On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Joel N. Weber II wrote:
>
> > Witness the "Doctor is in"
> > column. I hope these are not real questions sent in
> > by readers. If most of them are, the FCC definitely
> > need to think about toughening the licensing
> > requirements.
>
> I disagree about tightening the licensing requirements. I have a
> friend who has helped me with the mechanical aspects of constructing
> antennas, who is much more knowlegeable about the mechanical stuff
> than me, but has little knowlege of the electrical stuff. He doesn't
> currently have a license, but maybe someday he will. It takes both
> electrical and mechanical skills to put together an effective station,
> and I don't think one should necessarily be infinitely more highly
> valued than the other.
>
> Also, if people learn something about electronics in the course of
> their ham radio experiences, I think that's probably a good thing,
> regardless of how much they knew when they started being interested in
> ham radio.
>
We are the only radio service that doesn't require type-accepted
equipment. We are the only ones allowed to build our own equipment and to
modify existing equipment. This is especially important on VHF, IMO, as
there is even more potential for interference with other services if you
don't know what you're doing. If a person is going to tinker on 5760 or
10368 MHz, etc., he should have enough electronics/radio knowledge to do
it successfully.
I suppose new people aren't likely to build transverters and amps for
these bands right away, so there is a lot to be learned after they get
their tickets, but most of the questions I see asked in that
"Doctor is In" column would have been general knowledge by even Novice
licensees (no pun intended) back in the mid-60's.
73, Zack W9SZ
|