Frustrated with ARRL Tech Book

For your tech test, is the electrical component section basically just definitions? As I read the book there is no shortage of terminology being thrown my way but very little in the way of explaining what the components truly do in a circuit. While not necessarily from a tech background, I have an advanced designation in finance and am not intimidated by challenging material. I just feel like this book doesn’t do a great job of teaching the subject but rather serves as a dictionary you could memorize for the sake of passing.

I welcome any thoughts or tips on what others have done to learn the material!

Hey T13
.
I won't come off like the expert on that ARRL manual- I haven't seen it-- but if its like any of the other licensing books they publish I can understand where you are coming from.
.
You have to keep in mind that these license manuals are out to accomplish the task of getting you your ham license in the fastest, most painless way possible- Hopefully it will instill a touch of scientific curiosity in the bargain. I think that the publisher, by this philosophy, hopes that once you have become a 'ham' you can start filling in your blank spaces--- which, if the the curiosity thing took, will become a life long pursuit. No one book could ever hope to do that.
.
Also keep in mind that for many, ham radio is not about technical stuff- its about cramming in enuff information to pass the bloody test and then doing something else with their hobby.... I can think offhand of several spouses I know that have done this to please their husbands.... their only interest was being able to use VHF walkie-talkies within the family. Those manuals address this audience.
.
My suggestion is to get yourself a copy of the ARRL Handbook and use that as your initial reference. I have been involved in electronics all my life- to way beyond the PhD. level,-- yet I am not without my ARRL Handbook(s.) Pesonally I have a fondness for the older editions- they seem to be written more to my liking (the ca. 1980's are my favorites)- but that's just me. Copies that go back to the 50's and 60's have material that is just as relevant today as when it was publish'd (nice thing about science, No?-- it doesn't follow current fads ) The different writing styles from the past often make the technical clearer to me, but then I love history.
.
I hope this was of some help....
.
.
Lauri
.
.

Learning the technical stuff

I can appreciate your feelings on this matter and I respect the fact that you want to learn as opposed to memorizing the answers. Too bad you did not seek out the hobby back in the day when I was first licensed in 1964. Back then there were no volunteer examiners. You went to the FCC field office and took your exam in front of a FCC proctor examiner. You also had to demonstrate proficiency in Morse Code. There were no published exam questions and actual answers. The license manuals had sample exam questions that were similar but not the real ones on the test. In short, you had to know your stuff because you had to not only figure out the correct answer, but show how you did it. You got a piece of blank paper and a pencil to show your math and you had to draw schematics as well. To be honest, if the tests were the same today, I suspect that 90% of the people trying would fail if they even attempted at all.
I remember going for my General test at the downtown Federal building, a very scared 11 year old kid. Had to take the code test first because if you failed it you didn't even get to try the written. Years later when I got my Advanced (no longer an available license class) the process was still the same but I had learned to study my brains out. Made things go a lot easier and the test a lot faster. I followed the same study methods when I got my FCC commercial license as well.
It was not an easy task back them but it was a lot more rewarding and helped one to understand a lot more relating to the technical aspects of the hobby.

t13one12 said:

For your tech test, is the electrical component section basically just definitions? As I read the book there is no shortage of terminology being thrown my way but very little in the way of explaining what the components truly do in a circuit. While not necessarily from a tech background, I have an advanced designation in finance and am not intimidated by challenging material. I just feel like this book doesn’t do a great job of teaching the subject but rather serves as a dictionary you could memorize for the sake of passing.

I welcome any thoughts or tips on what others have done to learn the material!

Click to expand...

Tim,
The limiting factor in my opinion is the content of the question pool at the technician level. I'm not saying it good or bad, its just what it is. The ARRL book goes deeper into the background material, but is limited. How deep does the author go before the included book material goes beyond understanding why the answer to the question is correct? The counter part is the W5YI material and is very shallow comparatively speaking to ARRL. My comments generally apply to the General and Extra as well.

What a component does in a circuit starts with it's definition and how that component works stand alone. Put it in a circuit and the complexity goes up depending on what the circuit is designed to do beyond what the technician class needs.

For you to get deeper into the electronics world there are a number of online resources that can help you. For me I had the advantage of being force feed the material for 12 months, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in Advanced Electronics Training Command, Great Lakes Ill. At the end I could fix Navy HF equipment to the component level. Did I understand all of it, no... Its like getting your driver licensee as a teenager. Are you a good driver at that time, not on your life. Just a licensed driver.

Amateur radio is a great hobby with stepped levels of testing. Go as deep as your interest allows, knowing the testing levels only takes you to the point of passing the test.

73, Mike KE5MC

I've already forgotten what's on each test so I had to go look again (It's all been a mishmash on elements 2/3/4, can't remember which was where.)

It looks like that on the technician exam, you just need to be able to recognize circuit elements on a schematic and understand V(volts)=I(amperes)R(ohms) and P(watts)=V(volts)I(amperes). A lot of the time if you just plug in the numbers they supply and solve for the unknown, you get the right answer. So yes you need to know arithmetic and the algebra in solving unknowns.

