressed the same way as my postulated question: field strength in volts/meter.

Power density if not watts/meter; it is watts/square meter.

Field strength varies with the inverse of the distance. Power density varies as the inverse squared.

Ed, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

But for those questions that require theory, like calculating the Q of a parallel resonate circuit, ERP, the angle of phase, etc., I am learning the theory so that I don't care what the printed answer is, I can calculate it and then find the right answer.

That is the best way to do it, not only because Learning is Good, but it is also far easier to memorize a single, simple formula based on grammar-school math than it would be to memorize many questions without understanding.

Of, those that think the tests are supposed to be about hard work may cricitize you if they find out that understanding is the easy way! :-)

Good luck on the test; it sounds like you are making one fine ham!

I think that most hams approach the tests pretty much as you are. The idea that hordes of undesirables are rote memorizing over 1000 questions without understanding so they can participate in ham radio not to learn anything just doesn't hold up to any rational analysis. There may be a few that think that memorizing the pools is an easy road, but I believe them to be wrong, and they are undertaking the hardest possible road to getting licensed.

Ed, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

Ed,

Take a look at this link. The formulas therein do not agree with you. Instead, they seem to support the 'inverse square' application:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/estatics/u8l4b.html

(Bold print added for clarity)

I believe that the formulas you described are for static charges, for which the concept of far field has no meaning. With time varying charges (IOW, non DC), field strength varies as 1/D in the far field region.

If it didn't, then power density would vary as the inverse squared.

There are other special cases, too; for example, uniform radiation from an infinite plane will not vary with distance at all.

Ed, W1RFI

[ka8jby]

If you're a person who enjoys vector calculus :D, a derivation of the electric field strength for a radiating dipole is presented in The Hertzian Dipole (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node94.html) courtesy of Richard Fitzpatrick of UT Austin. This is one in a series of lectures from his course Classic Electromagnetism (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/em.html). The equation you seek is labeled 1090 (on the right). He mentions this earlier as well in Retarded Fields (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node52.html) where it shows up as equation 552.

From those equations it is evident that the strength of the electric field for a radiating dipole is inversely related to the distance (as opposed to the square of the distance) from the radiator...subject to Marty's (AE6IP) caveats.

Bottom line: As Ed noted, Coulomb's law is great for static charges, but once those dudes start moving, things get more complicated.

Rob

[AE6IP]

What I've seen in my years as a VE is consistent with your belief, Ed.

I've never encountered a single testee who has claimed they memorized the answers from the pool, and a lot of people do talk about how they learned the material. For the technician test I've seen a lot of cram-course takers, and I doubt that they'll retain the material for a week, but they do pass the tests without memorizing the answers as well.

Even in the 70s, there were plenty of people passing FCC tests based on cramming, either through pre-test cram sessions or through the study guides that were available.

[ka8jby]

I read a bit further down in Fitzpatrick's notes (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node52.html)and found this quote, which is really cool:

"This configuration of electric and magnetic fields is characteristic of an electromagnetic wave (see Sect. 4.7). Thus, Eqs. (552) and (553) describe an electromagnetic wave propagating radially away from the charge and current containing region. Note that the wave is driven by time-varying electric currents. Now, charges moving with a constant velocity constitute a steady current, so a non-steady current is associated with accelerating charges. We conclude that accelerating electric charges emit electromagnetic waves. The wave fields, (552) and (553), fall off like the inverse of the distance from the wave source. This behaviour should be contrasted with that of Coulomb or Biot-Savart fields, which fall off like the inverse square of the distance from the source. The fact that wave fields attenuate fairly gently with increasing distance from the source is what makes astronomy possible. If wave fields obeyed an inverse square law then no appreciable radiation would reach us from the rest of the Universe". Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin

Rob

[AE6IP]

Rob,

Fitzpatrick's course notes look pretty good. You've made a nice find there, and I'll be referring people to them in the future.

[ky5u]

So you did not write this?:



Note that you were first licensed in 2003 (30 years after me), making you part of the "memorize the question pool" hams that you hate.

You always resort to name calling when the objective evidence proves you wrong. We go on about technical testing, but too bad there is no psychological testing required.
Post the "objective evidence" where I said that came from the study guide. If I was not talking about the study guide, then whether they change the answer order on the test is irrelevent. You screwed up. Be a man and admit it.

[WW3QB]

Post the "objective evidence" where I said that came from the study guide. If I was not talking about the study guide, then whether they change the answer order on the test is irrelevent. You screwed up. Be a man and admit it.

Once more, so you did not write this?:

Yep and if you ask them about the electromagnetic field around a transformer and what the current flows are called, they'd answer "C".

What were you referring to 'they'd answer "C"'? The Kung Pau chicken on the menu of your favorite Chinese restaurant?

The discussion about electric and magnetic fields is much more interesting and constructive than this.

[ky5u]

Once more, so you did not write this?:



What were you referring to 'they'd answer "C"'? The Kung Pau chicken on the menu of your favorite Chinese restaurant?

The discussion about electric and magnetic fields is much more interesting and constructive than this.

I saw you're Advanced. Must be advanced special education. You're quoting me and asking me if I wrote it? Duh! What was I referring to? The test. What would really be constructive is if you simply apologized and moved on instead of digging in deeper.

[WW3QB]

I saw you're Advanced. Must be advanced special education. You're quoting me and asking me if I wrote it? Duh! What was I referring to? The test. What would really be constructive is if you simply apologized and moved on instead of digging in deeper.

