Where did all the knowledge go?

[KB1GYQ]

Why is it that so many extra class hams post questions like how long do I make the antenna, or don't understand amplifier class, or other such stuff that is on lower class tests? Is it that they memorized the test, or old-timers disease, or did they just not have enough coffee before posting (that old gets me from time to time http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif)

[KD5KUF]

A lot of new hams are busting their butts to become an extra within the first year. They concentrate so hard on their final destination that they don't take time to enjoy the journey along the way.

You don't really learn anything cramming for tests. You must understand it and absorb it slowly to really learn anything. If a doctor could go from med school freshman to full fledged surgeon in one year, he wouldn't get any of my business. I'd take my chances with dying first.

Anything really worth doing is worth spending the rest of your life on. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KC9CNN]

Look at the monster the FCC has created......ME.

KC9CNN - 16 year old Amateur Extra

BTW....I don't ask questions such as those.

[N0PU]

OH.. I think you are overstressing the point...

I have been in and around Ham Radio since the middle 50s and even back then you had the doers and the sitters... I can remember that if you wanted to get good info on electronics then you went to certain people... and you NEVER asked certain others who thought they knew stuff and really didn't... they were just parrots...

I also think a higher percentage of Hams in those days were engineers and technicians... maybe that was just in my area... I was located near Seattle and we had the Boeing plant there and a lot of Hams worked there or at companies that supported Boeing...

The point is there were Generals [Hardly anyone had higher class licences] even then who didn't know anymore than enough to pass the test... there were those that worked a lot of CW but couldn't fix their own rigs... There were many who knew less than some of the novices at the time...

Those Hams who truely love electronics will get into it... those who don't, won't... and then there are some who are just too dern'd lazy to find out if they COULD like it or not...

Ham's are a sub-set of the overall population... and they bring to Ham Radio those biases and feelings that they have in their 'other-life'...

Nothing has changed except our own perceptions of it as we have grown with it...

[KD7WHQ]

Then you have the people like myself who started in with the electronics at age 8 in the 1960's, and just continued to learn.
Not everyone has that kind of background, and with off-the-shelf radios, it isn't quite the requirement it once was.
Although, I will admit surprise when the most basic of electronic theory is unknown.

73

Will

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GYQ @ June 14 2003,08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it that so many extra class hams post questions like how long do I make the antenna, or don't understand amplifier class, or other such stuff that is on lower class tests?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm a bit concerned that the entry level knowledge of some newer hams is being called into question. Why? Because not all of us newbies have technical jobs or a technical background, yet we might still be interested in technical hobbies. There seems to be a tendency for techie-types to enter into this hobby, and it would follow that many of those techie-types might already possess degrees in the field of electronics engineering or related areas.

However, not all hams are EE's, nor are all of us in a technical career field. The Tech and General study materials teach a prospective ham or upgrade class very little in the way of practical knowledge. Hands on experience is the way I'm learning about electronics, and it's far better than relying on the study manuals, which don't really teach, but simply &quot;tell&quot; you about introductory electronics and antennas and so on.

The only antenna type that is delineated to any real degree on the Tech and General written exams (insofar as telling someone how to design and make their own) is the humble dipole. I built one for 17 meters, and I just got finished talking to a guy in France using that dipole and 100 watts. No biggie, I know, but to me it was pretty cool to put together that antenna and have it work (and get a decent signal report!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif the first time I used it.

I also don't recall reading anything in the Tech and General study manuals about amplifier &quot;classes&quot;. The only things I recall reading about amplifiers are that they could not be driven with less than &quot;X&quot; watts if they were certain types of amplifiers, that 11 meter amplifiers are illegal, and that amateurs could only build one amplifier a year without FCC approval. I don't recall anything in the materials about amplifier &quot;classes&quot; at all, and I still don't know anything about them because I don't own one.

The Tech and General study materials present a very cursory view of most aspects of electronics and antenna theory. Those concepts are not the strong suit of the study materials. They focus much more on rules n' regs, and on basic AR concepts.

If one is not an EE (which I am not) they need to learn EE theory and construction of RF-emitting devices on their own time. The AR licenses are a license to learn, nothing more. Of course you're at an advantage if you already know electronics and/or antenna theory going into the hobby, but not all of us do and we're learning it on the fly.

The Extra manual has a lot more theory in it, but it is not making much sense to me. That is why I'm forestalling my Extra upgrade until I get more hands-on EE experience and learn more about how the guts of a radio work before I attempt to dive into the electronics theory part of the Extra materials. Without practical knowledge, I'll be mostly scratching my head over exactly what it is the study materials are talking about, and why I need to know it. Me, I like to know &quot;why&quot; before I learn the &quot;how&quot;, because it just ends up making more sense that way.

Telling is very different than teaching. The study manuals &quot;tell&quot; you more about subjects than they can &quot;teach&quot; you about them. I'm glad I have a good couple of elmers who are EE's for a living. They have taught me more in two hours than studying the General and Extra manuals have in two months.

[KD7WHQ]

The ARRL Handbook is probably the most useful resource in existance for electronics, antenna design, and down a long list.
It starts with the basics, and works up. The mathematics section may seem daunting, but a lot of the calculations would only used in specific circumstances, and that section could be referred back to when needed.
For a reference, I recommend it highly.
I wasn't actually bringing anything into question, only mentioning surprise.

73

Will

[w5alt]

I have to agree with Harry, that hams are a cross section of people in general and some are bright, hard working, etc. and others are lazy and don't want to learn. That's just the way it has always been and will continue to be.

What concerns me more than anything is the &quot;lazy&quot; factor. I see questions asked with answers that could easily be found if someone took just a few minutes to search for the answer.

An example is the length of a dipole, that's been asked many times over. The answer is not only in ANY antenna book, the ARRL Handbook, many, many web pages, and yet people keep asking. I have to come to the conclusion that either
# a) they are not bright enough to know how to use a search engine,
or b) they are not capable of reading such resources,
or c) they don't beleive what they read and want the information confirmed,
or d) they are just too lazy to take a few minutes to search and prefer to let someone else do it for them.

Then there are the questions that should have been learned in passing the tests. Such as when to ID, what bands and modes can be used, etc. When I see those questions, I cringe. How the heck did they get a license in the first place? I wonder if
# a) They cheated and really didn't take a test,
or b) didn't think the information was worth remembering,
or c) those things were in the questions they missed on the exams,
or d) they are too lazy to think about what they learned or take a look at their study materials.

On the other hand, at least they asked! I've asked stupid questions in my lifetime - and will probably ask more.

People are people and hams are people, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

73,

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GYQ @ June 13 2003,09:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it that so many extra class hams post questions like how long do I make the antenna, or don't understand amplifier class, or other such stuff that is on lower class tests? Is it that they memorized the test, or old-timers disease, or did they just not have enough coffee before posting (that old gets me from time to time http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I didn't know all the stuff I know now after cramming for my General in 1963 by studying the 16-page ARRL study material for the General. By the time I got around to taking the Extra -- post incentive licensing, after letting my original license lapse for over 10 yeard -- my knowledge was a combination of what I studied and what I had picked up along the way.

Although the accomplishments of passing the tests are fine ones, the accomplishment we achieve over a lifetime of ham radio are what this is really all about. I am sure I was as dumb way back when I was first licensed as some folks appear to you today. I was just too busy having fun and learning from every mistake to remember anything but the fun.

We also didn't have the Internet back then, so I wasn't able to go to a newsgroup and read a post that TOLD me how dumb I was, so I never knew that ham radio was supposed to be anything but fun.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ June 15 2003,05:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We also didn't have the Internet back then, so I wasn't able to go to a newsgroup and read a post that TOLD me how dumb I was, so I never knew that ham radio was supposed to be anything but fun.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
RFI:

My bet is you also didn't go running off asking someone the length of a dipole either... You were like the rest of us... you went and looked it up and learned a lot in the process of finding it... not to mention the number of times that you went looking for something in one of the handbooks and found 37 other things that caught your eye and you stopped to check it out...

THAT is what is missed by asking simple questions here and that is why I won't give [usually] direct answers unless I can see the person has done some searching and homework first...

I typically ignore question that start out &quot;What is...&quot; and I really get into questions that start out &quot;WHY is...&quot; or &quot;Where is...&quot; - There is a very big difference... the first indicates a lack of study [generally speaking...there are exceptions], the second two are looking for further UNDERSTANDING... and a desire to learn...

