<N2EY@AOL.COM> wrote > Doesn't seem like 40 years, though. > > What do others remember? :-) When a teen, my novice license arrived Friday the 13th, September 1963. My first QSO was that night on 80m on 3706 Kc with a fellow in Schoharie, NY. That was my only crystal. With crystals, we had to learn to listen all over our 50 Kc available band of 3700 - 3750. My friend Gary and I went down to the FCC office in Manhattan to take the General exam just a few days before they were going to impose a $4 fee. Ouch! We had a deadline to meet! We couldn't afford to pay $4! Well, we both passed, and Gary called his mom to tell her the good news. Once we arrived back to his house it was apparent that his mother told a neighbor the good news because, as we walked by the neighbor's house, she exclaimed to us, "So now you're Captains!?" Howard N7SO

Happy... emm... license day... Jim :o) I was born in1967 so less history here. Didnt get my license until I was 26 years old in 1993. I recall my first contact like it was yesterday. Sitting at my desk with a my new license and an FT480 on the FM calling frequency wondering what I should do next. I'm on my fourth callsign, from two countries. Planning another move so number 5 on its way. Many things in amateur radio change. But the basics will always be the same. -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS #9666 CW Ops QRP Club #753 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org

In news:1192209525.606954.261450@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com N2EY@AOL.COM wrote: > What do others remember? I remember a QST cover with an image of the sun labled "Cycle 19 - The Declining Years". And now, here we are at the nadir of Cycle 23. -- Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

"Steve Bonine" wrote > I was also first licensed in 1963 and I think I had three crystals, but > one was 3706. That must have been a common frequency for a surplus xtal. Gosh, Steve - I wonder if we worked each other. My antenna was so poor that, when I used an EICO VFO as a transmitter hooked up to a 100 ft random receiving antenna (with no matching system whatsoever) -- the EICO did better! With it, I worked 14 states including Oklahoma (from the NYC area). (Then I got an "OO" card in the mail, chastising me for using a VFO as a novice. I guess "OO" stands for "OH-OH!") The Johnson Challenger was, on 80m, hooked up to a 40m vertical dipole hanging from the roof ledge of an 8 story apartment roof. Yep, it was right up against the brick wall. I was on the 5th floor. What a moron... ;-) See, I couldn't find any 40m crystals, so I got one for 80, and.... But that Challenger could actually load a 40m antenna on 80. Thus the license class "novice." Howard

<N2EY@AOL.COM> wrote > As I was about to leave, the FCC examiner said "why don't you try > Advanced while you're here?" Though I hadn't prepared for it, there > was no way a 14 year old kid would say no to The Man From FCC, so I > tried it - and passed. That white shirt and tie was pretty intimidating, wasn't it? I think it was in 1968 that I went to the NYC office for my Advanced. I knew I failed... but the man in the white shirt went over my answer sheet and casually said, "You passed." "I DID!?" was my trembling response.... "Yeah." Oh. I walked out of the exam room, went down the hall, threw my pencil in the air over my back and kept going. Now exams are given in people's living rooms.... > Tomorrow it will be 40 years since the license arrived in the mail... Congratulations, Jim. It's quite a "club" we belong to. Howard N7SO

"Steve Bonine" wrote > But the new hams are missing a memory that all of us old timers have of > being intimidated by the FCC exam process, and that's just a tiny bit sad. Steve, I think you're right - very right - especially after reading Jim's posting that followed yours. It's an experience that few of us hams share any more. N7SO

"Phil Kane" wrote >>Steve, I think you're right - very right - especially after reading Jim's >>posting that followed yours. It's an experience that few of us hams share >>any more. > So very true. For most hams that was the first one-on-one contact > that they had with the FCC and being told that one passed the exam > made it a positive contact. Oh, it was a positive contact, all right. (I got to have two of them, both in the NYC office.) I remember more the FCC men who set my friend and I up with the headphones to listen to the 13 wpm tape. They were very nice to us teenagers. It's not to say that others, who got their tickets from VE's, don't have fond memories of *their* experiences. It's just that this was, well, the official place, #2 pencils and all that... ;-) And it was in a time (1963) when authority was respected a lot more than it is now. Seriously, I attended a W5YI VE session here in Tucson about 14 years ago to take my Extra exams. It was in someone's house, and it was so noisy, they were having what amounted to a party while the exams were being given! I did pass the 20wpm (it was given in a separate room), but I failed the written.... in the party room. I was appalled at the "QRM" atmosphere. Give me the quiet, sterile FCC exam room anytime. Howard N7SO

