QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940324.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 14KB

Date: Sat, 23 Jul 94 04:30:07 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #324
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sat, 23 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  324

Today's Topics:
                    Home address or PO box on 610
                                reply
                              short cuts
                        Thoughts on CW testin
                        Thoughts on CW testing

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 14:23:34 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gvls1![e-mail]
Subject: Home address or PO box on 610
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>You have two addresses to provide.  One is your mailing address and the other
>is the location of your transmitter.  Your mailing address can be where ever
>you want.  Your transmitter address should be where you transmitter is.
>
>They can be the same but your transmitter address can't be a P.O. box.

The new 610 forms (then only 610 form that will be accepted now) has space
for only ONE address.  Just a mailing address.  No more station location.

If you have more than one mailing address then just pick your favorite.
A real street address would probably be better though since it also gives
an indication as to your actual location but a PO BOX is acceptable.

Just make sure that you *do* get mail at that address in case the FCC ever
tries to contact you.

=================================================================
Pete Rossi - WA3NNA                  [e-mail]

Unisys Corporation - Government Systems Group
Valley Forge Engineering Center - Paoli, Pennsylvania
=================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 03:59:02 GMT
From: psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: reply
To: [e-mail]

kevin jessup ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Why are points not awarded for equipment of one's own design?  Why, in fact,
: are there ABSOLUTELY NO ARRL competitions involved with DESIGN?  IMO, this
: is a serious problem with amateur radio today.  The "this is a hobby not a
: carreer" camp should take a closer look at other hobbies!   Then again,
: perhaps they prefer to place amateur radio on the same level as basket
: weaving and finger-painting.

Why should points be awarded?  Its tough enough competing with the
likes of K1FO and W6QHS without giving them an additional edge. :-).

I find it interesting to see how much contesters have contributed to
the amateur literature--not only in the development of antennas, but
in other areas such as circuit design.

Maybe in the UHF contest I'll get a chance to try out my over the
horizon 10 GHz WBFM setup....then I can write it up...
--
Zack Lau  KH6CP/1           2 way QRP WAS
                           8 States on 10 GHz
Internet: [e-mail]   10 grids on 2304 MHz

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 11:16:55 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!doc.ic.ac.uk!cs.city.ac.uk!city![e-mail]
Subject: short cuts
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Pat Wilson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I don't know if the person who complained about IMHO or IMNSHO is
>listening, but these short cuts have nothing to do with amateur radio,
>but are simply computer-ease (yes, I know) for things that MOST who use
>the keyboard are aware.
>
>RTFM      = read the f***ing manual.

I was told this was "read the FRIENDLY manual"    ;-)

You missed:

TTFN         - ta-ta for now
BRB          - be right back    (not used much in news, mostly chatservers)
OIC          - Oh, I see
CUL8r        - see you later

And probably quite a few more.

Also if anyone doesn't already know about smilies, they deserve a
mention:

:-)    standard smiley
;-)    winking smiley
:-(    sad smiley
:-O    shocked smiley
:-)>   bearded smiley
8-)    smiley with glasses
:)     2-byte smiley
:(     etc... etc... etc...

There are loads more, but those are the most significant. If don't
understand them, lean your head to the left.

Nick

--
Nick Waterman - inet [e-mail] - ax25 G7RZQ @ GB7GFD.#42.GBR.EU
  "Out of paper error reading drive C:" - MS-DOS
None of the opinions above belong to anybody at all, probably.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 08:18:00 -0400
From: hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!pplace![e-mail]
Subject: Thoughts on CW testin
To: [e-mail]

->
-> Catch you on the lower 25Kc!
-> Paul  N6HCS/M
->


Ok, see ya there.  But there are a few folks in here we won't see in
that portion anytime soon (grin).


N0RDQ

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:22:58
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ddsw1!mbi.moody.edu!farslayer.moody.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Thoughts on CW testing
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Carreiro) writes:

>I would favor the relaxation (or yes, gulp, the elimination) of the CW
>requirement only if the technical / regulatory portions (all that's left)
>of all the tests were significantly increased in difficulty.  Yes, CW has
>been used as a check valve for all levels of license.  It's probably time to
>shift that check valve to the technical / regulatory knowledge arena.

>I think the easiest change to the exam system would be the elimination of
>the publicly available question pools.  Question pools are fine, as long as they
>are not the exact questions used on ANY of the tests.  I was able to study
>all I needed, and was forced to understand the material by using the FCC
>provided study outlines for all of my tests.

You touched on most everything I thought of while I was testing for my
license.  Please note that the following statement is not bragging, only a
fact of what a motivated person can do under the current testing scheme:

I passed the Novice and Technician Theory for a No-Code license on 1/8/94.
On 3/5/94 I passed the Extra Class Theory and 20 WPM code for the Extra Class
upgrade.  On 3/7/94 (two days later) my No-Code Tech license arrived in the
mail.  Twenty minutes later I went on the air as N9WHG/AE.

