about MFJ-432 VOICE-KEYER,
For example,
REPEAT-SW is turned on,and CQ-MESSAGE is transmitted.
Then after transmission is finished,some station has called me.
And,when REPEAT-SW is turned off to do am answer.
Then CQ-MESSAGE is transmitted only once.
Does anyone knows,it wants to make all movements standing by condition
if therefore REPEAT-SW is turned off?
There has only to be STOP-SW of message.?!
kaz JG4CLV <<<jg4clv@hiroken.or.jp>>>
>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) Sun Jun 23 19:18:21 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: 21st Century Licensing
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960623181821.00693538@aloha.net>
Steve, KR4DL wrote:
---A bunch of stuff snipped:
>Jim, I obviously disagree with your proposal. I oppose any lowering of the
>standards for licensing and think your "layer cake" approach to license
>classes is simplistic and unweildy. It doesn't provide uniform access to HF
>during various portions of the sunspot cycle.
>I also object to your inference that this proposal is the result of a
>substantive polling of the amateur community on the internet. Your
>definition of a "reasonable quantity of discussion" and mine clearly differ.
>Just my opinion, submitted without the weight of substantial discussion on
>the internet (yet).
>73, Steve KR4DL
Aloha Steve,
Appriciate your rapid respons. Last time I posted these thoughts,
here, on this reflector, no one took the bait!
I had to do it again after Gary, KN0Z, on June 21st,
posted (to the dx reflector) Mendelsohn's letter to
the ARRL Board of Directors.
If you havn't seen it you should. You will like a whole
lot less the direction the ARRL Board will head if they
take Mendelsohn's thoughts to action!!! Or so it would seem
to me.
We are going to lose CW altogether unless some compromise
can be worked out. Mendelsohn is the #2 guy at ARRL, and
HE wants to drastically lower or drop the CW test speeds, and do
all possible to grant no-coders as much HF priveledge as
possible. Also, per him, ARRL views their membership core as the
HF operator. HF license holders will clearly be the
minority license class by 1999. And the VHF operators
view the ARRL as irrelevant, again per him -- this is alarming to the
ARRL, obviously. He also writes that, per their statistics,
no-coders have no interest in upgrading to obtain HF access.
So, they want to map a strategy which
will appear to the no-coders as if the ARRL is resposible
for bringing them into HF operating rights, almost
completely unrestrcted. Plus, the equipment builders
will have several hundred thousand potential new
customers for all sorts of neat HF band hardware.
So, to save QRM free CW sub-bands, we are going to have
to give something, it seems to me, or we might loose
everything!
My thoughts were pretty well hashed over the last several
weeks both on the contest reflector and in the rec.radio
newsgroups on policy and misc. I modified my post to Mendlesohn
to reflect many of the suggestions made there, from what I
had originally posted back earlier in May.
Steve, we need to face it, forces are at work which are
going to bring changes. We had better do whatever it is
going to take to save something of the Amateur Radio
Service as, at lesast, I have know it these 46 years since I was
first licensed as W6KPI (the "key pounding imp", as I
was known as across the entire 40 meter CW band in
those years when all of 40 was CW only!).
Please give these issues some thought, do research the
FASC IARU document posted via the ARRL web page, and
get a look at Mendelsohn's letter posted a couple of
days ago on the dx reflector. We are going to need thoughts
such as your to build up whatever the RIGHT solution is
going to be for Amateur Radio in the 21st century!
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) Sun Jun 23 19:46:09 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: Mendelsohn to ARRL Board
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960623184609.00684374@aloha.net>
Hi again, Steve,
Below is the text of the memo from the First Vice
President of the ARRL to the ARRL Board of Directors.
Steve is next in line to the President, Rodney Stafford,
KB6ZV.
"From: Stephen Mendelsohn / MCI ID: 253-2026
TO: Directors
Subject: The Coming Storm...or Opportunity
Recent Indications of Change. An Opportunity to Win or Lose.