N2EY@AOL.COM wrote in news:1192669855.352467.256260 @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com: > On Oct 17, 2:51?am, Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:14:05 EDT, N...@AOL.COM wrote: >> >What was intimidating was the fact that the Examiner was The Man From >> >FCC, who had sole power to say "You passed" or "You failed". >> >> It was the applicant who determined if the result was passing or >> failing. The examiner merely reported the results. > > Bwaahaaahaaa! I walked right into that one, Phil! > > However, didn't the examiner have to use at least some judgement as to > whether an applicant's Morse Code copy was 'legible', and whether his/ > her sending was OK? > > Going back before my time, when the exams involved writing essays, > drawing diagrams and showing how an answer was derived, didn't the > examiner have some judgement as to whether the applicant had properly > answered a question? > > -- > > The way I recall it, the examiner I met wasn't so much trying to > intimidate as to simply let you know that this licensing stuff was > serious business. This kind of got me to thinking. Perhaps the judgement part is one of the reasons that essays went away. In a related situation, the first time I took my driving test, I went before a steely eyed Examiner, a state policeman by the name of Nix. I aced the written part of the test, and aced the driving test too. Then on the way back to the building where they were headquartered, he suddenly yelled out STOP NOW! I did so immediately, thinking there might be an emergency situation; after which he looked at me, grinned, and said "Congratulations, YOU flunked!" When I asked what I did wrong, He said "You didn't use your turn signal." My test was already over, and I did everything asked, and yet I couldn't do a thing about it. I am a big supporter of the tests the way they are now. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

In article <13hn04coboe1l5b@news.supernews.com>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: > Dan Yemiola AI8O wrote: > > > Unfortunately there was a Mary Kay Cosmetics meeting > > being held on the other side of the ballroom, and every five minutes or so > > Mary Kay ladies would start clapping and singing, just like camp meeting. > > > > No "quiet, sterile FCC exam room " that day. > > At least they tried, sort of. > > My General class exam was held in the Federal Building in Knoxville, TN. > I've seen other articles here that described using headphones for code > exams; we did not have them. The room was one of those sterile 1960s > government classroom/conference rooms, and the echo was horrendous. It > was kind of like copying cw through QRN on 80 meters, which is just what > I had been doing for the past few months, so I did pass the test. But I > do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but not > for others. > > 73, Steve KB9X > I took my General Test at the FCC Office in the OLD Federal Office Building in Seattle, Washington, from the Steelie Eyed, Old Crone named Gertrude Johnson, who was the Office Secratary. She did a REAL Good impression of "Librarian from Hell". NO talking, no noise of any kind, if your eyes even left your desk, you FAILED. She was Code Proficent, clear up to 35WPM, and the EIC, Bob Deitch, was even Better. I took my First Class Radiotelephone Exam in the same place the next year, and Ms. Johnson was still there. Years later, when I took the Advanced Exam, in the NEW Federal Office Building, Bob Zinns was the examiner, and they just made you erase all the memory in your calculator. I had it a lot easier then, as I had been doing Marine Ship Inspections, with Inspectors from the Seattle Office for a couple of years, and had a good relationship whith all of them. A few years after that, I was approched by the FCC Region X Director, Bill Johnson, and was offered a position with the Commission as a Resident Field Agent for Southeastern Alaska, attached to the Anchorage Office. I spent 5 years working for them, untill the ALGORE BloodLetting, that destroyed Field Operations as we knew it. Bruce in alaska <AL7AQ> -- add <path> before @

Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote: > N2EY@AOL.COM wrote: > > >2) I would make the exams themselves 'secret', that is, no more > >open question pools. > The success of (2) depends on the willingness to prosecute any and all > persons who reveal or possess the contents of any examination without > authorization. Does the name "Dick Bash" ring any bells? It's still > a sore point with me. > > The chances of either actually happening range from "none" to "what > world are you on". You could get the same result, effectively, by increasing the size of the question pool. Just go from the present 8 or 10 to 1 ratio (pool size to test size) to something larger. It could be easily accomplished with the issuance of the next set of pools. -- Klystron

