The AM Forum

ARRL says there are an avalanche of new amateur radio license and license upgrade applications since the new rules have gone into effect.

For the complete story, go here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/28/101/?nc=1 (http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/28/101/?nc=1)


(http://nsidc.org/snow/gallery/avalanche_small.jpg)

If a big part of the avalanche is for Technician, is this for 10m slopbucket privileges on 28.3-28.5, or for cw privileges on the lower bands?  You could already get a Tech  licence without a code test long before anything changed.  What's the difference between a Tech exam and a General, now that code has been eliminated?

I still haven't heard any significant increase in slopbucket activity on 160-80-40 since the new exams went into effect.  Maybe the new licensees are all busy now fighting their homeowners associations for the right to put up HF antennas on their property.

Just mail in the cereal boxtop, for a "freebie" and there will be a
"ton" of response.
Just what the ARRL was hoping for,--more "hams" equals more $$$$,
The "new" HR service is "on its way" for the twenty first century.
  
                                   73, K1MVP

Under the old rules:
Tech Plus already had 10 meter privileges from 28.3 to 28.5.
Novice and Tech Plus also had CW privileges from 28.1 to 28.3, 21.1 to 21.2, 7.1 to 7.15, and 3.675 to 3.725.

Technician Class only had VHF/UHF privileges.

In 2000:
Restructuring began April 15, 2000
No new Advanced, Tech Plus, or Novice Licenses issued by the FCC
Technician Plus renewals assigned Technician licenses

However, I believe Technician Plus people who renewed after this time (and became Technician Class) still were able to retain their original Technician Plus privileges.

So now, under the new rules, all Technician Class (Technician Class original license holders) get 10 meter phone and 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter CW privileges.

Ok Pete,
"Everybody wins"--with the elimination of cw and watering down of the exam requirements,--heck, why not eliminate the written exam and we could bring in even more terms of pure numbers.                                             

P.S,. I noticed at the bottom of your post you have the logo, "where quality is #1"--I would think
       you would you would have for your logo, "where QUANTITY is # 1"

                                                73, K1MVP
         

Cause they come in different colors, sizes, and a wide assortment of accessory ding-dings.

Hmmm,--sounds like the new "riceboxes" of today, lots of accessory "ding dongs".
                                                   K1MVP

I doubt that they would get many bids for the HF spectrum.  But our VHF/UHF/microwave spectrum is very valuable and therefore vulnerable to this very thing.

That spectrum auction business is nothing more than a hidden federal tax on everyone.  The corporations that win spectrum auctions have usually bid thousands of millions of $$$ for radio spectrum that they think they have some use for.  As you and I know very well,they don't just absorb this cost; they pass it along to their customers.  You and I may not pay them directly to cover their added operating expense, but it is added to the overall cost of doing business for any enterprise which requires communications and products tied to the communications infrastructure.  This includes the added cost of advertising via electronic media as well as telecommunications services. So these billions of $$$ that go into the federal treasury from spectrum auctions eventually trickle down in the form of cost increases for all goods and services.

Neither the FCC nor the federal government "owns" this spectrum that they are auctioning off; the people own the spectrum.  The government, though the FCC, merely administers and regulates our equitable use of the spectrum through licensing and enforcement procedures, as prescribed by congress under the Communications Act.  So the money that the government receives for radio spectrum rightfully cannot exceed the government's cost of licensing and enforcement.  The enormous sums that the feds are raking in from spectrum auctions is a rip-off.  How can it defined as anything other than a hidden federal tax imposed on everyone living in the country?

I can hardly wait for my 50 MHz cell phone. The Army was the test bed for the new design.

(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/scr536_01_3in.jpg)

If , as you mentioned many of these new hams will be interested in vintage equipment,--it might be
appropiate for them to know some "tube basics", i.e the difference between a triode and a pentode.
As far the present "new" exams,--why is it many do not even know ohms law, or how to apply it?--to
say nothing of LCR reactive circuits where it it IS still applicable even with the "new technogy",
antenna theory etc, etc.

