Short Takes! Comments on Short Takes from "Trials and Errors"

I really like this post which showed up on another forum in 'Trials and Errors' . . . I think it has some bearing on this topic as well, and I trust I have Nick's blessing to repost it here, Dave

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/issue-25-heard-on-the-2m-band.876635/page-12#post-6691744

 

Regarding Short Takes #19: Two Methods to PASS the Ham Exams

Thanks for the article, Dave. I had good luck with the hamstudy.org app on my phone. 15 mins per night for 3-4 weeks and you'll easily pass with 100%.

I agree with Dave that there is a steep learning curve for radio operation, both the on-air behavior and the configuration of the equipment. Trying to understand all of the options and settings (what they do and how they are used) on my FT-991A makes studying for the tests seem simple in comparison. I am fascinated by antennas and digital modes and read daily.

 

Hey (Bill or William?) thanks for the comments. You went all the way to Extra. That's fantastic. Using the ANKI card decks, I have a woman friend who went in with no license at all and went through all three tests, getting her Extra Class at the end of the VE session. Now, she's reading every day and enjoying her interactions with local hams who are lining up to help her out (she's that kind of person).

 

The tests at all levels include technical questions that you can work out if you know the theory but there are also many questions that absolutely require rote memorization, like operating on the 60 meter band. So, a combination of understanding basic theory and being able to memorize esoteric information is required. It doesn't hurt to have worked in an engineering field for many years. I had a novice license in high school but never mastered enough code to move up, was away from ham radio for more than 50 years, then studied up for a month or so and took the Technician, General, and Amateur Extra tests in one session. It helped that I had a BS and MS in electrical engineering and a PhD in physics plus a career in engineering. Yes, it did take 6 months or so before I was comfortable as an operator, but I'm having fun playing radio most evenings.

 

Hi Gary - that's super. Glad you made it all the way. But it's that kind of thing that keeps others, who aren't PhD's or electrical engineers, from even attempting to get the higher level license. And it's really NOT necessary. If you are given a question that requires a formula and math to figure it out, but the answers are "5.1" and "8.3" and "83" and "223", all you need to do is look at the Flashcard enough and you know the answer is 8.3. You don't HAVE to do that math. However, I agree with you that it's more fun to know the theory behind it and do the work. But we can't stop people from getting the license if they want one, and figuring all that out later. Dave

 

I know there was a lot of controversy over Ria's book - but it's really no different to any of the website and practice exams, for my extra i'll be using the japanese method once i've read the book. I've taken several industry exams that way.

 

Me too . . . I use the Spanish card deck to help me in my studies.

 

As a VE examiner, the following are my opinions:

What the FCC needs to do is to change up the question pool so that the questions involving mathematical calculations differ from the ones in the published study guides and question pools. This would mean that in order to score a passing grade, one would need to know the simple formulas to calculate voltage, current, and power. They would at least need some understanding of the significance of db and signal levels and their relationship to power levels in terms of power output or signal reception.

Perhaps only the technician exam should be passable without having a wide knowledge of these principals, however, none of the other levels should be attainable without a demonstrated knowledge of RF theory. Simply, true knowledge comes by doing. Let the technician class license be a foot in the door and a means by which one can build their knowledge on RF theory. Of course, this would involve coaxing the average technician class operator to get off of 2m and 70cm long enough to explore 6m and 10m and build their own HF antennas.

With UHF and VHF, it is far too easy for a newly licensed technician to obtain a cheap Chinese radio and some pre-manufactured antennas and simply "call it a day" without ever having the need to invest even a minute of thought toward the design and implementation of a resonant antenna; much less the need to actually use an SWR meter and to make a measurement. Very little RF theory is mastered by many of the new HAMs. Many people never graduate beyond the technician class license.

Other options might include allotting a portion of the 15m and 20m bands for technician SSB use, as this would allow them to get in on some of the action and would force them to do some experimentation in order to accomplish this.

 

Also, include a CW portion? because if you're stuck inside Tech, no QRO, probably no possibility to erect Quads, you'll need A1A to make contacts most of the time.
But no Digital Modes privileges.

Oliver

 

Great suggestions Sebastian. I'm a VE also, and agree with your comments that the equations could be different on the tests (for the General and AE exams). That's a great suggestion, Dave

 

But a lot depends on the individual thats entering the hobby!
Many new hams have very little interest in cw or antenna construction.
Some of us like me are.
In cb lingo those who shell out for a powerful radio and top line antenna and blast out with little thought. Are called jaw jackers.
( There are a few in our hobby too.)
Its fine if one does all the tests at the same setting, but have they actually retained what they have learned?
I think thats why i love homebrew so much.
You have to think, do the math, trial and error, pass or fail.
You learn something.
Whether this adjustment changes side tone or toasts a transistor.
While it seems difficult to understand to a noob in electronics math,
Building an antenna is actually is actually stupid easy.
Sure there are charts and formulas for measure that will get you very close, but you still need to fine tune them for the best performance.
Even most commercially made antennas may require fine tuning.
Much of that is not on the tests but has to be learned after.

What i would like to see is a lot more companies making kits where we have a wider variety to choose from rather than just pixies, frog sounds, tin tunas,
Without the arduino requirement.
So many of the present kit makers retire good kits ( many that are good tools for qrp'ers to both build and learn from)
I would love low power frequency slots without someone jumping in with bird roasting power, but unless participating in the self limitation is followed it will never happen.
Learning cw?
Cw is fun but so many ways to learn it. What works for me wont work for others.
More patience is required when dealing with slow code.
Slow code nets do exist but you will have the lids who jump in hammering away at light speed.
So whats the solution?
Well im sure to get some flames for this, but i would suggest at least 6 months between tests at a minimun.
Proof of net participation.
Verifiable logs even if its just 2 meter/ 70 cm.
And building a few simple kits for the ve's to view.
This at least shows some aptitude and interest in the hobby for advancing.

Sure there are some whose soldering skill may not be up to par or have vision issues, but there is nothing wrong with someone tutoring and assisting them in builds.
That is something any elmer or elsa will do.

I know I will for as long as I am able!

 

Hi Teddy, two kits I've built in the last few years. Loved both experiences. One was tiny, difficult at times -- the Morserino. The other was easier, as it is so much larger (I have macular degeneration, like bigger rather than tiny things). That was a Mercury IIIS power amplifier. Too bad they stopped making the kit, it was a great project. Dave

 

Exactly! like i said earlier. The list of affordable kits out there are few
And generally not over 5 watts for a good one.
Im trying to get our club to do some mini buildathons but even then its hard to get anyone interested in it.

 

What I miss are the old Ramsey kits, but even they did not go far enough. Heathkit was the hayday kit maker followed by Allied Knight. If only we had something equivalent to those today. The originals are still the greatest. If they sold Heathkit throwbacks, thousands of HAMs including myself would get one.

 

In thinking about the two ways to pass the amateur license tests I can't help thinking about what one of our electronics instructors said WAY back when I was in Tech School. A degree is just a license to learn. So is a ham license. The rules use different words but the intent is the same. Learning by doing. That's how I learned the broadcast business. And I should add that working with ham gear taught me a lot about those big broadcast transmitters I worked on! The license gets em through the door. The experience makes em hams! Whether they excel in the technical end or become topnotch operators, we need em both!!