T99W Help
J.P. Kleinhaus
aa2du at netcom.com
Wed Aug 21 10:56:01 EDT 1996
Greetings:
DL1QQ is indeed the manager for T99W...at least that's
what SHE told me the last time I saw her (about a year ago).
I know that she is in school studying to be a member of
the Bundeskriminalant (German FBI) but probably still takes
care of the logs. If not, I'm sure she can still reach T99W.
73, J.P. AA2DU
>From wb7dhc at nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) Wed Aug 21 16:13:39 1996
From: wb7dhc at nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) (Jim Aguirre)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960821080841.10553B-100000 at washington>
I got the same impression! No matter how hard I tried to fit my answers
into the structure of the questions posed, I could never manage to convey
how I really felt.
As someone who has constructed questionnaires professionally, I can see
just where they're headed. If this was not done intentionally (and, that
is possible...though not likely), then the ARRL needs to get someone with
experience in the field to craft an unbiased set of questions.
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Kris Mraz, N5KM wrote:
> David L. Thompson wrote:
> >
> > In the September 1996 QST (pages 49 and 50) there is a WRC-99 Survey where
> > you can make your opinions known on the Cw requirement. Please cast your
> > vote and let the ARRL/IARU know how you feel about CW. You can bet the no
> > code techs will!
> >
> > Dave K4JRB
> > Assistant Director, SE Division
>
> It may be just me, but the questions seem to be biased in such as way so
> as to influence the reader toward a "drop the code" opinion. I believe this is
> the answer the league is trying to force. There is an art to structuring
> these kinds of surveys so that the questions are unbiased and the reader's
> true opinion is obtained. I wonder if this survey could pass a neutrality test?
> Anyone experienced in this area?
> --
>
> 73
> Kris N5KM
> mraz at aud.alcatel.com
>
>From jfunk at adams.net (jim funk) Wed Aug 21 16:18:16 1996
From: jfunk at adams.net (jim funk) (jim funk)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:18:16 -0500
Subject: NAQP M/2's
Message-ID: <9608211518.AA26582 at golden.adams.net>
W6EMS wrote:
>
>Jim: if you used more than one name in your M2 we require you to show which
>name was used for which QSO throughout your log. Sometimes this makes using
>one name for all contacts a somewhat easier choice, hi,
>
>73, Steve W6EMS
>merchant at silcom.com
>
>At 01:39 PM 8/20/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>Greetings!
>> What is the rule, or the consensus, regarding what name is used in
>>NAQP for the M/2 stations? Settle on one name or everybody use his own?
>> 73, Jim N9JF
While we did not do a M/2 this time, I regard Steve's answer as the
definitive one. Thanks to all who replied and 73, Jim N9JF
>>
>>
>
>
>
"The cow is of the bovine ilk. One end is moo; the other, milk.--Ogden Nash
>From aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample) Wed Aug 21 16:22:45 1996
From: aa9ax at iglou.com (Steven Sample) (Steven Sample)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:22:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Blowup
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960821112024.16502A-100000 at iglou>
Am I missing something or is this a mis-directed post?
Slim
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Geoff Howard wrote:
> Hope Winnepeg is/was/will be a good trip. Also hope Monday and
> Tuesday with Kris were all that you hoped they would be.
>
> We are back at the Days Inn in Tempe, getting ready to fly out in
> the morning. We stayed at Luke Thursday night, the Hilton
> on Friday/Saturday, and at Davis/Monthan AFB on Sunday night.
> Saw a lot of neat stuff in Tucson, and then did Biosphere 2 today
> (Monday) which was GREAT!!
>
> A warning: Cindy blew up Saturday night when she got the phone
> message from Karin. Anger first, then a lot of tears. She has had
> it with Karin, and does not ever want to see her or even talk to
> her again. She was very, VERY angry and hurt at the fact that K
> completely ignored our invitation to take you guys out for
> our anniversary dinner. She was equally mad at the way she obviously
> concealed where you guys were staying. She is VERRRRY furious, and
> Karin can consider herself permanently divorced from the Howards.