Might it not have something to do with the fact that the question pools serve to just teach the answers
rather than really test an applicants understanding of basic electronics?
As I mentioned before,--the UK after eliminating CW, "beefed up" the written exam,--they did not
keep the "status quo" or water down it even more.

                                                   73, K1MVP
 

So.... how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway  ??? ??? ???

 "So.... how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway  ??? ??? ???"

Well, it depends on the dementias  of the pin seter.....   klc

This might help you out:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/intellectuelle/archives/003157.html)

OR

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=523054)

Show me the evidence that proves CW=quality.

Maybe not,--but show me the evidence that teaching the answers in a question pool aka as
the Dick Bash method produces quality.--quantity,yes, quality???
                                                   
As I have mentioned before,--I would have preferred they had kept 5 wpm at least for the
"extra",--but upon elimination of it completely,--the next logical thing might have been to "revamp"
the written exams to reflect an applicant understanding of the "basics", --just my opinion.

As far as cw making a "better operator",--there are some who may be "questionable", but in
general most are OK IMO, but there are just as many if not more on phone who can be "jerks"--
just listen on 75 or 20 meters.
                                                    73, K1MVP
 

       
                                           

Those jerks you are hearing passed the code test. You just killed your own argument. :o

You'll get know argument there. I have ALWAYS held the position of no cw testing and tougher written tests.

In fact you can search my posts and you'll find something to the effect of:

"AND for God's sakes get the answers off the web !"

Hmmm....................................

"one pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small, and the ones that mother gave you dont do anything at all! Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall"...................................... ;D ;D

Wow,--we do agree on this testing issue,--I have found that many,(including OT`s) seem to
believe that publishing the answers verbatim,--is "irrelavant",--that to me is "unbelievble".
I understand that the ARRL and others might try to justify that argument in order to "up the numbers"
for obvious reasons,(more $$$ etc) but for so many others to buy into that does not make any sense
whatsoever.
                                              73, K1MVP

P.S, as far as cw,--I do believe it can be made optional,--but what I do not understand is the
      "cw hate" out there,--If one likes vintage equipment and AM,--I happen to like CW AND AM
      and consider BOTH as part of the proud history and heritage of ham radio.     

Believe what you want, the code testing door is closed.
Those that like to operate CW, or want to learn to operate CW, can continue to do so. Making it part of the just killed testing requirements was, in my opinion, a silly attempt at nothing.

We can continue to go round and round but the FCC has closed the code testing door. (done, over, kiss it good-bye, etc., etc.)

Harder tests don't make a better amateur, but experience and common sense works wonders.

So why dont we just have a test on common sense and experience? I dont know why we even have a test at all. New hams only have to have the ability to read an HRO or MFJ catalog.

"harder tests do not make a better amateur,--experience and common sense work wonders"


 
Gee,--Pete, I could just see telling my instructor(in the military) that-- if I had flunked an exam in
tech school.
My experience has been that those guys who really understood the "basics"
in the classroom and THEN obtained the experience in the field were the "best techs".

Also,--If I told my instructor that the tests were "too hard",--back then--I could just
imagine what he would have told me.
Probably something to the effect,--"ya can always apply to be a cook,-- lots of openings" .
  
                                           73, K1MVP

 I know a few cooks (chefs) who make a pretty good living ::)

I see no connection with "military" in this discussion.

The amateur radio "hobby" is not the military nor is it rocket science. Basic test questions, if any, are all that should be required to enter the hobby. The type of testing "of the old days" are gone and should remained buried. They serve no real purpose in today's and tomorrow's amateur radio arena. Amateur Radio is changing, like it or not; P&M'ing about it isn't going to change it. If one can’t stand change, the amateur radio hobby entrance door swings both ways.

How about telling us what you think a few basic questions would be.Would you ask about Ohms law? Why? LC circuits? RC circuits? Why? Time constants? Why? How about Why do you like your G5RV dipole? Just give the liscense away.Its going that way anyways. Me thinks the fat lady is starting to sing.

I see no connection with "military" in this discussion.

