Hi (I didn't catch your name),

Having just completed this process, I am eminently qualified to comment on
it.  (Disclaimer: I had an amateur radio Technician license in high school.
Let's not discuss how long ago that was. I mostly forgot whatever it was I
learned then.)

Their are three test elements to get your General License, each of which can
be taken separately:

Element 1: 5 WPM Code Test (A typical on-air conact from one ham to another
which includes call signs, location, and equipment information. You answer
ten questions about the content of the message at the end of the 5 minutes
of copying and must get seven right OR copy one minute equivalent to 25
characters with 100% accuracy)

Element 2: Multiple Choice Basic Level Technical and Rules Quiz (35
questions, 70% is passing)

Element 3: Multiple Choice Intermediate Level Technical and Rules Quiz (35
questions, 70% is passing)

The FCC question pools for 2 and 3 are available on the internet from any
number of soucres including www.arrl.com. ARRL publishes a study guide for
each element which gives the technical background for each and every
question in the pool http://www.arrl.org/catalog/lm/. I highly advise that
you get these and learn the theory behind the technical questions so you
actually know something when you take the test as opposed to just memorizing
all the answers.

Then go to http://www.biochem.mcw.edu/Postdocs/Simon/radio/exam.html which
has on-line exams. The software chooses questions from each section of the
question pools in the same proportions as the real test. You select your
answers and it computes your score and flags your mistakes, showing you the
correct answer. All this is free. (I didn't even try to memorize the two or
three questions which pertain to stuff like frequency allocations. I figured
that I wouldn't remember these after the test so why waste time cramming.
When I got to the point where I only missed these three and always got the
others right, I knew I was ready for the real thing.) Volunteer Examination
Coordinators offer the exams in most places on a montly basis. Check the
ARRL page for a schedule.

The aforementioned site also has on-line code exams which are very good. I
discovered a freeware code program which has now carried me to 12 WPM. I
recommend it highly. http://home.pages.de/~dk5ci

If you want to learn to use morse code at higher speeds, you will enjoy
reading "The Art and Skill of Radio Telegraphy" at
http://www.joates.demon.co.uk/megs/N0HFF/index.htm

There are so many facets of ham radio, I won't be able to even try them all
in this lifetime. I will probably skip most of voice communication (analog)
and concentrate on digital modes: CW, Packet, PSK31, Pactor to name a few.
I'm sure some other hams will have much to add in response.

BTW, I passed Element 2 in three weeks and Elements 1 and 3 a week later.
One month total elapsed time. Now after a couple more months, I am still
working on my code proficiency (currently 12WPM).

Rick Austin in Anacortes (temporarily)
KD5LAQ

If you care a bit I think you can do the code in a week or two.  Five wpm is
not very hard - 1/2 hour four times a day for 6 or 8 days should do it.  I
do like the german program but it is fickle - only works on some machines
and the latest version is not fully debugged.  I suggest Morse Academy - an
old program that is widely available and does everything necessary (search
on Morse Academy and you will find several).  Start out with the character
speed (farnsworth sometimes) at 12 wpm or so and the word speed at 5.  The
12 makes you recognize the characters and not the dots and dashes.  the 5
gives you time to do the recognition.  In a week most folks will do five -
if it comes slow it might take you a little longer.

The technical part is a bit of a joke - passed by eight year olds without a
whole lot of effort.  Read the book for the appropriate class and then learn
the questions.  Easily doable in a week for the general.  I think I did the
whole technical sequence in two days though I am an EE so I had to learn
only the jargon.

I went from 0 to 13wpm in a little less than a month going at it about 3
times a day for half an hour. Almost made 20 - but that does take a little
time to get too.  I now do close to 20 but find there are many operators way
too fast for me.  I wish I had a little more of a taste for CW - has the
same kind of through back caste to it as does celestial navigation.

Jim KO6MH

The aforementioned site also has on-line code exams which are very good. I
discovered a freeware code program which has now carried me to 12 WPM. I
recommend it highly. http://home.pages.de/~dk5ci

If you want to learn to use morse code at higher speeds, you will enjoy
reading "The Art and Skill of Radio Telegraphy" at
http://www.joates.demon.co.uk/megs/N0HFF/index.htm

There are so many facets of ham radio, I won't be able to even try them all
in this lifetime. I will probably skip most of voice communication (analog)
and concentrate on digital modes: CW, Packet, PSK31, Pactor to name a few.
I'm sure some other hams will have much to add in response.

BTW, I passed Element 2 in three weeks and Elements 1 and 3 a week later.
One month total elapsed time. Now after a couple more months, I am still
working on my code proficiency (currently 12WPM).