In article <dihnh3dpd6kocjigbe6h8hgn302ijnlai3@4ax.com>, Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:38:48 EDT, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: > > >But I do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but > >not > >for others. > > It all depended on what resources the local office could scrounge up, > because the nickel-nursers at HQ were not of a mind to buy such things > in an era when we had to scrounge surplus equipment from Federal > disposal sites. Other agencies were "retiring" or discarding stuff > that was newer and better than what we had in service. For many years > our non-technical vehicles were the Fords and Chevys seized by the DEA > from low-level drug dealers. The BMWs and Mercedes of the high-level > dealers they kept for themselves. > > The FCC was, and to some extent still is, a "pauper agency". They > don't get to keep any of the license fees or spectrum auction proceeds > collected, over and above the actual cost of processing the license or > running the auction. > -- > > "Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please" > > Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR > PNW Milepost 755 - Tillamook District Some 20 years ago I had a job interview with the Regional Engineer, she was crowing about the $100K budget plus-up he just got, I didn't have the heart to tell him that I had a $100K pin money budget (as a minor project lead for the DoD) -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

In article <fast-00630E.10194021102007@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Bruce in Alaska <fast@btpost.net> wrote: > In article <13hn04coboe1l5b@news.supernews.com>, > Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: > > > Dan Yemiola AI8O wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately there was a Mary Kay Cosmetics meeting > > > being held on the other side of the ballroom, and every five minutes or > > > so > > > Mary Kay ladies would start clapping and singing, just like camp meeting. > > > > > > No "quiet, sterile FCC exam room " that day. > > > > At least they tried, sort of. > > > > My General class exam was held in the Federal Building in Knoxville, TN. > > I've seen other articles here that described using headphones for code > > exams; we did not have them. The room was one of those sterile 1960s > > government classroom/conference rooms, and the echo was horrendous. It > > was kind of like copying cw through QRN on 80 meters, which is just what > > I had been doing for the past few months, so I did pass the test. But I > > do wonder why headphones were provided for some exam locations, but not > > for others. > > > > 73, Steve KB9X > > > > I took my General Test at the FCC Office in the OLD Federal Office > Building in Seattle, Washington, from the Steelie Eyed, Old Crone > named Gertrude Johnson, who was the Office Secratary. She did a > REAL Good impression of "Librarian from Hell". NO talking, no noise > of any kind, if your eyes even left your desk, you FAILED. She was > Code Proficent, clear up to 35WPM, Wasn't she just scary? -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

In article <80knh3p604t59u555h0im3gfecvgavkrg8@4ax.com>, Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:39:10 EDT, Bruce in Alaska <fast@btpost.net> > wrote: > > >I spent 5 years working for them, untill the ALGORE BloodLetting, that > >destroyed Field > >Operations as we knew it. > > That was the first time that I heard Internet Al blamed for it. > > I had always thought that it was Der Hundt, when The Congress laid the > task of rewriting the Cable TV rules on the agency but refused to > approve any more slots (money) for the reg-writers. and he looked > around to see who was expendable. He had no understanding of what the > field did, no matter how hard we tried, and so the blood-letting of > the field started. The then-Bureau chief (Beverly Baker, one of my > law school mentors) resigned rather than go through with it. She was > replaced by a former Chief Recruiting Sergeant for the Marine > Corps.... (no further comment) > > I took early-out 10 seconds after it was offered. That's how good > morale was under that cloud 12 years ago. > -- > > 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane > > >From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest > Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon > > e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net > ALGORE was the guy who was incharge of the "Reinvention Of Government" movement under the Clinton Administration. The Commission was one of first agencies that got "ReInvented", and FOB was the first Bureau that got slashed. It was interesting that the total number of employees stayed fairly static thru the whole process..... $60K Engineers and $45K Field Techs, replaced with $120K Economists, and $100K Lawyers.... and this saved money, How? Oh well, I really enjoyed my time with the Commission, and the friends I made, and still have, some of whom are still there. Although fewer, each year. Bruce in alaska -- add <path> before @

