Morse code
The Conqueror
if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
in ham radio either.
-Dan K3DRQ
Dale Harper
"The Conqueror" <joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We are not the Marines, or any other branch of the military service.
Jeff Johns
> I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
> if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
> think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
> in ham radio either.
I don't want to become in the code vs. no-code debate, but CW is still very
much in use from everything from local public safety repeaters to maritime
operations. Just tune some of the HF bands, not all the cw is coming from
amateurs, it IS still used.
73 Jeff W4JEF
*--------- Jeff Johns W4JEF - AMSAT# 32615 - QRP-L# 1857 ----------*
|je...@scott.net w4...@amsat.org | Reserve Patrol Captain |
| Satellite: Mir R0MIR-1, AO-27 | Jefferson County Sheriff's Dept|
|200LX+BayPac+FT50=Portable Packet| QTH Birmingham, AL USA |
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Marty Duplissey
but I learned it enough to get my advanced ticket and still use it when the
band conditions get bad. What most people are not aware of is that by
international treaty the government MUST keep the code as a requirement for
access to the HF bands. They have no choice.
Marty
N5KBP
Ron Cook wrote in message <37250a41...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>I'm not getting into the "code debate" but I am learning the code. At
>present it's required for all the license classes in which I'm
>interested: General, Advanced, Extra.
>
>Aside from that, code is another method of communication just like
>American Sign Language or Braille.
>
>Personally, I want to learn Morse code.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:06:43 -0400, "The Conqueror"
><joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing
requirements
>>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common.
I
>>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using
it
>>in ham radio either.
>>
>>-Dan K3DRQ
>>
>>k3...@qsl.net
>>
>>
>
>Ron n1zhi
>ron...@worldnet.att.net
>co...@amsa.com
>n1...@nsradio.org
>ICQ: 26516311
Neal
Marty Duplissey wrote in message ...
>Good for you and your very good attitude. I'm not a big fan of it myself
>but I learned it enough to get my advanced ticket and still use it when the
>band conditions get bad. What most people are not aware of is that by
>international treaty the government MUST keep the code as a requirement for
>access to the HF bands. They have no choice.
>
>Marty
>N5KBP
Ding!
The Conqueror
if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
-Dan K3DRQ
Ron Cook
present it's required for all the license classes in which I'm
interested: General, Advanced, Extra.
Aside from that, code is another method of communication just like
American Sign Language or Braille.
Personally, I want to learn Morse code.
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:06:43 -0400, "The Conqueror"
<joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either.
>
CATsysop
>Good for you and your very good attitude. I'm not a big fan of it myself
>but I learned it enough to get my advanced ticket and still use it when the
>band conditions get bad. What most people are not aware of is that by
>international treaty the government MUST keep the code as a requirement for
>access to the HF bands. They have no choice.
>
>Marty
>N5KBP
This is true, and from what I have gathered by reading the updates in CQ, they
only have to have a 5wpm code requirement to adhere to the treaty. This is
some of the basis for the new license structure. I am learning code so that I
can at least get my Tech+, and am shooting for General.
Tom
KC8KZY
wesley jeffries
The Conqueror wrote in message <3724b...@news.gulliver.fr>...
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing
requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common.
I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either.
>
>-Dan K3DRQ
>
>k3...@qsl.net
>
>
to be some dues to pay for the privilege. Its a tradition that has lasted a
long time
and maybe old fashioned but it keeps the CBers at bay
Don Rasmussen
There are those (including the league) who say that code is old
fashioned and out-dated. In difficult band conditions there are
four modes that won't make it - AM, FM, USB, LSB. CW will make it
a go when the others won't. In 1999 everyone seems to be a spin
artist, CW is as effective as ever, and entirely valid as a
tested element on amateur exams.
de WB8YQJ/6
Greg Baker
about those who don't know the code. I think the opportunity to pump
signals out on a narrow band to distant parts of the world has its own
charms.
The US Marines still use Morse code, and a few of us keep our keys handy
just in case.
Greg Baker
WB3EBO.
Old Rusty Fist.
The Conqueror wrote in message <37262...@news.gulliver.fr>...
The Conqueror
-Dan
Dale Harper <do...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7g2l94$q...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com...
> In article <3724b...@news.gulliver.fr>,
> "The Conqueror" <joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing
requirements
> >if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that
common. I
> >think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using
it
> >in ham radio either.
> >
The Conqueror
I mean why is it a testing requirement if no one uses it anymore, thus its
not necessary for emergency communication.
CATsysop <cats...@aol.comdiebot> wrote in message
news:19990426232849...@ng32.aol.com...
Marty Duplissey
Marty
N5KBP
The Conqueror wrote in message <37263...@news.gulliver.fr>...
Marty Duplissey
international treaty to that effect. In order to do away with it completely
they would either have to go back and redo the treaty (not likely) or break
it. (more likely, ask a Native American).
Marty
N5KBP
The Conqueror wrote in message <37263...@news.gulliver.fr>...
Barry
<joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either.
>-Dan K3DRQ
>
>k3...@qsl.net
>
With your logic, shouldn't you go through basic training before you
get a ham license?
Jeff Johns
> I dont mean we shouldnt learn it for fun! I know it and enjoy sending it.
> I mean why is it a testing requirement if no one uses it anymore, thus its
> not necessary for emergency communication.
Hmmm.... you just said you use it and enjoy it but then you said no one uses
it. What exactly are you trying to say <grin>?
Don or Darla Arnold
and amateur radio were dropped WORLDWIDE on 1 FEB 99.
don
kb5fhx
Barry wrote:
--
OUR WEB PAGE UPDATED 17 April 99
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/6430 Darla and Don's Website
http://hattiesburg.net/columns/darnold.shtml My online column
DARLA (dawn) ICQ# 7341931
Don (weathernut) ICQ# 14664294
Right now we are on the threshold of whatever comes next!!!
MAYBE!!
Gord Skiffington
morse anymore.....a few points never seem to be brought out...or are
only mentioned briefly.
Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied verbatim
easily (you can come close on voice or often do it if words are
standardized but its not easy)......
- Is a mode that is indeed digital but which requires the
most rudimentary interfacing and for which our own "processor" causes
error correcting and speed compensating depending on the ability of the
other "terminal" or "line" conditions.
- Is a mode which transcends language and dialect barriers
when suitable signals are used...such as the international "Q"
signals...and others. Hard to get most computer systems to do that yet
and our ability to merely speak one language (english for example) with
a wide variation of accents is hard enough sometimes.
- Is a mode whose "standardization" is unheard of in
communications, where for at least a hundred years was not obsolete for
the purpose of basic communications (stuff that's GOOD for critical
use...such as lifesaving...and cheap commerce).
- Is a mode which, when the equipment is tired....just
needs a good dinner and a cup o coffee to revive it.....stuff we have
around anyway !
- When send using CW transmission (the 2 are NOT the same!)
is extremely effective, using suitable narrow filters at both ends, for
solid communications under the worst circuit noise and conditions. It
might not be the very best...but when you consider the rudimentary
equipment needed it becomes mighty attractive.
- Is a mode which, because it only requires very basic
equipment, lends itself well to "field repairability".....a handy thing
if you've ever sat in a remote spot and listened to digital signals that
couldn't connect to you...telling yourself...."if they'd only just turn
'em on and off...I could get the message! After all...what is
slower....a slow sent message or one that never arrives????
There's likely lots of other good and bad reasons why anyone should keep
morse alive. Yep its old.....but well made and the fact that it hasn't
undergone a million transformations tells us all that it works well. It
is slow, but when mere text will suffice, is an adequate method of
communication in conjuction with simple equipment. It does require
skill to use...but everything we do also does (Tell me that a windows NT
system hung up on a satellite link doesn't require skill to figure out
what happened!). There is also a thing about operating morse that only
morse operators may truely feel...but its a kindred spirit that
transcends whether you were a mere ham or a skilled commercial operator,
a struggling boy scout trying it or a pilot who was able to make himself
understood when his mic stopped working. To that last end I can only
offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
73 - Gord VE1AJF...(and merchant R/O in recent times :)
Edward L. Dowdy
Gord Skiffington wrote in message <372698...@nbnet.nb.ca>...