The amateur radio "hobby" is not the military nor is it rocket science. Basic test questions, if any, are all that should be required to enter the hobby. The type of testing "of the old days" are gone and should remained buried. They serve no real purpose in today's and tomorrow's amateur radio arena. Amateur Radio is changing, like it or not; P&M'ing about it isn't going to change it. If one can’t stand change, the amateur radio hobby entrance door swings both ways.
[/quote]





I thought that amateur radio WAS more than a "hobby",--its primary purpose was a a "service" as I recall.
The  old day testing  is gone,--"serves no real purpose" in today`s HR arena", as you said.

THAT EXPLAINS why ham radio standards are "irrelavant", so WE ARE on the way to CB or the GMRS service.
As far as the "door swinging both ways",--you are right,--I`ve had 46yrs+ and I think I have seen the
"better part", so I have no regrets.
                                                     73, K1MVP
 
P.S., seems a sad day when those of us who are trying to maintain some "decent standards" , are told
       to look for the "door",--but others can bend over backwards to water down requirements to
       "bring on the masses". 

Rene, who's being told to hit the door?  Certainly nobody here, by any member here.

I greatly appreciate and support your enthusiasm for CW and I just don't see any CW hate here at all.  Nobody here that I've seen has any objection whatsoever to CW per.se., and indeed many enthusiastically indulge in CW.

I can't speak for the others in this thread but personally, my objection was against the CW requirement by the FCC, not the fact that guys can and will operate CW if that is their wish.  It did NOTHING - zero, zilch, nada - to filter out buttheads.  ALL of the knuckleheads indulging in less than acceptable behavior on HF up to the end of Feb had to pass the CW requirement.  Going further, I've seen nothing but gentlemanly conduct by the new /AGs.  Not all of 'em are going to be that way, of course, but to paint them with a broad brush is just wrong.

NO test ever concocted filters out idiots or assholes.  One of the dumbest people I've ever met had a PhD in electrical engineering from Purdue.  My wife has introduced me to some very egocentric and socially inept colleagues who MDs.  In any event, that isn't the purpose of the FCC test - it's to measure basic knowledge of radio so as to comply with FCC regs AND not cause harmful interference.  Beyond that, the FCC could care less.  And, IMHO, they really shouldn't.

I did think that the Extra, as kind of the "masters degree" of ham radio, should retain the CW requirement.  But as Pete said, the fat lady's sung on this issue already and pissing and moaning about it, while fun, is ultimately unproductive.

Ohh crap! I might as well throw my two bits in here. You know, I can remember as a young whippersnapper listening to the vulgarity going on on 75 years ago. I remember attempting to get my novice license then and the questions were much harder and the code much more difficult, (no 10 questions about what was being sent). Hell, to get anything above a novice license, you had to go to the nearest FCC field office. That didn't seem to filter the bullshit then and the requirements, regardless how flimsy won't do it now. If a person is going to be a LID, then no test or CW requirement is going to stop them! I'll go back to fixing my receiver now.

Johnny,
I appreciate your comments and/ or opinions, and you do mention that you felt CW SHOULD have
been retained for the extra.

WE do agree on this point,--so I would assume you do see "some value" in cw??
I agree that a "jerk is a jerk" no matter what his "credentials",--but and what the answer is to
that is "anybody`s guess".--Maybe it has to do with today`s society in general.

In any case,--I am NOT blaming the "newcomer" for the watered down exam system,--BUT
someone IS responsible,--would you not agree?--the ARRL??, the FCC??, the VEC program???
you tell me.

MY "beef" with the exam system is the "teaching the answer" method which proves little
to nothing,--except that a person can "recognize" or "regurgitate" the answer without
a true understanding of the material,--AND we are now told my the "powers that be", ARRL
and many others that the exam is actually "harder" than it was years ago.
That MIGHT be true,--if the exact answers were not published in a question pool format aka
the "Dick Bash" method.

When one meets many necomers who do not even know ohms law, or how to apply it,--to
say nothing of LCR reactive circuits, resonant circuits, etc, then one might just think something
"amiss".