On the other hand there appears to be questions that show some general behaviors of electronic devices and show your understanding on how to use basic equipment such as ohmmeters and voltmeters. If you have a multimeter, learn how to use it and know its limitations, you'll go quite far.

On the other hand, the element 4 exam (element 4 is for extra, so you don't have to worry about it for technician) you sort of do need to know what they do. That is, if you don't just ...ugh... memorize the correct answer...

Also keep in mind, the examinations are segment-pooled. You won't get all 35 questions about electronic circuits so you'll never get the worst case situation if you're weak on electronics. This fact was another thing I was counting on when studying and taking the exam - ideally you shore up the segments you're weak on, but you can miss several questions and still pass. I ended up counting the questions that I can't remember/don't know and didn't sweat them when I counted less than 8 answers that I didn't know (Incidentally, my weakness was/is ... antennas. But this is one thing I definitely have learned more about after licensing!)

But be careful, don't get overconfident, one of the things that I had to make sure was that I carefully read all the responses. There are some selectable answers that can look really good but are really wrong. Understanding why each wrong answer is wrong will help you if you forget the right answer by allowing you to eliminate incorrect options.

It's multiple choice, remember all the tricks of the trade of multiple choice testing back in school!

I will have to say I learned 90% of what I know about radio from a 1970's ARRL handbook and 90% about cars from a 1940's Chilton manual!

The other 90% I learned from the internet!!!

I think the ARRL study guides are geared at students who can memorize a lot of information. That seems to be the trend in education, rote learning/memorization. Unfortunately for me, that never works. I have to visualize the information in the context of what it does, if it makes sense, I never forget it.

The older ARRL Handbook manuals do a good job of helping visualize the purpose of circuit components in action.

If you study the ARRL Handbook with a passion, the tech test will not be difficult.

Where it gets esoteric for me now, is the high level computerization. I understand the purpose of all the black boxes, but you will never get me to program a DSP.

It isn't meant to be comprehensive - but enough, even if you have to memorize some stuff, to be at least a little bit fluent in the lingo when talking to others. Enough so that if you want to take it to a further level of understanding, you'll have some idea of where to go or what to even ask in the first place.

It is intro material so that you aren't just a deer in the headlights. Kind of like my novice study materials back in the 70's. They were hardly comprehensive. But they gave me a taste of what to expect.

The same sort of dismay was raised back then by guys who thought the world was falling apart due to incentive licensing. And the gripes go on...

I know where you are coming from though. The teaching materials are not meant to be a tightly controlled linear process, mastering every subject stepping up the ladder of knowledge. It is meant to get you *involved* in the community, where you can ask others meaningful questions, be guided as to where to get more detailed knowledge, or just do your own thing with some sense of direction..

In my case, I got a bit more understanding beyond the novice-class material when I picked up the little Forrest-Mims pamphlets from Radio Shack with basic circuit diagrams and drawings and put some parts onto perf-board to get some hands-on.

Had I not read the novice material, I would not have even been drawn to those pamplets in the first place. Thing is, the novice stuff got my feet wet, with a bare minimum of understanding. Where you take it is up to you.

And guess what - as an *amateur*, where this kind of knowledge is not putting a roof over my head, there is PLENTY of "memorized" stuff that I don't fully understand. Yet, it keeps me legal and not stepping over others or other commercial services.

The rules most definately need memorization, especially band plans and modes.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Indeed Yeah, I forgive you if you just memorize that on 60m you must use specific channels, WSJT-X is for weak signal strength communications, and line-A separates Canada and the US with special band limitations... You're right: there's no way to really figure these out without memorization.

I just hope people don't memorize that if the circuit is using 240W and the voltage is 120VAC then what is the current flowing through it... it's a waste of memorization space!

The element 2 and 3 exams I took I luckily did not need a calculator. If you're good with numbers, you should be able to weed out the choices that are clearly wrong, like for the above example, if the choices were 0.1A, 100A, 2A, and 50A, if you knew your math you can quickly weed out the bad solutions leaving the right answer, I wouldn't call this memorization, but smart test taking, but since you're allowed a calculator, go ahead and use it - don't memorize.

I remember one question on element 4 that I ended up using a calculator. It was unfortunately one I totally drew a blank on, despite studying the material. Luckily what I thought was the right formula I plugged in the numbers and got a matching answer so I picked it (I was worried I missed a square root or something). I looked up the answer afterwards and found I was right, whew!

mcscanner said:

For me I had the advantage of being force feed the material for 12 months, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in Advanced Electronics Training Command, Great Lakes Ill. At the end I could fix Navy HF equipment to the component level.

Click to expand...

No ManDo?

ET-A school is a very good setup, for those that can handle the pace.

Sent using Tapatalk

t13one12 said:

For your tech test, is the electrical component section basically just definitions? As I read the book there is no shortage of terminology being thrown my way but very little in the way of explaining what the components truly do in a circuit. While not necessarily from a tech background, I have an advanced designation in finance and am not intimidated by challenging material. I just feel like this book doesn’t do a great job of teaching the subject but rather serves as a dictionary you could memorize for the sake of passing.