Rick Austin in Anacortes (temporarily)
KD5LAQ

Jim and all:
In the 50's, I passed the general class licence exam, and later the Advanced
Class exam. Both were 13-wpm code. In 1960, I took the 1st class commercial
radiotelephone exam with a radar endorsement. The ham test was harder than the
commercial. The only reason for having the ham license then, in my opinion, was
to be able to legally build transmitters and put them on the air. I did that for
about 10 years under various licenses, W7CPA in Wyoming, K0RQP in Denver, and
WB6LRC in California. I never was interested in talking much. When it became
impractical, with the advent of microcircuitry, to build your own rigs, I lost
interest and let the license lapse. I now find that I need the license to
communicate on the cruising nets, so I'm going to retake the test. I will tell
you that the test now is so dumbed down that anyone can pass it just by
memorization. You don't have to know anything at all about radio theory, which
was the original idea. You just have to be able to load the antenna without
melting down the final amplifier.

Which leads me to think that it's a lot like navigation has become for the
old-salts. On this, I'm on the other side of the fence. I do not have a
background in navigation, know little about celestial, and rely heavily on GPS.
In fact, GPS is what allows me to cruise. I do plot DR tracks, use paper charts,
and take fixes based on observable landmarks whenever possible to back up the
GPS readings. But I must admit, if the GPS went out, I'd probably head for the
nearest port, assuming I could find it.

If the dumbed down, 5-wpm ham test enables people to cruise more safely and
comfortably, like GPS does, it has served a useful purpose, even if not the
original purpose.

Just rambling.
Russ

Jim Donohue wrote:

Russ and Donna Sherwin
  MV "Four Seasons"
2000 Nordhavn 46, Hull #70
Sunnyvale, Ca 94086

Russ - We call em appliance operators as a put down - however I think it
perfectly reasonable for the amateur service.  There are a set of hurdles
that require some effort to overcome - then you can be an amateur radio
operator.  For cruising boaters I think it is a requirement if you want to
move around safely.

My radio activities are almost totally involved with cruisers.

I am personally of the opposite persuasion (to the appliance operator)  and
build things and write software and stuff  -  but everything I am involved
with deals with marine operations.

It is a useful and helpful capability for the boater who gets out of cel
range.  Most of us don't - but those who do would be well serviced by the
amateur radio connection.

How else can you get 436 ancient  radio dudes who all hate something to
cooperate on the subject of finding you a suitable slip at the crack of dawn
in Suva, Fiji?

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-trawler-world-list@samurai.com
[mailto:owner-trawler-world-list@samurai.com]On Behalf Of Russ Sherwin
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 8:41 PM
To: trawlerworldlist
Subject: Re: TWL: Amateur radio license

Jim and all:
In the 50's, I passed the general class licence exam, and later the
AdvancedClass exam.
<snip> now find that I need the license to
communicate on the cruising nets, so I'm going to retake the test. I will
tell
you that the test now is so dumbed down that anyone can pass it just by
memorization. You don't have to know anything at all about radio theory,
which
was the original idea. You just have to be able to load the antenna without
melting down the final amplifier.

Which leads me to think that it's a lot like navigation has become for the
old-salts. On this, I'm on the other side of the fence. I do not have a
background in navigation, know little about celestial, and rely heavily on
GPS.
In fact, GPS is what allows me to cruise. I do plot DR tracks, use paper
charts,
and take fixes based on observable landmarks whenever possible to back up
the
GPS readings. But I must admit, if the GPS went out, I'd probably head for
the
nearest port, assuming I could find it.

If the dumbed down, 5-wpm ham test enables people to cruise more safely and
comfortably, like GPS does, it has served a useful purpose, even if not the
original purpose.

Just rambling.
Russ

Jim Donohue wrote:

Russ and Donna Sherwin
  MV "Four Seasons"
2000 Nordhavn 46, Hull #70
Sunnyvale, Ca 94086

At 11:02 PM 09/09/2000 +1000, Robert Bryett wrote:

    <<<< snip>>>>

Arild comments:

You bet Captain Cook would have used GPS, in fact he would likely have been
involved in  developing it.
Has everyone forgotten one of the ostensible reasons for  one of his south
Pacific voyages.
He was dispatched to  oberve a lunar  eclipse. Two other  expeditions were
also sent  out to observe this phenomena and test their timepieces in order
to  determine abetter means of acertaining longitude. By making
simultaneous observations from separate places on the globe  the scientists
hoped  to get a better idea of time keeping methods.

Cook was always at the leading edge of technology.
He learned the  art of hydrographic surveying at the seige of Quebec in 17
63. He so distinguished himself that he was then sent to  Newfoundland  to
do more survey work.