You call people names like a spoiled child and you want an apology? I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

[ky5u]

You call people names like a spoiled child and you want an apology? I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.
You don't think if you make a big deal about "correcting" someone and you make mistake you should not make it right? I think my kicking that high horse out from under you was pretty justified. :rolleyes:

[N0WVA]

It's not a trick question at all; field strength is expressed in volts/meter or amperes/meter. Volts/meter squared has no more meaning in terms of field strength than it would in terms of expressing the simple voltage in a circuit bewteen an infinite number of points. It is only a trick question if one doesn't understand the concept. The concept of power density in a given area is also specific, and it describes the amount of power flowing through a unit area. It is valid only under far-field conditions, where E and H are orthogonal and are related by E/H = 377.

The only reason I can think of that it was dropped from the pool is that the QPC generally wants to see the technical content of the Technician pool kept to a minimum. I believe, however, that knowing that in general, field strength will decrease linearly with distance is a fundamental aspect of electromagnetics that is important to the concepts involved with evaluating a station for RF safety. I will do what I can to press the ARRL VEC to press to have a few questions about field strength vs distance put back into the pools.

I do know that the concept was included when the FCC had mandated that the Tech exam incluce 5 RF safety questions. When that requirement was dropped, the number of questions related to RF safety were reduced. The way it was done in that version of the pool was, however, unnecessarily complex. IMHO, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction.

Ed, W1RFI

Where did the constant 377 come from?

[K5MC]

Where did the constant 377 come from?

The intrinsic impedance of free space (377 ohms) is the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space to the permittivity of free space.

73, K5MC

[af6bj]

A few years ago when cell phones were expensive and autopatch is still a cool thing to use, we have a rash of new Hams who got licensed just for that purpose. All they want is to use the autopatch. There are Hams couples who you would never hear using the repeater except to call each other during commute on the autopatch. Remember those days?.....Thank god for the low cost cell phone plans we no longer have to put up with the autopatch people.

One evening I heard one of those "autopatch" ham asking for instruction on how to hook up his mobile radio to the power supply. He gave up on the owner's manual and were asking the group. I will never forget until I SK because I was so shocked that I did not stop laughing even til this day, I bust out laughing everytime I think of it... The question was..."where does the red wire go?". HA ha ah ahahahaahahhhahaha !:D

[W1RFI]

And I suppose that all of us were born with the knowledge that much of the time, red is the color of wire used by electronics equipment manufacturers to indicate a positive voltage and that the negative voltage terminal is often black? Of course, a few manufacturers do use blue for the hot wire, and ground wires can sometimes be green.

All of us except electricians, though; they are born with the knowledge that black is the hot wire and that the white wire is at the same potential as the green wire, which is connected to ground. Although to them, red can also be a hot wire.

I do hope you provided an example of how hams are helpful to other hams instead of laughing at them publicly at the time. I can think of many an equipment manual I have read over time that was less than crystal clear.

Ed, W1RFI

[K1MDC]

The reason the glossary of radio terms was included with your new radio is because the technical writer assigned to the project included it in the document proposal and the doc proposal was approved by the project manager. That's how documentation is prepared. This tech writer could probably give two craps about the dumbing down of radio, the FCC exam process, the end of CW testing, etc. The writer was hired to document the product and thought a glossary would be an appropriate addition considering the amount of specialized technical information in the main manual. To assign any greater meaning to this decision is unwarranted.

[KI4NGN]

That is the best way to do it, not only because Learning is Good, but it is also far easier to memorize a single, simple formula based on grammar-school math than it would be to memorize many questions without understanding.

Of, those that think the tests are supposed to be about hard work may cricitize you if they find out that understanding is the easy way! :-)

Good luck on the test; it sounds like you are making one fine ham!

I think that most hams approach the tests pretty much as you are. The idea that hordes of undesirables are rote memorizing over 1000 questions without understanding so they can participate in ham radio not to learn anything just doesn't hold up to any rational analysis. There may be a few that think that memorizing the pools is an easy road, but I believe them to be wrong, and they are undertaking the hardest possible road to getting licensed.

Ed, W1RFI
Ed, you're missing the point. I don't know if there are hordes, but I don't think anyone should hold a general or extra class ticket and not know how to make a dipole. I'm not talking about the skill, but the knowledge, and we know they're out there because they ask.

What do you think it demonstrates when an extra class ticket holder asks how to build a dipole? How about when a general class ticket holder has no clue what the microphone gain is for on his rig? That's not even a QRZ question....I heard that one on the air.

It's not a matter of hordes, and its not a matter of it being something that you would find extremely difficult if not impossible to do. How do you think an extra class ticket holder got his license if he doesn't know what a dipole is or how to construct one? (again, not skill, but knowledge.)

Memorizing text phrases in your own language is far easier than memorizing words in a language that is foreign to you (like Russian).

Learning the technical theory that is the foundation of our hobby involves the memorization of formulas, but that is meaningless without comprehending the application of those formulas. Memorizing Ohm's law is nothing, but knowing when and how to apply it is the education, the real learning.

The rules and regulations are another area of memorization, but it's also another example of meaningless data if you don't understand them. Memorizing a rule that limits your operations to 1500 watts RF power is meaningless if you don't know what RF power is. Memorizing a rule that states you must ID with your callsign every ten minutes is meaningless if you don't know what a callsign is.

Someone asked me how many questions to increase the pool size. Well, how about taking every question that now exists and making 20 variations of it, each variation with a different answer? That would push the Tech pool from 400 to 8,000.

It is very doable to increase the size of the pool so as to make it obviously far more work for anyone to memorize rather than just study the material. It's just a matter of having the will to do so, but I'm starting to believe that the will is not there.

Mike

[ka8jby]

Rob,

Fitzpatrick's course notes look pretty good. You've made a nice find there, and I'll be referring people to them in the future.