Dave Martindale
>They have to keep the testing requirements because years ago they signed an
>international treaty to that effect. In order to do away with it completely
>they would either have to go back and redo the treaty (not likely) or break
>it. (more likely, ask a Native American).
Well, in the first place, the USA is not following the spirit of the treaty,
since it requires demonstrated proficiency sending as well as receiving.
In the second place, the ITU, the body responsible for the treaty you're
talking about, *does* revise things from time to time. Sometime in the
last few years, they sent around a note asking the member countries if
it seemed necessary to continue testing for Morse code proficiency
in the amateur service, since all other services had already abandoned
Morse. So the ITU is suggesting that perhaps the requirement is no
longer relevant. The national amateur radio bodies of Canada and the UK,
as well as a number of other countries, have said that they agree.
Some people think that it's inevitable that the international requirement
will eventually disappear.
However, the ARRL in the USA opposes this change because most of their
members want Morse testing to continue to be required.
If you think the USA should be in the lead in changing the treaty, rather
than one of the countries trying to prevent change, you might try
changing the ARRL's mind (if you're in the USA).
Dave
W6RCecilA
> Morse - Is a mode ...
Funny, Chapter 8 of "The FCC Rule Book" lists all the modes
available to the Amateur Radio Service and none of those modes
is Morse. I see CW, MCW, Phone, Image, RTTY, Data, Pulse, SS,
and Test, but no Morse.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
Dave Shrader
that authorizes the Amateur Radio SERVICE, requires Morse Code for amateur
licenses.
We have been playing with the definitions of how much morse has to be known,
copied, skill level, etc. but I believe international law still requires it.
Dave
The Conqueror wrote:
> I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
> if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
> think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
Ken Brown
>I dont mean we shouldnt learn it for fun! I know it and enjoy sending it.
>I mean why is it a testing requirement if no one uses it anymore, thus its
>not necessary for emergency communication.
The assertion that no one uses it anymore is false.
CW will get through poor conditions when no other mode will. No high
tech equipment is necessary to generate or detect a CW signal. That is
as long as there are skilled operators. So CW can be used in
emergencies when say for instance computors crash, or a partially
disabled phone rig can't send intellegible audio.
Monty Northrup
<skif...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>[snip] There is also a thing about operating morse that only
>morse operators may truely feel...but its a kindred spirit that
>transcends whether you were a mere ham or a skilled commercial operator,
>a struggling boy scout trying it or a pilot who was able to make himself
>understood when his mic stopped working. To that last end I can only
>offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
>despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
>
>73 - Gord VE1AJF...(and merchant R/O in recent times :)
Here, here!
I've been trying to explain to wife/family/friends for over 30 years,
and haven't ever come up with a "reason" for using CW that satisfies
those that don't have the experience. To those who have conquered
their demons, learned to communicate via CW, and discovered the reward
of it, no explanation is necessary.
If the code requirement is dropped (as it may well be), the incentives
that lead one past the hurdles of learning the code, to the most
rewarding experiences offered by CW, will be removed, and perhaps the
ranks of CW ops will diminish. Some will be happy if this should be
the case.
I think it's interesting to observe, that since the proliferation of
digital modes in the last ten years or so, CW activity on the ham
bands seems to have grown, not diminished, both here in the States and
internationally. Considering that many countries don't have a code
requirement anymore, I wonder why that would be, if it truly is a dead
mode?
Saying CW is dead is kind of like saying pianos are useless because
PCs with sound cards can make more sounds, and never need tuning.
Those who play or listen to fine pianos can instantly perceive the
difference, and those whose minds are made up won't be listening for
pianos in the first place.
When I got started 33 years ago, I struggled for a year to get my code
speed to 13 WPM so I could get my "general" ticket and move on to fone
and rtty operation. But 99% of my operation since then has been CW.
Go figure, huh?
73,
monty N5FC
Will White
correct, strictly speaking, CW * Morse code. The misnomer is as old as the
vacuum tube, though the FCC can be forgiven a bit of idiom and tradition,
can't it?
--
Will White, KD7BFX
to reply, please click this link mailto:w...@asu.uswest.net
Gord Skiffington
modes of operation for a signal source.....morse is a mode (method) of
communicating information, like voice etc. I know you know the
difference of course....what I see is when green hams (we were all one
eh!) start to confuse all this not understanding that you can send morse
over an FM circuit by keying a tone or by calling that CW. Then they're
scratching their heads the first time we show 'em a signal generator
heheh.
I think we all ought to make our "tech" talk a little more accurate by
times...maybe.
73 - Gord
Mark
-- It's fun!
Mark, KC9C
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:11:06 -0700, Gord Skiffington
<skif...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
Mark Keith
>
> I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
> if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
> think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
> in ham radio either.
>
Why would that be? Amateurs still use it .What do the marines have to do
with it? MK
Mark Keith
>
> I dont mean we shouldnt learn it for fun! I know it and enjoy sending it.
> I mean why is it a testing requirement if no one uses it anymore, thus its
> not necessary for emergency communication.
And who is no one? Plenty of people still use it. MK
Michael Ruther
can do about 15 wpm.
AA7QA
The Conqueror wrote:
> I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
> if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
> think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
Sir
> easily (you can come close on voice or often do it if words are
> standardized but its not easy)......
It is much easier to copy something from English to English, It is much
harder to copy something from a code back to English and thus more
chance for error.
> - Is a mode that is indeed digital but which requires the
> most rudimentary interfacing and for which our own "processor" causes
> error correcting and speed compensating depending on the ability of the
> other "terminal" or "line" conditions.
Speech is compatible to 99% of the population's "processor", morse code
only to a much smaller percent.
> - Is a mode which transcends language and dialect barriers
> when suitable signals are used...
What?! Neither my English or other foreign language speaking friends
can understand morse code. This is a ridiculous statement.
> and our ability to merely speak one language (english for example) with
> a wide variation of accents is hard enough sometimes.
Yes, accents are hard enough, why make it MORE difficult?! If people
can't understand a store check-out clerk in some weird accent, how many
customers are going to understand him if he emits beeping noises from
his mouth?
> - Is a mode whose "standardization" is unheard of in
> communications, where for at least a hundred years was not obsolete for
> the purpose of basic communications (stuff that's GOOD for critical
> use...such as lifesaving...and cheap commerce).
Yeah, that's why Police, Fire and Ambulance don't use it.
> is extremely effective, using suitable narrow filters at both ends, for
> solid communications under the worst circuit noise and conditions.
Completely worthless if the person on the other end doesn't understand
code! (which is about 99% of the population)
> - Is a mode which, because it only requires very basic
> equipment, lends itself well to "field repairability"
A washboard is easier to repair than a washing machine too, but not a
good reason to mandate people learning to use it before they are allowed
to buy a washing machine.
.....a handy thing
> if you've ever sat in a remote spot and listened to digital signals that
> couldn't connect to you...telling yourself...."if they'd only just turn
> 'em on and off...I could get the message! After all...what is
> slower....a slow sent message or one that never arrives????
If no one on the other end understands code, it will never arrive.
Why don't advertisers make all their commercials on radio and TV in
morse code so the message could reach more of an audience in bad
conditions? Because MORE people would get the message EVEN IN BAD
CONDITIONS if it is in voice, than in a secret code that they don't
understand.
> There's likely lots of other good and bad reasons why anyone should keep
> morse alive.
There is only ONE. Because it is nostalgic and fun for many people.
Don't take the fun away by forcing it on people that don't want to use
it.
I bet if morse code was not a requirement (for certain classes of
license) more people might take it up. No one wants to learn something
that is forced opon them. People choose hobbies because they have an
interest in them, not because someone hands them a fishing pole and
orders them to fish!
> understood when his mic stopped working.
You people with your mic stopped working BS. Or stranded at the north
pole with nothing for miles but a payphone with a broken microphone.
Always have to try and make up some unrealistic situation to show how
morse code could actually be usefull, and then THAT doesn't even fly!
I don't know of anyone ever going to be in the above situation, but even
IF... would the operator on the phone or the police understand the code
you are punching in on the touch tone pad, or would they think it is a
prank call and hang up? Doesn't really matter, as this situation will
never occur to either of us. They don't have payphones in the middle of
the north pole. Especially with non-working microphones and working
touch tone pads.