> Cindy has tried to be patient with her for a long time, as far
> back as whan Karin had her in tears in Key West, and now she has
> simply had it. And guess what? She said she thinks Karin is
> an absolute "witch" and that you should quit wasting your time and
> energy and just divorce her. Says that K is just "using" you for
> a safety net and for support. How's that for strong talk?
>
> Be clear: Cindy has no, none, ZERO beef with you! She had a ball with
> you, likes you a LOT, more and more every time, and would very
> much like to stay in touch with you and do trips together, etc.
> But with a different partner than Karin.
>
> Sorry to bring you bad news, but I thought you should know about
> this before you hear about it second-hand. Not sure if she is going
> to call K, or e-mail her, or what, but my advice is to keep your
> head down. Karin is, in her opinion, irretrieveably maladjusted,
> and she salutes you for your patience all this time. She does know
> that, to some extent, you have another gal-friend (I have only
> told her small parts) and she understands why you have taken up
> with someone else. The churchgoer in her does not approve, but the
> human in her approves completely.
>
> You should have HEARD the strong language she used about K.
>
> Keep in touch!
>
>
>From wb7dhc at nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) Wed Aug 21 16:27:46 1996
From: wb7dhc at nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) (Jim Aguirre)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960821081925.10553D-100000 at washington>
Good thoughts on CW! Unfortunately, too much has been made of CW being
"ancient technology." Hammers are ancient technology too, but try to build
something without one!
Whether CW should be a "filter" in the licensing process is open to
debate; what is not open to debate is that CW is still a very valuable
tool for weak signal work. Licensing requirements...especially for the
higher levels...should test for all the basics, including the appropriate
use of all the tools at hand. That should include CW along with all the
others.
I can support an entry-level codeless license, but in order to move up, I
believe it's important to make applicants demonstrate their knowledge of
all the fundamentals...including CW. BTW, I couldn't find a way to reach
that conclusion in the ARRL survey!
>From nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) Wed Aug 21 16:58:01 1996
From: nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:58:01 -0500
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <1371497424-8379856 at BANJO.EASY.COM>
Somewhat to my surprise, I did not detect any bias in ARRL's WRC-99 Survey
(Sept QST, pp 49/50). Perhaps it was the ABSENCE of this traditional League
bias (in their direction) which disturbed several correspondents to this
Reflector?
I think the ARRL Board of Directors is to be congratulated for accepting
its leadership role for ALL amateurs in the United States, and for
specifying that the WRC Survey is to go to non-members as well as members
(Sept QST, Moved & Seconded, p67, Minute #71). Another survey of just the
minority who are members would be a waste of our subscription money - That
result is well known.
John, NT5C.
>From thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) Wed Aug 21 16:15:55 1996
From: thompson at mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:15:55 -0400
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <199608211604.MAA19859 at answerman.mindspring.com>
Gang,
1. There is no reason why you cannot copy the pages for your reply. There
is no need to tear up the QST.
2. The survey is not biased in my opinion toward CW. It is designed to
get the most complete answer to YES or NO. If you have an "expert"
marketing researcher who can find bias report it to
ARRL at once. I have a neighbor who runs a marketing research firm and I
faxed it to him...he said it was not biased and he has no idea what Cw is
and why the fuss!
3. Boy, 30 years ago the League was labeled "CW Forever" due to the
management team and the fights with NARC and the incentive licensing
proposals. Things have sure changed for the League to be labeled "Against
CW." To my knowledge, the League is bending over backward to be
"unbiased."
4. With regards to who votes and League membership (or IARU member society
membership for our DX friends) a member is a member and each gets one full
vote! A full member can be any class of license.
My suggestion is fill out the survey and let your opinions be known.
Dave K4JRB
>From aa7bg at initco.net (AA7BG Matt Trott) Wed Aug 21 17:14:03 1996
From: aa7bg at initco.net (AA7BG Matt Trott) (AA7BG Matt Trott)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:14:03 -0600
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <199608211614.KAA17094 at zeus.initco.net>
> " When I get on 40 CW at night in Field Day, the entire world as I know
> it ceases to exist. It's just me and the band ".
>
>There is something very special about CW.