It is an attitude difference... I have turned down a number of folks from this board who wrote me personally with 'What is...&quot; questions... sent then right to the books... One even cussed me out for being a jerk because I wanted to show him HOW to find out how to do something instead of telling him WHAT to do... I sent HIM to my profile page... And as others will tell you I have also spent untold hours with some folks who are trying to learn...

It all comes down to attitude...

[WA2ZDY]

I love when this subject comes up. I've mentioned it more than a few times myself, but hey, it's nice to see i'm not the only one concerned about this.

I really get a kick out of the knee-jerk &quot;I'm not an EE&quot; reaction. Hey, neither am I. I'm a prison guard. I admit, I have worked in electronics commercially though. But I'm not an electrical engineer, nor was I when I got and passed my Extra AND commercial radio exams - at age 16.

Here's what I am though. I'm a ham. I belong to a fraternity of folks who constitute what was once upon a time called a technically oriented service. A peek at some of Part 97.1 will help clarify:

§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

&copy; Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.


Notice that those all allude to some sort of &quot;technical ability?&quot; That is what ham radio is all about and is why the United States government along with most of the governments of the world allow us to exist. I mean there it is, right out of the Federal statutes folks. Nothing about being an EE in there, just about ham radio being a technical kind of thing.

Ok, so you don't want to be a technically oriented person. That's fine. We don't care. I don't anymore anyway. But W5ALT and N0PU bring up some good points. There are some things you need to know how to do. And folks ask those things here all the time.

If you didn't need to know them, you wouldn't be here asking, would you?

KC0ODY said &quot;The only antenna type that is delineated to any real degree on the Tech and General written exams (insofar as telling someone how to design and make their own) is the humble dipole. I built one for 17 meters, and I just got finished talking to a guy in France using that dipole and 100 watts. No biggie, I know, but to me it was pretty cool to put together that antenna and have it work (and get a decent signal report! the first time I used it.&quot; Congratulations. And I'm sure there was little there about different antennas. The basis of HOW to make antennas is there though. The formula for either a halfwave dipole or a quarter wave vertical was there - somewhere.

If they didn't expect a new ham to know how to make an antenna, wouldn't that make the government a bunch of shills for the commercial antenna companies? I think the presumption is there that since hams have always made antennas, they would continue to do so. And I'm not talking about the mechanical things we use on our cars and such. But for 40m, a dipole can't be beat. And some folks pay $50 for one? I wish I was selling antennas.

KC0ODY also said &quot;If one is not an EE (which I am not) they need to learn EE theory and construction of RF-emitting devices on their own time. The AR licenses are a license to learn, nothing more. Of course you're at an advantage if you already know electronics and/or antenna theory going into the hobby, but not all of us do and we're learning it on the fly.&quot; This is incorrect. You are responsible for the operation of your transmitter. If you have no clue what's going on in there, how can you meet your responsibilities? If you get a pink ticket from FCC, I don't suggest your reply within 20 days be &quot;well, I don't rightly know why my rig is bad. You didn't make me learn it, you didn't test me on it, so you can't hold me responsible.&quot; Sure, I know it's not likely. But it's the law.

W5ALT said &quot;Then there are the questions that should have been learned in passing the tests. Such as when to ID, what bands and modes can be used, etc. When I see those questions, I cringe. How the heck did they get a license in the first place? I wonder if
a) They cheated and really didn't take a test,
or b) didn't think the information was worth remembering,
or c) those things were in the questions they missed on the exams,
or d) they are too lazy to think about what they learned or take a look at their study materials.&quot;

BINGO in great big capital letters!!!! Thank you Walt! Someone thinking my way.

Now most of you know who answer most of the technical questions. W5ALT, N0PU, K9STH, and WB2WIK. A lot of the rest of us know a few things here and there too. I'm not such a good theoretical person and I have trouble spitting stuff out in writing. (This is probably why I'm a prison guard.) And yes, those guys have, as far as I know - not sure about Walt - worked in electronics as a career. I have too as I mentioned before. I installed two way radios in New York City police cars in 1980. And I spent some time servicing communication equipment on seagoing ships. But an EE? No. And the stuff I know, I knew before taking those jobs. I got those jobs because I knew the stuff as a ham. Again, I got my commercial radiotelegraph license with radar and aircraft (useless) endorsements when I was 16.

But it shouldn't take a commercial need to know what you're doing. Sure, you drive your car and don't fix it yourself. But I'll bet you know how to know when it needs oil. You might even know how to change the tire (it amazes me how many folks don't though.)

Anyway, it all comes back to 97.1 - it's all right there, in writing.

[KC8QMU]

Ham radio operators are encouraged to uprade as quickly as possible for the sake of frequency priviledges- many study the question pools, get the extra and just quit learning. #The sad part is, by just studying the pool they really never learned much in the first place. #I hold a general class license, and I can't believe what some of the extras will say when they are talking about something over the air. #How does it breed? A newbie will ask an extra a question, maybe the extra doesn't know the answer but feeds a line of bs to the newbie. #Never be afraid to say you don't know something. #But thankfully most of the Extras ARE NOT like this. #I keep my ears open and have learned a lot from them.
#I have a little training in electronics, I know my way around a circuit board a lil, but I'm far from an engineer and I won't try to tell some one I am- #I am an AMATEUR.
#But to me, HAM radio is about learning and applying the knowledge and know how that you have learned. #A few nights ago I went to fire my TS-180S up, and the reciever audio was almost non exsistent. #I messed around, and by the way it ws acting, I thought to #myself, gee that acts like I lost a cap in the audio amplifier. #So out comes my service manual, and a few hours later I find the bad cap, replace it, put it back together and I'm back in business. #Do you guys realize how many would be spending a ton of money on a whole new radio over that little 470 microfarad capacitor?
A good deal of satisfaction for me in the hobby is knowing that I have kept my station running, it may not be the biggest, newest or the best, but it is MINE.

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA2ZDY @ June 15 2003,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes, those guys have, as far as I know - not sure about Walt - worked in electronics as a career.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nope, I've never worked in electronics - this is truly a hobby for me. In my daytime job(s) I study oil reservoirs and write engineering (non-EE) software. In my spare time I study radio, antennas, electronics, computers and anything else that strikes my fancy.

Harry, Glen, Steve and others know MUCH, MUCH more about most electronic things than I do and occasionally straighten me out - for which I am grateful.

But I probably know how to get the smoke out of electronics parts faster than they do! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73,

[N0PU]

For the fella out there who's worrying about EE...

I'm NOT a college graduate... well, ok, I got a two year degree in general studies when I was 40... That's it for degrees...

But I have studied calculus... and I have studied engineering... BUT it was on my own... My mommy and Daddy didn't do pay for it if that is what ya think....

I also paid for my electronics education with 12 years of my life in the Navy... [ 6 more than required ]

I also continue learning... EVERY single day I read at least a chapter on some technical subject... EVERY day!

That is how I got where I am in this field... NOT by crabbin' about other peoples superior knowledge... Their superior knowledge challanged me to do more...

and ya don't even have to buy books anymore... Ya have the internet and there is more tech stuff on the net than one person could ever possibly learn in 10 life times...

but YOU have to do it... NOBODY can do it for ya... NOBODY wants to do it for ya... We all want YOU to get it for you, so that you can be pleased with yourself...

OK...end RANT.... sorry folks...

[W5HTW]

The formula for calculating the length of a dipole was on my 1956 Novice test. Classes of amps were on my 1957 General test.

An anecdote I relate from a recent incident points out a where we are. Listening on 2 meters, I overheard a conversation between two extra class hams. One was asking the other if a coil &quot;had any resistance.&quot; The second ham didn't know. The first stated he thought it should have &quot;some resistance&quot; but didn't know for sure. I found myself wondering if he was saying it has no resistance meaning it has zero ohms or infinite ohms. Nothing in the conversation told me that. After a bit of discussion, he said he was going to throw it away, since he had no idea how to measure it. Then he said, &quot;Well, I do and I don't, if you know what I mean.&quot; Gosh, no, I have no idea what he meant. I was not in a position to respond with assitance, as I was on an HT miles from the repeater and knew I could not hit it with any reliability. But as I reached my destination, I heard a third extra class join in and begin to speculate (correctly I think) about the DC resistance of a coil. Yes, three Extra Class hams with no knowledge of Ohms law.