At Louisburg he happened to observe an army officer  set up a planometer on
a tripod.  From this army officer he learned something about military
surveys needed  for the artillery.
James Cook then  set about adapting this technology for his own use in
hydrographic survey work.
His techniques and methods proved so effective that  they became the
benchmark standards to meet for the next hundred years.

I must confess to being puzzled by this fairly recent phenomena of
anti-progressive sentiments.
All of a sudden, it has become fashionable to  deplore the use of the
latest technology while exhalting the use of older "time honored" methods
as the measure of the "real"  sailors and "seasoned salts".  Suddenly
doing it the hard way is better than doing it the accurate way.  Hmmmmn?

Methinks perhaps it has a touch of  "sour grapes".

In other words,  the oldtimers who had to struggle with cumbersome
antiquated  tools and techniques and  really  struggle with  complex
calculations; feel  that the newcomers are having it too easily.
Not wishing to  accept that these newcomers  as equals and  thus deserving
as much  consideration since they didn't have to "work for it"  it  has
become  fashionable to  deplore  the easy way out.

The  foregoing speaks in generalities and of course doesn't apply to anyone
on  TWL.  After all listee's are above  such  things; aren't they?  eh!
and they don't stuff potatoes into genset exhausts either!  do they?  < VBG>

Cheers

Arild

been involved in developing it. Has everyone forgotten one of the
ostensible reasons for  one of his south Pacific voyages.<<<

Exactly my point in mentioning him. Cook was an innovator in many ways, and
one of my all round boyhood heroes. And after all, his explorations of the
Australian coast (along with some annoying behaviour by those pesky
American colonists!) led pretty directly to the settlement of my homeland.

anti-progressive sentiments. All of a sudden, it has become fashionable to
deplore the use of the latest technology while exhalting the use of older
"time honored" methods as the measure of the "real"  sailors and "seasoned
salts".  Suddenly doing it the hard way is better than doing it the
accurate way. Hmmmmn?<<<

Well, of course there's absolutely NOTHING new or fashionable about
deploring new ways and glorifying traditional ones. Just dip into Cicero,
Tacitus or Thucydides and check out the bitching. I'm sure that when the
sextant was invented, the old sea-dogs said "Darn new-fangled easy way out,
you can't beat the old cross-staff", certainly when the modern system of
astro-navigation with tables was introduced, there were those who felt it
was an easy way out of having to solve the spherical triangle by hand.

I use GPS too, but I feel there are still three good reasons to learn
traditional forms of navigation (coastal and astro):

1. Conceptual. Traditional methods make it pretty much essential to
   understand the basic concepts of position fixing and navigation. Latitude,
   longitude and it's relation to time, triangulation, dead reckoning and so
   on. Of course it's perfectly possible to understand these things and use
   electronic navigation too, but traditional navigation forces you to do it.

It's a bit like pocket calculators. I use them like everyone else, but I'm
not sure that their wide availability makes it desirable to cease teaching
mathematics.

2. Backup. We read all sorts of comments on this list with regard to
   redundant systems and backups. Paper charts, books of tables and a sextant
   don't rely on any form of electricity and I think they're a worthwhile
   backup to electronic navigation. Of course you can get around this by
   carrying several separate GPS systems in sealed insulated boxes, but even
   so.

3. It's fun! Most importantly, astro-nav is not hugely difficult or
   laborious and the calculations are really not all that complex. I still use
   it and try to keep in practice, because I like it!

Regards, Robert Bryett
Sydney, Australia
mailto:rbryett@ibm.net

Might I point out that, for lifeboat use, cross staff and hand calculation
of at least the simple cases makes more sense than a sextant?  I would
suspect there will be few people doing four star shots but sun at noon or
polaris might well work.

Modern methods of teaching celestial are more cookbook than learning coastal
navigation with a GPS.  If you want understanding of the position system,
time etc.  I think you probably don't want a modern celestial course.  You
certainly learn nothing significant about spherical geometry.

Actually it enables you to teach more math - it just plays hob with
arithmetic.  I don't think we have adopted yet to what will turn out to be
the appropriate level of arithmetic in the end.  I can do things on
calculating change from teenage cashiering that the present generation
cannot approach.  I am however not sure whether this is a good or bad
outcome.

The ability to jury rig a position system without a sextant would seem much
more sensible to me.  If I can remember the sexton, the almanac and the
tables I probably could have managed two gps and spare batteries.

We do agree on this one.  I can achieve under two miles pretty consistently
using my swimming pool.  I can't really do star shots but I am tough on the
sun and moon.  It is in the same class as being competent in CW - an
interesting skill that should be preserved for its own sake - nothing really
useful.

Jim