To that last end I can only
> offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
> despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
Think about what you just said! Think about WHY it would EVER be
DESPISED! NO ONE would ever depise it if it wasn't shoved down
anyones's throat!
People don't DESPISE model airplane kits. They might if people were
FORCED to build them in order to take up some other hobby!
Sir
>
> If I might add one more...
>
> -- It's fun!
To YOU and many others it is fun, to others it is boring and slow.
To some people restoring old cars is fun, to others it is boring and
slow.
At least car restorer's don't want that hobby to be a requirement in
order to enjoy some other hobby.
Sir
>
> Friend of mine's son is a radio op in the coast guard. He was taught code, and
> can do about 15 wpm.
I know a lot of obsolete skills too. Tape editing with razor blades and
tape come to mind. Perhaps that will save my life in some emergency
when my digital audio workstation breaks, or will allow me to edit in
bad weather conditions.
Don or Darla Arnold
is that ANY reason to use it on a TEST for getting your ticket
keep the subbands..if you want, EXPAND them if you like
IF we use this MODE to test people should we not have a test to see if you can talk correctly for phone, type correctly for packet,
and expand that by building your own computer for digital modes.
THAT'S ALL I AM AGAINST IS FOR A TEST
keep the mode if it makes you happy but don't use it for TESTING.
NUFF SAID
DON
KB5FHX
NCI-1070
MARS AREA COORDINATOR
ARES RACES OPERATOR
SKYWARN FOUNDER
21 YEARS IN NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gord Skiffington wrote:
Howdy Dan....In all the hoopola about whether anyone should or can't use
morse anymore.....a few points never seem to be brought out...or are
only mentioned briefly.
Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied verbatim
easily (you can come close on voice or often do it if words are
standardized but its not easy)......
- Is a mode that is indeed digital but which requires the
most rudimentary interfacing and for which our own "processor" causes
error correcting and speed compensating depending on the ability of the
other "terminal" or "line" conditions.
- Is a mode which transcends language and dialect barriers
when suitable signals are used...such as the international "Q"
signals...and others. Hard to get most computer systems to do that yet
and our ability to merely speak one language (english for example) with
a wide variation of accents is hard enough sometimes.
- Is a mode whose "standardization" is unheard of in
communications, where for at least a hundred years was not obsolete for
the purpose of basic communications (stuff that's GOOD for critical
use...such as lifesaving...and cheap commerce).
- Is a mode which, when the equipment is tired....just
needs a good dinner and a cup o coffee to revive it.....stuff we have
around anyway !
- When send using CW transmission (the 2 are NOT the same!)
is extremely effective, using suitable narrow filters at both ends, for
solid communications under the worst circuit noise and conditions. It
might not be the very best...but when you consider the rudimentary
equipment needed it becomes mighty attractive.
- Is a mode which, because it only requires very basic
equipment, lends itself well to "field repairability".....a handy thing
if you've ever sat in a remote spot and listened to digital signals that
couldn't connect to you...telling yourself...."if they'd only just turn
'em on and off...I could get the message! After all...what is
slower....a slow sent message or one that never arrives????
There's likely lots of other good and bad reasons why anyone should keep
morse alive. Yep its old.....but well made and the fact that it hasn't
undergone a million transformations tells us all that it works well. It
is slow, but when mere text will suffice, is an adequate method of
communication in conjuction with simple equipment. It does require
skill to use...but everything we do also does (Tell me that a windows NT
system hung up on a satellite link doesn't require skill to figure out
what happened!). There is also a thing about operating morse that only
morse operators may truely feel...but its a kindred spirit that
transcends whether you were a mere ham or a skilled commercial operator,
a struggling boy scout trying it or a pilot who was able to make himself
understood when his mic stopped working. To that last end I can only
offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
73 - Gord VE1AJF...(and merchant R/O in recent times :)
--
Butch Magee
magee KF5DE
AB7RS
>
> I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
To weed out the serious from the lazy and stupid.
> if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
> think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
> in ham radio either.
What the heck do any of these points have to do with Morse code in the
amateur service?
And if you want to say it is for security, you are not
> allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
Somehow you managed to obscure the meaning of your entire post.
_ _... ..._ _ Tracy
>
> -Dan K3DRQ
>
> k3...@qsl.net
AB7RS
> >morse anymore.....a few points never seem to be brought out...or are
> >only mentioned briefly.
> >
> > Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied verbatim
Morse is not a mode,but a language that is the common one used on the
mode continuous wave.Tracy
Monty Northrup
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either. And if you want to say it is for security, you are not
>allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
Hi ,Dan!
Well, in just a few short days, you've managed to create quite a stir
with your question (wink) ... 19 replies so far, and I bet it ain't
over yet. I've noticed in the past, that nothing gets things stirred
up quite so much as code and licensing issues. Anyway, well done!
I'd like to make an observation about human nature. [Now, please
understand, I'm not talking about you. Heck, you asked a question,
and you seem to be the best example of an open mind I've seen in this
thread so far.] Anyway, I've noticed that when my mind is made up
ahead of time, it tends to adopt as its purpose to support that
decision in any and every way it can. And once that purpose is
established, it will endeavor to interpret everything I hear and see
as evidence I am "right". It doesn't make me right, mind you, but
it's a mighty temptation to judge everything and everybody as either
threatening or supportive, with no gray area between.
So whenever I encounter myself feeling defensive (or offensive) about
a subject, I suspect I've pre-determined how I want things to be, or
how I want things to come out. And that's a warning signal to me that
my mind is pretty much closed. For me, the warning flags went up when
I though somebody might threaten my beloved CW.
But on re-examination, I think both "sides" can find common ground.
We don't necessarily need code proficiency tests for everyone to prove
they can do it ahead of time. Nobody's going to get on the air
sending morse when they only know 12 letters of the alphabet. So,
maybe just a sampling of questions on the written tests, concerning
the use of the mode, would be in order - to show an understanding of
the mode and its operating procedures, for those who have the
potential for using CW. Same would apply to voice, digital modes,
repeaters, satellites, anything that has significant usage on the ham
bands.
After that, it's up to us avid CW fans to promote and expose the
positive and rewarding aspects of the mode (and there are many). We
haven't done a good job of that thus far, maybe as a result of being
so defensive.
As for actually learning CW, when I think about it (at least for me),
the fastest part of the learning curve was when I was practicing it
"on-the-air", without the pressure of "having to pass a test". It
also happened to be the time that I really learned to love it.
Come on, folks - both pro and con - let's look for new viewpoints,
consider them with an open mind, and see if we can't make the amateur
service even more fun and more friendly than it already is.
73,
monty N5FC
Will White
write it: dididih dahdidah!
AB7RS wrote:
>
> Edward L. Dowdy wrote:
> > >
> > > Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied verbatim
>
> Morse is not a mode,but a language that is the common one used on the
> mode continuous wave.Tracy
--
William Lee
Unless you use the Clinton logic of words and what they realy mean .....
then it could be anything .... or nothing.
William Lee
Will White wrote in message <37280F8F...@asu.uswest.net>...
Allan Kaplan
scholar. It is very difficult to convey to the no-code types what an
aesthetic experience proficiency in morse provides, but even this
long-time CW op has come to realize that using the code test as a
barrier to amateur radio is unproductive. To the others: Welcome to
ham radio -- be tolerant, and 73.
deW1AEL, Allan.
Hrafnkell Eiriksson
* > I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
*
* To weed out the serious from the lazy and stupid.
Well all the "lazy and stupid" go use the Internet today for satisfying
their need for playing with technical stuff and communicating with
people. Those who are not "lazy and stupid" go through learning all
the electronics and regulations that you have to learn to get a ham licence.
--
//-----------------------//-------------------------------------------------
// Hrafnkell Eiriksson // Student of Computer- and Electrical engineering
// hke...@rhi.hi.is // at the Univeristy of Iceland
// // "Blessed are they who go around in circles,
// Finger for PGP key // for they shall be known as Wheels"
Michael Ruther
case of the coast gaurd. The guy was taught code as part off the m.o.s. to be a
radio operator.
I think as far as the coast gaurd the military still thinks it is important to have
coded operators.
Mike AA7QA
Gary Coffman
>"The Conqueror" <joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I mean why is it a testing requirement if no one uses it anymore, thus its
>>not necessary for emergency communication.