And in closing,--I realize it a "done deal",--but I did submit my comments on this issue to the
FCC back 2 or 3 years ago and was hoping the FCC might consider "merit" in beefing up the
wtitten exam,--but it was not to happen.
Those are some of my sentiments,--got to go,(shovel my driveway this morning).
                                                    
                                               73, Rene, K1MVP  
                                        

I must have been listening to a "different ham radio" back in the 50`s and 60`s,--cause I DO NOT
remember the lids that you speak of, back then using all the vulgarity and profanity back then.
A lid back then,--was the "exception", not the "rule" as it is in today`s world.
                                                           
                                                73, K1MVP       

Rene said:
Without tilting my hand as to how old I am, (nor yours as to how old you are), my listening took place during the early '70's. The reason I remember it because my buddy and I would snicker at the exchange swearing that went on between stations. The point was that if a person is hell bent on being an asshole, then that is what he/she is going to be. Period. No test is going to stop them!

I never did see the problem with the "Dick Bash" method that everyone talks about.  I used to run the one-man service department at a 2-way radio business back in the early 80's, and we also sold ham equipment and carried a few ham publications on display in the showroom - including the complete Bash series.

Looking through those books, I saw what looked to me to be almost exactly the same format as the ARRL Licence Manual I studied in 1959, both for my Novice and General that year.  There would be a sample question, followed by multiple-choice answers.  The correct choice would be indicated, followed by a brief but adequate explanation why that answer was correct, and references where one could find information for further study.

A former military officer, Bash claimed to have used "standard military intelligence techniques" to get the exact questions and answers off the FCC-administered exams, from candidates just as they exited the FCC testing site, but I wonder how close those actually were.  It would be difficult, for me at least, to reconstruct one of those written exams by recalling all the questions and choices word-for-word after taking the test.  It would have taken an army of test-takers to come up with every one of those test items verbatim.  I recall the Licence Manual questions being pretty close to the questions on my tests, too.

I think  "Dick Bash" was a bogus issue that the FCC exploited because they wanted to get out of the amateur radio testing business, after Barry Goldwater successfully got the legislation passed authorising volunteer-administered exams -- not unlike the bogus issues they used when they rammed through the AM power reduction -- for example,  that they could not "justify the the added expense of training field inspectors" to measure AM power by carrier output, average power output or DC input, instead of p.e.p.

One of the functions of the code test was to ration a scarce commodity, the amateur HF spectrum, in order to keep the congestion down to a low enough level to allow hams to use the bands for all the things that are supposed to justify the existence of the amateur radio "service" as prescribed in §97.1 of the rules.

With cw being essentially phased completely out of commercial and military communications, perhaps there is adequate justification for phasing it out of amateur radio.  But IMO the code was already essentially phased out long ago, when they reduced all the tests to 5 wpm.  I can't conceive of anyone not being able to learn to copy at that speed, since all you have to do is memorise the Morse alphabet, and you can literally count dots and dashes to decipher the code.  I even heard a story one VE told of seeing candidates actually copying down dots and dashes on the paper as they heard them, then going back over the  copy and transliterating them to letters of the alphabet, and being able to decipher enough text to successfully answer the M-C code test questions.  If there really are "hoards" of new applicants taking the test now that the code part is gone, that tells me that many, if not most, of those applicants lacked a burning desire to become licensed hams in the first place, if a test of such a simple skill as copying Morse code at 5wpm kept them from attempting for "many years."

But at the present time, the amateur population is dwindling at such a rate that I doubt if the no-code tests will create significant congestion on the bands.  If that were a problem, a better written exam procedure could equally well ration the limited amateur spectrum.  It wouldn't require a particularly difficult test - just basic questions on the regulations, electrical safety and basic electrical theory, including ohm's law, inductance and capacitance, resonance, simple af and rf power amplification, antenna theory, modulation theory - the basic stuff most members of the AM community would expect hams we talk to every day to know.  Most of this is covered in the present day exams.  No need for detailed knowledge of exotic digital control circuitry or knowledge of computer software source code.  All that is needed is to format the tests so that the applicant has to actually have a minimal knowledge of the material, and not just commit a pool of Q-A's to memory without knowing what most of it means.