We complain about the lack of Elmering. But when the Elmers -- the Experts -- don't know the basics, just who IS going to do the Elmering? We old timers will die off, and the new Extras (Experts) who know how to hook up a sound card but not how to read DC resistance across a coil of wire, will be left in the dark, the blind leading the blind.

I don't see it as individual's fault, though, and I don't fault the hams in the above example. It is simply the way we do things today. We don't teach, we don't instruct. We just get the body count up at the VE session and then we kick 'em out the door and grab some more. There is no after-license assistance. And the Extra Class, which once required experience, (the real meaning of the word &quot;expert'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif now is a result of the same mentality the First Phone cram schools had in the 1970s - &quot;Teach the license and get 'em out the door.&quot; It isn't a new process; it's been done in commercial licensing before we hams got onto the &quot;memorization&quot; bus.

We had it right. A beginner's license, apprentice class, (Novice) which started someone out under circumstances in which he could and would get help. A journeyman's license (General) which made us equal to the air conditioning journeyman or the welder journeyman. And a &quot;master's&quot; license, which, patterned after the industrial certifications, required &quot;time in grade&quot; before you were an expert.

A lot of us OTs don't know much about digital electronics, as like many others here, we are not EEs. We worked in electronics, in tubes, in transmitters and receivers, and we didn't know what a sound card was, or how to byte one. The world has changed. But we are dealing in this hobby with &quot;radio&quot; as our foundation, not computers, and therefore we should know something about &quot;radio&quot; before we are given status of expert and given the responsibility of helping the apprentice (which is now the Tech or CB) or the journeyman. The way it is going, we will all be Experts, no apprentices at all, and none of us will know anything.

73
Ed

[KC8QMU]

(cough cough) inductive reactance (cough cough) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[NY7Q]

I AGREE WITH N0PU 100%. HAM RADIO IS WHAT STARTED ME ON MY JOURNEY WITH ELECTRONICS IN THE NAVY. WE HAD 90 DAYS WONDERS, NEW LEADERS IN THE NAVY. WE ALSO HAD THE NAVAL ACADEMY GRADUATES. OF THE TWO, NAGs WERE THE ELITE AND NEW THEIR BUSINESS. THESE NEW CODELESS, EDUCATIONLESS, GET IT WITHOUT WORK EXTRAS MAKE ME WANNA PUKE.

[KC8QMU]

Ummmmm.... how can you be codeless and be an Extra? Hell, 80% of hams would be Extras then. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[w5alt]

This probably means I have too much time on my hands, but ... I was thinking about the problem and I do not think it has anything much to do with ham radio. People are people and hams are a cross section of people. In general there seems to be an unwillingness to think nearly everywhere.

Part of my job is training newly graduated engineers. Every single one of them is usually in my office every 15 minutes asking what to do next. I refuse to tell them - my standard reply is &quot;What do you think you should do?&quot; They think things over and normally come up with a reasonable idea - normally they know what to do, but are afraid to say so. This usually goes on for somewhere between 2 and 4 months at which time they reach frustration level.

At that point a typical question I get is &quot;What happens if I'm wrong?&quot; or something similar. I always tell them that if they are wrong, they get to do the same thing I do when I'm wrong - think of a different approach or redo my work correctly. It usually takes a total of about 6 months, some more, some less, of that frustration on both their part and mine, until they finally start thinking for themselves. They usually think I'm a jerk and several have complained to managers (no problem, I'm not in any popularity contest).

But, after about 6 months they normally get &quot;stuck&quot; having to do something when I'm not around. Then they watch everyone else flounder while they figure out what to do, do it, and tell me about it later. That's when they realize why I made them do things on their own. There have been a few who quit, but 90% go on and I know I can pit them head to head against our competition without losing any sleep. And they know it too.

Maybe lots of the questions we get on here are from people who just need to have their knowledge reinforced or who need to learn how to look at a problem a different way. Some will go away mad, some will learn. The difference is that this is a hobby. At work I can make people think or they don't get a pay check. Here it's up to them.

Just another thought - maybe I'm out in left field.

73,

[KC8QMU]

I think Walt just hit it square on the head- it's a learning process that we all have to go through. Some are just more readily to admit it than others.

[N0PU]

NY7Q:

There was one more group even more elite than the NAGs...

That was the LDOs... Limited Duty Officers... The ones who came up through the ranks as white hats... They KNEW their business and nobody, not even the Skipper, screwed with 'em much... But then they were professional Sailors and nobody HAD to screw with 'em... They were the ones the Skipper KNEW he could get straight answers from...

I used to love it when I got an LDO or a Chief Warrant as a DivO... He might not know the exact equipment you were working on but he sure as hell could understand that a 1 watt rstr could be used to replace a 1/2 watt and run interference for ya with the supply dept. or find a way to explain to the Skipper that he couldn't have another comm circuit because the deck apes had just finished redleading the port side vertical [including the sign with 4&quot; high letters &quot;DO NOT PAINT&quot;].

Bring back any memories?
Those WERE the days...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA2ZDY @ June 15 2003,10:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KC0ODY also said &quot;If one is not an EE (which I am not) they need to learn EE theory and construction of RF-emitting devices on their own time. The AR licenses are a license to learn, nothing more. Of course you're at an advantage if you already know electronics and/or antenna theory going into the hobby, but not all of us do and we're learning it on the fly.&quot; #This is incorrect. #You are responsible for the operation of your transmitter. #If you have no clue what's going on in there, how can you meet your responsibilities? #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know if we are on the same page here, so let me clarify. Exactly how much about my IC-718's innards was I supposed to know before I started using it? I'm not talking about its basic operating functions or safe operating procedures; I'm talking about the circuit itself and what makes a transceiver work. Are new hams really supposed to know that sort of thing before we get into the hobby, or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some of the more technically-minded amongst us?

I can understand the frustration that many of the old timers must feel when a newbie asks what seems to be a very basic question on something they should already know. I would not expect a new ham to know any more than what they studied in the manuals- provided, that is, they did study, and not just memorize the answers.

I learned the material for the General test (I didn't memorize the answers) and read the manual for my transceiver before I ever plugged it in. As far as I can tell, neither the FCC nor the ARRL VECs require someone to be able to build a transceiver from scratch before you sit for amateur radio exams.

I know that there are many hams who would prefer that anyone getting into the hobby should know more about electronics than what is currently required. The point I was trying to make is that not all of us will. The EE's among us are coming from a different perspective, and they should remember that they, too, were once new to electronics and radio. Some of us newbies will obtain a deeper understanding of electronics and circuits, but on our own time. I stand by that statement.

You said below: &quot;If you have no clue what's going on in there, how can you meet your responsibilities?&quot; #You must have some idea of how much new hams are supposed to know about &quot;what's going on in there&quot;, then.

I had a clue before I got on the HF bands that my transmitter of choice was going to run 100 watts out and that I was responsible for staying within the bands/power limits of my license. So far, so good. I didn't build the transceiver myself, so I figgered that the knowledgeable folks at Icom knew how to put capacitor A here and resistor B over there and have it work the way it was supposed to. Sorry, but I just don't know enough about circuit design to build my own transceivers at this point.

If the FCC required all new hams to have more than a cursory knowledge of electronics beyond what's in the study manuals, then they would change the study guides accordingly. Expecting a new ham to learn anything beyond very basic electronics from the study guides, well, that ain't gonna happen, and yet that is the basic knowledge level many of us have when getting into the hobby.

I suppose this brings us back to the subject that started this thread... where did all the knowledge go? I imagine that many hams of yesteryear did have more knowledge than today's average newbie to the hobby, but then again, out of the box transceivers were far less common, and likely far more expensive, back then.

Before I hear anyone say anything about &quot;appliance operators&quot;, I go back to my original statement, that not all new hams are EE's, nor do all of us have more than a very basic knowledge of circuits and how they work. That's not required, but since I'm interested in learning how my radio works and learning how to build my own antennas, I will certainly go out and obtain the knowledge. As will any ham that is that interested in the same.

[AG3Y]

I was a bit hesitant to put anything on here about this, because I asked essentially the same question in a thread called &quot;Where's the Beef&quot; and it failed to take off like this discussion has.