>
True. There are some amateurs who still use it, a few third world
militaries still use it, and a few third world ships still use it too,
though they're supposed to have switched to GMDSS as of Jan
1, 1999 for emergency traffic if they're over 300 tons. Globe Wireless
still maintains one Morse operator per shift to handle the remaining
routine CW maritime traffic via Globe's network of remote controlled
HF sites. But most of the traffic volume has moved to HF digital or to
satellite. Globe uses Clover 2000 for its email and telex services on
the HF maritime frequencies. They recently petitioned the ITU for
another block of frequencies to handle the traffic volume they're
seeing.
>CW will get through poor conditions when no other mode will.
That assertion is false. There are a number of digital techniques
which work when the CW operator must give up. The classic
example is Voyager. That's now nearly 30 years old, and completely
outside the solar system. Its signals are so weak that even using
the Deep Space Network you can't pick it out of the noise by ear.
But it is still communicating at 10 bps (12 WPM equivalent) using
QPSK and Reed-Solomon coding. (It was built without the benefit
of microprocessor technology. We can do better today, and do it
cheaply and easily.)
Amateurs use PACTOR II and Clover II as well as Coherent, PSK31,
and a few other less widely known methods to communicate at low
signal levels, or when fading and burst noise make the communications
channel too difficult for manual OOK Morse. EME has been done with
Oscar 10 class stations (100 watts, single yagi) using digital modulations
and codes when the signal is totally undetectable by ear. (There is currently
a project underway to characterize the EME channel so that codings and
modulations can be tailored to it for even better performance.)
KA9Q has a WAV file recording on his website of a 400 bps (480 WPM) signal
that's virtually undetectable by ear, but still perfectly copyable with simple off
the shelf equipment and software (it is convolutionally coded BPSK). And as
Shannon tells us (and Voyager confirms), slower signals can be weaker still.
Things like S/MT-Hell are very robust against auroral fading (true spread
spectrum is even more so). The military has routinely been employing SS
techniques for over a decade to get signals through hostile jamming. They
use low rate coherent FSK to communicate with submerged nuclear subs.
Etc. We've known how to soundly beat OOK Morse performance in a number
of different ways for over 50 years. VLSI now lets us do it cheaply and easily,
often for less than what some amateurs pay for a Morse key. But to do it we
must have the knowledge to build and/or properly apply modem technology
instead of attempting to manually emulate one.
Of course there's nothing *wrong* with wanting to use CW any more
than there's something wrong with wanting to use AM voice. We don't
all have to use techniques which get through when nothing else will.
In fact, few of us do use such techniques exclusively. We choose
what we want to use according to what each of us finds interesting or
useful.
PSK31 operators don't demand that all other amateurs demonstrate
a capability to use PSK31, Clover II operators don't demand that all
other amateurs demonstrate a capability to use Clover II, S/MT-Hell
operators don't demand that all other amateurs demonstrate a
capability to use S/MT-Hell, etc. It is the height of arrogance for CW
aficionados to demand that all amateurs demonstrate a capability
to use Morse before being allowed access to frequencies used for
other purposes. Yet there are many who do, and they often attempt
to justify that demand with the false claim that OOK Morse gets
through when nothing else will.
That isn't true, and it has been known not to be true for over half a
century. But indulge me for a moment longer and assume that it is
true. If so, then Shannon tells us that the slower our information
rate, the lower the SNR we require to convey it correctly. So if
we really want CW to get through when nothing else will, then we
want amateurs to use it as slowly as possible. Therefore the higher
amateur license grades should be required to demonstrate slower
and slower Morse copying ability.
Say a Novice might be required to demonstrate 5 WPM, a General
would be required to demonstrate 0.5 WPM, an Advanced 0.05 WPM,
and an Extra would need to demonstrate the capability to copy 0.005
WPM. (If you don't think trying to copy that slow isn't hard to master,
try it.)
In all cases the code should be buried in noise so that Eb/No is less
than 4 db. Voyager works at that level, so certainly the mode that gets
through when nothing else will should be able to do at least as well.
(For those who don't get it, this is tongue in cheek. There's no way
anyone can manually copy Morse text at 4 db Eb/No. They'd be
exceedingly fortunate to even detect by ear that a signal is present.)
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
Gary Coffman
>Morse code is a language. A digital langauge but still its a langauge.
>Unless you use the Clinton logic of words and what they realy mean .....
>then it could be anything .... or nothing.
>
>William Lee
Nonsense. Morse is an encoding of the Roman alphabet. It has no words,
grammar, or syntax to call its own. The words of some actual language
(usually English) may be spelled out using the Morse alphabetic encoding,
just as they might be spelled out using ASCII encoding or Baudot encoding,
but the words remain words of the language from which they come. These
words may be combined according to the syntax and gramatical rules of the
language of which they are a part to form sentences, but the sentences remain
sentences of the actual language, not sentences of some mythical Morse
"language". What I'm sending here is text in the English language which
just happens to be spelled using an ASCII encoding of the alphabet. Were
I to send the text using Morse encodings of the alphabet, it would still be
English language text.
John Seney
ke...@bellsouth.net (Gary Coffman) wrote:
While Morse is a CODE that can express a LANGUAGE, it transcends
ASCII characters and many other encoding methods because it has rhythm,
tone, style, and can be expressed uniquely, yet be commonly decoded
and understood. Degrees of appreciation vary from simple RR to
near opera like emotional involvement and appreciations. Perhaps
the links to music are where the bridge to a LANGUAGE like description
occur.
Morse also seems to use a special area of a person's mind that many
find stimulating in an unusual way. If you use Morse regularly, you
may find that you do other unrelated things and sense the stimulated
by Morse part of your mind participating.
John D. Seney, WD1V [FN42]
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/wd1v
Dave Shrader
method will be international Morse code.
Sir
how to play the harp before you were allowed to play the flute?
What if you didn't like the harp and only wanted to play the flute, and
other flute players called you lazy for not wanting to waste time
learning an instrument you had no intention of ever playing?
Some people want to get into the hobby of radio to talk on the radio.
They have no desire to use morse code. How silly it would be to waste
the time to learn morse code, only to forget it once one has the license
to go ahead and use voice.
Only people who intend to USE morse code should learn it.
Rudolph M. Marcelletti
Don or Darla Arnold wrote in message <3727AA1D...@datasync.com>...
ALL the below are VERY CORRECT and TRUE, BUT,
is that ANY reason to use it on a TEST for getting your ticket
keep the subbands..if you want, EXPAND them if you like
IF we use this MODE to test people should we not have a test to see if you can talk correctly for phone, type correctly for packet,
and expand that by building your own computer for digital modes.
THAT'S ALL I AM AGAINST IS FOR A TEST
keepe the mode if it makes you happy but don't use it for TESTING.
Mark Brown
rec.radio.amateur.equipment and rec.radio.swap. This
argument has bben going on forever (years!) & will not end
until the fcc changes the rules one way or the other.
Joe wrote:
>
> What a lame analogy.....what if dont mean SHIT in the real
> world!!!!WHAT IF your mama gave your dad a blow job on a particular
> night.....where would you be?
Joe
Will White
language, anymore than AMTOR or ASCII. The distinction is linguistic, but
really commonsensical as well. A language must have a grammar and meaningful
inflection (the swing of a bug is accent, but it doesn't convey meaning, as
the rising pitch of spoken language at the end of a question) as well as
syntax and lexicon. CW has a vocabulary (sort of) and some idiom/colloquial
syntax, but no grammar, and it really just transposes whatever the written
language of the communicators is into sound pulses. Finally, a language must
be self-sustaining and complete, and morse/CW is not. It depends on its users
having and using a real language, English, Spanish, Navajo, whatever, to
encode and decode. No communication is possible using CW alone (hard to find
two people who know CW and no language). Again, I ain't dissing CW, I love it,
enough to keep it in its pure, lofty place.
William Lee wrote:
>
> Morse code is a language. A digital langauge but still its a langauge.
> Unless you use the Clinton logic of words and what they realy mean .....
> then it could be anything .... or nothing.
>
> William Lee
>
> Will White wrote in message <37280F8F...@asu.uswest.net>...