The names of the licence classes should be changed to something more closely related to the actual nature of the privileges now accorded.  Extra Class should be renamed something like "Full licence", the General to "Restricted licence", and a long-overdue change of the name of the Technician Class to "Communicator Class", since there is hardly anything "technical" about the privileges granted by the present-day Tech licence.

While I haven't spent much time listening to slopbucket QSO's on the lower bands to see how many new AE's ad AG's are on the air, so far I don't hear any noticeable increase in the overall level of congestion on the bands.

Even if there is, I suspect it will be temporary, and then things will settle pretty much back down to the usual -- like the initial surge of AM activity below 3800, that largely fizzled once the novelty wore off.

BTW,  last night, the part of the band where I usually call CQ and try to establish an AM QSO, in the vicinity of 3685, was almost completely occupied with "quarmtesters", so I just listened around and noticed a large hole between about 3615 and 3645, so I sat right down on 3630 and called CQ.  I had a reply by NU9N, and I opened up the bandwidth on my receiver and we had a long discussion about audio and the human voice, as transmitted via AM and SSB.  Several others joined in, and we had a completely clear-channel QRM-free contact from about 6 PM until after 10:30 -- the first time I can recall in years having a 4-hour plus QSO with the same group of stations and staying on one topic throughout.  One time, a couple of quarmtesters come near the frequency; they ignored John when he told them that the frequency was in use, but they soon vacated when they figured out that they would have to be listening for weak 75m DX stations through strong adjacent channel interference, and QSY'ed to a clear spot down lower in the band.

As long as at least part of the band stays uncongested enough that I can regularly have QRM-free QSO's like what I am currently able to have in the present Extra-class segment, I am not going to waste time or mental energy dwelling on the licence exam changes, even though I would have preferred not to see the latest change happen.  Besides, the newbies as a group will probably have many more potential AM'ers, that than all the 20/13/5 wpm veterans combined.

You guys also agree with the ARRL on this point. I feel the earth shaking.

Rene also said: "...why ham radio standards are "irrelavant""

What "ham radio standards" are these that will and/or do relate to the amateur radio current and future generations.
Are you referring to that boy scout oath-like list that was put together back around 1929?
The amateur is ...
The amateur is ......
The amateur is ..........
etc.

If you have any doubts about Dick Bash and his methods,--you should read an interview in 73 magazine,
(September 80), titled, In Profile: Dick Bash KL7IHP,"the father of The Final Exam speaks out".
He was interviewed by N1AUI, Chris Brown a member of the 73 magazine staff.
It was IMO, quite revealing about how he felt about ham radio, and he had "no bones" about how
he felt about the FCC and the testing system.

The Dick Bash format may have been similar to the "old tests",--but in the old system the "exact answers" were NOT published as they now are under his system.

Another question I would have for you Don,--is IF there is not any difference, why is it many newcomers
do not even know ohms law and how to apply it?(to say nothing of LCR reactive circuits)--REAL BASIC, IMO.
I have been involved in mentoring for the past few years, and this is how this came to my attention.

Many will say the "old novice" ticket was only a few questions,--(about 25 to 30) as I recall with the
5 wpm cw exam,--but most novice`s back then did know ohms law, and how to cut a half wave dipole.
to length for a certain frequency.(which is not rocket science)
  
Extra`s who do not have a "clue" as to what "impedance" really means,-- says to me "something is amiss".

                                                      73, K1MVP

                                                            

Pete,

I have noticed you have not answered Joe`s questions in his post a while back,(probably an oversight)
I am sure,
He asked "How about telling us what you think a few basic questions would be"--
"Would you ask ohms law? why?, LC circuits? why? Time Constants? why?, or why do you like
your G5RV?"

We are waiting,--(for your response)
                                                    73, K1MVP                                             
 

Maybe I missed something along the way, but I seem to recall that Bash went out of business when the FCC mandated published question/answer pools.  When he was publishing his books, we still had the old FCC administered exams, or at least under the VE program, the Q/A's weren't published verbatim.  Are you calling the present-day published pools the "Bash system"?  I just remember the Bash manuals, but no Q-A pools back then.