I'm glad you found them useful. There are also some nice field visualizations available at 8.02 Physics II: Electricity and Magnetism (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-02Spring-2007/CourseHome/index.htm) part of MIT's Open Courseware. The visualizations are here (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-02Spring-2007/Visualizations/index.htm). Enjoy!

Rob

[N8UZE]

How about when a general class ticket holder has no clue what the microphone gain is for on his rig? That's not even a QRZ question....I heard that one on the air.


Can't attritube this to memorizing the question pool though. If it were in the pool (I don't think it is but could be wrong), it is a memorize type of question anyway. I would not necessarily expect some one to remember this just because they learned it for a test. Even diligent students who actually learn the theory will forget some of it or not see how it applies to the real world until they get real world experience.

I strongly encourage people to read their manuals as there is a gold mine of information in them that will not be on any test they ever take.

[N8UZE]

Someone asked me how many questions to increase the pool size. Well, how about taking every question that now exists and making 20 variations of it, each variation with a different answer? That would push the Tech pool from 400 to 8,000.

Some of the questions already have 10 variations of them. So then those questions, if each were multiplied by 20, would end up with 200 variations of the question. That's a bit of an overkill.

[N8UZE]

Someone asked me how many questions to increase the pool size. Well, how about taking every question that now exists and making 20 variations of it, each variation with a different answer? That would push the Tech pool from 400 to 8,000.


Also do you really think we need 20 variations on the "When can you broadcast music?" question?

[WA6MHZ]

I think you should go all he way and start a class-action suit. They seem to be in vogue these days. Maybe I will be included. Big bux.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

THATS IT!!! Reparations for Hams who were FORCED to learn CW to get their license!!! More Reps for Hams that had to study up to 20 WPM!! All FCC Issued refund checks can be redeemed at HRO! I want a Yaesu FT-9000!!!

[KI4NGN]

Can't attritube this to memorizing the question pool though. If it were in the pool (I don't think it is but could be wrong), it is a memorize type of question anyway. I would not necessarily expect some one to remember this just because they learned it for a test. Even diligent students who actually learn the theory will forget some of it or not see how it applies to the real world until they get real world experience.

I strongly encourage people to read their manuals as there is a gold mine of information in them that will not be on any test they ever take.
You miss my point. I don't know if it's in the pool or not. I'm talking about testing for knowledge that, in this case, any general class ticket holder should possess: the concepts behind it, the impact it would have on their signals, etc, etc...certainly a lot of theory that a general should be cognizant of.

Mike

[KI4NGN]

Some of the questions already have 10 variations of them. So then those questions, if each were multiplied by 20, would end up with 200 variations of the question. That's a bit of an overkill.
Why overkill? It's obvious that there are those who are memorizing those 10 variations. Why NOT make it 200? The only objection could be that it is too many to memorize! One would have to have some comprehension of the material in order to get the answer correct.

Mike

[KI4NGN]

Also do you really think we need 20 variations on the "When can you broadcast music?" question?
Why not? :)

It all depends on how the questions are worded. I wasn't suggesting a detailed solution however, just a concept! In this case you posed a simple question for which the answer is never. So how is it presented now so as to have more than one variation? This is also an example of where memorization IS an education: all correct answers indicate that it is never allowed.

This is not the case with technical questions, particularly when calculations are involved.

The main point is to make it impossible to memorize the exam pools. It may not make sense to create 20 variations on some themes, as in your example, but it certainly would for many, particularly the technical areas.

If the point of the exams are not to test knowledge, then why have them at all? If it agreed that is their intent, then what is wrong with enforcing that intent by making it impossible to memorize the answers so that the only way to pass is to demonstrate knowledge?

Mike

[N2RJ]

It's just a hobby.

We shouldn't be subjecting these people to a test, we should have a mail in or web application with no exam.

Oh wait, that's too much effort for a hobby.

We should have people on every street corner handing out licenses along with a coupon for a free radio, antenna and tower.

Yup, it's just a hobby. That's why we should not only tolerate, but embrace mediocrity.

[N8UZE]

Originally Posted by N8UZE
Some of the questions already have 10 variations of them. So then those questions, if each were multiplied by 20, would end up with 200 variations of the question. That's a bit of an overkill.

Why overkill? It's obvious that there are those who are memorizing those 10 variations. Why NOT make it 200? The only objection could be that it was too many to memorize! One would have to have some comprehension of the material in order to get the answer correct.

Mike

For most of the material in the Tech question pool, such a huge number of questions don't make sense. Do you really think there is any need to have 200 variations of "When can you play music over amateur radio"?

You seem to be under the impression that the tests are largely mathematical in content. They are not. Much of the theory actually REQUIRES memorizing (number of scan lines for SSTV, etc).

On the Tech, General and Extra tests, you can miss all the mathematical questions and still pass. Increasing the pool size will not achieve what you desire. It would be necessary to drastically change the percentage of questions per topic on the tests. Do you wish to slight regulations, operating practices, safety, and so on just to insure that those who aren't getting the math will fail? The other choice would be to increase the length of the test and make all the additional questions require math, which is another way of changing the distribution of the question topics.

You may say but there's lots of theory that isn't math. Well that may be true but that material falls into the memorize catagory. Memorize the definition of a resistor and you can answer any non-math question about it. No point in increasing the size of the question pool for these types of theory questions.

You could have a 1000 questions on calculating the length of a dipole and a candidate could get all 1000 right. Yet that does not help the candidate actually MAKE a dipole. All he/she may be able to do is calculate the length of the legs.