However, the statements made by Walt, and N0PU and the others are very true and I just had to express how much I agree with them! I too, am amazed at how many Extras do not know how to put up a simple dipole antenna today!

On the other hand, we shouldn't be too hard on these new Extras. The state of the art has advanced so far that it would be impossible for ANY of us to duplicate the effort and technology that goes into the building of the typical space age transceiver that is commercially available today. So unless we are satisfied to put together our own simple CW QRP rigs or restore some &quot;Boat Anchor&quot; to operation, we have all been pretty much religated to being &quot;appliance operators&quot;. I would not want to have to build a typical breadboard rig of the 30s and 40s in order to be classified as a &quot;real&quot; ham, and I doubt that anyone else would, either!

Although it sounds like I am being too easy on the new Extras and &quot;newbies&quot; in general, I feel that I should point out that the FCC itself shares a great amount of the responsibility for this particular aspect of the &quot;Dumbing of America&quot;. It has taken away so many of the motivations ( not to be , but probably will be confused with &quot;incentive licensing&quot; ) that were established with the idea that by offering additional frequencies, and privileges some would work harder and make their way to the top. It has, in my humble opinion, gone too much in the other direction, and has leveled the playing field and made it much too easy for anyone who can memorize by rote to climb to the top of the Amateur Radio Heap.

No requirements for advance CW skills, no requirements for a certain length of time to pass before you can take higher class tests. Heck, if I understand it correctly, today a person can walk in off the street without ever having been on the air, once, and walk away from a session with an &quot;Extra&quot; license. Is that person really an &quot;Extra&quot; ? More importantly, is that person really even a HAM ? ? ?

I'll leave you answer that question for yourself, but in the meantime, I will choose to do as I have been doing, which is to continue to answer their questions as directly as possible, or steer them toward someone who has greater knowledge of the subject than I do ( and there are many, believe me! ) all the time, trying to determine if the person is really hungering for more knowledge, or just trying to get another &quot;quick answer&quot; on his/her way to &quot;instant hamdom&quot;.

Remember, we &quot;O Fs&quot; have a certain implied responsibility to keep the &quot;newbies&quot; from hurting or killing themselves (and perhaps one or two of us in the process, as well ! ) due to some lack of knowlege or understanding they might have. This &quot;hurt&quot; could be physical, or emotional in nature, so it behooves us all to be very careful in what we say or how we act toward the newcomer to this avocation.

Well, thanks for letting me rave a bit. I will get down off the soapbox, now, and let someone else have a turn.

Always desiring the best for the Hobby
73 from Jim AG3Y

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0ODY @ June 14 2003,22:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know if we are on the same page here, so let me clarify. Exactly how much about my IC-718's innards was I supposed to know before I started using it? I'm not talking about its basic operating functions or safe operating procedures; I'm talking about the circuit itself and what makes a transceiver work. Are new hams really supposed to know that sort of thing before we get into the hobby, or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some of the more technically-minded amongst us?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I didn't even know how the relatively simple transceivers of my era worked when I got my General in 1963. I had memorized the circuits well enough that when I saw the Colpitts oscillator on the written test, I was able to multiple-guess the right answer because the capacitors were connected in series and the coil didn't have a tap. At least I think I got it right. Why that thing oscillated was beyond me.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[WB2WIK]

Ed, it oscillated because it had sufficient gain and positive feedback!

Seriously, I bemoan the &quot;dumbing down&quot; of this hobby all the time, but don't believe anyone should be required to know how to design their own IC-718, which was more than likely designed by several people, not just one.

I'd be very satisfied if hams knew enough to operate well, and there is some radio theory required to do that.

Example: This past weekend during the ARRL June VHF QSO Party, six meters demonstrated a wide range of &quot;interesting&quot; propagation. They don't call it &quot;The Magic Band&quot; for nothing. On Sunday morning, I was hearing/working tropo scatter, sporadic-E and meteor scatter all at the same time, all on the same frequency, depending upon who was on the other end of the circuit. Tropo scatter was the local stuff, out to a couple of hundred miles. SporadicE was coming through from the U.S. Midwest and deeply into Mexico, and at the same time, there were very strong meteor bursts coming through from the Pacific Northwest -- all on 50.125 MHz.

Unfortunately, some of the ops on board were such greenhorns that they really didn't understand what was going on...which ordinarily wouldn't hurt a fly but in this case, they were impacting contest scores, which can make some people grouchy, including me.

One of the guys &quot;up north,&quot; coming through via m.s., was calling me as though he had all the time in the world because it was an Es or F2 path....&quot;yeah, WB2WIK, um, what'd ya say that grid was, again? I'm here in CMxx and, oh look, the sun's coming out....&quot; while he was bouncing up and down between S9 bursts and below-the-noise residuals. Can't work meteors that way.

Sad part is, some of these folks regularly use six meters and still have no idea what meteor scatter is.

Or when operators wonder why I ask them for a carrier signal (only) for 30 secs or so before switching to 70cm or higher band to work over long distances. They can't understand that 70cm beams are very sharp, and don't necessarily peak like a six meter beam does? And that all I'm trying to do is help assure that we'll actually make contact when we switch over?

Or when operators wonder why I automatically switch to CW when signals get too weak to copy on SSB, right there in the middle of a contest contact (on VHF, where contacts are mode-independent). Or, sadder still, that they really cannot switch over with me, because they don't know any code and probably don't even have a key.

*Sigh,* again.

WB2WIK/6

[w5alt]

I'm sorry if I haven't explained myself very well, but I don't think that hams should be able to design a modern transceiver. Sure some will, and that's great. I certainly can't!

However, I think that anyone can certainly understand the major sections of a rig and have an understanding of why it works in general. They can certainly understand the concept of antenna radiation and resonance. They certainly should know Ohm's Law and what an inductor and capacitor are. They should, at a minimum, know what frequencies and power levels and modes they're allowed to operate on and how to determine that they're not outside their limits. And those question are (or at least were) on the exams.

Those are the sort of questions that make me cringe. Questions like how often do you have to ID, how close to the band edge can you operate, what is the length of a dipole, etc. Even if those things aren't committed to memory, it should be very easy to find the answers. That's far different from designing a rig.

Then there are the questions that go something like: &quot;My rig is broken, what part should I replace?&quot; Those type of questions make it apparent to me that no effort has gone into trying to understand what they are asking. If they had thought at least a little, they would at least have given some information to go on. Certainly we have all been in the situation where we don't know how to solve a problem, fix a rig, or similar, but at least most of us try to think it through and offer some minimum information. Maybe we'll get asked for more information - that's fine. That's how we learn to look at a problem from a different perspective.

No, I don't expect any ham to know everything - I certainly don't. But I do expect them to know what they were tested on and to engage their brain before bothering people. After all, how difficult is it to bring up Google and type in &quot;dipole length&quot; (try it) or &quot;FCC Part 97&quot; (try it) or similar. Are there really newbie hams who can post questions on QRZ.COM and can't use Google or another search engine?

I personally learn a lot here on QRZ.COM and am happy to help if I can. Most of my ham experience is of the &quot;don't do that&quot; type. But it is discouraging to see people ask what they should already know and then get mad if someone gives them a reference and doesn't spoon feed them.

However, the only thing worse is not asking at all. At least they are asking, so there's hope.

73,

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC8QMU @ June 15 2003,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(cough cough) inductive reactance (cough cough) ;)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yep. Hi-hi! With AC. But simply asking if a coil is open or not, and being unable to tell with a ohmmeter, is not asking very much in the way of technical expertise. &quot;Dat's DC.&quot;

The idea of building one's own IC718 is definitely beyond all but perhaps a half of a percent of us. But knowing how an oscillator works, or a detector works, or the length of a dipole or a quarter-wave whip, seems really, really basic.

Well, that's fine. &quot;Basic&quot; is where we 'should' be when we are starting out. A license to learn. But 'basic' is not where we should be when we are the &quot;experts&quot; in the field. Or rather, when we are tagged with the term expert, by nature of our license class.

Sure we have our specialties. Some of us do antennas, some of us do amplifiers, some of us do EME or ATV, and some of us just like to talk. That's all fine, no problem. But when we are 'experts' we are so because of advanced skills or experience. Or so it should be. It is readily agreed we as experts may not be, and in fact, cannot be, experts in all aspects of the hobby. But we all should be past the basics by some significant degree.