Was this difficult?  IMO --- no it was not.  The toughest part was the 20 wpm
code requirement.  I had testing sessions available to me every other week if
I wanted to use them.  The most technically demanding test probably was the
Advanced theory.  But, C'mon!  The questions on electronics were all
variations on a theme --- change the numbers (maybe switch a couple words) and
viola - a new question.

Now I realize I am calling into scrutiny the very method to which I obtained
my license, but I did obtain my license by the "book" - so to speak.

I am sure there will be follow-ups, so I will save any meager defense for my
actions for rebuttals.

Paul, N9WHG

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 14:03:58 GMT
From: agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!cs.utk.edu!@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu
To: [e-mail]

References <30h7mk$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><30mno7$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>mich
Subject : Re: CW ... My view.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Silva) writes:

>I recognize that this is not an either-or discussion.  In a hobby with
>600k members, everyone can have fun in their own sandbox.  I think we
>should all try to nudge the hobby in directions we think are valuable,
>rather than letting it drift aimlessly.  One of my interests is that
>we not loose track of the centrality of RF generation and detection in
>the hobby.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>Mike, KK6GM

I couldn't agree more!  I think that some of the current ills of the amateur
service are brought on by folks interested only in turning it into a "common
carrier" operation just to beat commercial carrier tarrifs.  This will, in
turn, allow them to transport and manipulate information (much of it
commercial, irrelevant to amateur radio, and unregulated) without paying for
it.

Others would put RF generation and detection far, far in the background with
digital experimentation in the foreground.  But should we then have incentive
license exams with equivalent degrees of difficulty with questions concerning
gate formation and minimization theory (Karnough maps, de Morgan's theorem,
error detection and correction algorithms)?  Heaven forbid!  They want to
use the amateur frequencies (all of it) without working for it or proving
they are capable and responsible, and they are not going to value anything
that stands in their way.

73,
C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX
[e-mail]

=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation.  Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================
       ..._  .. ..._  ._   _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 1994 06:41:10 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <30mdm1$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>p
Subject : Re: reply

In article <[e-mail]>,
kevin jessup  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In <30mdm1$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>>You mean like, say, learning how to convey information rapidly and
>>efficiently  under extremely adverse conditions?

>I assume you are referring to long distance comms via a CW.

How did you read that into the above?

>That is ONE
>example of MANY adverse condition possibilities.  I can add DSP to
>anything you do in CW and make it better.

>Nice try at twisting an argument about technical competence back around to the
>"merits" of cw.  Hahhhhh!

You're the only one mentioning CW here.

--
Mike Cummings  NX7E                [e-mail]
"Like jewels in a crown, the precious stones glittered in the Queen's
round metal hat." - Jack Handey

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:42:59 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ns.mcs.kent.edu!kira.cc.uakron.edu!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <30h7mk$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]><30mno7$[e-mail]>udi.oa
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Michael Silva)
Subject : Re: CW ... My view.


In article <30mno7$[e-mail]>, Jim Bromley, W5GYJ ([e-mail]) writes:
>>>> Michael Silva, KK6GM wrote: <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I would say to this is that amateur radio is a hobby
>> with RF at it's core.  I hope we don't end up with a whole class of
>> licencees who start with an off-the-shelf radio and go from there.
>
>
>I write:
>
>That is about all that's expected from commercial radio technicians
>these days.  And that skill level is the one that amateur radio
>strives for.
>
>The technology has changed.  Most of the rf signal-processing
>functions are modularized and encapsulated, either as integrated
>circuits, hybrid modules or surface-mount PC boards.  All of the
>practical work is done at the interfaces.

While I don't disagree with you, there are more RF transmitters and
receivers around today then ever before.  Somebody is designing and
putting them together.  Is it really naive of me to think that a radio
amateur should have a good idea of what is going on between the
microphone connector and the antenna jack?
>
>
>>I have always felt that we have got it completely backwards in putting
>>new hams with minimal knowledge (some have much more, but that's all
>>the test requires) on VHF+, where I think experimenting tends to be
>>more difficult, and expectations for equipment higher.  I think the
>>combination of those three factors ends up killing the experimenting
>>impulse in a lot of newcomers.
>
>It changes it.  Antenna work is much easier and more instructive there
>than at lower frequencies.  Circuitry is more critical in some respects,
>but also more *interesting*.  Because of high-reliability, modularized
>components, trouble-shooting takes place at the systems level.  But
>the level of complexity is about the same as dealing with older,
>discrete-component gear.
>
Quite true about antenna work.  As far as the circuitry, I agree that
for someone who works with it on a regular basis it's gotten fairly
cut-and-dried, but I still believe that the card-table experimenter is
at a distinct disadvantage trying to do VHF work vs. HF work.

I recognize that this is not an either-or discussion.  In a hobby with
600k members, everyone can have fun in their own sandbox.  I think we
should all try to nudge the hobby in directions we think are valuable,
rather than letting it drift aimlessly.  One of my interests is that
we not loose track of the centrality of RF generation and detection in
the hobby.

Thanks to all for an enjoyable discussion

Mike, KK6GM


------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #324
******************************