Houston HamFest
KA5GLX
Location is the Webster Civic Center in Webster TX (NASA area of Houston)
Doors open at 8am
www.clarc.org/swapfest.htm for table registration etc.
73
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: CLARC SwapFest'2000 will be held Sept 23rd, 2000
: Location is the Webster Civic Center in Webster TX (NASA area of Houston)
It constantly amazes me how so many businesses claim to be located in
Houston, yet are not. This is especially apparent in the ham
community. For instance, this is in reality the CLARC Swapfest, which is
located in Webster. Yet it is advertised as a "Houston HamFest." If it's a
Houston HamFest, wouldn't it be located in Houston?
The same holds true for Houston Amateur Radio Supply, which is reality is
located in Spring.
Joshua Carroll
operator?
KA5GLX wrote:
> CLARC SwapFest'2000 will be held Sept 23rd, 2000
> Location is the Webster Civic Center in Webster TX (NASA area of Houston)
Professor Vonroach
<kitcann...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Would this be a place to go if you are interested in becoming a radio
>operator?
Or maybe if you are already a swine, pig, or a boar?
KA5GLX
has classes, then a VE session to take the tests. This is a place to
buy/swap/sell/trade radio gear
73
--
Bob Biekert
If you want Ham Radio to survive - do something to help!
"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39a64c66...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
rattl...@my-deja.com
rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU (Robert L. Coyle Jr.) wrote:
> KA5GLX (ka5glx...@arrl.net) wrote:
> : CLARC SwapFest'2000 will be held Sept 23rd, 2000
> : Location is the Webster Civic Center in Webster TX (NASA area of
Houston)
>
> Houston, yet are not. This is especially apparent in the ham
> community. For instance, this is in reality the CLARC Swapfest, which
is
> located in Webster. Yet it is advertised as a "Houston HamFest." If
it's a
> Houston HamFest, wouldn't it be located in Houston?
>
> The same holds true for Houston Amateur Radio Supply, which is reality
is
> located in Spring.
>
>
If I had to hazard a guess, i'd say it's because Houston is a good
reference point for an announcement that is sent nation-wide..... people
all across the country know where Houston is, but I doubt they have
heard of "webster"...
--
"As flies to wonton boys are we to the gods;
they kill us for thier sport."
-- 'Brave New World'
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
some-one
give it up and let the fcc sell the band back to private use.......
all you do is interfeere with real communications........
remember your amateurs.......not pros......fuck you
<rattl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o0b1i$48i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
some-one
Patrick L. Humphrey
>fuck all you hams
I'll alert the people at Logan Farms.
>give it up and let the fcc sell the band back to private use.......
What *is* ham radio, if not private use?
>all you do is interfeere with real communications........
Translation: you don't allow me to splatter my ravings all over the EM
spectrum.
>remember your amateurs.......not pros......fuck you
Speaking of amateurs, not-so-anonymous schmuck -- you're posting from a local
Insync dial-up, 209.113.45.133 to be exact. Who's going to be the first one
to notify them of your abuse of their services, I wonder?
--PLH, no 73s to *you*, apparently
jdm
much less give a crap about what he has to say.
Old Biker
> > fuck all you hams....
Why not ... your mother did.
Michael Brown
Unknown
<some...@some-where.com> wrote:
>
>"some-one" <some...@some-where.com> wrote in message
>news:UdSo5.337$%6.9039@insync...
>> fuck all you hams
>>
>> give it up and let the fcc sell the band back to private use.......
>>
>> all you do is interfeere with real communications........
>>
>>
>> remember your amateurs.......not pros......fuck you
>
>
DNS lookup of IP address '209.113.45.133' resolves to server:
Matt Erickson
Terry Sanford
Matt Erickson wrote:
> More than likely a stupid kid!
>
And; as my English teacher used to observe, "An inability to express
themselves without descending into profanity!"
BTW next year, 2001, Radio Amateurs here (Newfoundland, Canada) and I guess
also in the UK will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of Marconi
receiving the first trans Atlantic wireless message from Poldhu, in
Cornwall. I guess Marconi and those other early experimenters were some of
the early radio amateur/experimenters!
More recently was it not a radio amateur who was the first to bounce radar
signals off the moon shortly after World War II? Thus leading to space radio
communication, satellite tracking and so on? Today we take radio
communications out to Mars almost for granted; but someone had to be the
experimenter.
Many years before that was it not radio amateurs who pioneered the way to
using what in those days were considered to be the useless higher
frequencies? Frequencies we use today for TV, cellular wireless phones etc.
Some useless?
Anyway good luck to all radio amateurs, whatever their field of interest
whether it be ragchewing or the latest in laser transmission!
Terry S.
John Bojack
This guy's my neighbor...mad about that third 80M Beam antenna, I
guess.................
:0
M. Schneider
profanity-laced posting has been reported to his ISP's abuse address.
Mark K5MAR
"John Bojack" <jbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39a895e9...@news.mindspring.com...
Tracey-Levin
that have served them well for decades prior to the development of cell phones
in cars, then portable phones using the same technology.
And, Hams are always working on new inventions, too. Laser communication is
being developed even now by many hams. Bouncing beams off clouds, dust
particles, and even the moon has brought about new ideas and new inventions.
Laser towers are now transmitting the net to homes with receivers on their
roofs. What does the future hold using even this technology? Who knows! But
we know that Hams will be on the cutting edge of future communication
technologies!
Tracey Levin
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: I'll alert the people at Logan Farms.
: >give it up and let the fcc sell the band back to private use.......
: What *is* ham radio, if not private use?
I think he means a personal communications service, like citizens band. Of
course, with the recent action to eliminate all challenges to becoming
licensed by Kenwood and others, it looks like its headed in that
direction.