[N8UZE]

Why not? :)

It all depends on how the questions are worded. I wasn't suggesting a detailed solution however, just a concept! In this case you posed a simple question for which the answer is never. So how is it presented now so as to have more than one variation? This is also an example of where memorization IS an education: all correct answers indicate that it is never allowed.

This is not the case with technical questions, particularly when calculations are involved.

The main point is to make it impossible to memorize the exam pools. It may not make sense to create 20 variations on some themes, as in your example, but it certainly would for many, particularly the technical areas.

If the point of the exams are not to test knowledge, then why have them at all? If it agreed that is their intent, then what is wrong with enforcing that intent by making it impossible to memorize the answers so that the only way to pass is to demonstrate knowledge?

Mike

I won't go into detail here as I've already addressed it. Basically to do what you wish will require not only reworking the question pools but changing the percent distribution of topics on the test and increasing the length of the tests so that those who do not get the particular mathematical topics you consider important will flunk the test.

That is not reasonable. There is quite a bit of regulatory, procedural and safety material that needs to be covered.

[N8UZE]

Originally Posted by N8UZE
Can't attritube this to memorizing the question pool though. If it were in the pool (I don't think it is but could be wrong), it is a memorize type of question anyway. I would not necessarily expect some one to remember this just because they learned it for a test. Even diligent students who actually learn the theory will forget some of it or not see how it applies to the real world until they get real world experience.

I strongly encourage people to read their manuals as there is a gold mine of information in them that will not be on any test they ever take.


You miss my point. I don't know if it's in the pool or not. I'm talking about testing for knowledge that, in this case, any general class ticket holder should possess: the concepts behind it, the impact it would have on their signals, etc, etc...certainly a lot of theory that a general should be cognizant of.

Mike

So you are talking about increasing the content of the tests. You can't test for everything. Even if a person knew all about mic gain (or whatever topic you want to use) from the book knowledge side, he/she will probably fall flat on their face until they acquire a little thing you might call operating experience. You can have all the knowledge in the world and still not be able to operate effectively.

No level of testing will insure that they won't make mistakes on the air.

[K8MHZ]

I read a bit further down in Fitzpatrick's notes (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node52.html)and found this quote, which is really cool:
"This configuration of electric and magnetic fields is characteristic of an electromagnetic wave (see Sect. 4.7). Thus, Eqs. (552) and (553) describe an electromagnetic wave propagating radially away from the charge and current containing region. Note that the wave is driven by time-varying electric currents. Now, charges moving with a constant velocity constitute a steady current, so a non-steady current is associated with accelerating charges. We conclude that accelerating electric charges emit electromagnetic waves. The wave fields, (552) and (553), fall off like the inverse of the distance from the wave source. This behaviour should be contrasted with that of Coulomb or Biot-Savart fields, which fall off like the inverse square of the distance from the source. The fact that wave fields attenuate fairly gently with increasing distance from the source is what makes astronomy possible. If wave fields obeyed an inverse square law then no appreciable radiation would reach us from the rest of the Universe". Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at AustinRob

Fascinating!

Who says you don't get 'Elmered' here on the 'Zed'?

Thanks guys!

[K8MHZ]

Just take a look at the tests on the Extra Exam about power factor and phase angle. All one has to do is memorize 2 or three triangles and CIV VIL and you can get the multiple guess questions correct.

Note how many of the answers contain '14 degrees' for instance. I am not even looking at the book and remember this pattern from teaching that chapter in class two weeks ago.

The tech test patterns are even easier. For an example just take a look at *only* the answers and see how many of them you can get correct without even knowing the questions asked.

I didn't even study for the General test. I passed it after passing my Morse test because it was 'free' to take.

The tests beg to be memorized as is the modus operandi for Fed tests. I took a class on how to pass the USPS test by using a 'technique' to memorize addresses and it worked.

My point is that you don't have to memorize the entire question pool to pass the test without knowing the subject matter. What is needed is to memorize a few tricks and know what the patterns are on the test, which can easily be figured out by taking the tests on line.

FWIW I have been teaching ham classes for over 3 years and have not had a single failure so far. That being said, I spend more than half my time actually teaching ham radio, even stuff not covered on the tests, and am proud to have produced some of the best operators in the area. The classes are not set to be completed in a certain time frame. I do not 'release' my students to test until I *know* they will pass their targeted exam. Students can stay in class as long as they wish, even after 'topping out' as Extras.

My special thanks to Eric KL7AJ for letting me use his works and ideas to make class interesting. Anyone teaching ham classes would be well advised to use his projects as well as his prose from 'The Opus' to make for a good class.

Class is tonight. Tonight we will be having some fun. My daughter, K0LEY will be attempting to hide from us at the academy and using a 5 watt HT as a beacon. The class will be using antennas of all sorts, mostly home brew, to try to find her. Last week we discussed radiation patterns, gain, front to back ratio and how all of this 'stuff' related to radio direction finding. Tonight we put it all together and a hunting we will go.

Note that a directional antenna is *not* needed to track a signal. That was discussed in class last week. Granted, it helps, but is not needed. I have proved it several times.

[wb6mmj]

I think some people forget that we, as Amateur Radio Operators, have a choice whether or not we are "Dumbed Down". We don`t have to let the F.C.C. and the A.R.R.L. Dumb us down. It is a personal choice we can make.
There are allot of us that have been licensed for many years. We have a great deal of knowledge that we have gathered through those years. Just because the F.C.C. and the A.R.R.L. have dumbed down the testing doesn`t mean we old-timers are all the sudden "Dumb".
We Amateurs can have a unwritten rule that you are expected to know a certain amount about theory and operating practice if you are going to be a part of our on air community. We, as Amateurs, can set the standard.
Does that mean not talking to people, on the air, that don`t meet those standards? NO. That means helping others to meet those standards.
Maybe this will give you a feeling about what I`m trying to say here. I have heard some Amateurs say, as they are describing their station, that they have a "Home Brew" dipole. If I`m using a dipole I just say that I have a "dipole". For me, putting together a dipole is just a given. Putting the words "home brew" in front of dipole suggests to me that, for you, putting up a dipole was quite a test of your knowledge.
I "home brew" things like R.F. Amplifiers. That tests my knowledge and skills.
Lets just try to set some of our own standards and the heck with what the F.C.C. and The A.R.R.L. expect us to know.