> >Morse is neither a mode nor a language, it's a *code*! Ta-dah! Or should I
> >write it: dididih dahdidah!
> >
> >AB7RS wrote:
> >>
> >> Edward L. Dowdy wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied
> verbatim
> >>
Mike Dickman
>
> Keith Lodahl <loda...@internetwis.com> wrote in message
> 372A70E8...@internetwis.com...
> >If it is intended to be a "twit filter" then it is failing. Just listen on
> the
> >low bands and tell me of the professionalism shown by all operators found
> there.
> >The Conqueror wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing
> >requirements
>
> >> level of operator competentancy.
> >> It may indeed be an outdated means of "seperating the men from the
> >> boys" but until a suitable replacement can be implemented,
> >> CW is it....JUST DO IT !!!
> >> Practice, practice practice !!!
> >> Hugh Duff, VA3TO Toronto
> >>
> Well well then the STUPID have taken over the bands already with the CW test
> STILL in effect. A simple thing such as the PHOENETIC ALPHABET is destroyed
> all the time by operators who have GREAT CW skill. The only way for the
> phoenetic alphabet to work is when ALL use it correctly. The stupid have
> taken over and can't even use this SIMPLE thing correctly.
> We should change the test right now and make all of those old timers take a
> RELEVANT operating and proficiency test. Man that would clean a lot of the
> deadwood.Guys who can copy 30WPM CW but can't string a dipole. No wonder you
> are scared of losing the cw req most of you would LOSE your license if
> asked to retest.
> Operating knowledge will allways be better than operating 1 mode.
> Andrew
> VE1VVV
I would like to know how CW maintains this "level of operator
competentancy"? While "we" are debating CW, the Internet, cable modems,
sat. phones, cell phones are passing us in technology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*** average temperature 6 below ***
sunrise 10:48 am sunset 2:44 pm
giving 3 hours 56 minutes of possible sunshine
Mike (KD4LLA)
For the people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord <grin>!
The longer Bill Clinton stays in office, the more we pay.
Our justice system pays because he has opened the door for millions of
us to play games with the notion of telling "the whole truth" under
oath. Our military personnel pay because they have to carry out their
duties while grappling with questions regarding the motives of their
commander in chief. Our national intellect pays because, with his
myriad verbal contortions and willful deceptions, the president has
become little more than a walking, talking insult to our intelligence.
Finally, the taxpayers pay because, in his efforts to keep "looking
presidential" and "doing the work of the people," he is creating more
new programs and growing the government.
Haven't we paid enough already?
See my web page at http://www.alaska.net/~mdickman/Index.htm
Jeffrey Herman
> <n5...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote:
>>Morse code is a language. A digital langauge but still its a langauge.
>>Unless you use the Clinton logic of words and what they realy mean .....
>>then it could be anything .... or nothing.
>Nonsense.
You say that because you never got your code speed up, Gary. You still
hear individual letters being sent. Get your speed up and you'll hear
words; you won't have to go through the translation process. For example,
when I was first learning Vietnamese, to understand the phrase:
"Toi di nha " my mind would have to translate word by word: toi = I,
di = go, nha = home. Later, after immersion in the language, no such
translation was necessary. I could understand a sentence, not having to
consider each individual word.
Don't give up, Gary.
Jeff KH6O
P.S. R.r.a.equipment dropped from any fol-ups; why didn't you do that?
DKBMC
communication hence, language. Even signing with hands to the deaf is a
language. Sign Language, most sign language does not involve letters but it
is considered a language is it not. There is a book written by Peter
Carron, W3DKV titled, MORSE CODE: The Essential Language.
Jim Wayda
had
hand cranks, and radio had spark gap transmitters.
Sir
Steve Ellington
away with whatever it is. Typical liberals. This is the same kind of
reasoning that has ruined our public school system. Why teach arithmetic
when we have calculators etc......
DKBMC (dk...@flash.net) wrote:
: You don't have to see, you have to hear in order to know it is a form of
: communication hence, language. Even signing with hands to the deaf is a
: language. Sign Language, most sign language does not involve letters but it
: is considered a language is it not. There is a book written by Peter
: Carron, W3DKV titled, MORSE CODE: The Essential Language.
--
Steve Ellington N4LQ
N4...@IGLOU.COM
Mark Waldron
generalization.....
I think a more appropriate analogy would be like a student who wants
to read, write, and program computers to put up a fight against mandatory
Braille. He just has no desire (that's D.E.S.I.R.E. as in want, not 'lack
of intellect') to learn Braille or use Braille. Braille might be useful at times,
perhaps, but not for someone that would rather not communicate that way.
Does this mean he has a contempt for Braille? No, just a disinterest. Let
people communicate in Braille all they want to. Let them do it wearing nothing
but jockstraps. The point is HE doesn't choose to spend his energy on it since
he would like his energy spent reading or writing or programming.
So, how's your braille competency? Oh.. I see...you say you don't know
any braille....hmmmm....gosh you must be one of them thar fruity brainless
liberals, huh?
Jeffrey Herman
rec.radio.swap. Please eliminate rrs from your fol-ups, for:
Please accept this reminder of the following item which
appears in the rec.radio.swap FAQ/charter:
"PLEASE DO NOT POST DISCUSSION ARTICLES TO THIS GROUP. If you really must
post, please do so to the appropriate discussion group. Use email whenever
possible, especially if you feel someone has committed a breach of
etiquette."
(The full FAQ is posted by myself on the 15th of each month.)
For a smoother-running newsgroup, please abide by the charter.
Jeff KH6O (rec.radio.amateur working-group)
Will White
thing, but this is way over the top, ranting politivcal spam.
Mike Dickman wrote:
>
>
> *** average temperature 6 below ***
> sunrise 10:48 am sunset 2:44 pm
> giving 3 hours 56 minutes of possible sunshine
>
>
> Mike (KD4LLA)
>
> For the people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord <grin>!
>
> The longer Bill Clinton stays in office, the more we pay.
>
> Our justice system pays because he has opened the door for millions of
> us to play games with the notion of telling "the whole truth" under
> oath. Our military personnel pay because they have to carry out their
> duties while grappling with questions regarding the motives of their
> commander in chief. Our national intellect pays because, with his
> myriad verbal contortions and willful deceptions, the president has
> become little more than a walking, talking insult to our intelligence.
> Finally, the taxpayers pay because, in his efforts to keep "looking
> presidential" and "doing the work of the people," he is creating more
> new programs and growing the government.
>
> Haven't we paid enough already?
>
> See my web page at http://www.alaska.net/~mdickman/Index.htm
--
William Lee
code license.
He wants to know what a wire antenna is.
First comes the NO CODE license quickly followed by the NO BRAIN license.
I wonder if "lack of intelligence" can be used to get a medical waver for
the CW test.
William Lee N5WRX
Steve Ellington wrote in message <372de...@news.iglou.com>...
>Well ....they don't know what it is but it takes brains so they want to do
>away with whatever it is. Typical liberals. This is the same kind of
>reasoning that has ruined our public school system. Why teach arithmetic
>when we have calculators etc......
>
>
>
crouchi...@netscape.net
any sage advice? Or did you see 'no-code' and assume he is a moron?
I see more asshole comments like yours in the ARS than in any other
walk of life. YOU are an embarrassment to the ARS, not HIM.
In article <7gmhmt$oka$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
William Lee
If you pass a drivers license test and then ask someone what a stop sign is
that tell it all.
BTW did YOU bother to read his question........ He never said anything about
'no code'..... I did!
I perhaps may be an asshole.... but you sir, are a Stupid asshole.
There..... see ..... any asshole can call another asshole names here on the
internet.
I bet you wouldnt do it face to face.
William Lee N5WRX
Notice I sign my real name (and callsign) and ISP.
I dont need to hide behind Daja News with an alais.
crouchi...@netscape.net wrote in message
<7gn4io$d15$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
boga...@my-dejanews.com
classified your comment as an asshole comment. He may have known or heard
about J-Poles, but maybe wanted to be clued in on something he heard as
'new'. His message could also be troll bait.
Driver's license tests and stop signs, huh? A better ARS analogy would be
passing his Tech license, and then asking why he can't transmit on say police
frequencies. That would be evidence of a failure in the testing system. But
I hear many different terms for things, and if this newbie was unfamiliar with
a vague term like 'wire antenna' or God forbid he was asking for clarification
of what he thought does not prove any level of stupidity to me.