That about says it. About 20 years ago there was an article in the National
Observer about a cw dxer and he described his over-the-pole cw dxing as
"....an escape from moods and pressures." I was a 16 year old novice when I
read this article and I appreciate his comment even more today than I did then.
>I personally feel that many desired to get to the top,
>but wanted to be ferried there in helicopters and avoid going to
>rock climbing school. The allure was so great.
I'm not so sure. How great can the "allure" be if you don't even care enough
to put forth what it takes? In the coming years maybe they'll do away with
ANY licensing requirements. I really don't think the bands will be crowded
with happy people if that happens. Or that many other people for that
matter. If more people wanted to be on HF then they would be. What we need
to do is outwardly show how much fun we're having and portray the virtues of
HF. Then once all are indeed privy to the greatest part of this hobby they'd
skip that sitcom for a month and study code. If they still won't do it, it's
cuz they don't WANT to do it.
>America has at it's roots the concept of equal opportunity - opportunity
>towards the pursuit of happiness. For some, that pursuit requires
>a National Park. For others, a few tens of kiloHertz. I say that
>the preservation of the CW subbands is just as consistent with our
>country's goals and morals as is the preservation of large areas
>of land for the appreciation of ourselves and our children.
Well put Tony. Let's go ahead and chase the money and get rid of CW. But
let's not call it Ham Radio anymore. No, we dasn't do that. We must come up
with a new moniker. It can be similar, something that sounds equally as
meaty. How about Bologna Radio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- AA7BG "Please don't drink on the reflector" --Stu Pidthred
Matt Trott
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Wed Aug 21 18:25:56 1996
From: hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960821093319.18054C-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Here's an idea - Consider merging the no-code Tech and Novice licenses,
with HF privileges the same as General, but at a greatly reduced power
level. VHF privileges would be the same as for current no-code Tech.
This would get the new ham "in the tent" so that he or she can see why
it's worth learning the code to get the extra privileges. As it stands,
the Novices and Technicians are segregated in little-used or SWBC-infested
bands (with the exception of 10m SSB which is dead 5 years out of 11)
where they don't get exposed to the full ham experience. I know from
experience that you can do a lot with just a few watts of power and even
limited antennas.
This has the simultaneous effect of getting the entry-level ham involved
in the ham community while making "full membership" contingent on making
the effort to acquire skills. Also, it would tend to minimize the
no-code/code frequency segregation, yet maintain the value of the
higher class ticket. I would make the analogy of the "visual flight
rules" restriction on new pilots as a parallel situation. Also (he said,
tongue-in-cheek) it gets me a lot more Sunday afternoon contacts during
Sweepstakes ;-) ;-) ;-)
To be clear, let's call the new Entry-Level license the "Associate":
Associate Current Tech Exam Current VHF privileges plus
General HF privileges, 5-20W
Current Tech Grandfathered to Associate
Current Novice Grandfathered to Associate
Current Tech-Plus Grandfathered to new General
due to having passed the
higher theory/rules exam
General 7-10wpm requirement Existing General privileges
(13 is too big a (no change to existing licensees)
step as a first
exam level)
Advanced More theory & rules Existing Advanced privileges
(no change to existing licensees)
Extra 15-20wpm plus more All Amateur privileges
theory and rules
The FCC should like this proposal as it reduces the number of license
levels to four from the current six. Current licensees see no reduction
in their privileges and no significant cheapening of their achievement.
Manufacturers will like it because more people will have more HF
privileges. New licensees will like it because they get access to more
activities. Old licensees should tolerate it because it keeps the CW
requirement and doesn't give away the HF store, yet makes the hobby more
inclusive of the new licensee.
Technicians get the biggest bonus - General Class privileges. Existing
Novices get VHF privileges and existing no-code Techs get the
limited-power HF privileges. Novices trade the existing 250W limit
against broader HF frequency privileges. (Get the Novices down below
7050kHz and they'll be upgrading faster than they ever imagined.)
As it is, the entry-level licensees don't have the opportunity to mix in
the the broader ham community. "Novices - you go over there in the weeds
where we can't see you. No-code techs, you guys stay away from HF
entirely. Techs - you can operate on HF, but only with the Novices."
Small wonder that these groups don't upgrade and don't feel a strong bond
with the traditional ham community!