Someone said a person could walk in off the street and go from zero to Extra in a single testing session, and he asks is that an expert, and in fact, is that even a ham? Well, technically the license will say amateur radio operator. But that's all that will say it. The operating skills, the habits, the on-air performance, the technical abilities, will not be that of the expert. The scenario is not common, but I have heard of a few going from zero to expert in a single day. Under the current rules, of course, it means they probably already know the code, since it's pretty hard to learn the code in a single day (but not completely impossible, not at 5 WPM.)

I'm for beginners. I was one, and so was every licensed ham on this forum. Without beginners, there are none anywhere further up the ladder, and in fact, the ladder doesn't even exist. We need to start somewhere, and I feel starting at the top devalues the person doing the starting, as well as devaluing the entire hobby and licensing procedure. And few do that. But reaching the top, with the limited knowledge of the bottom, also devalues the very concept of classes of licenses. And when I see that, I start off on my &quot;one class of license&quot; tangent. If the license classes are meaningless, we don't need them.

Today we retain incentive iicensing, perhaps under a hidden name, but it's still there. If it wasn't, there would be no class-based subbands. Perhaps all that 'will' go away when WARC02 finishes and hands in its new rulings. But as long as we have classes of licenses, we should be sure they actually have a value. I'm not so sure they do anymore.

Ed

[NY7Q]

for Harry: Yes, you are 100% correct on the LDO and others. I kinda look at hams the same way. some have it, others want it, most want it without work. I might extplain also: to me 5wpm is silly. the extras today are codeless as far as I am concerned. (most) some are real people and copy 20 or more. Guess they musta worked. Keep it up Harry, I read you constantly, and if you are Ex-Navy, you are cool in my books. 73 ny7q (usn-ret)

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NY7Q @ June 18 2003,18:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keep it up Harry, I read you constantly, and if you are Ex-Navy, you are cool in my books. 73 ny7q (usn-ret)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
[ Pssstttt... Guys... Shall I tell him I'm an extra-lite... ]

[ke4pjw]

Everytime I see one of these threads, I wonder if people are getting their ego dinged because some goob (like me) got lucky and passed the extra.

I sound like a bumbling idiot on air (heck, on qrz for that matter). I think impedance and say resistance and I am sure that there is someone other there listening, saying to themselves, &quot;This guys supposed to be an extra? I worked my butt off to earn my extra, and now they just give it to guys like this!&quot;.

[ae4fa]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[ Pssstttt... Guys... Shall I tell him I'm an extra-lite... ][/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Harry, there ain't nothin' lite about you. We discussed this. You know my perspecitive that code is a valuable testing element, and should not be abandoned.

However, you also know that my perspective is that code operating ain't for everyone - no mode is.

I have consistently maintained, though, that the reduction in code speed requirement should have been accompanied by a significant increase in demonstrated technical ability. We gotta have something that evidences desire, motivation, and plain ole work.

As you - and everybody else that reads Q&amp;A - know, my technical and theoretical skills are marginal. I'm working to improve that situation - purely for my own pleasure and satisfaction.

The guys that give me heartburn are the ones that don't wanna learn ANYTHING! They wanna get their licenses at Wal-Mart, then bug others for point-by-point instruction on how to do the simplest task.

Good quote: &quot;You'll do what you want; all the rest is just talk.&quot;

We did a VE session this weekend. 9 candidates. Result: 1 new General (upgrade from Tech Plus), and 3 new Techs. 2 of the folks took the Tech test twice - and both did much worse the second time.

One guy wanted to protest - said we didn't give him the right test. He said he'd consistently been getting 100% correct in his practice. Had his study book with him and all - demanded we give him the test he had studied for. Turns out he had studied only the first pool question of each sub-element, a total of 10 questions!

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

Geez . . .

Anyway, Harry, you ain't an Extra-lite in my book. And I'll fight anybody who sez you are!

[KD7WHQ]

There were five people testing when I went in, and the same five testing when I walked out with my CSCE.
I'm tech, but that doesn't mean I don't know anything more than that required to take the test. Add to that the last two times I took the General practice test, I passed.. Still need to find my key http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif lol
And, taking the practice tests here for tech, I did do a 100%....once.
As for the protestor &quot;...doth protest too much.&quot; You know, or you don't.

I think the FCC did something of a favor by dropping the code requirement to 5 WPM; it provides a gateway. People can always get faster with real experience, and it will happen, if they choose that mode.
On the other hand they did a disservice by eliminating theory from the tests.
Which is why we have what we have.

73

[N7VQM]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0ODY @ June 15 2003,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The EE's among us are coming from a different perspective, and they should remember that they, too, were once new to electronics and radio.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just being a EE doesn't make one an RF expert. #My instructor for my AC Circuit Analysis and Radio Communications classes in college was Tom Wheeler, N0GSG (GSG stands for Good Sounding Guy, if you believe him). #He is widely regarded by the faculty as a master of AC and RF. #And I'll tell ya, those subjects seem like childs play to him. #But, despite his appearent mastery, he will tell you he is by no means an expert. #He says it takes plenty of expierence beyond education to be an RF expert.

@KE4PJW
I'll soon be in that boat. #I plan to take Elements 1,3 and 4 next month. #I get plenty of electronics terms mixed up even off the air. #I'm generally correct when I write lab reports but, only because I proofread, proofread, and proofread some more. #It gets really bad when I'm at work and mistakenly call the big burly dude across the counter ma'am!

[n7wsb]

Yeah I passed the Extra class exam - I didn't think it was too hard, but then I studied. Most of the math was really really hard for me - but for my brother in law he took one look at it and said it was cake (he's an electrical engineer at Intel).

I probably shouldn't have passed - I don't feel like an electrical engineer. I know how to solder better then most anyone, and I've built lots of kits - I've even made a few antennas - some work better than others, I've made some mistakes (see my post on breaking my soundcard), but I don't think I could ever repair my own radio and frankly I've had a rough time with cw.

To be honest though thats largely due to the fact I had my stuff in storage for a while - someone broke in a stole my semi-automatic key among other things... and I haven't practiced in like a year since then. No I'm not kidding - I just hope someone who knows what they are doing ended up with it since it belonged to a relative of mine who used it during the war while he was in the Navy.

[WA2ZDY]

KC0ODY's talk was first about not being an electrical engineer (like I said, I'm not either; I've been a prison guard for 23 years.) Now it's about designing anIcom 718.

That's the knee-jerk reaction I was talking about. All or nothing. No in-between.

Ok, point taken. FCC has let unqualified folks operate transmitters is what you basically seem to be saying. Fine. At least you among few others here say you want to learn. Good for you and good luck. I will continue to try to help with answers when I see a question I can handle. As for the rest of the appliance operators out there, have at it folks. It is folks like them who keep the antenna sellers in business. Nobody with ANY class of license should have to BUY A DIPOLE! There are no mechanical skills required. And FCC surely still expects hams to know how.

All that money I got to spend on other stuff because I wasn't spending it on basics. Lucky me. As for the rest, again, have at it.

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ June 15 2003,06:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
THAT is what is missed by asking simple questions here and that is why I won't give [usually] direct answers unless I can see the person has done some searching and homework first...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In the age of Google, there simply is no reason not to have tried to figure out a problem yourself.

If you search for &quot;formula for length of dipole&quot;, I bet you can hit the lucky button and get it right on the first response.

Better still, searching the Usenet archive is an incredible technical resource. It may not solve your problem, but it'll sure as heck point you in the right direction for a solution.

As far as mental memory leaks, there's many things that we're taught in life that are forgotten because we never use them again. Even though I spent the better part of 2 years of my life studying math like calculus and linear algebra, I doubt I could remember much of it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA2ZDY @ June 19 2003,01:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's the knee-jerk reaction I was talking about. #All or nothing. #No in-between.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
All or nothing? Nope. I'm just trying to find out who's drawing the lines, and where. It was an honest question, not a knee-jerk reaction. It may have come across that way, but then again, an Internet forum does not convey real emotions or intentions too well most of the time.

As a newbie to this hobby, I am really, truly wanting to get a sense of where the action is, and where my own desires and interests are going to fit in. I actually learn from the longtimers in the hobby. I am hungering for knowledge far beyond what the ARRL study manuals taught me. The good teachers pass on the enthusiasm. The not so good ones pass #judgment. It's a very bad thing to kill a budding enthusiasm.