I saw some very helpful replies to his question, but not yours. Give a newbie
some slack. I thought that's what the Novice and Tech classes were in the ARS
to do...LEARN. Hopefully with help from those more in the know. Questions are
never stupid. Actions without knowledge or bothering to ask ARE.
Anybody can be an asshole. Myself included. I did not call you an asshole,
but I said your statement was an asshole comment. Because it was. If someone
claims the same about my statement(s), I am at least man enough to examine
them further.
You are right. Email is easy to hide behind. But that is not my motivation
here. And yes, face to face, I would challenge you on this comment. If I make
a similar one, and someone else says "Hey, that's an assholish thing to say."
or "Why am I being such a dick?" Sure, I'd be offended. But once I got over
the 8th-grade emotion of it, there might be some validity to their reaction.
BTW, show me a ham that knows the answer to every possible question about
Ham radio. Hmmmm....guess we're ALL "Stupid Assholes"....
Another BTW....my ISP can't seem to fix their mail server. For weeks!
Therefore, I am on DejaNews till they fix it.
Til then, I am incognito.... :) I am on the QRZ CD-ROM. With a little smarts,
you could figure out which Ham I am, Dr. Seuss...
In article <7gn7qd$d2d$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
William Lee
Hey Mark,,,,, I know braille. That's those little dimple things I see on
the drive up teller machine at my bank. (think about it) I can't decode them
yet but that is OK beause I can see....... See?
William Lee N5WRX
Karl Klingman
Jack C Empson Jr
needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out. Soon enough
all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest of the
ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
**************************************************
* Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
* State University of New York @ Buffalo *
* 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
* Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
**************************************************
186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
Mark Waldron
'outies' instead of 'innies'.
BTW, isn't it odd that they have Braille on a drive-up teller machine? :)
Mark Morgan
<emp...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>That's ok we can argue all we want about keeping the code test, but something
>needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out. Soon enough
>all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest of the
>ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
I hope you will endose my adding tot hese sentiments, the idea
of not only bring ing people in but treating them so they want to
stay. I think the number of new is just barely enough ifwe got them to
stay, but more would nice
>
>**************************************************
>* Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
>* State University of New York @ Buffalo *
>* 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
>* Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
>**************************************************
>
>186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
>
>
Mark Morgan
kb9rqz.
Privacy of unsolicted email is not assured
Unsolictied email will be published forwared
or ourwise disclosed as I see fit.
sending unsolitcied Email will be
deemed aceptance of these terms
Marv Luse
> That's ok we can argue all we want about keeping the code test, but something
> needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out. Soon enough
> all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest of the
> ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
>
> **************************************************
> * Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
> * State University of New York @ Buffalo *
> * 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
> * Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
> **************************************************
>
> 186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
Jack,
Brass pounders will always be around, and in large numbers too. As for new blood in
Amateur Radio, there is plenty of that too. Where did the notion that Amateur Radio
is dying come from? At my extra class exam (recent) there were about 5 youngsters
aged about 10 taking the 5 WPM code test. Come to think of it, there were kids
testing at every one of the test sessions I attended.
I think we need to worry more about the F layer falling.
73,
Marv
AB0IO
H. Adam Stevens
Thank you for an independent observation.
I suspect the same small fraction of 13 year olds are still learning code. Like many
things that require a little work up front, CW is worth it.
73
H.
de wa5igw
Marv Luse wrote:
> snip--
Don W6JL
> Brass pounders will always be around, and in large numbers too. As for new blood in
> Amateur Radio, there is plenty of that too. Where did the notion that Amateur Radio
> is dying come from? At my extra class exam (recent) there were about 5 youngsters
> aged about 10 taking the 5 WPM code test. Come to think of it, there were kids
> testing at every one of the test sessions I attended.
>
> I think we need to worry more about the F layer falling.
>
> 73,
>
> Marv
> AB0IO
Marv OM,
I agree with you. I don't see ham radio 'dying' at all. I operate in
excess of 12 hours a week on the air, basically all CW. Over half of
that is mobile CW. The CW bands have plenty of ragchewing going on all
the time. I know, I am one of them. And I spend almost all my time on
only one band: 40M. A while ago I worked a 16 year old in Phoenix who
was running homebrew TUBE-TYPE gear he had made himself, from old
handbook articles. Said he just wanted to play around with tubes is
all. Have worked several newer hams, some in their teens, who started
with codeless techs, then discovered (some to their total amazement)
that CW is an excellent ragchewing mode, and works very well. Some are
excellent CW ops, know procedure, know how to listen, with less than 2
years experience in ham radio. They try to spread their enthusiasm to
some of their non-CW friends, often with no luck. So they go their own
ways.
The message here? You are either interested or you are not. Nothing
new going on here. CW will continue to be used by the many who find it
enjoyable, that is, can attain reasonable skill at it. Apparently many
non-cw ops think we are all WORKING to use it, writing stuff down, using
straight keys, egad! Hey, it is just another language guys, if you are
proficient, and is effortless to use. If you're not wired for it, there
are many other modes to use. That is one of the beauties of ham radio.
73,
Don, W6JL
Keith Lodahl
Don W6JL wrote:
> Marv Luse wrote:
SNIP
>
>
> If you're not wired for it, there are many other modes to use. That is one of the
> beauties of ham radio.
>
> 73,
> Don, W6JL
That is the point. There are many modes that don't use CW. Many that are interesting and
satisfying that don't need knowledge of CW to use. The hobby is diverse and growing more
so all the time. Yet there is truly only one test for suitability to belong to the club:
knowledge of code.
I have the skill to pass the practical test (and have with the training software) through
Advanced, yet I hold only a Tech ticket because of the code. I am still trying but I
haven't found my method for learning code yet. I memorized the tapes, and have tried a
couple of different computer tutor programs, but so far I have not been able to master CW.
I will get it eventually, but it is not coming easy. I resent comments from other hams
about being an "appliance user" or the comments on this list about code being a "moron
filter." We all have assets in different areas. Learning the code is just plain a bitch
for me, and is for others.
I see Techs filling key spots in many clubs, taking on important jobs in weather nets,
coordinating public service activities and the like. Some of these folks will upgrade, and
some will not. The code will be an obstacle for some, the practical test will be an
obstacle for some, and some are content with what they can do with their current ticket.
None deserve to be looked down upon because of lack of code speed.
--
Keith Lodahl
Mayville, Wisconsin
Don or Darla Arnold
don
kb5fhx
Keith Lodahl wrote:
--
OUR WEB PAGE UPDATED 17 April 99
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/6430 Darla and Don's Website
http://hattiesburg.net/columns/darnold.shtml My online column
DARLA (dawn) ICQ# 7341931
Don (weathernut) ICQ# 14664294
Right now we are on the threshold of whatever comes next!!!
MAYBE!!
J W Schermerhorn
Except that novices have no phone privileges on the amateur HF bands
that most would want to use.
Don or Darla Arnold wrote:
>
> WELL SAID
> don
> kb5fhx
H. Adam Stevens
H.
WA5IGW
Mark Waldron wrote:
> snip---
> BTW, isn't it odd that they have Braille on a drive-up teller machine? :)
snip
jpos
code to earn a award in his Tiger Cub Scout group. He is a seven year old
that came to me to learn the code, and has no interest in radio, I would
think that anyone who is interested in radio should stop crying about it and
donate the 15 minutes a night for 2 weeks, and learn it.
No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
surf the net....
Jerry N9DKQ
not a Brass Pounder.....
Marv Luse wrote in message <373198C1...@dimensional.com>...
>Jack C Empson Jr wrote:
>
>> That's ok we can argue all we want about keeping the code test, but
something
>> needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out.
Soon enough
>> all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest
of the
>> ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
>>
>> **************************************************
>> * Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
>> * State University of New York @ Buffalo *
>> * 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
>> * Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
>> **************************************************
>>
>> 186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
>
>Jack,
>
Don W6JL
> I have the skill to pass the practical test (and have with the training software) through
> Advanced, yet I hold only a Tech ticket because of the code. I am still trying but I
> haven't found my method for learning code yet. I memorized the tapes, and have tried a
> couple of different computer tutor programs, but so far I have not been able to master CW.