[wb6mmj]

I think some people forget that we, as Amateur Radio Operators, have a choice whether or not we are "Dumbed Down". We don`t have to let the F.C.C. and the A.R.R.L. Dumb us down. It is a personal choice we can make.
There are allot of us that have been licensed for many years. We have a great deal of knowledge that we have gathered through those years. Just because the F.C.C. and the A.R.R.L. have dumbed down the testing doesn`t mean we old-timers are all the sudden "Dumb".
We Amateurs can have a unwritten rule that you are expected to know a certain amount about theory and operating practice if you are going to be a part of our on air community. We, as Amateurs, can set the standard.
Does that mean not talking to people, on the air, that don`t meet those standards? NO. That means helping others to meet those standards.
Maybe this will give you a feeling about what I`m trying to say here. I have heard some Amateurs say, as they are describing their station, that they have a "Home Brew" dipole. If I`m using a dipole I just say that I have a "dipole". For me, putting together a dipole is just a given. Putting the words "home brew" in front of dipole suggests to me that, for you, putting up a dipole was quite a test of your knowledge.
I "home brew" things like R.F. Amplifiers. That tests my knowledge and skills.
Lets just try to set some of our own standards and the heck with what the F.C.C. and The A.R.R.L. expect us to know.

[K8MHZ]

Putting the words "home brew" in front of dipole suggests to me that, for you, putting up a dipole was quite a test of your knowledge.Putting one up, no problem. Getting one to stay up is an entirely different issue!

Believe it or not, many places sell manufactured dipoles.

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/hamwire/4825.html

http://www.hamstation.com/shopping/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=175_117_120&products_id=664
(http://cgi.ebay.com/160-Meter-260%27-1%2F2-Wave--Amateur-Radio-Dipole-Antenna_W0QQitemZ320221091815QQcmdZViewItem?IMSfp= TL0802230844a36694)

[w4brf]

You call people names like a spoiled child and you want an apology? I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( oh well I see you met mr charlie ,:)

[KI4NGN]

For most of the material in the Tech question pool, such a huge number of questions don't make sense. Do you really think there is any need to have 200 variations of "When can you play music over amateur radio"?

You seem to be under the impression that the tests are largely mathematical in content. They are not. Much of the theory actually REQUIRES memorizing (number of scan lines for SSTV, etc).

On the Tech, General and Extra tests, you can miss all the mathematical questions and still pass. Increasing the pool size will not achieve what you desire. It would be necessary to drastically change the percentage of questions per topic on the tests. Do you wish to slight regulations, operating practices, safety, and so on just to insure that those who aren't getting the math will fail? The other choice would be to increase the length of the test and make all the additional questions require math, which is another way of changing the distribution of the question topics.

You may say but there's lots of theory that isn't math. Well that may be true but that material falls into the memorize catagory. Memorize the definition of a resistor and you can answer any non-math question about it. No point in increasing the size of the question pool for these types of theory questions.

You could have a 1000 questions on calculating the length of a dipole and a candidate could get all 1000 right. Yet that does not help the candidate actually MAKE a dipole. All he/she may be able to do is calculate the length of the legs.
I agree, a lot of education is memorization. Rules and regulations get memorized. Formulas get memorized. Constant values get memorized. The definition of a resistor gets memorized. The point is if there is a comprehension of what has been memorized. Are those rules and regulations understood? Is there understanding of where those memorized formulas are used? Is it understood how those constant values are used, what they represent? Memorization retains data. Learning is achieving a comprehension of how and when to use that data correctly.

We memorized the multiplication tables at a young age. Later we learned how to use them.

You make my point for me. First, I expressly stated that we are testing for the knowledge of how to make a dipole, not the skill to do so. There is a difference. The tests are knowledge and comprehension tests, not skill tests.

If that person you mention gets all 1000 of the questions correct, assuming they all had different answers, then they certainly have the knowledge. That person may not be able to actually make a dipole, but he does know how. I understand the theory of particle accelerators, but that doesn't mean that I could make one!

The point is that right now, with the current pool, a candidate can get all of the dipole questions correct without having any knowledge because he has memorized the questions and answers. IF there were a 1000, then that would not be possible....the person would have to possess the knowledge to get the correct answer.

Why do the tests have to change just because the number of available questions is increased?

You again mentioned the example of transmitting music. Again a very simple example for which the answer is always the same, it's never allowed. At least dozens of scenarios in which music is transmitted could be presented asking which is valid. This area is so simple because it is never allowed, and even someone just memorizing the answers would learn that it is never allowed. The point however is that they do understand that and did not just memorize the answers. Here's one simple variation of the music question that would test comprehension:

KI4NGN is asked by N8UZE on the air if he would like to hear the newly discovered unreleased Moody Blues song. Which is the correct response?

a. Would love to! Let me find a clear frequency where it won't bother anyone.
b. Would love to! Wait a second and let me close the door so that it doesn't disturb anyone.
c. Would love to! Let me give you my email address so that you can email it to me.
d. Would love to! Let's set up a schedule so that you can transmit it to me when the foreign broadcast stations are on the air.