Seems like a ton of hams are really into electronics. That's interesting to me, too. However, everything I learn about the subject is going to be on my own time. I'm talking about what's beyond what the FCC and the study manuals require me to know. When I say &quot;I'm not an EE&quot;, I am just stating a fact so that those who are EE's will know the perspective I'm coming from.

I'm not too proud to say, &quot;I don't know what you know- will you teach me, please, or at least answer a few questions that I cannot otherwise find the answer for- or I just don't know where to look? Show me the best place to look. I will find the answer. If I do not understand what the book's telling me, can I pick your brain for some guidance? I'm not looking for free handouts or spoonfed answers- I want to wrap my own brain around a concept, understand it, and integrate it into my database of knowledge.&quot;

I am basically asking this: what is the standard for what I am supposed to know- beyond what the FCC says I need to know? The FCC sets basic standards for entry into the hobby/service- they want us to operate our equipment safely and legally- that is expected of all licensees. However, there are some hams who seem to think that all hams &quot;should&quot; know this, that or the other thing- that's what I was expounding on.

Of course, a knowledge of electronics will make the hobby more interesting, because if you can build and/or design your own gear, the satisfaction aspects are greater. I believe that.

But, beyond the basics of what's in the study manuals and part 97, there are no &quot;standards&quot; for amateur radio insofar as what one is supposed to know. I'm talking about stuff that's beyond how to make a dipole (which is covered in the study manuals). We are supposed to know what we learn for passing the tests. Beyond that, we can know as much as we want. That quest for knowledge can even lead some hams into new careers in electronics and RF design.

Many hams are good at designing circuits, etc. and know the theory behind it- which is great. The only thing I am saying is that not all of us have the benefit of that sort of education up-front when we get into AR. That should be okay, as long as a person is open-minded enough to continue to pursue education- whether it be on our own, through research and hands-on practice, or whether we decide that we really like this stuff enough to do it for a living- in that case, we go back to school.

Since there are no set standards for how much hams are supposed to know beyond what the FCC requires us to, some of us will quest for more knowledge, and some of us, less. The ones who quest for less will probably forever be looked down upon as &quot;appliance operators&quot;. Fine; however, that is a subjective assessment.

I was not trying to start an argument, I was just pointing out that there is a lack of set standards for &quot;what makes a good ham&quot; beyond what the FCC requires us to know.

Isn't that the way it's always been, though? We hams set the standards based on our own personal ideas and concept of what amateur radio should be, yet all those ideas and concepts are subjective.

That's all I have to say on this subject.

[KB1GYQ]

KC0ODY:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm a bit concerned that the entry level knowledge of some newer hams is being called into question[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I only expect someone to understand the theory behind what they were tested on. I'm not questioning new amateurs,but all amateurs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hands on experience is the way I'm learning about electronics, and it's far better than relying on the study manuals, which don't really teach, but simply &quot;tell&quot; you about introductory electronics and antennas and so on. ... Me, I like to know &quot;why&quot; before I learn the &quot;how&quot;, because it just ends up making more sense that way.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

My hat's off to you! Excellent work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also don't recall reading anything in the Tech and General study manuals about amplifier &quot;classes&quot;.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, you got me there; that's on the extra exam. My bad.

[ae4fa]

Ah, hell. I might as well drop this into the mix. Tried to refrain, but I'm having a weak moment.

2004 Proposed General Class Syllabus
Comments of AE4FA
(NOTE: The comments period closes 15 July 03)

In order for my comments to be fully understood, some basis and background must be established. For that reason, I wish to quote from previously published material relevant to the topic. For now, the quotations will appear as published. I will later use emphasized portions in my comments.

From the 2003 Technician Question Pool:
T1A02 (D) [97.1]
What are two of the five fundamental purposes for the amateur service in the
United States?
A. To protect historical radio data, and help the public understand radio
history
B. To help foreign countries improve communication and technical skills, and
encourage visits from foreign hams
C. To modernize radio schematic drawings, and increase the pool of electrical
drafting people
D. To increase the number of trained radio operators and electronics experts,
and improve international goodwill

The answer, of course, is “D.” This question has been in the question pool since dirt. I am pretty sure it was on my Novice test in 1963. Obviously, folks in the Amateur community and at the FCC consider these to be key criteria. I fail to see a differentiation of value among the three.


From the ARRL “VE EXPRESS,” Winter/Spring 2000:
&quot;We believe that an individual's ability to demonstrate increased Morse code proficiency is not necessarily indicative of that individual's ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art,&quot; the FCC said.


From the ARRL “VE EXPRESS,” Winter/Spring 2000:
“The FCC has left it in the hands of the National Conference of VECs Question Pool Committee (QPC) to determine the specific mix and makeup of written examination questions. The QPC did conduct its work in January, and it released three new written element question pools in early February.”


From the ARRL “VE EXPRESS,” Winter/Spring 2000:
“The FCC disagreed with the League's suggestion that it undertake a restructuring of operating privileges along with licensing restructuring.
&quot;We believe that in light of ongoing discussions concerning implementation of new and more modern communications technologies within the amateur service community, we should accord the amateur service community an opportunity to complete such discussions and possibly reach a consensus regarding implementation of new technologies before we undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the amateur service operating privileges and frequencies,&quot; the FCC said in its Report and Order.”



From the ARRL “VE EXPRESS,” Winter/Spring 2000:
“Given the short time frame it had to work with, the National Conference of
VECs Question Pool Committee (QPC) found itself under a 116 day deadline
to organize the content of five question pools into three, while still allowing
publishers, educators, VECs and VEs ample time to prepare for administering
tests based on these new question pools starting April 15th. Since the window
of time necessary for editing, publishing and distributing study guides is
measured in terms of months or weeks, rather than days, it became evident that
the QPC had to complete its work by the beginning of February. The best the
QPC could do, for now, was to provide a workable “band-aid” for the question
pools.
And so it was--the QPC did indeed distribute three new question pools into
public domain in early February. Based on the FCC’s imposed deadline of
April 15th, and under such time constraints, the only reasonable QPC option at
this time was to move and/or merge questions from the current pools into their
relevant and respective new pools as a band-aid—and to defer any
comprehensive pool reviews until such time that a reasonable schedule was
established permitting adequate time to do a thorough job.”


Now for some observations regarding what has happened with the question pools since 2000:

2000 Series Technician Pool
SUBELEMENT T5 -- ELECTRICAL PRINCIPLES [3 Exam Questions -- 3 Groups]

NOTE: Only six of eleven questions in only one of the three groups require any calculation. This means that in any Technician test there is a 55% chance that one of the questions will require a candidate to actually demonstrate a working knowledge of Ohm’s Law.


2003 Series Technician Pool
SUBELEMENT T7 – BASIC COMMUNIUCATION ELECTRONICS [3 Exam Questions – 3 Groups]

NOTE: Only three of twenty-one questions in just one of the groups require any calculation. This means that in any Technician test there is a 14% chance that one of the questions will require a candidate to actually demonstrate a working knowledge of Ohm’s Law.


2000 Series General Pool
SUBELEMENT G5 – ELECTRICAL PRICIPLES [2 Exam Questions – 2 Groups]

NOTE: No questions requiring E=IR. There are three of eleven questions in one group that require power calculation – a 27% chance that one will be on the test.



Those of you who have stayed with me so far probably have a good idea where I am going with this. But, remember, you did ask for comments, so please stay aboard.

An admittedly rushed and incomplete job three years ago has inadvertently become the baseline. What has followed does not meet the expectations and criteria of the FCC’s 30DEC99 Report and Order.
The FCC, in its Report and Order, stated the important factors as it views them (emphasis added):
1. “ . . .indicative of . . . individual's ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.”
2. “ . . . we should accord the amateur service community an opportunity to complete such discussions and possibly reach a consensus regarding implementation of new technologies before we undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the amateur service . . .”


Obviously, the FCC contemplates a comprehensive restructuring of the amateur service. And, the FCC – as well as the traditional amateur radio community – views ability to contribute to the radio art to be of paramount importance to the future of amateur radio.

Just as clearly, the National Council of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (NCVEC) has seeming not undertaken “ . . . comprehensive pool reviews . . .” in the three years since the FCC’s 30DEC99 Report and Order by failing to establish “ . . . a reasonable schedule . . . permitting adequate time to do a thorough job.” Rather, the ‘rush job’ of January 2000 was accepted as a baseline, and a very flexible one at best.