> I will get it eventually, but it is not coming easy.
>
> Keith Lodahl
> Mayville, Wisconsin
Hi Keith OM,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
In WWII, the military taught Morse code to literally thousands of
people from all kinds
of backgrounds and abilities. Many of them were not doing it
voluntarily, either!
I myself cannot see where using "tapes" and "computers" is an
effective learning method
for learning to use the code conversationally, as we do in ham radio.
First of all, it
is boring, listening to basically boring content being sent. As you
said, you eventually
memorized the tapes. That should be a clue that that is not the way to
learn the
code. Why not listen to something interesting instead?
To become comfortable with CW, you have to 'USE IT' for some purpose.
Listening to real-live
conversations on the air is what made CW take off quickly for me.
Fortunately, in those days
there was no distracting temptation to somehow 'use a computer' (a
distinct advantage, from
what I can see). Second of all, it does nothing to teach you how to
listen to REAL
WORLD signals off the air, while at the same time, you are internalizing
what is being said.
This is what worked for me. It has been music to my ears ever since,
and is definitely my
preferred mode for ragchewing on the air, compared to using voice.
When you are otherwise
just wasting time (ex: while driving), sound out everything you see
written: street signs,
license plates, etc etc. Make the sounds of CW very familiar to
yourself, so that
you associate those sounds immediately with the letters and numbers and
punctuation.
This all requires zero investment in $$, and can be done anywhere,
anytime. Lastly,
listen ON THE AIR to real CW QSO's, as much as you can, to all kinds of
fists, in various
conditions of in the clear to buried in the QRN/QRM. Watch out! You
might suddenly
become hooked; that is a risk you take. If that happens, you will
suddenly see yourself
on the other side of the perennial code argument, and can't for the life
of you figure
out what all the fuss is about; it has happened to many others, HI.
Lastly, like anything else, CW is not fun for EVERYONE. Some people
just do not take to it.
But that is a very small group indeed, I think. Especially at the
moderate speeds required.
After all, 5 WPM you can practically look up real time. 13 WPM actually
requires that you
know and can respond almost immediately to the characters. This does
not seem to much
to ask, for a large number of us. I believe it is an essential part of
one's education
to become a ham and to use HF (the 'real' ham radio to me).
You can do it.
73 and GL,
Don, W6JL
Don W6JL
> Mayville, Wisconsin
Keith,
I forgot one other important point in my post. DON'T WRITE STUFF
DOWN. Copy it in your head; that is how you will be using it
for ham radio ragchewing. Writing it down is an (unnecessary and
limiting) habit that you don't want to get into if you can
avoid it. I sometimes run into ops on the air who ask me
(as I am working mobile CW) "how do you write it down?". Egad.
73,
Don, W6JL
Phil Wheeler
Don W6JL wrote:
>
> I myself cannot see where using "tapes" and "computers" is an
> effective learning method
> for learning to use the code conversationally, as we do in ham radio.
> First of all, it
> is boring, listening to basically boring content being sent. As you
> said, you eventually
> memorized the tapes.
>
Some software (e.g., Morse Tutor Gold) is pretty effective, in that it
sends typical, but random, QSOs. Of course that may be boring (many
qsos are!), but it is better than the old 5 element groups.
Phil
Monty Northrup
> I forgot one other important point in my post. DON'T WRITE STUFF
>DOWN. Copy it in your head; that is how you will be using it
>for ham radio ragchewing. Writing it down is an (unnecessary and
>limiting) habit that you don't want to get into if you can
>avoid it. I sometimes run into ops on the air who ask me
>(as I am working mobile CW) "how do you write it down?". Egad.
Hi Don!
Hmmm... I've heard this admonishment before, and I really don't
understand it. I've been operating almost exclusively CW for over 30
years, and I've always written it down. It feels natural to me. It
goes in my ears, it comes out my hand. It's not particularly legible
above 30 wpm, mind you, but I can refer back to my notes in a ragchew
and remind myself of what was said. (I can't recall a 10 minute
monologue, but I can if it's written in front of me). Later on ( 2 or
3 qsos late), I can jot down a note or two in the log if I want. My
wife can look over my shoulder if she wants. When visitors come over,
they can see that the process actually works... morse in, words out.
Above 35 wpm or so, I'll put the pencil down and copy entirely in my
head, but if somebody throws a long unfamiliar and non-phonetic word
out there at 45 wpm, I'll probably miss it, and I've found that's
usually the case for people that "only copy in their head", even at
slower speeds. And speaking of slower speeds, people that copy only
in their heads have difficulty with copying 10 wpm qsos... I think you
forget what was sent at the beginning of the word at that speed... hi.
Besides the practicalities, I think it's easier and faster to learn
code while writing it down. As you decipher a letter aurally, you
write it down, see it with your eyes, and it connects you with the
part of your brain that already knows how to read and write.
Hey, different strokes for different folks, but I think it's a lot
easier and more practical to learn code while writing it down, and
make the transition to head-only copy later on if you need or want to.
Am I the only one in hamdom that thinks so?
73,
monty N5FC
Monty Northrup
>2 weeks?? ;) It took me, a 35yr old, almost 4mnths to learn it...
I know what you mean... I took up the piano at 45...
monty N5FC
Gary Coffman
>Gary Coffman <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> <n5...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>Morse code is a language. A digital langauge but still its a langauge.
>>>Unless you use the Clinton logic of words and what they realy mean .....
>>>then it could be anything .... or nothing.
>
>>Nonsense.
>
>You say that because you never got your code speed up, Gary.
>You still hear individual letters being sent. Get your speed up and you'll hear
>words; you won't have to go through the translation process.
Of course I still hear the individual letters. I see individual letters when I
read too, and hear individual phonemes when I listen to speech. That
doesn't affect the speed with which I read English text (over 3,000 WPM)
or the speed with which I can understand spoken English (about 200 WPM).
It does allow me to notice misspellings, and notice when words are
mispronounced. If you can't do those things, then I suppose you really
don't see the letters or hear the phonemes when you read or listen to
speech. That seems a peculiar sort of selective blindness/deafness to
me.
>For example,
>when I was first learning Vietnamese, to understand the phrase:
>"Toi di nha " my mind would have to translate word by word: toi = I,
>di = go, nha = home. Later, after immersion in the language, no such
>translation was necessary. I could understand a sentence, not having to
>consider each individual word.
Fascinating. You can understand a sentence without hearing the words,
or the phonemes that make up the spoken words. I don't know how you
do that. Must be ESP. When I hear speech in German or Russian,
I understand it because the words I hear are part of my German or
Russian vocabulary. I don't hear it in English, because it *isn't* English.
It is actually another language with its own words, syntax, grammar,
and meaning.
That's not the case for English text represented in various forms. It is all
still English language text whether it is represented in an ASCII, Baudot,
or Morse encoding of the Roman alphabet. The words are English, the
syntax is English, the grammar is English, and the meaning is English.
It isn't Morsish.
>Don't give up, Gary.
I never have, and I never will until Morse testing is banished from
amateur radio licensing.
>P.S. R.r.a.equipment dropped from any fol-ups; why didn't you do that?
I followed up William Lee's post in rec.radio.amateur.equipment, and so
my reply went to the groups to which he posted. The only way to ensure
that a reply is read by a poster (or by anyone else who read the original
message) is to follow up to all the groups in which the original message
appeared. If you don't want to see a reply in a particular group, don't
post to that group.
You posted the message to which I'm replying in both equipment
and misc, so I am replying in both equipment and misc. If you'd
wanted a reply only in misc, you should have posted only in misc.
I consider your use of the follow up line an abusive attempt to
get the last word before a particular audience. I won't tolerate that.
If you want to restrict discussion, restrict your own postings first.
I will follow up only to the groups in which they appear, but I will
follow up to every group in which they appear.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
Sir
> code to earn a award in his Tiger Cub Scout group. He is a seven year old
> that came to me to learn the code, and has no interest in radio,
Well why not FORCE him to learn about radio before he can use morse
code? It is ok for him to want to learn Morse Code and not anything
about radio, but not the other way around?!
I would
> think that anyone who is interested in radio should stop crying about it and
> donate the 15 minutes a night for 2 weeks, and learn it.