I agree with K1KP entirely that there needs to be a commonality among
hams. Yet it can't happen without *communication* within the *community*.
It is no coincidence that the words begin with the same six letters.
73, and let's have some discussion!
Ward N0AX
>From leduc at atla3.agfa.com (Dave LeDuc) Wed Aug 21 16:34:10 1996
From: leduc at atla3.agfa.com (Dave LeDuc) (Dave LeDuc)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 11:34:10 EDT
Subject: No Sept. QST
Message-ID: <9608211534.AB19719 at chip.agfa.com>
Am I the only ARRL member who did not get their SEPT. issue of QST??
Dave K1EPJ
>From floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) Wed Aug 21 16:02:18 1996
From: floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:02:18 -0300
Subject: NAQP SSB 96 Scores III
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960821150218.228fca7a at interpath.com>
NAQP 96 SSB
Raw Scores
Compiled by
>> WA4ZXA <<
floydjr at interpath.com
Date posted: 08/21/96
CALL SCORE QSO'S MULTI
------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE OPERATOR
N4ZZ 244,404 1116 219
NM5M 194,135 947 205
K0EJ 184,625 875 211
AA8AV 184,080 885 208
KF3P 159,964 812 197
AC10 150,002 838 179
NA5Q 143,592 772 186
AA0SQ 125,388 774 162
KA4RRU 123,714 711 174
N4BP 119,250 750 159
AB5SE 111,931 647 173
AA0OB 110,840 652 170
KE2VB 105,270 605 174
N5FG (WQ5L) 103,887 679 153
WA8YRS 103,572 548 189
KQ4HC 99,968 568 176
W7ZRC 98,552 776 127
WA7BNM 95,776 656 146
KB3AFT 94,114 544 173
K9BG 93,225 565 165
KJ6HO 92,796 703 132
N6HC 92,400 700 132
WB5B 91,676 559 162
WA6KUI 87,584 544 161
KR4UJ 86,289 587 147
N6KI 80,470 619 130
N1PBT 77,770 505 154
K3II (WB3ESS) 77,520 570 136
KN6DV 76,956 636 121
W5ASP 71,736 488 147
AB6FO 67,298 506 133
KR4DL 62,205 429 145
AA4UF 61,962 449 138
N9ITX/7 60,298 511 198
K7C (KG7TE) 60,000 455 132
KD3GC 57,323 431 133
WQ5G 55,440 419 131
WB0OLA 52,785 391 135
N3BDA 49,440 412 120
KD4HA 46,854 342 137
AE4EY 32,336 344 94
WA4ZXA 30,492 363 84
N3ADL (N3UHZ) 28,086 253 111
W1IHN 26,800 268 100
WD0T 25,935 273 95
KS4XG 25,875 225 115
AE0M 18,300 245 75
VE6JY 14,430 185 78
KM9P 4,061 131 31
KB9NMU 1,058 46 23
WN3K 221 17 13
MULIT-OP
NC0P 421,022 1769 238
WB5VZL 331,559 1423 233
W5NN 308,958 1326 233
KC4ZV 140,097 697 201
AC4ZO 54,740 391 140
W5EHM 47,151 403 117
TEAM SCORES
SCCC#1 425,226
OPERATORS IN MULIT-OP
NC0P NC0P,WD0GVY,WA0ETC,WA0FLS,WO0V
W5EHM N1PVB,SQ9DDZ,KA5WSS
AC4ZO AC4ZO,AD4ZE,KE4DRJ,KE4OQO,KF4EAH,KF4BKM,N4YTO,KT4OC
WB5VZL AA5RB,WB5VZL
W5NN K5GA,N5RP,KB5YVT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY SCORES TO THE CONTEST REFLECTOR FOR ANY CONTEST!!
SEND THEM TO ME DIRECT OR TO THE 3830 REFLECTOR.
PLEASE NO ATTACHED FILES!!! ALSO NO LOGS AS THESE NOT OFFICIAL SCORES!!