This is a question that doesn't provide a simple "It is never allowed" answer or any variations of that answer, yet if the candidate knows that it is never allowed, then they know the correct answer. It's not even a trick question by any definition. I could think of many of variations of this that would have different answers and would test knowledge and comprehension on this very simple topic, and never use the words "It is never allowed".

This doesn't require a redistribution of the question pools. All that is needed is the will to do it. We're either going to test knowledge and comprehension or we're not. Again and emphasized: knowledge, not skill.

Increasing the size of the pool of available questions does not have any impact on the tests. Increasing the pool size either reduces or eliminates the possibilty of memorizing the questions and answers, enforcing the acquisition of knowledge and comprehension.

I just don't understand resistance to increasing the pool size. Why would anyone object to that? You haven't given a single reason other than saying that testing itself would have to change, and then expound on the impact of that. You haven't demonstrated why the tests would have to change, but just say that they would and therefore that is a reason not to change the pools.

Mike

[W1RFI]

I just don't understand resistance to increasing the pool size. Why would anyone object to that?

The idea sounds great in principle. In practice, the question pools are written by a handful of very overworked individuals on the question pool committee, the majority of which are doing so strictly as volunteers. The QPC is composed of representatives from the VECs. Every year, the QPC issues a call for the submission of questions for the pool, and it is a rare event for any of the people who have the time to expound in great detail on the forums about how the pools should be larger to have the time to submit even a single question.

It is not as easy a task as compiling questions, answers and distractors. Each question must be looked at carefully, to ensure that its answer is indeed correct, and that the distractors are indeed wrong.

Any increase in the pool size will require volunteers to do additional work in proportion to the size of the pools.

The premise that the pools will contain 10 times the number of questions than will appear in the exam is intended to make it easier to learn the concepts that to rote memorize the answers.

Right now, the published pool for the Tech prints on about 80 pages. Do we really think that handing a prospective licensee a stack of 800 pages will improve the quality of Amateur Radio? Three and a half pages served to tell me what I needed to know to pass the Novice exam in 1963. We have already dumbed down the exams to the point where it only takes 80 pages of study material at a minimum. I thik that if we went to 800 pages, it would be so dumbed down that few would want to enter Amateur Radio.

As to the music example you described, I think the pool could contain only one question:

Under what circumstances is the transmission of music allowed on Amateur Radio?

The correct answer, of course, is NOT never...

Ed, W1RFI

[KI4NGN]

The idea sounds great in principle. In practice, the question pools are written by a handful of very overworked individuals on the question pool committee, the majority of which are doing so strictly as volunteers. The QPC is composed of representatives from the VECs. Every year, the QPC issues a call for the submission of questions for the pool, and it is a rare event for any of the people who have the time to expound in great detail on the forums about how the pools should be larger to have the time to submit even a single question.

It is not as easy a task as compiling questions, answers and distractors. Each question must be looked at carefully, to ensure that its answer is indeed correct, and that the distractors are indeed wrong.

Any increase in the pool size will require volunteers to do additional work in proportion to the size of the pools.

The premise that the pools will contain 10 times the number of questions than will appear in the exam is intended to make it easier to learn the concepts that to rote memorize the answers.

Right now, the published pool for the Tech prints on about 80 pages. Do we really think that handing a prospective licensee a stack of 800 pages will improve the quality of Amateur Radio? Three and a half pages served to tell me what I needed to know to pass the Novice exam in 1963. We have already dumbed down the exams to the point where it only takes 80 pages of study material at a minimum. I thik that if we went to 800 pages, it would be so dumbed down that few would want to enter Amateur Radio.

As to the music example you described, I think the pool could contain only one question:

Under what circumstances is the transmission of music allowed on Amateur Radio?

The correct answer, of course, is NOT never...

Ed, W1RFI
First of all, I would be glad to submit questions. The reason that I never have is that they are not used to increase the size of the pool, just change the content of the pool.

I very much appreciate the work of volunteers. What I don't appreciate is to write to a VEC and ask why they don't increase the size of the pool and receive no response. If they had responded, stated that they need volunteers for that effort, I would not hesitate one second to offer whatever help I could.

800 pages is too many to study? The entire 2006 ARRL Handbook is only slightly over 1000 pages, and studying less than half of them, actually learning the material, would prepare just about anyone for the general class, if not the extra class, exam.

You keep mentioning the pages that you used to prepare for your novice exam. Those pages were not the exam, but a guide for what you needed to know. You studied the areas indicated by those 3-1/2 pages and learned the material; you did not memorize the questions and answers.

The question pools are supposed to be a study aid (according to the FCC), not the focus of studying. Your approach to the tests is exactly what is wrong with them. You start out by handing them all of the possible questions, talk about presenting them with 80 pages, and then state that 800 would be overwhelming.

The creation of question variations is not dumbing down and I don't know why you'd make such a statement. Creating variations of questions in different areas doesn't make them simpler, it just makes them harder to memorize. That is dumbing down? How??

The approach of handing the candidate the questions and answers and using that to study is exactly what has gone wrong with our entire education system. Schools are no longer concerned with teaching, but with passing government mandated tests. Classes are geared from the first day of classes towards passing those tests: it doesn't matter if the students learn anything as long as they get the correct test answers.

You are telling me that this is the same goal of our current test system. It doesn't matter if the proposective ops learned anything, the goal is to pass the test.

If that is the goal, then that forces me into a camp that I have long opposed: why then even have testing? Just accept a fee, issue the license and be done with it, instead of maintaining the farce that the tests demonstrate knowledge.