I welcome any thoughts or tips on what others have done to learn the material!

Click to expand...

Microsoft's Windows Certification programs come to mind. They basically presented multiple choice questions that people just had to memorize then magic happens, they become Windows experts! Yet they had no idea how to format a floppy or hard drive.

Then there was President Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' Act, followed by Obama's 'Every Child Succeeds' Act.

Do a Google search on 'Dumbing Down of America' You'll get where I'm going with this.

On the other hand it seems our country makes some things harder than they need to be, and easier than they should be.

The best information I ever had was from Quicksilver Radio's website under "Pass the Exam" heading. I always had trouble with inductive and capacitive reactance. ELI the ICE man helped me. Heck, the whole PtE sheet helped my old stroke addled brain and to him and his information I am sincerely grateful.

https://www.qsradio.com/index.html

https://www.qsradio.com/pass-your-test.html

Practice Exam

I would take the practice exam on QRZ.com to see how you are doing. Also eham.net. Go for the general.

I looked at the ARRL book way back in 1992 for Tech and found the same thing you have back then. It was lacking the content I wanted for learning. It was more for passing the exam, but not as much learning.

Unless they have changed since I used them, the books from W5YI group are what you want to study if you want explanations of how and why things work. I used them from Tech through Extra. Gordon West WB6NOA does an excellent job explaining things. So far I have not found anything better, and his book for GROL is excellent as well.

https://www.w5yi.org/catalog.php?sort=4

Just be glad you do not have to learn morse code

As someone who just passed the Tech and General exams a few years ago, I can relate to the op. My main frustration with the ARRL manuals, from which I did all of my exam preparation, was that much of the material was presented in a way that assumed that the reader already knew something about the subject. There were many terms of art that were not explained or defined at all. This is very confusing to a true novice with no background in electronics.

I contacted the ARRL about this problem - and received replies that didn't quite address my questions. For such a book to really be successful as a teaching tool, the ARRL would need to address the problem of how you get engineers and others with a background in radio electronics to write an introductory learning tool that is understandable to the layperson. Teaching people who are starting with no background in the subject is much more difficult than most people realize - we forget that we once had to learn facts and concepts that we now take for granted without realizing we had to learn them.

It helped me to seek out alternative sources of information on the Web. I think reading books about introductory electronics written by people who can teach effectively is also helpful - something I've done only after passing the aforementioned tests. I'm going to attack CW and the Extra exam soon...wish me luck.

.
.
.
I agree with you 4OBL... the ham licensing test doesn't reflect at all what is required to be a ham. Its a smattering of the legal and technical that boils down to a memorized or guess'd at exam. Its there to put some sort of societal stamp of approval on your ability to legally and (hopefully) operate a hobby class low power radio station with out making a muck of other serious radio services, or killing your neighbors/family or friends.
.
You can be a very good, successful ham and trot along side the best of its brethren without knowing a thing about radio. If conversing with people over the air is your thing, its not much more difficult technically than using a cel'phone. Passing the simple test got you your entry pass into the club- its up to you to take it from there.....if you wish.
.
I have seen, and I know individuals from both ends of this spectrum- from those that knew nothing of radio (and still don't) becoming General Class's with no more than a quick 30minute scan of a license manual-- to one of my friends who became a Extra Class "straight out of the box," (probably because she is a PhD physicist.) Neither of these two groups knew much about the hobby, particularly. They just wanted access to the radios.
.
The beauty of this hobby is (to me) the ability to take it to what ever level you wish. It can be social, technical, or ( _______ ) fill in the blank... and the only entry cost is that license. With the plethora of resources available, there is no reason to bemoan the many license guide's not including every technical detail. They are, at best, just your initial guide books----
.
I do agree with you further on the people that try and instruct this material. As a former teacher at both the under and graduate levels, I know that glassy-eyed look of a lost class. Getting across a complex theory is a tru art form that I still try to perfect daily.
.
Good luck on your Extra Class exam... now there is one test filled with mysteries-- How and why Any ham needs to uses a Smith Chart, let alone be tested on it, is beyond me....smiles.... .
.
.
Lauri
.

Well, the exam does make sense, mainly because they expect people to be experimenters with ham radio and not merely just buy off the shelf equipment and use it (That's GMRS!) but I suspect most people don't experiment. I would expect the exam to be remember and regurgitate for the laws and bylaws, but I was surprised that reading a Smith chart was also a canned question that could be memorized along with the plethora of random electronics math questions that could have been made hard to memorize by changing the numbers around.

Incidentally, I didn't get a Smith chart or any circuit diagrams on my element 4... The Smith chart is a new concept to me, actually (IANA Radio Engineer), but the circuit diagrams would have tested my patience...

And I still need to get(/build?) an antenna analyzer...oh...wait...

Nothing limits one from learning more on their own, and that's part of what it's about. There are so many resources to learn from, even youtube. Anything you want to know can be easily learned with the internet today. The tech exam is meant to get a foot in the door for the average Joe, and keeps the hobby fueled with new blood.