In recent communications, several Board members have touched
on individual signs of what I believe is a greater truth.
An examination of several seemingly disparate signs seems to
show that they are really parts of a whole picture which, when
blended together, will form a negative picture of the future,
for ARRL and Amateur Radio, if not watched and managed. These
points include:
- Growing numbers of No-Code Licensees who are content to
enjoy VHF operation with no desire to upgrade to HF
operation and HF culture including DXing, Contesting and
working for personal achievements (WAS, DXCC, etc).
- The recent definition by the Board that the core member-
ship of the League is an HF operator.
- The slowing in the numbers of amateurs who choose to
upgrade.
- The declining numbers of ARRL membership renewals.
- The growing perception among VHF licensees who believe
that ARRL is becoming irrelevant.
Several other factors seem to be coming into focus that will
put increased pressure on our license structure and
requirements in the future. These factors include:
- The probable decision at WARC-99 to eliminate the
demonstrated knowledge of Morse Code as an
international licensing requirement for operation
below 30 MHz.
- The realization by a growing number of Code-Free licensees
that they will become the majority by 1999.
I believe that these factors will put enormous pressure on the
FCC to finally lower or eliminate the code requirement for HF
operation.
If the League's core membership is the existing HF operator,
that group will be a small minority by 1999 if current
licensing and low upgrade trends continue.
The immediate question I believe that this Board must face is
how to manage the coming debate so that the League is seen as
a Leader in the search for fair solutions.
Remember the rancor left after Incentive Licensing? I would
rather not see the League suffer this type of disgrace again.
As I stated at the beginning of this editorial, some Board
members have commented on the coming event.
Rod Stafford briefly discussed this in his recent report to
the Board (Stafford 2-96). Tom Comstock noted that the market
is moving and we are not moving with it. Dave Sumner's
editorial in the February, 1996, QST, is another piece of the
puzzle. But we, as a Board, must act quickly to face the
challenge of the quickly looming future.
I believe we need to start a national debate focusing on the
desires of the Amateur population for their future HF usage.
We need to create the perception, based on fact, that the
League is the National leader in determining what ALL amateurs
want in the way of HF spectrum usage and how they really feel
about the continued use of the Morse Code as a licensing
requirement.
Recent talks before several clubs with a total attendance of
over 400 people indicated that a reduction in the code
requirement for the General Class license would be acceptable
to over 75%. At my cabinet meeting this past weekend the
majority felt that if the League were to survive we will need
to bring the VHF No-Code licensee into our core by making
upgrading to General and above more attractive.
Attractive does not mean more contests or certificates, but a
slower code requirement with a written test more responsive to
the needs of todays operating skills than ever before.
While there will be some die-hards who state that "I had to do
it so they should have to know code at 13/20 WPM" you have
merely to ask them if they know how to crank a car engine as
their fathers did to pass a driving test and they quickly come
to see the point. They don't like it, but they do acknowledge
that times and test requirements do change.
I also believe that we will have to reach out to other
non-traditional (for the League) sectors to help focus this
debate. This may include a group from industry as we had in
the previous Code-Free license formulations.
We will have to take special care to talk with our members.
Not just write an article or two about what the Board has in
mind, but some traditional poling, the creation of focus
groups and some grass-roots work by the elected officials.
I will offer a motion to create such a steering group, or to
use the EC as a steering group at the coming meeting.
I believe that we must be seen as the leaders in this debate
and that we must not be perceived as the "Morse Code Forever"
crowd, or we will become the membership organization of less
than 10% of the future Amateur population.
The elimination of an international requirement for a
knowledge of Morse Code can be used domestically as a way to
change the image of the League among what is quickly becoming
the majority population of the Service.
Such a change will be an opportunity to win or lose for ARRL.
Lets make a League vision of the future the one all amateurs
want to sign on to.
I look forward to seeing you and discussing this in Savannah.