Mike

PS: As far as the music question. Yes, it is very simple. Never. You think that shows comprehension? Yes, most would think so, but I can guaurantee you that even that simple answer would be open to interpretation by some people. "My FM radio was playing in the backround during my phone QSO, but I wasn't intentionally transmitting music." So yes, I would suggest many variations to that simple area just to be sure that the candiate understood that never means never, under no circumstances, accidently or on purpose, background or not.

[ab0wr]

ki4ngn:KI4NGN is asked by N8UZE on the air if he would like to hear the newly discovered unreleased Moody Blues song. Which is the correct response?

a. Would love to! Let me find a clear frequency where it won't bother anyone.
b. Would love to! Wait a second and let me close the door so that it doesn't disturb anyone.
c. Would love to! Let me give you my email address so that you can email it to me.
d. Would love to! Let's set up a schedule so that you can transmit it to me when the foreign broadcast stations are on the air.

This is a question that doesn't provide a simple "It is never allowed" answer or any variations of that answer, yet if the candidate knows that it is never allowed, then they know the correct answer. It's not even a trick question by any definition. I could think of many of variations of this that would have different answers and would test knowledge and comprehension on this very simple topic, and never use the words "It is never allowed".

I love this example. If this were included in the study pool it would 1) require the student to look at the rules to determine the answer and 2) the student would be able to apply the rule to any subsequent scenario.

The whole idea behind having to learn to recognize a colpitts oscillator is to learn how the feedback network in a colpitts works. Then, no matter how the schematic is drawn, you can figure out that it is a colpitts. That's how the testing paradigm *used* to work. That's *not* how it works today.

I think you've nailed something here that goes by unrecognized most of the time. The type of questions in the pool today reflects the paradigm of the question originators on what they think they should be testing for. If you think you should be testing for rote memorization skills then that is how the questions get written. If you think you should be testing for knowlege and the ability to apply that knowledge then that is how the questions would get written.

We've gone too far down the rote memorization path. It is time for a change.

tim ab0wr

[ka5s]

Actually, your answer was expressed the same way as my postulated question: field strength in volts/meter.

Power density if not watts/meter; it is watts/square meter.

Field strength varies with the inverse of the distance. Power density varies as the inverse squared.

Ed, W1RFI

I relized after posting that I may have simply repeated something I read elsewhere, since we get V/m after taking the square root of E[squared]R, which if I correctly remember my algebra calls for dropping the "square" from its result.

Then there's "ohms per square." Let the confusion begin! Heh!

Cortland
KA5S

[N8UZE]

I agree, a lot of education is memorization. Rules and regulations get memorized. Formulas get memorized. Constant values get memorized. The definition of a resistor gets memorized. The point is if there is a comprehension of what has been memorized. Are those rules and regulations understood? Is there understanding of where those memorized formulas are used? Is it understood how those constant values are used, what they represent? Memorization retains data. Learning is achieving a comprehension of how and when to use that data correctly.

We memorized the multiplication tables at a young age. Later we learned how to use them.

Yes we do learn them at a young age and we are allowed to progress to the next grade without yet knowing how to use them. Really knowing how and when to use something only comes from actual experience.

You make my point for me. First, I expressly stated that we are testing for the knowledge of how to make a dipole, not the skill to do so. There is a difference. The tests are knowledge and comprehension tests, not skill tests.

So what would you put on the test? To demonstrate knowledge in the sense that I think you are talking about, would, in my opinion, require that the applicant write an essay type answer that would have to be subjectively evaluated by the examiners.

If that person you mention gets all 1000 of the questions correct, assuming they all had different answers, then they certainly have the knowledge. That person may not be able to actually make a dipole, but he does know how. I understand the theory of particle accelerators, but that doesn't mean that I could make one!

1000 variations of the same thing prove nothing. You can have questions about calculating the length, whether a balun is needed, whether you should use ladder line or coax, how to connect the coax to the legs, etc. We will still hear the question "How do I build a dipole?"

Re the particle accelerator theory. It happens to be my opinion that if you can't build it (assuming financing and land use regulations etc don't get in the way), you don't really understand it. And before you comment most people do not understand a lot of the things they use on a daily basis. Many ham radio operator don't understand radios.

The point is that right now, with the current pool, a candidate can get all of the dipole questions correct without having any knowledge because he has memorized the questions and answers. IF there were a 1000, then that would not be possible....the person would have to possess the knowledge to get the correct answer.

It would be quite possible to answer 1000 questions correctly without ending up with the knowledge to actually build a dipole.

Why do the tests have to change just because the number of available questions is increased?

You want to flunk people for not knowing theory. Since it is possible to skip all of the theory questions and still pass the test, the percentages of questions from the various categories would have to change to beef up the theory section. You would have to have fewer questions on the test in the categories of rules, operating practices, safety and increase the number of questions on the test about theory. The test would still be 35 questions but the ratios would have to change to be able to insure flunking a person who did not know the theory.

You again mentioned the example of transmitting music. Again a very simple example for which the answer is always the same, it's never allowed. At least dozens of scenarios in which music is transmitted could be presented asking which is valid. This area is so simple because it is never allowed, and even someone just memorizing the answers would learn that it is never allowed. The point however is that they do understand that and did not just memorize the answers. Here's one simple variation of the music question that would test comprehension:

KI4NGN is asked by N8UZE on the air if he would like to hear the newly discovered unreleased Moody Blues song. Which is the correct response?

a. Would love to! Let me find a clear frequency where it won't bother anyone.
b. Would love to! Wait a second and let me close the door so that it doesn't disturb anyone.
c. Would love to! Let me give you my email address so that you can email it to me.
d. Would love to! Let's set up a schedule so that you can transmit it to me when the foreign broadcast stations are on the air.