I'll have to look and see if I still have a copy of the Sept '80 73 magazine.  In many issues of that rag I cut out articles of interest, put them in a folder, and tossed out the rest to save space.

Well I am probably a bit older than you Mike,--I got my original ticket in December of 59(a novice)
as KN1MVP, and then got the general in March or April of 60, at the ripe old age of 17, although I
became interested at 13 and did a lot of listening before I got my ticket.

I was real  active from the time I first got my novice(1960) until 1970,--at which time I met my
xyl and got married in late 71, and was starting a family, became real busy at work, during mid and
late 70`s.
Thus I was not as active on hf back in the 70`s--would get on sparsely on 20 and 15 sideband
to work some dx once and a while.
I was not real active again until the mid to late 80`s, and then on cw or ssb.

I was around toward the tail-end of the "ol am days" in 60 as my first am rig was a Harvey Wells
TBS-50 paired up with a BC-342 receiver which I used for a couple of years and the got a Viking II
with an HQ-110,and made the "transition" to SSB in 69 with an NCX-3 tranceiver.

So --I may have "missed" some of the "goings on" during the 70`s as far as the "changes" and"stuff"
that was taking place on the lower bands.
                                                 73, K1MVP

P.S,--I "came back" to AM around 95, as I was getting tired of "same ol same o" slopbucket QSO`s
 

  :)

Just like we're waiting to hear about ham radio standards.

Here's some questions pulled from various sources and some that I made up. Each would include the typical a, b, c, d answers; pick one.
What are the frequency privileges for a General Class control operator in the 160-meter band (ITU Region 2)?

What is the maximum transmitting power an amateur station may use on 10.140 MHz?

When selecting a RTTY transmitting frequency, what minimum frequency separation from a contact in progress should you allow (center to center) to minimize interference?

What are the objectives of the Amateur Auxiliary to the FCC's Compliance and Information Bureau?

What is a geomagnetic disturbance?

What is the "critical angle" as used in radio-wave propagation?

Which of the following is NOT an important reason to have a good station ground?

If a single-sideband phone transmitter is 100% modulated, what will a speech processor do to the transmitter's power?

If an amateur station is installed on board a ship and is separate from the ship radio installation, what condition must be met before the station may transmit?

What is an FCC authorization for alien reciprocal operation?

What is a linear transponder?

Which of the following types of packet frames is used to transmit APRS beacon data?

What is the most common method of transmitting data emissions below 30 MHz?

What type of propagation is probably occurring if radio signals travel along the terminator between daylight and darkness?

What type of graph can be used to calculate impedance along transmission lines?

Which of the following are specifically prohibited in the Amateur Radio Service?

What is the correct way to identify when visiting a station if you hold a higher class license than that of the station licensee and you are using a frequency not authorized to his class of license?

Who developed the band plans used by amateur radio operators?

What is the most common input/output frequency offset for repeaters in the 6-meter band?

Since most of us weren't around in the 1930's, we can't say what we heard on the air then. But reading QST and Radio magazines from that era, it's clear to me that there were poor operators, lids and troublemakers back then. The idea that problems with amateur radio just began recently or in the 1970s is a historical inaccuracy. Rose colored glasses can be dangerous.

Ok Pete,

On your "list" of questions you ask,--BUT you failed to publish the answers to enable a person to
"regurgitate" as is now done with the question pools.(for shame)

Even with being able to "answer" these questions,--I fail to see where it would help to troublshoot,
fix or build an HF rig, be it solid state or tube,--but one should UNDERSTAND basic RF concepts,
LCR reactive circuits, resonance, RF amps, spurious oscillations,--harmonic generation, basic
receiver concepts,--transmission lines, antenna`s, etc,etc, etc.

I fail to see where your "list" would help me fix my equipment, oy build my homebrew linear.
The "old tests" were in fact more relavant to the "nuts and bolt" of HR, IMO.