-73- Steve, WA2DHF"
>From km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P) Sun Jun 23 21:55:53 1996
From: km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P) (Bill Fisher, KM9P)
Subject: FD Scores post to 3830@contesting.com
Message-ID: <199606232055.QAA18170@paris.akorn.net>
Please post your scores at 3830@contesting.com. This way anyone can go back
and review them at a later date via the WWW.
Thanks
Give us all the gory details.
---------------------------------------------
| Contesting Online... The ultimate |
| source of ham radio contest information |
| http://www.contesting.com |
---------------------------------------------
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sun Jun 23 21:59:22 1996
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: Torque compensation??
Message-ID: <199606232059.NAA28941@desiree.teleport.com>
>Am I missing something or do these two authors seem to disagree somewhat on
>the issue of mast torque compensation?
>
>
> Leeson (PHYSICAL DESIGN OF YAGI ANTENNAS; p. 6-22):
>
> It is possible to use a comination of element relocation,
>element area variation, and compensation to achieve torque
>compensation.
>
>
> Devoldere (LOW-BAND DXING; p. 13-12):
>
> The wind area of the elements and their placement on the
>boom do NOT play any role in the mast torque.....
>
>
>-------------
>Brought to you by SPARE (Society for the Preservation of Antenna Rotating
>Equipment)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>AA7BG aa7bg@3rivers.net Matt Trott
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gang,
Here is a great example of where you can use common sense to get the correct
answer.
Let's assume Devoldere is correct for a moment. Since it does not matter
where the elements are placed, according to him, let's put them all very
close together on the same end of the boom. Now let's turn the antenna so
the boom is not directly into the wind and set the brake. I say the wind
will put torque on the mast tending to rotate the boom end with no elements
on it into the wind and the boom end with all the elements on it away from
the wind, just like a weather vane.
Of course, this is an extreme example, but it shows John's simple
explanation does not hold water. Distributing the elements across the boom
reduces the weathervane effect, but the effect will not go completely away
without some effort to balance the weathervaning as Leeson suggests.
My vote goes to Leeson.
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
>From km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P) Sun Jun 23 22:14:30 1996
From: km9p@contesting.com (Bill Fisher, KM9P) (Bill Fisher, KM9P)
Subject: Help Wanted
Message-ID: <199606232114.RAA18407@paris.akorn.net>
AD1C has written a really neat program for converting .brk files to .html
file for viewing on the WWW. We already have a great collection of
breakdown files at contesting.com, but need help collecting more and
formatting them.
If you are interested in beating the bushes a bit and FTPing the files up to
the server, please let me know. This is a great resource for everyone and I
would like to keep it going.
73
Bill, KM9P
---------------------------------------------
| Contesting Online... The ultimate |
| source of ham radio contest information |
| http://www.contesting.com |
---------------------------------------------
>From k6ll@juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) Mon Jun 24 06:45:05 1996
From: k6ll@juno.com (David O. Hachadorian) (David O. Hachadorian)
Subject: Charlie's FD hints
Message-ID: <19960623.214509.4951.1.k6ll@juno.com>
Two of the operators at Field Day this year (K6LL, 1E, AZ, 2400 Q's)
were Charlie, KC7DBU, age 9, and his sister Catherine, KC7DBT, age 11.
While most of the adults at Field Day were busy schmoozing, eating,
and drinking, these two jr. ops were constantly observing, listening
on the spare headphones, and trying to get as much operating time
as they could wrangle.
On Saturday, I noticed that Charlie was making some kind of a list,
but I didn't pay much attention to it. On Sunday, after Field Day was
over, he showed me the final list, which turned out to be a compilation
of his observations of our FD participants, other FD stations heard
on the air, and his personal on the air experiences. I thought some of
you might get a kick out of it.
-----------------
Charlie's (age 9) Field Day Hints:
1. Don't give up if signals are weak.
2. Don't drink too much beer before or during the contest.
3. Get on the air any chance you get.
4. Don't drink too much coke.
5. Get at least one hour of sleep.
6. Don't eat too much food.
7. It's Field Day - Have fun!!!
8. Make sure no wires are near water and make sure nothing is in
a dangerous position.