If your son doesn't have to learn or like radio to enjoy Morse Code,
then people who want to use or like radio do not have to learn Morse
Code.
> No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
> surf the net....
Of course not, no one complains about having to learn how to use a ham
radio before surfing the repeaters either, but what if you made them
learn Russian before they were allowed to use the internet? Then you
would get the same complaints.
Sir
>
> On Fri, 7 May 1999 08:21:11 -0500, jpos <jp...@mobilemark.com> wrote:
> >No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
> >surf the net....
> >
>
> *possible* with MS-Windows, you might want to choose a different
> analogy. Sigh.
The best analogy would be having to learn Morse Code in order to use the
internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
Ham radio.
Michael Young
code. Looking at FCC Part 97, you can qualify for a Technician's license
with only a written procedure and absolutely minimal theory test. No
Morse code test!
It seems your wish has been granted, and quite some time ago at that.
Run on over to your nearest VEC testing facility. There's no need to
stop to thank me.
Michael.
Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote in message news:373628...@sir.com...
Dean Craft
Sir wrote in message <373639...@sir.com>...
True enough; however, it has everything to do with the es-prit de corps of
ham radio. Knowing that one has gone through, and survived, the identical
trials and tribulations of his or her counterparts, builds a unique bond of
dedication and purpose. The instant gratification crowd of today has no
appreciation for that bond.
Dean Craft -- W4IHK
Jim
>The best analogy would be having to learn Morse Code in order to use the
>internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
>and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
>Ham radio.
Now that sounds like a plan, a Morse code test to get on the internet
would keep some of you no-code peckerwoods out of the DX newsgroup
and about a half dozen other ones this 'discussion' doesn't belong in.
Is it REALLY necessary to post this crap to every ham newsgroup there
is ? Some of us have already learned Morse code, we aren't looking for
any good reasons not to....
73, Jim KH2D
Woofle
<joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either. And if you want to say it is for security, you are not
>allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
>
>-Dan K3DRQ
>
>k3...@qsl.net
>
>
Now, LOOK. Haven't you watched the movie Independence Day?
It was Morse Code that saved the world! :-)
>
>
Michael Young
Michael.
Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote in message news:373639...@sir.com...
> Rich Mulvey wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 7 May 1999 08:21:11 -0500, jpos <jp...@mobilemark.com> wrote:
> > >No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before
they can
> > >surf the net....
> > >
> >
> > Considering that I was "surfing the net" before it was even
> > *possible* with MS-Windows, you might want to choose a different
> > analogy. Sigh.
>
Phil Wheeler
methinks!
I'm a bit in between; write down name, qth, rst, etc. -- but usually
head-copy the rest.
Phil
Phil Wheeler
Monty Northrup wrote:
>
> Above 35 wpm or so, I'll put the pencil down and copy entirely in my
> head,
Not up to those speeds, alas; above 35 wpm or so I tune in a slower
station.
> but if somebody throws a long unfamiliar and non-phonetic word
> out there at 45 wpm, I'll probably miss it, and I've found that's
> usually the case for people that "only copy in their head", even at
> slower speeds.
Agree!
> And speaking of slower speeds, people that copy only
> in their heads have difficulty with copying 10 wpm qsos.
And with that: Too slow and you cannot copy words, only letters; then I
must write it all down.
Phil
Phil Wheeler
enough brain cells and reflexes are left!
Phil
Ray
can turn your computer on or learning to ride a horse before you can get
your driving license just so you can relate to horse power.
Bring back the dark ages too!
Ray
Jim <kh...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7h5vi6$4es$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote:
>
> >The best analogy would be having to learn Morse Code in order to use the
> >internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
> >and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
> >Ham radio.
>
Mark Morgan
>I just finished giving my seven year old his code lesson. He's learning the
>code to earn a award in his Tiger Cub Scout group. He is a seven year old
>that came to me to learn the code, and has no interest in radio, I would
>think that anyone who is interested in radio should stop crying about it and
>donate the 15 minutes a night for 2 weeks, and learn it.
If only it were that simple. You and the otehr ProCoders can't accept
the fact it aint so. Haven't you read QST lately
>
>No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
>surf the net....
You have to learn window before using the Net. Gee did not know that.
Indeed I know plenty of Net users that don't do windows. but then if
it were true that you did it is not likely that we would hear much
from them.
But My My the Federal governement requires knowledge of windows in
order to surf the net. I never knew that Thanks for telling me
>
>Jerry N9DKQ
>not a Brass Pounder.....
Mark Morgan
kb9rqz.
Privacy of unsolicted email is not assured
Unsolictied email will be published forwared
or ourwise disclosed as I see fit.
sending unsolitcied Email will be
deemed aceptance of these terms
Mark Morgan
wrote:
>True enough; however, it has everything to do with the es-prit de corps of
>ham radio. Knowing that one has gone through, and survived, the identical
>trials and tribulations of his or her counterparts, builds a unique bond of
>dedication and purpose. The instant gratification crowd of today has no
>appreciation for that bond.
That is saying that it is a hazing ritual. If more of you wanted to be
honest and call it that and defend it on that bais I'd have more
resopect, I'd alos be on HF becuase the FCC would acted even sooner to
end but..
It is also incorrect and inaccurate to say that the trails of all
people learning Code are indentical, as can be claerly seen by reading
the claims of the ProCoders on the ease of learning code
>
>Dean Craft -- W4IHK
Mike not Mic
can upgrade. I guess talk is cheap or where the neck are my Elmers.
--
Howdy! I'm "Mike not Mic"!
You are in contact with Tornado Alley
I'm a Storm Spotter here in Lawton Oklahoma.
My call is W5OLD and all my radios smell like smoke!
Send all traffic to w5...@sonetcom.com
Phil Wheeler <w7...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<37368CC0...@mindspring.com>...
: But Don did say he was operating mobile CW; best *not* write it down,
: methinks!
:
: I'm a bit in between; write down name, qth, rst, etc. -- but usually
: head-copy the rest.
:
: Phil
:
: Monty Northrup wrote:
: >
: > On Fri, 07 May 1999 12:29:02 -0700, Don W6JL <W6...@ixpres.com> wrote:
: > > I forgot one other important point in my post. DON'T WRITE STUFF
: > >DOWN. Copy it in your head; that is how you will be using it
: > >for ham radio ragchewing. Writing it down is an (unnecessary and
: > >limiting) habit that you don't want to get into if you can
: > >avoid it. I sometimes run into ops on the air who ask me
: > >(as I am working mobile CW) "how do you write it down?". Egad.
: >
: > Hi Don!
: >
: > Hmmm... I've heard this admonishment before, and I really don't
: > understand it. I've been operating almost exclusively CW for over 30
: > years, and I've always written it down. It feels natural to me. It
: > goes in my ears, it comes out my hand. It's not particularly legible
: > above 30 wpm, mind you, but I can refer back to my notes in a ragchew
: > and remind myself of what was said. (I can't recall a 10 minute
: > monologue, but I can if it's written in front of me). Later on ( 2 or
: > 3 qsos late), I can jot down a note or two in the log if I want. My
: > wife can look over my shoulder if she wants. When visitors come over,
: > they can see that the process actually works... morse in, words out.
: > Above 35 wpm or so, I'll put the pencil down and copy entirely in my
: > head, but if somebody throws a long unfamiliar and non-phonetic word
: > out there at 45 wpm, I'll probably miss it, and I've found that's
: > usually the case for people that "only copy in their head", even at
: > slower speeds. And speaking of slower speeds, people that copy only
: > in their heads have difficulty with copying 10 wpm qsos... I think you
:
John Ryding
because of international agreements. In order to work DX, the ITU still
requires a code proficiency. What speed varies with the country issuing the
license, so the FCC could easily reduce the speed, but there would still be the
minimum requirement.
I consider myself an "appliance operator" and haven't used code for a long
time. I am one of those that would like to see it dropped as well. We are not
preserving a tradition, trying to keep anyone out, or making ourselves an
exclusive group. Amateur radio should advance the radio art, have a trained
pool of operators for emergencies, and improve international relations. These
can be done without CW, but until the ITU changes its policy, the FCC has no
choice.
Rev. John Ryding
WW0H