And, the minimum knowledge of the most basic electronic theory required to obtain an Amateur Radio license, and even to upgrade, has significantly declined in the past three years. This is demonstrated by a quick analysis of the relevant sub-elements of the question pools as presented earlier. This is in direct contradiction to some stated expectations of the FCC in even considering continued authorization of the amateur service, “ . . . ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art . . .” and “ . . . increase the number of . . . electronics experts . . .”


If I read the FCC’s Report and Order correctly, the number and content of sub-elements is now left to the discretion of the NCVEC. Unfortunately, the FCC fixed the number of exam questions for Element 2 and 3 at 35, and for Element 4 at 50.

Had a comprehensive review taken place, I would have expected the NCVEC to petition the FCC to increase the number of questions required for each of the three written testing elements. It is obvious that advances in electronics theory, application, modes of operation, and other factors have far outstripped the ability of a 35 question exam for Elements 2 and 3, and 50 questions for Element 4 to adequately evaluate a candidate’s understanding of the journey on which he is about to embark.

Clearly, the required demonstration of the most basic electronic theory – especially In Elements 2 and 3 – has been far overshadowed by simple rote regurgitation of rules and standards.

The FCC’s Report and Order speaks of according “. . . the amateur service community an opportunity to complete such discussions and possibly reach a consensus regarding implementation of new technologies . . .” It should be patently obvious that new technologies are built upon the old. Without an understanding of basic (old technology) electronics, no person can possibly be expected to approach new technologies with any degree of competence. Ability to operate a piece of equipment or software per the manufacturer’s instructions does not equate to competence. Ability to write computer software code does not necessarily equate to “ . . . ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art . . .” if taken in the absence of electronics and radio communications knowledge.

I most emphatically am not suggesting that a prospective new Technician licensee be required to demonstrate expert abilities in the field of electronics and radio communication. I am merely suggesting that they be required to master the most basic elements of knowledge in the field of electronics theory.

Similarly, I do not suggest that amateurs seeking an upgrade to General or Extra be equivalent in knowledge to a BSEE – just that they have the basics well in hand, and have somewhat more than a mere familiarity with Ohm’s law, Pythagrem’s Theory.


Modifications proposed by
Bob Rightsell, AE4FA
For Improvement Of:
ELEMENT 3 - GENERAL CLASS
as released by the
Question Pool Committee
of the National Conference of
Volunteer Examiner Coordinators


SUBELEMENT G1 -- COMMISSION'S RULES [5 Exam Questions -- 5 Groups]
G1A General control operator frequency privileges; temporary station identification; third party communications.
G1B Antenna structure limitations; good engineering and good amateur
practice; beacon operation; restricted operation; retransmitting radio
signals
G1C Transmitter power standards; certification of external RF-
power-amplifiers; standards for certification of external RF-power
amplifiers; HF data emission standards
G1D Local control; repeater and harmful interference definitions.
G1E Certification of external RF-power-amplifiers; standards for
certification of external RF-power amplifiers; HF data emission
standards

SUBELEMENT G2 -- OPERATING PROCEDURES [5 Exam Questions -- 4 Groups]
G2A Phone operating procedures; operating courtesy; ITU regions.
G2B Emergencies, including drills and emergency communications
G2C Amateur auxiliary to the FCC's Compliance and Information Bureau;
antenna orientation to minimize interference; HF operations, including
logging practices
G2D VOX operation; CW operating procedures, including procedural signals, Q signals and common abbreviations; full break-in; RTTY operating procedures, including procedural signals and common abbreviations and operating procedures for other digital modes, such as HF packet, AMTOR, PacTOR, G-TOR, Clover and PSK31
SUBELEMENT G3 -- RADIO WAVE PROPAGATION [3 Exam Questions -- 3 Groups]
G3A Ionospheric disturbances; sunspots and solar radiation
G3B Maximum usable frequency; propagation &quot;hops&quot;
G3C Height of ionospheric regions; critical angle and frequency; HF
scatter
SUBELEMENT G4 -- AMATEUR RADIO PRACTICES [5 Exam Questions -- 5
Groups]
G4A Two-tone test; electronic TR switch; amplifier neutralization
G4B Test equipment: oscilloscope; signal tracer; antenna noise
bridge; monitoring oscilloscope; field-strength meters
G4C Audio rectification in consumer electronics; RF ground
G4D Speech processors; PEP calculations; wire sizes and fuses
G4E Common connectors used in amateur stations: types; when to use;
fastening methods; precautions when using; HF mobile radio
installations; emergency power systems; generators; battery storage
devices and charging sources including solar; wind generation
SUBELEMENT G5 -- ELECTRICAL PRINCIPLES [5 Exam Questions -- 5 Groups]
G5A Resonance, including resistance, impedance and reactance calculations.
G5B Impedance matching, including Ohm’s Law, Pythgrem’s Theorum, and Vector Graphs.
G5C Reactance of inductors and capacitors, including effect of frequency and calculation of component values.
G5D Inductors and capacitors, operation of these components with applied AC signal, including calculation of phase differences.
G5E Decibel; Ohm's Law; current and voltage dividers; electrical
power calculations and series and parallel components; transformers
(either voltage or impedance); sine wave root-mean-square (RMS) value
SUBELEMENT G6 -- CIRCUIT COMPONENTS [1 exam question - 1 group]
G6A Resistors; capacitors; inductors; rectifiers and transistors;
etc.
SUBELEMENT G7 -- PRACTICAL CIRCUITS [2 exam questions - 2 groups]
G7A Power supplies, rectifiers and filters
G7B Transmitters and receivers
SUBELEMENT G8 -- SIGNALS AND EMISSIONS [2 Exam Questions -- 2 Groups]
G8A Signal information; AM; FM; single and double sideband and
carrier; bandwidth; modulation envelope; deviation; overmodulation
G8B Frequency mixing; multiplication; bandwidths; HF data
communications
SUBELEMENT G9 -- ANTENNAS AND FEED-LINES [3 Exam Questions -- 3
Groups]
G9A Yagi and Loop antennas - physical dimensions; impedance matching;
radiation patterns; directivity and major lobes
G9B Random wire antennas - physical dimensions; impedance matching;
radiation patterns; directivity and major lobes; feed point impedance
of 1/2-wavelength dipole and 1/4-wavelength vertical antennas
G9C Popular antenna feed-lines - characteristic impedance and
impedance matching; SWR calculations

SUBELEMENT G0 -- RF SAFETY [4 Exam Questions -- 4 Groups]
G0A RF Safety Principles
G0B RF Safety Rules and Guidelines
G0C Routine Station Evaluation and Measurements (FCC Part 97 refers
to RF Radiation Evaluation)
G0D Practical RF-safety solutions and applications


A comparison of this proposal to the syllabus released by the NCVEC will reveal modest reductions and/or consolidations made in several of the sub-elements, allowing more emphasis on electronics in sub-elements 5 and 7.

I believe these changes, and possibly even more radical ones, will serve to foster a stronger basis of knowledge and desire to learn among folks seeking to upgrade from the Technician license. This more clearly follows the FCC’s mandate that the amateur radio examination process sufficiently evaluate a candidate’s “ . . . ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art . . .”


Beyond my suggestions pertaining to the General Class question pool, I strongly encourage the NCVEC, or some entity of its membership, to petition the FCC for an increase in the number of questions required for each of the three written exam elements. As noted before, it is obvious that advances in electronics theory, application, modes of operation, and other factors have far outstripped the ability of a 35 question exam for Elements 2 and 3, and 50 questions for Element 4 to adequately evaluate a candidate’s basis of knowledge and understanding – and, therefore competence.

~

[N0FFA]

I'm a new ham and I've been interested in radio my whole life. As my life and demands on my time progressed, I never made the committment to becoming licensed until this year.

Well, I passed my tech, then my general. Believe it or not, I've always been attracted to code and got into the whole thing planning for CW ops. Next thing I knew, I was knee deep in brochures, catalogs and retailer web sites. Man, I was ready to blow some bucks on some serious stuff, I was ready to juice the atmosphere. One morning I found myself with the ol' Visa card in one hand and Texas Towers on the 'puter..... and something just hit me! More technology was available to me that morning with a couple of clicks of a mouse than was available to the governments of entire countries not all that long ago. It also hit me that I understood almost zero of that technology and just diving in as a good little consumer is not what I wanted out of amatuer radio. Don't get me wrong, for those who don't really care what all that stuff inside is and just want the thrill of hearing that signal from who knows where, GREAT! I enjoy my truck, but I don't give a damn about being able to bend metal into the compound curves necessary to make a fender.