AF6AY <LenAnderson@ieee.org> wrote: > > As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool > questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007: > > Technician pool had 392 (35 required). Ratio of pool to requred > 11.20:1 > > General pool had 485 (35 required). Ratio of pool to required 13.86:1 > > Extra pool had 802 (50 required). Ratio of pool to required 16.04:1 > > The pools have gone beyond 10:1 by a fair margin...even if I've mis- > counted slightly. My printouts (single spaced, both sides) FILL a > 1" loose-leaf notebook. Did you exclude from that count the questions that were later disqualified? When I took the tests, most of the questions about band edges had to be dropped because of the rule change. A few others were dropped due to errors or poor wording. I think the current pool size has been chosen to allow for a safety margin for the elimination of some erroneous questions. (I am currently studying for the GMDSS operator test and the worst questions on the amateur tests are worded better than a large number of these.) My figure of 8 or 10 pool questions to 1 test questions was very rough and not intended for 4 significant digit precision. However, other FCC test pools bring the average a bit closer to it, such as the GMDSS test pool (600 in pool, 100 on test). > Some time back I showed the notebook to an acquaintance who is an > aspiring actor, not a radio hobbyist. He is used to memorizing lines > of > a script and being as letter-perfect as possible, his lines as well > as > others in the same scene. His main comment went something like, > "Holy ##$%&!!! You had to memorize all that?!?" :-) > > "No," I said, "Only certain things about regulations...theory and > practice should be known enough to pass." > > Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the > VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain > regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was > satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart > of > bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate > satellites. :-) Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4). I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving imaginary numbers, for example). -- Klystron

"Michael Coslo" <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote in message news:fg4usj$172g$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... > [snip] > Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't like > on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are > allowed to operate on by your class. > Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies. > > Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal, > another question that would be better on the test than the simple > statement of frequencies. > I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a class, I try to emphasize this. Dee, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" <deeflint01@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Vq-dnQFm894N-LvanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Michael Coslo" <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote in message > news:fg4usj$172g$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... >> [snip] >> Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't >> like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are >> allowed to operate on by your class. >> > > Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't > have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies. how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none of mine will only on HF can this be an issue since only hthere does the rules contiue the insanity ofparts of bands to deferent class (amoug the classes we still issue) > >> >> Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal, >> another question that would be better on the test than the simple >> statement of frequencies. >> > > I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can > be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people > don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a > class, I try to emphasize this. I thought it was such a question > > Dee, N8UZE >

> The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit of > computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce > sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already > "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit > completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step > and not allow SSB in the CW band? I should imagine that this facility would be easily added as a feature. But they never will. When I moved from the UK to Australia, I took my region 1 HF radios to region 3. I contacted Kenwood and Icom to find out if I could reprogram the band edges to allow use of the larger 40m band. Both were very helpful and told me how to "wide band" them, which fixed the problem. I found out that the radios were available in 3 versions. One for each region. And it was not possible to make one version into another without replacing ICs at the factory. If "mode sensitive" sub bands were programmed, every time someone moved, or a change in bandplan was brought in, it would be nessesary to go to the Yaecomwood dealership and ask to have the radio changed. An expensive, time consuming and unnecessary exercise :o) Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it. -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS #9666 CW Ops QRP Club #753 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org

"Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote in message news:13ijouuso9oj74b@news.supernews.com... > Dee Flint wrote: > >> Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual >> test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type >> to insure that one does show up on the actual test taken. > > Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions > from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech > exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license > responsibilities. When the pool was constructed one of the aspects was a > weighting of the various topics. There are, for example, only two > questions from subelement 7 (Operating in the field. Contests. Special > events. Satellite operation). > > I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they > come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a > thankless job. > > 73, Steve KB9X > Very true. Dee, N8UZE

"Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote in message news:13ijpjt62a8rlc0@news.supernews.com... > N2EY@AOL.COM wrote: > >> So it makes >> sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to >> prevent our mistakes. > > I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind. > > The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit of > computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce > sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already > "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit > completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step > and not allow SSB in the CW band? > This will cause a problem for those who use AFSK for RTTY rather than FSK. The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the receiving end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to do RTTY.. If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate using AFSK for RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended consequences". Dee, N8UZE

"Phil Kane" <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message news:ie7ki3lq55k2a4vojs72ip1blqfs7cep99@4ax.com... > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:51:51 EDT, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: > >>I would like to see >>the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big >>bucks for to keep me from doing this, > > That separates the "Compleat Ham" who is in control of the station > from the "appliance operator". > >>while at the same time giving me >>the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class >>or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are >>different. > > An interesting thought. >> >>Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know, >>not having bought any HF equipment in this century. > You can program many new rigs to auto mode switch based on frequency but they also allow you override that auto mode at any time. Dee, N8UZE