9. Make as many contacts as you can.
10. Don't get _too_ much sleep.
11. Ignore your wife's complaints.
12. If another contester comes on the frequency, get him off. Keep
on talking/sending!
13. Put up a "No Smoking" sign.
14. Eat _Something_.
15. Try to set an alarm to wake up.
16. When somebody tries to steal your frequency, press the button! (the
CQ button on the voicekeyer - LL)
Dave, K6LL
k6ll@juno.com
>From floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) Sun Jun 23 23:31:02 1996
From: floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Subject: FD Scores
Message-ID: <199606240052.UAA04206@mail-hub.interpath.net>
I will make an attempt to compile and do the FD scores. Please send them
to me direct or to the 3830 reflector. Please do not post them here.
Make SURE you put your correct class on these as that is the way you
will be listed.
73's Jim
**********************************************************
* Jimmy R. Floyd (Jim) Thomasville, NC *
* *
* Amateur Call: >> WA4ZXA << *
* Packet Node: >> N4ZC << *
* Internet Address: >> floydjr@interpath.com << *
**********************************************************
>From barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Sun Jun 23 21:36:06 1996
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: ARRL officers?
Message-ID: <VyqZPD2w165w@w2up.wells.com>
jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) writes:
> Steve is next in line to the President, Rodney Stafford,
> KB6ZV.
>
>
This isn't meant to belittle anyone, but...
How come I have never heard of KB6ZV? I've heard of K1ZZ and WA2DHF, etc.
What exactly does the ARRL President do? Did I vote for him, or is he
appointed?
Anyone replies with facts appreciated.
73 Barry
P.S. Is it true KB6ZV and Ray Heaton were involved in some land deal in
Arkansas? (just kidding)
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >WB2R (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From 0005543629@mcimail.com (David & Barbara Leeson) Sun Jun 23 23:32:00 1996
From: 0005543629@mcimail.com (David & Barbara Leeson) (David & Barbara Leeson)
Subject: Torque Comp??
Message-ID: <84960623223248/0005543629DC4EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
Stan, W7NI, votes for my 1991 explanation of why torque compensation
seems to work. Thanks, Stan, but I think now that I got the right answer
for the wrong reason!
This is a very illuminating question. Imagine a "one-element" beam
with a symmetrical boom and one element on one end (nothing on the
other). If you put this in the wind, it will swing right around until
the element is away from the wind, right?
Well it doesn't!
And that's the point of all the hoohah about cylinders in yaw, etc.
Try this yourself. Make a bearing from a scrap board with a hole in it.
Trap it is the sunroof of your car. Make a mast, boom and single
element from PVC pipe. Place the mast in the bearing, you holding the
bottom end (a right angle handle helps you feel the torque better).
Drive carefully and see what happens. What I found is that this
unbalanced "antenna" is happy with the element at the front or at the
back, but every 90 degrees it has stable points not predicted by either
theory. I'm satisfied that the force on a cylindrical element is not in the
direction of the wind (as predicted by RS-222-C), but can be in a different
direction, perpendicular to the surface (and hence the axis) of the cylinder,
as predicted by EIA-222-E and ASCE 74. But the experiment also shows that
the "E" theory is still an over-simplification, since it can't predict the
torques that break our rotators, so it's not as useful as it might be.
I wasn't able to experiment with more balanced structures, but now that the
#60 chain has broken on my Skyneedle, I have a perfect setup for observing
antenna wind torque with a full-size antenna in a nice bearing. So far, I
can tell you that an antenna with half an element missing has lots of torque
when the wind blows. But notwithstanding the non-intuitive direction of
force on cylinders in yaw, it makes sense to me that antennas with both
element and boom symmetry have a better chance of having lower torque
BTW, the chapter on masts in my book owes a lot to the main reference, the
earlier articles by Stan, W7NI. I agree that I wouldn't waste a minute on a
pipe mast or a power winch (except maybe the unique W7RM winch that runs off
a hand-held battery drill as well as a crank).