73's Jim
**********************************************************
* Jimmy R. Floyd (Jim) Thomasville, NC *
* *
* Amateur Call: >> WA4ZXA << *
* Packet Node: >> N4ZC << *
* Internet Address: >> floydjr at interpath.com << *
**********************************************************
>From floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) Wed Aug 21 16:02:21 1996
From: floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:02:21 -0300
Subject: SARTG RTTY 96 Scores III
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960821150221.228fe908 at interpath.com>
SARTG 96 RTTY
RAW SCORES
Compiled by
>>WA4ZXA<<
floydjr at interpath.com
Date Posted: 08/21/96
CALL SCORES QSO'S PTS DIST DX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE OP/ALL BAND
9H0A 1,589,180 779 8780 181
SM3KOR 1,289,610 659 7245 28 150
YL2KF 1,169,520 624 6645 30 146
OH2BP 1,066,725 583 6495 26 139
SM5FUG 1,059,520 563 6160 27 145
OH2GI 850,680 501 5560 21 132
PA3ERC 726,440 434 5080 26 117
OH2LU 570,240 411 4455 18 110
IK7APK (IK0HBN) 478,020 366 3855 23 101
SM3LBN 289,945 252 2815 103 87
SM5EIT 185,500 207
G3YJQ 124,605 164 1755 11 60
PJ8MI 88,440 137 2010 14 13
CE8SFG 83,490 127 1815 13 33
PA3EWP 47,730 122 1290 6 31
AB5KD 1,039,700 663 7025 148
NO2T 736,440 458 5415 47 89
N1RCT 693,750 482 5550 49 76
KQ4GC 547,995 409 4605 57 62
NF6L 520,840 414 4490 66 50
WA4VQD 417,450 353 3795 49 61
VE6KRR 304,870 329 3545 46 40
WF1B 280,840 333 4130 16 52
WA0ACI 229,900 292 3025 42 34
KE1FO 212,000 224 2650 29 51
WA4ZXA 181,335 215 2355 33 44
KE7GH 178,640 314 3190 34 22
NA2M 155,520 202 2160 34 38
KA2CYN 153,375 177 2045 35 40
KD8FS 152,130 217 2305 36 30
KA2CYN 150,000 177 2000 35 40
KC4HW 137,280 189 2080 34 32
K0RC 111,910 183 1805 38 24
AA9RR 111,825 163 1775 39 24
W6/G0AZT 108,160 159 1690 36 28
K0BX 101,500 159 1750 28 30
KF3P 83,260 152 1810 17 29
K8UNP 76,950 123 1425 21 33
W7RSJ 66,005 152 1535 24 19
VE7QO 65,095 126 1385 25 22
N2CQ 56,240
AC6DR 52,750 111 1055 33 17
W2JGR/0 52,080 107 1085 29 19
NS1Z 46,320 83 965 26 22
KC4ZHQ 46,295 97 985 27 20
KA1IXG 9,430 38 410 14 9
SINGLE OP/SINGLE BAND
40M
W2UP 108,100 192 2300 15 32
KF3P 83,260 152 1810 17 29
KF4BU 41,700 143 1390 14 16
20M
SM5AAY 84,870 168 1845 14 32
WA4JQS 110,414 190 2165 17 34
N2CQ 48,960
MULTI SINGLE
PI4CC 823,200 489 5600 32 115
AA5AU 775,520 462 5240 73 75
AF4Z 362,780 337 3740 41 56
VE3FJB 244,900 262 3100 31 48
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY SCORES FOR ANY CONTEST TO THE CONTEST REFLECTOR!!
SEND THE RTTY SCORES TO WF1B REFLECTOR OR TO ME DIRECT!!!
Please no attached files or logs!! Also remember these scores are not
official!!!
73's Jim
**********************************************************
* Jimmy R. Floyd (Jim) Thomasville, NC *
* *
* Amateur Call: >> WA4ZXA << *
* Packet Node: >> N4ZC << *
* Internet Address: >> floydjr at interpath.com << *
**********************************************************
>From edwoods at pbsac01.isp.PacBell.COM (edwoods) Wed Aug 21 19:34:00 1996
From: edwoods at pbsac01.isp.PacBell.COM (edwoods) (edwoods)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:34:00 -0700
Subject: CW as a necessary option
Message-ID: <9608211736.AA29731 at gw3.pacbell.com>
Oh lordy:
I just returned from the weekly NSEP (National Security and Emergency
Preparedness) HF net exercise for the telephone entities in California. We
use a commercial HF radio (100W) to inverted vee's cut for 4 and 7 MHz,
using a tuner to match the impedance on the emergency frequencies.