"> > The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the > receiving end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to > do RTTY.. If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate > using AFSK for RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended > consequences". > > Dee, N8UZE > Indeed, it is also a problem if you use the HF set as the driver for a transverter to a band where the bandplan is entirely different. 73 Jeff

N2EY@AOL.COM wrote: > [...] > I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but > rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact > questions and answers that will be on the test. > [...] If the size of the pool were increased, would that satisfy your objection? Given a finite body of information, there are only so many questions that can be formulated from it to test an applicant's knowledge. I have a number of the old Ameco Q&A books from the days before question pools (for the commercial tests). If you compare the Ameco questions, that is, the questions that the author MADE UP, with the later FCC questions, you don't find a great deal of difference. I have always found that a decently written test preparation guide, in Q&A format, for a test like a New York State Regents exam, an SAT, a GRE or a GMAT is just about as good as a published test pool, especially if the pool is large. That is particularly true when the questions tend to be similar from one year to the next (For example, one year, they ask you to solve for x when 3x=6. The next year, the question is changed to 4x=8. The test prep guide has a sample question of 5x=10.) -- Klystron

Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote: > [...] > Correction - the exam questions from the published pool are 20% of > those published. > [...] Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive. I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100 questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over 10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an acceptable solution? -- Klystron

"Klystron" wrote > Objection, your honor. Counsel's answer is non-responsive. > > I asked if a larger question pool would be as good as non-published > questions. You responded with a tale about a test that includes 100 > questions that are drawn from a pool of 500 questions (5 to 1 ratio). We > have already established that the amateur pool to question ratio is over > 10 to 1. Would you consider an increase to, let's say, 20 to 1 to be an > acceptable solution? Objection overruled. Now sit down at your rig and "work" someone in the cw portion of the band... at 25 wpm. You already have your license; enjoy it. ;-)

> for my part I prefer the flexibility of using my equipment how I want to, > not how a computer tells me I should. Well put Ivor. I feel the same way. My most recent 2m radio (Yaesu FT1802) has automatic repeater shift, which I have been forced to turn off as it tries to shift the TX on a few frequencies which due to local convention, I require to use simplex. Automatic features are great, especially if you can switch them off :o) -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS #9666 CW Ops QRP Club #753 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org

<N2EY@AOL.COM> wrote in message news:1194227853.639022.132850@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > The idea is that you're either supposed to pay Motorola prices, or > replace the radios. > Motorola just announced the intent to purchase Yaesu Musen. The Man in the Maze QRS at Baboquivari Peak, AZ -- Iitoi

<> Now we have a rig that will permit a person with > no typing skills to send perfect RTTY I thought that was the punch tape reader Jeff

<N2EY@AOL.COM> wrote in message news:1193051344.283260.261940@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 21, 10:54?pm, Mike Coslo <mco...@youknow.comcast.net> wrote: >> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote >> innews:xxx-E5D360.19450321102007@news.verizon.net: > Snipped > Novice (back then) was also a one-year, nonrenewable, one-time > license with extremely limited privileges. So its test could be very > basic and still cover the needed material. > Snipped > 73 de Jim, N2EY > Novice's back then were also limited to 75 watts plate input power and rock bound (No VFO) operations. Ace - WH2T .

> Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4). > I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially > on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving > imaginary numbers, for example). > > -- > Klystron > When I started studying for the Advanced or maybe it was the Extra class exam I was somewhat intimidated by the section on imaginary numbers, J operator, etc. I studied it in college to get my electronics degree but that was quite a while ago. My first thought was I can just guess at these questions and if I miss them all I will still pass the test. Then I decided to just memorize the (Radio Shack) study material, not the formulas or the math to solve the problem. I passed first try. Ace - WH2T .

"Dee Flint" <deeflint01@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Vq-dnQFm894N-LvanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can > be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people > don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a > class, I try to emphasize this. > > Dee, N8UZE > Many times as an Official Observer or OO I have seen people operate LSB 1 Khz from the lower phone band edge. Even after I quoted the law to the (not on that freq) they would still argue that they were operating in the band ! Ace - WH2T .