                                                73, K1MVP

P.S, You might want to check an old issue of 73 magazine,(Sept 80) of an interview with
       Dick Bash, by N1AUI(Chris Brown) titled "the father of The Final Exam speaks out"
       Not only did he "fight" the FCC,--HE was also fighting the ARRL at the time, as they
       would NOT advertise his book of published answers back then.(that was when the ARRL
       had common sense)     
 

Steve,
If you get the opportunity,--when you go to the Timomium hamfest in your area,look up a mutual friend,
Frank,--W3SCC, who was initially licensed back in the 50`s and ask him what his experience(as far as
what on the air behavior was back then) when he was first licensed.

You might also ask him his opinion of 75 meter phone while you are it (then versus now).

                                              73, K1MVP
                                                   

I'd like to read that article, but my back issues of 73 stop at Dec 79 (Murphy's Law at work).  Anybody feel like scanning the article and e-mailing it to me?  (my callsign) (at) hotmail.com

Will do. Talked to Frank a month or so back on 160.

There was no intent to share the answers with the readers. If they/you have trouble answering them, maybe they/you should review the various question pools, the ARRL Handbook, or numerous dissertations on these topics on the web. There is no rocket science here.


I don't believe the FCC ever intended to license citizens into the amateur radio hobby to become service technicians. If you feel they need to be versed in the service of radio equipment, they can go read a book(s) on how to service radio equipment or a number of practical guides on how to service radio equipment. The library and book stores have tons of them.

Of course, this may be your perceived version of “ham radio standards” that you alluded to in an earlier post.  i.e. get your license, repair your radios, fix your own car or horse drawn buggy, kill your own meat, wash your clothes in a stream, etc. etc.


Sorry, to me, 73 Magazine was a worthless publication back when it was distributed, and still is to me today. I threw all the 73 Mag's I had into recycle trash years ago.

For a period of time it was filled with good technical articles, more than what was in QST and CQ combined.  Sometimes it would be almost a half inch thick and almost all construction articles.  I recall the issue that published Bill, W3DUQ's article on a tube-type synchronous detector for double-sideband. 

But like all ham rags, it eventually began to turn away from the technical aspects of amateur radio.  Ham Radio magazine, which was primarily oriented to technically-minded amateurs went completely out of print.

Then Wayne Green went off on his cold fusion/quack medicine/Apollo-was-a-fake tangent as the amateur radio content of the magazine continued to dwindle, until it, too, shut down.

Don,

I will attempt to scan it and e-mail it to, but my printer-scanner has been acting up lately.
If I cannot get it to you via e-mail,--I will duplicate a copy of it and mail you a hard copy to you via
snail mail.
I assume your mailing address is ok on qrz.com call lookup?

                                                       73, Rene, K1MVP
  

Ten-four, Eleanor   ;D ;D

Thanks.

Don

From the ARRL web site:
"In January 2000, ARRL purchased the Amateur Radio technical journal Communications Quarterly from CQ Communications and merged it with QEX, creating the combined QEX/Communications Quarterly. Published for the preceding nine years under the editorship of Terry Littlefield, KA1STC, Communications Quarterly billed itself as the philosophical successor to ham radio magazine, which was founded by "Skip" Tenney, W1NLB, and Jim Fisk, W1HR. Littlefield was ham radio's Editor when CQ Communications purchased it in 1990."

Don, K4KYV,
  I just e-mailed the article to you from 73 magazine,(interview with Dick Bash) and you should
  have it now,--let me know if you got it ok.
                                             73, K1MVP

So that's where CQ Magazine screwed up.  When Ham Radio magazine folded, I was a subscriber to both.  They were supposed to convert any remaining issues of HR to CQ.  I think I had 3 or 4 issues left on my HR subscription, so for those months they sent me two duplicate copies of CQ.  There was absolutely no change in CQ.  I think most former HR subscribers had expected to see more technical articles.  Like 73,  every issue of CQ was once full of technical articles.

They should have converted the HR subscription to Communications Quarterly instead of CQ.

And QEX should be an integral part of QST and not a separate publication - OR League members should have the option of receiving both without paying extra.