73 de Dave, W6QHS
>From seay@alaska.net (Del & Jan Seay) Mon Jun 24 01:17:31 1996
From: seay@alaska.net (Del & Jan Seay) (Del & Jan Seay)
Subject: Antenna Trolly System
References: <199606222335.QAA27731@desiree.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <31CDDE9B.4B18@alaska.net>
Stan Griffiths wrote:
>
> >>Does anyone know of any articles on using a trolley-cable system to put
> >>up a beam? We're thinking of using it for a 3-el 40 meter Yagi.
> >>
> >>Zack W9SZ
>
> KL7C developed such a system a number of years ago for use on Rohn 25. He
> used to raise and lower his 5 element 20 often as the "trolly" was
> permanently installed. Ray, KL7C, was in Anchorage at the time but I have
> lost track of him. If you can find him, I am sure he will share the details
> with you.
>
> Stan w7ni@teleport.com
It was a 4 el, Stan, as the design precludes the use of odd nuimber
of elements.
I have his drawings, and have already offerred to share with anyone
who is interested.
However - his design is for complete operation of the system, not
just "Tramming" for installation. It included the cage with rotator
installed. He would run it up, and use it. (Powered by a 3/8"
drill at the base of tower.
Thanks for bringing it up.
73 de KL7HF
>From je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) Mon Jun 24 01:40:09 1996
From: je1cka@dumpty.nal.go.jp (Takao KUMAGAI) (Takao KUMAGAI)
Subject: All Asia CW Contest
Message-ID: <199606240040.JAA03880@dumpty.nal.go.jp>
To all who participated in All Asia DX contest
Number of contesters asked me whether they could submit their
AA DX contest logs/summary via email to JARL.
I'm not belonging to JARL contest committee at present but I'd
better to let you know the present JARL Internet connection.
1st of all JARL has no Internet accessibility at present and
this means no electronic log submittion has been accepted.
In my knowledge at council member of JARL, JARL will soon be
connected to the Internet. However the contest committee has
had a number of problems and have never discussed the electronic
log submittion. New committee will soom be assigned and hope
they will discuss on this matter.
---------
Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
Internet: je1cka@nal.go.jp
>From kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) Mon Jun 24 03:21:59 1996
From: kr2j@ix.netcom.com (Robert E. Naumann) (Robert E. Naumann)
Subject: Steve Mendelsohn's letter
Message-ID: <01BB614A.6DEC56A0@dfw-tx19-01.ix.netcom.com>
Fellow contesters;
I've read Steve's letter and it is much less troublesome than I thought =
it would be based on some reaction to it posted here.
It seems, and rightly so, that Steve is concerned about the future of =
the League. He wants to be certain that the League will meet the needs =
of the amateurs of the future (whatever that may be) and that the =
general ham community will look to the League for leadership as us OT's =
(?) have pretty much always done. Evidently, the new no-code hams are =
not as enamored with the League as us "coders" have been.
As far as CW goes, I think the handwriting is on the wall. There's just =
too damn many lazy buggers that won't learn the code but have money to =
spend on radios! I heard somewhere that money makes the world go around =
and I guess that holds true here too. =20
I think the task we must take on with great determination is to maintain =
the CW sub-bands. With a majority of no-coders, it'll be a tough =
battle.
Maybe licensing should be strictly by code or no-code. That is, Phone =
privileges for those who pass the written test and CW privileges
for those that pass both the written and code tests ? (NOT)
Maybe we should try something less drastic at first, like lower the code =
speed for the general to 9 or 10 wpm ? Maybe have 13 or 15 wpm for =
advanced ? There's no harm in that - is there ? We'd sure have a lot =
more generals.
Maybe this will make CW more attractive since the phone bands will be =
more crowded. I'm afraid that eventually the pressure will grow to give =
up the CW segments in order to allow the majority of codeless or =
slow-code types to spread out.