To make a long story short, my 5 watts and dipole may not get all those contests and awards won, but that's not my thing. If I make a few contacts, that's my reward. If 5 watts don't cut it, next time I'll try for 10 or 100. Better yet, maybe I'll figure out an antenna set up that'll work better with 1 watt. I may never work Antartica, but if I do, I'll be so pumped I won't be able to sleep rather than yawn and head off to bed. Keeps me awake at night thinking of hauling a few $$ worth of parts out to some cow pasture in the Flint Hills and seeing who I can make contact with.

Anyone know if another ham has made a QRP CW contact from the yards at the National Western Stock Show in Denver?

[KD7WHQ]

On HF, you might be surprised at what 5W can do.
On a quiet frequency, anyway. You will be bombed out in any other case, especially on field day.
But, on a quiet freq, you well could work Antarctica..

73

[kc9jqm]

4 years later and nothing has changed

[wm3o]

Quote[/b] (KD5KUF @ June 14 2003,11:13)]A lot of new hams are busting their butts to become an extra within the first year. They concentrate so hard on their final destination that they don't take time to enjoy the journey along the way.
i think this is probably the best explanation. i was so focused on getting to Extra that i wasn't getting on the air. once i stopped trying to be super ham and started communicating, i started to understand the material on the Extra class exam.

trying to work that distant station by stepping back and looking at the process, the technique, and the science really helped to not only put that station in the log, but also made earning my Extra that much more rewarding. i took the time to learn, understand, and then apply the knowledge.

now if i could only figure out how to get my antenna 20' higher ;)

-Steve, WM3O

[kl7aj]

Quote[/b] (KB1GYQ @ June 14 2003,08:02)]Why is it that so many extra class hams post questions like how long do I make the antenna, or don't understand amplifier class, or other such stuff that is on lower class tests? Is it that they memorized the test, or old-timers disease, or did they just not have enough coffee before posting (that old gets me from time to time http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif)
We get a lot of stuff from even seasoned OT's who should KNOW better....most frequently this obsession with SWR. I don't know HOW many times I and others have re-posted W1FB's classic (and undisputed) article, "My feedline tunes my antenna"....and we STILL have people who say things like...."An antenna tuner only FOOLS the transmitter into thinking it's matched." This unmitigated B.S. can be EASILY disproved with an incredibly instrument that used to be in EVERY ham shack....an R.F. ammeter.

Old Quaker saying: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Nothings as hopeless as willful ignorance.

eric

[AG3Y]

Let it die, guys, the original post is 4 years old ! Why don't the moderators lock these threads ? They banned the one who "bumped" them to the top !

[ab9lz]

Quote[/b] (Guest @ June 15 2003,21:32)]Are new hams really supposed to know that sort of thing before we get into the hobby, or is that just wishful thinking on the part of some of the more technically-minded amongst us?
It is not wishful thinking, it is a requirement of the AR license. The idea behind the FCC giving technical tests is that in giving free reign to large swaths of RF spectrum, the expectation is that users understand what they are doing with fair detail so they do not interfere with commercial services and or hurt themselves and others.

This includes understanding how your transmitter works so you can be responsible for it's proper adjustment.

73 m/4

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]If the FCC required all new hams to have more than a cursory knowledge of electronics beyond what's in the study manuals, then they would change the study guides accordingly. Expecting a new ham to learn anything beyond very basic electronics from the study guides, well, that ain't gonna happen, and yet that is the basic knowledge level many of us have when getting into the hobby.

Someone above answered this just about as succintly as you can.

If you get a pink ticket from the FCC saying you are outputting spurious signals on 6.23Mhz exactly what are you going to answer them in 30 days?

Are you going to say that you sent it in to the manufacturer for repair?

Are you going to say you checked and couldn't find anything?

*Exactly* what are you going to do and *exactly* what are you going to tell them?

The FCC doesn't care what you memorized in order to pass the test. They *do* care that you can operate your station within the rules and regs of Part 97. If you can't your license is in jeopardy!

Are you just going to depend on good luck that your station will never have anything go wrong with it that causes it to put out spurious signals or harmful interference?

How much do you need to know to insure you are NOT putting out spurious signals or harmful interference?

tim ab0wr

[wa9cwx]

Like responding to a Ghost........ http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kl7aj]

Quote[/b] (wa9cwx @ Sep. 25 2007,15:02)]Like responding to a Ghost........ http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Q: What do you get when you goose a ghost?

A: A handful of sheet.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[va7aax]

see how far technology has progressed . you now cant understand anything at all of how the thing in your hand works. in the 1930s-40s-50s , the kids wanted to know about the "new technology" back then. todays kids are just spoon fed . they play only video games , have cellphones and the kids who actually want to know about the world are called "geeks and nerds" . i hate it . i wish there was a time machine where i could go back and live in those wonderful days . (1900s-1960s) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (va7aax @ Sep. 25 2007,17:41)]see how far technology has progressed . you now cant understand anything at all of how the thing in your hand works. in the 1930s-40s-50s , the kids wanted to know about the "new technology" back then. todays kids are just spoon fed . they play only video games , have cellphones and the kids who actually want to know about the world are called "geeks and nerds" . i hate it . i wish there was a time machine where i could go back and live in those wonderful days . (1900s-1960s) # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
The thing in your hand operates in accordance with the same principals that the thing on your desk did many years ago. To say you can't understand anything at all of it is rediculous.

You absolutely can, and as a Ham you should know, or at least aspire to know how radios work. It's statements like yours the make us OT's cringe because we can't imagine that thought process.

[va7aax]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Sep. 25 2007,16:18)]Quote[/b] (va7aax @ Sep. 25 2007,17:41)]see how far technology has progressed . you now cant understand anything at all of how the thing in your hand works. in the 1930s-40s-50s , the kids wanted to know about the "new technology" back then. todays kids are just spoon fed . they play only video games , have cellphones and the kids who actually want to know about the world are called "geeks and nerds" . i hate it . i wish there was a time machine where i could go back and live in those wonderful days . (1900s-1960s) # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
The thing in your hand operates in accordance with the same principals that the thing on your desk did many years ago. #To say you can't understand anything at all of it is rediculous. #

You absolutely can, and as a Ham you should know, or at least aspire to know how radios work. #It's statements like yours the make us OT's cringe because we can't imagine that thought process.
you didnt understand my post . my post was with OT's . i was saying that today nobody asks questions or has the urge to learn . i am not an OT but agree with whatever the OT's say 100%.

not only do i agree with OT's 100% , i am also a fanatic homebrewer(just built a simple AM band regen , my first one)

[w2rdt]

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ June 15 2003,18:44)]I AGREE WITH N0PU 100%. HAM RADIO IS WHAT STARTED ME ON MY JOURNEY WITH ELECTRONICS IN THE NAVY. WE HAD 90 DAYS WONDERS, NEW LEADERS IN THE NAVY. WE ALSO HAD THE NAVAL ACADEMY GRADUATES. OF THE TWO, NAGs WERE THE ELITE AND NEW THEIR BUSINESS. THESE NEW CODELESS, EDUCATIONLESS, GET IT WITHOUT WORK EXTRAS MAKE ME WANNA PUKE.
I can't understand the animosity of Grown Men? acting
like they lost their pacifiers.
In Case You Don't Know This on your own.
THE FCC ABOLISHED CODE, NOT THE NEWBIES.
If a newbie, the 8 days wonders act as if they are
idiots, ignore them, why strereotype all newcomers
that passed their test?
Its not their faults if the tests are easier, and to
some, these tests arent that easy.
I am a VE, and watch people taking the tests.
You can tell the memorizers from the thinkers.
I think a person should be judged by how-they act towards others.
Just think for a minute how any of us felt going into a
new venture, did you feel at home or what?
Time to live with what is there. I am the first to
blast anyone who is fishing for trouble, But, I am
also willing to change how I feel re: people.
Just my 50 cents worth
russ==KC2RKO