Since we're trying to cover all of W6 on those frequencies at this time of
year and this place in the sunspot cycle, we're having trouble hearing all
the stations attempting to check in. Low signals, noise, etc. Same old
story, right?
When the NCS called the Bay Area station (about 100 miles away from Sac),
all he heard was a wisp of an ESP type signal and the NCS ignored him. A
minute later, a very clear cw signal was heard from the same station. Too
bad the NCS was not a contester (or a ham).
A few minutes later, on the 4 MHz net, when we called the same Bay Area
station, we again barely heard his USB signal. Just enough to tell he was
attempting to check in. Since he knew I was NCS on 4 MHz, he then checked
in on CW. no pain - no strain.
Let's see - emergency radio net, only cw works from a station in the Bay
Area.
Says something about that mode, I hope.
Our Rohn 65 tower should arrive this week for our new Hy-Gain 6-20 LPA. I
can hardly wait to test it out on SprINT. (contest reflector qualifying
statement). Hope the contracted antenna company doesn't drop it.
73 all,
Eric, NV6O
edwoods at pacbell.com
>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Wed Aug 21 18:37:26 1996
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:37:26 -0500
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
>>Somewhat to my surprise, I did not detect any bias in ARRL's
>>WRC-99 Survey (Sept QST, pp 49/50). Perhaps it was the ABSENCE
>>of this traditional League bias (in their direction) which
>>disturbed several correspondents to this Reflector? [NT5C]
Since John is known to detest CW, this is additional proof that the
questionnaire is biassed - I had the same impression as others here.
In fact it was so obvious that I immediately filled mine out and sent
it off. At least I can cancel John's!
Naughty thought - can we send photocopies of the survey? (because, er,
it spoils the mag to tear a page out, ya know).
Derek "early and often" AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu
>From wb7dhc at nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) Wed Aug 21 19:17:02 1996
From: wb7dhc at nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) (Jim Aguirre)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960821105947.15708B-100000 at washington>
Some good thoughts on restructuring the license classes and integrating
new hams into the full spectrum of amateur radio; however, I don't think
the power limitation is practical. The FCC won't go after CBers running a
full gallon, why would they bother with an "Associate" ham licensee? With
most modern ham gear running 100-150 watts, it's hard to believe folks
would willingly turn down the power until they upgraded.
While I know some would scream at the suggestion, why not reduce the
license classes to three:
General...Merge all Novices and Techs (both flavors) and give them the
current General Class priviledges. No code. This would bring all the
entry-level folks into the fold and should upset any of the involved
classes as everyone gets expanded priviledges.
Advanced...Merge current Advanced and General classes and give them the
current Advanced Class priviledges. 10 WPM code. This might disturb some
current Advanced Class license holders, but shouldn't really create many
problems. (I an Advanced Class, so feel I can make this suggestion)
Extra...Keep the priviledges the same as they are now, but stiffen the
exams regarding good operating practices, exotic modes, and practical
theory; maybe reduce the code requirement to 15 WPM (I don't care if they
keep it at 20 WPM; I'm about to take the current upgrade test anyway). If
anything, the consolidation of the Advanced and General classes might
encourage more folks to move up to the Extra just for the prestige and
extra CW/SSB band allocations. Since the Extras won't be losing anything,
they shouldn't be too upset about this change.
Just a thought!
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Ward Silver wrote:
>
> Here's an idea - Consider merging the no-code Tech and Novice licenses,
> with HF privileges the same as General, but at a greatly reduced power
> level. VHF privileges would be the same as for current no-code Tech.
>
> This would get the new ham "in the tent" so that he or she can see why
> it's worth learning the code to get the extra privileges. As it stands,
> the Novices and Technicians are segregated in little-used or SWBC-infested
> bands (with the exception of 10m SSB which is dead 5 years out of 11)
> where they don't get exposed to the full ham experience. I know from
> experience that you can do a lot with just a few watts of power and even
> limited antennas.