Let's open a discussion of this. I don't think any one of us has the =
answer yet - that will make all of us happy - including our new, no-code =
friends.
73,
Bob Naumann
KR2J@ix.netcom.com
Dallas, TX
>From n4to@ct.net (Victor A. Dubois) Mon Jun 24 03:54:42 1996
From: n4to@ct.net (Victor A. Dubois) (Victor A. Dubois)
Subject: OMNI VI and 486 Computer
Message-ID: <199606240254.WAA03259@blue.ct.net>
Thanks again to the many that responded before to my plea for help making my
OMNI VI and computer communicate with each other.
I've been able to make them communicate, but have noticed a peculiarity
which is bothersome. The "problem" is as follows, and is independent of the
baud rate selected. I get the same results no matter if I select 1200 baud
or 19200 baud or any in between. The peculiarity is as follows:
- if I change bands at the radio, 100% of the time the computer
changes bands to match the radio.
- if I change bands at the computer, SOMETIMES I get the message "
radio not echoing" and neither the computer nor radio actually change
bands. I do see the screen flicker but no band change takes place.
Even after refusing to change bands from the computer, the radio can
change bands 100% of the time as it did before.
By the way the radio does get frequency information for use in the band map
100% of the time.
Any suggestions, or is this normal?
73,
Vic N4TO
n4to@ct.net
>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) Mon Jun 24 04:57:22 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: Mendelsohn to ARRL Board
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960624035722.00684a20@aloha.net>
At 12:43 AM 6/24/96 PDT, you wrote:
>Jim, do you know of any rule or whatever which can be used to implement a
recall of
>one or all of the Board at ARRL?
>
>73, Ed
I wish I did; however, I have gotten a VERY interesting
e-mail from somebody who found Mendelsohn, who is "only"
Advanced Class, operating for unusual DX in the Extra
Class section of 20M! With lots of details.
Maybe I should repost it to the entire reflector!
73, Jim, AH6NB
>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) Mon Jun 24 05:03:00 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: 21st Century Licensing
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960624040300.006996e0@aloha.net>
>Return-Path: smendelsoh@arrl.org
>From: "Mendelsohn, Steve (1st VP)" <smendelsoh@arrl.org>
>Subject: RE: 21st Century Licensing
>To: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net>
>Cc: "Olson, Tod (Dakota Dir)" <k0to@arrl.org>
>
>
>Thank you for your thoughtful input Jim. The group that is considering
>options and
>making recommendations to the League Board is the WRC99 Committee chaired
>by Director Tod Olson.
>
>That is the proper channel of input for your suggestions and I am taking
>this opportunity
>to forward your ideas to Director Olson.
>
>The memo you quote was my own attempt to coalesce fragments of thought other
>ARRL
>Board members had expressed. It represents only my opinion in spite of the
>continuous
>effort of at least one east coast individual to mis-represent it.
>
>As I have found with many things, misrepresentation is high on his list.
>
>Again, thanks for your thoughtful input. -73- Steve Mendelsohn, WA2DHF
> ----------
>From: Jim Reid
>To: wa2dhf
>Subject: 21st Century Licensing
>
>To: Stephen A. Mendelsohn
> First Vice President, ARRL
>
>Aloha Steve,
>
>With regard to your memo to the ARRL Board of Directors, "The Coming
>Storm....or Opportunity": I wish to suggest the following "solutions" for
>consideration. It is the result of a reasonable quantity of discussion
>among amateurs subscribing to various amateur radio interest reflectors and
>discussion
>groups on the world-wide internet. Our attempt has been to keep a broad
>outlook on the present state of affairs in amateur radio as expressed by the
>April document realesed by the IARU "The Future of the Amateur Radio
>Service". Also, we are mindful of the interests of the ARRL, as outlined by
>you; and other groups who have an interest in the future of the amateur
>radio service, for example, the equipment
>manufacturers.