I would never ask such because all your situations are illegal under one law or another. Item c doesn't violate Part 97 but does violate copyright laws. These days unreleased items are protected from the day of creation without the requirement for release, publication, or copyright registration although such things do give a stronger basis for a complaint if it is necessary to file a suit.

If I were taking a licensing test and this question appeared, I'd demand a different version of the test and afterwards notify the NCVEC that this particular question is a very bad one and encourage them to withdraw it.

Your example illustrates the difficulties of expanding the pool and coming up with questions and answers. The question/answer should not be such as to lead the candidate to think that such an activity is legal outside of amateur radio.

This is a question that doesn't provide a simple "It is never allowed" answer or any variations of that answer, yet if the candidate knows that it is never allowed, then they know the correct answer. It's not even a trick question by any definition. I could think of many of variations of this that would have different answers and would test knowledge and comprehension on this very simple topic, and never use the words "It is never allowed".

Why bother? "Never allowed" is quite easy to understand. Or do you wish to write questions that test an applicant's reading comprehension rather than understanding and comprehension of the rules?

I know several people with poor reading comprehension yet have a very good grasp of "Never". They will not violate this provision of Part 97.

This doesn't require a redistribution of the question pools. All that is needed is the will to do it. We're either going to test knowledge and comprehension or we're not. Again and emphasized: knowledge, not skill.

You are repeating yourself so I will repeat myself. There are 35 questions on the test. Some relate to rules, some to operating practice, some to safety, some to theory. To guarantee that someone who does not know theory would flunk, the bulk of the questions on the test would have to be theory questions. This means cutting back the number of questions on rules, operating practices and safety.

Increasing the size of the pool of available questions does not have any impact on the tests. Increasing the pool size either reduces or eliminates the possibilty of memorizing the questions and answers, enforcing the acquisition of knowledge and comprehension.

See previous comment. You are repeating yourself in a different way. Increasing the number of theory questions in the pool won't do what you think it will. People will just make sure that they can get all the other questions right on the test and skip the theory entirely.

I just don't understand resistance to increasing the pool size. Why would anyone object to that? You haven't given a single reason other than saying that testing itself would have to change, and then expound on the impact of that. You haven't demonstrated why the tests would have to change, but just say that they would and therefore that is a reason not to change the pools.

I've explained several times why the test would have to change. Right now you can miss the theory questions and pass the test. Increasing the size of the question pool won't change that if the number of theory questions on the test remains the same. To insure that people weak on theory will fail requires increasing the number of theory questions on the test at the expense of the other categories.

Go read the syllabus of what is being tested. Here's a link for the Technician.
Tech Syllabus & Question Pool (http://www.ncvec.org/downloads/2006tech.pdf)

If you look at the Technician test design in detail, you will find that the exam will contain only 5 radio/electronic theory questions. The test will also contain only 3 radio wave/antenna/propagation questions. The rest of the questions all fall under categories that amount to rules and operating procedures. A person can skip all 8 theory questions and still pass the test since they will have a passing grade even if they miss 9 questions. Therefore if you wish to flunk them on theory then you must increase the theory questions to not less than 10 out of the 35. To increase the theory questions to 10 or more, you must reduce the number of questions in the other categories OR increase the length of the test itself by adding additional theory questions.

So increasing the size of the question pool does not accomplish your goal. I.e. to insure that they understand the theory.

Frankly, I think the Technician test should focus on rules and operating practices rather than theory. If he fries his radio or himself from not understanding theory, that's his problem not mine.

[K7JEM]

When is an amateur station authorized to transmit music?
A. Amateurs may not transmit music, except as incidental to an
authorized rebroadcast of space shuttle communications
B. Only when the music produces no spurious emissions
C. Only to interfere with an illegal transmission
D. Only when the music is above 1280 MHz



It looks like the simple answer "never" is not quite correct.

Joe

[N8UZE]

When is an amateur station authorized to transmit music?
A. Amateurs may not transmit music, except as incidental to an
authorized rebroadcast of space shuttle communications
B. Only when the music produces no spurious emissions
C. Only to interfere with an illegal transmission
D. Only when the music is above 1280 MHz

It looks like the simple answer "never" is not quite correct.

Joe

Actually you are correct but how many different ways can that really be asked? Yes you can come up with somewhat different wordings but that won't change the fact that the answer is simply memorizing a single sentence. There are very few people who would be thrown by different phrasing on a question of this type.

[K7JEM]

Actually you are correct but how many different ways can that really be asked? Yes you can come up with somewhat different wordings but that won't change the fact that the answer is simply memorizing a single sentence. There are very few people who would be thrown by different phrasing on a question of this type.

I totally agree. This is the whole point. This is such a simple concept, and occupies ONE line in the FCC rules, why would we need 1000 questions in the pool about it?

There is only ONE question in the tech pool about this, and your chance of getting it is only about 10%. EVEN IF the pool were increased by 1000 times, your chances of getting a question involving music would still only be 10%, since the number of questions on the test do not change.

BTW, that question he proposed about the Moody Blues song would not be able to be used for so many different reasons.

Joe

[W7BDN]

Oh great! I've been studying for Extra and now I'm going to have to start all over.

"Question 1. Beneath your chair you will find a bag of SM components and other parts. Assemble an FTDX9000 with DMU from scratch. Function check all features of the radio, then tune to 14.300. Find the maritime mobile net and copy the current weather for the North Atlantic. How high are the waves cresting 150 miles east of Iceland?" ;)

Bruce

PS - I know what a vacuum tube is: It's what I put my coffee in before I head out to the shack. But what is "triode?" Is that a better brand that keeps the coffee hotter longer? :D