>
> This has the simultaneous effect of getting the entry-level ham involved
> in the ham community while making "full membership" contingent on making
> the effort to acquire skills. Also, it would tend to minimize the
> no-code/code frequency segregation, yet maintain the value of the
> higher class ticket. I would make the analogy of the "visual flight
> rules" restriction on new pilots as a parallel situation. Also (he said,
> tongue-in-cheek) it gets me a lot more Sunday afternoon contacts during
> Sweepstakes ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
> To be clear, let's call the new Entry-Level license the "Associate":
>
> Associate Current Tech Exam Current VHF privileges plus
> General HF privileges, 5-20W
>
> Current Tech Grandfathered to Associate
>
> Current Novice Grandfathered to Associate
>
> Current Tech-Plus Grandfathered to new General
> due to having passed the
> higher theory/rules exam
>
> General 7-10wpm requirement Existing General privileges
> (13 is too big a (no change to existing licensees)
> step as a first
> exam level)
>
> Advanced More theory & rules Existing Advanced privileges
> (no change to existing licensees)
>
> Extra 15-20wpm plus more All Amateur privileges
> theory and rules
>
> The FCC should like this proposal as it reduces the number of license
> levels to four from the current six. Current licensees see no reduction
> in their privileges and no significant cheapening of their achievement.
> Manufacturers will like it because more people will have more HF
> privileges. New licensees will like it because they get access to more
> activities. Old licensees should tolerate it because it keeps the CW
> requirement and doesn't give away the HF store, yet makes the hobby more
> inclusive of the new licensee.
>
> Technicians get the biggest bonus - General Class privileges. Existing
> Novices get VHF privileges and existing no-code Techs get the
> limited-power HF privileges. Novices trade the existing 250W limit
> against broader HF frequency privileges. (Get the Novices down below
> 7050kHz and they'll be upgrading faster than they ever imagined.)
>
> As it is, the entry-level licensees don't have the opportunity to mix in
> the the broader ham community. "Novices - you go over there in the weeds
> where we can't see you. No-code techs, you guys stay away from HF
> entirely. Techs - you can operate on HF, but only with the Novices."
> Small wonder that these groups don't upgrade and don't feel a strong bond
> with the traditional ham community!
>
> I agree with K1KP entirely that there needs to be a commonality among
> hams. Yet it can't happen without *communication* within the *community*.
> It is no coincidence that the words begin with the same six letters.
>
> 73, and let's have some discussion!
>
> Ward N0AX
>
>
>From k7fd at teleport.com (John Nicholson) Wed Aug 21 19:52:24 1996
From: k7fd at teleport.com (John Nicholson) (John Nicholson)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Shack-on-a-belt'isms
Message-ID: <199608211852.LAA11348 at desiree.teleport.com>
This one takes the cake. A newbie on the local repeater referred to his
potty break as 'taking a QRP'.
All I can say is the end must be near.
John K7FD
>From nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) Wed Aug 21 20:32:22 1996
From: nt5c at easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:32:22 -0500
Subject: Misrepresentation by AA5BT
Message-ID: <1371484563-9153449 at BANJO.EASY.COM>
Derek AA5BT wrote:
>Since John is known to detest CW, this is additional
>proof that the questionnaire is biassed (sic)
I wouldn't normally bother the Reflector with this, but since Derek chose
to misrepresent my views publicly, I feel obliged to correct him the same
way.
I absolutely do NOT detest CW, which is a wonderful tradition in amateur
radio. I have many friends who are expert CW operators, and whose skills
and successes with that mode I admire. I strongly support dedicated band
segments for their use. The wonderful thing about this hobby is the variety
it offers. What I do detest, because I find it totally illogical, is
MANDATORY code testing for those of us who have quite different interests,
and who never intend to use it. There are far more appropriate tests for
the higher grades of license.
A private apology will be sufficient Derek.
John, NT5C.
P.S. Can't we put this futile, endless argument to rest - FOR KEEPS?
Whatever happened to live-and-let-live?
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list