>
>We propose the following for your review:
>
>1. Whatever the future Amateur operating spectrum bands are determined to
>be made available by the ITU between 1.8 and 30 mHz, each band is divided
>into exclusive mode operating frequency segments (in proportions and
>frequency range increments to be determined) among three types of exclusive
>Amateur operating activity: analog mode, digital mode and CW mode.
>
>2. All countries will issue only three classes of Amateur Operating/Station
>licenses. The two higher grade licenses, General and Expert, will be
>endorsable with one, two or three operating privilege certifications:
> analog mode band access; digital mode band access; CW mode band access.
>The licensee may hold any or all of the endorsements as his interests in
>learning the material and passing the tests to earn the endorsements is
>demonstrated by appropriate examination.
>
>3. This idea, if adopted, might result in the United States, in something
>similar to the following set of license classes and operating privleges:
>
>3.1 Basic Phone----28mhz and up...license examination includes
> basic electronics and radio theory
> including VHF, UHF and microwave
> propogation theory, regulation rules,
> and basic phone modulation theory (SSB
> and FM) and operating procedures tests.
>
>3.2 General-----18mhz and up...Hold/pass Basic Phone elements as
>above, plus HF propagation theory test and
> HF band rules as applicable, 18 to 30mHz.,
> plus 5 WPM code for access endorsement
> for CW subbands; OR, plus digital mode
> theory for access endorsement to digital
> mode subbands; OR, plus analog mode (SSB,
> SSTV) theory for access endorsement
> to the phone subbands; OR any two OR all
> three privilege endorsements.
>
>3.2 Expert---- All HF Amateur Bands..Hold/pass Basic Phone and
>General elements as above, plus advanced radio
>and lower band propagation theory; plus 12 WPM
>for access endorsement for CW
> subbands; OR, plus advanced digital mode
> theory for access endorsement to digital
> mode subbands; OR, plus advanced analog
> mode theory for access endorsement to the
> phone subbands; OR, any two OR all
> three privilege endorsements.
>
>Under this license structure, all present license class holders would be
>"grandfathered-in". That is, in the US, all present General, Advanced and
>Extra Class holders become licensed as Expert with all band/mode access
>privileges. All Novice and Technician Plus license holders become General
>Class license holders; Technician/No-Code license holders become licensed as
>Basic Phone holders. Also, all present Novice and Technician Class license
>holders are granted CW frequency mode allocation access in all HF amateur
>bands, a privelge they now partially hold.
>
>In this way, no one has to ever learn Morse Code skills to be licensed to
>operate somewhere within each world wide allocated amateur HF frequency
>band, and those that care to be CW operators may do so, and have clear CW
>frequency bands available to pursue that mode.
>
>This proposed licensed structure should offer plenty of incentive for the
>amateur, not interested in learning the CW Morse code, to continue to
>upgrade his/her skills as a radio operator and to be examined as such. This
>will continue to demonstrate the committmint to self-training, a tradition
>of the international amateur radio service.
>
>If, for whatever reason, a nation should choose not to offer a CW
>examination or license endorsement to citizens of that nation, they may so
>elect. Under the new (coming) international reciprocal license structure,
> should an amateur live in a nation not offering CW endorsement, he/she may
>be examined and licensed for CW endorsement by any other nation offering
>such examinations/endorsements and then may operate with the CW mode in the
>applicable HF band segments from within any ITU treaty signing nation,
>including the nation of his native/home citizenship.
>
>These ideas should provide a way for the amateur radio service to continue
>to grow during the 21st century, and satisfy most, if not all elements
>within the current discussion regarding the future of the amateur radio
>service, as outlined in the April 1996 IARU "Future of the Amateur Radio
>Service"
>document. These thoughts can also provide input to the solution of issues
>introduced by you in your notes to the ARRL Board of Directors.
>
>Mahalo for reading this wordy submittal, Steve.
>
>73, Jim, AH6NB
>
>
|