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: Dont forget that today's silly "cell phones" are based upon ham repeater towers
: that have served them well for decades prior to the development of cell phones
: in cars, then portable phones using the same technology.
Actually, today's cellular telephone was based on an older technology
called IMTS, which was based on MTS, which was based on earlier police
communications and broadcasting. That can be traced back to the
experimental work by Marconi, Hertz and others.
Tracey-Levin
be!?
Ive never known that police could dial a phone from their cars years ago when hams
were doing it all day long!
Tracey
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: Are you suggesting that amateur radio has something to do with Marconi? NO! It cant
: be!?
Check your history or radio. It's a documented fact, David.
: Ive never known that police could dial a phone from their cars years ago when hams
: were doing it all day long!
Police department pioneered repeater technology as we know it today. Prior
to that, they used frequencies just above the AM broadcast band, although
antennas proved to be very cumbersome.
Repeater technology was later adopted by the telephone companies for
modile telephones. Initially, one had to call the operator of their radio,
then five the telephone number and billing data by voice. This method was
still used by VHF marine operators, until that was finally phased out as
boaters began installing cellular telephones on their vessels and cellular
converage extended into the Gulf (sites were located on oil rigs, with
service beamed offshore by mictowave or satellite).
MTS and IMTS in initially used the old Z Band frequencies (35 MHz base, 43
MHz mobile). Later they migrated to VHF-Hi Band (152 MHz) and UHF
(454). Cellular on 800 MHz debuted on the early 1980s, and was based on
the principle of dividing the geography into small cells in which
frequencies would be reused many times over. This was necessary because of
severe overcrowding. In the late 1970s, there was a seven-year waiting
period to get a local number, and a ten-year waiting period to get a
wide-area number. In Houston, there were only four VHF IMTS channels,
which meant only four conversations could occur simultaneously.
Please refrain from asking any further questions about something you know
nothing about. You only make yourself look extremely stupid.
: "Robert L. Coyle Jr." wrote:
T.L. Bryant
>Please refrain from asking any further questions about something you know
>nothing about. You only make yourself look extremely stupid.
>
Now that's a statement that really encourages someone to want to learn
something.
Tom - N8ECW
Tracey-Levin
Really? I bet you're just a general class, aren't you? Don't tell me lies about Extra.
Unless you're willing to hand over the call.
Tracey
Tracey-Levin
"T.L. Bryant" wrote:
> In article <8ofkt8$bus$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU says...
>
> >Please refrain from asking any further questions about something you know
> >nothing about. You only make yourself look extremely stupid.
> >
>
> Now that's a statement that really encourages someone to want to learn
> something.
>
> Tom - N8ECW
That represents the arrogance common to many older hams. The newer hams want
little to do with the "old farts" because they are such know-it-alls.
Wayne Green warns against these old coots all the time.
Tracey
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: In article <8ofkt8$bus$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU says...
: >Please refrain from asking any further questions about something you know
: >nothing about. You only make yourself look extremely stupid.
: >
: Now that's a statement that really encourages someone to want to learn
: something.
He quite obviously didn't want to "learn" something, only expound on his
ignorance of the issue at hand.
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
More misleading information, David? Sorry, my call isn't for sale. You'll
have to buy one elsewhere.
: >
: >
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: "T.L. Bryant" wrote:
: > In article <8ofkt8$bus$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU says...
: >
: > >Please refrain from asking any further questions about something you know
: > >nothing about. You only make yourself look extremely stupid.
: > >
: >
: > Now that's a statement that really encourages someone to want to learn
: > something.
: >
: > Tom - N8ECW
: That represents the arrogance common to many older hams. The newer hams want
: little to do with the "old farts" because they are such know-it-alls.
The so-called "newer hams" want to enter the hobby without demonstrating
proficency in the radio art (with includes Morse code). The current
restructuring is the product of this "gimme gimme gimme" mentality. The
League, Fred Maia and Kenwood are out for profit, not advancing amatuer
radio.
: Wayne Green warns against these old coots all the time.
"Doctor" Wayne Green is another crackpot trying to squeeze all the profit
from the hobby as he possibly can. As an aside, I publicly challenged
Wayne to debate me on these points. He backed down, not
surprisingly.
Roger Halstead
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI) www.RogerHalstead.com
N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
"Tracey-Levin" <trac...@hotbot.com> wrote in message
news:39ACA362...@hotbot.com...
Lord! He's one of the worst of the lot. <:-))
Roger (K8RI)
>
>
> Tracey
>
Roger Halstead
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI) www.RogerHalstead.com
N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
"Tracey-Levin" <trac...@hotbot.com> wrote in message
news:39ACA0FC...@hotbot.com...
>
>
> "Robert L. Coyle Jr." wrote:
>
> > Tracey-Levin (trac...@hotbot.com) wrote:
> > : Are you suggesting that amateur radio has something to do with
Marconi? NO! It cant
> > : be!?
> >
> > Check your history or radio. It's a documented fact, David.
It appears you took a joke seriously.
Roger (K8RI)
> >
<snip>
Robert L. Coyle Jr.
: --
: Roger Halstead (K8RI) www.RogerHalstead.com
: N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
: "Tracey-Levin" <trac...@hotbot.com> wrote in message
: news:39ACA0FC...@hotbot.com...
: >
: >
: > "Robert L. Coyle Jr." wrote:
: >
: > > Tracey-Levin (trac...@hotbot.com) wrote:
: > > : Are you suggesting that amateur radio has something to do with
: Marconi? NO! It cant
: > > : be!?
: > >
: > > Check your history or radio. It's a documented fact, David.
: It appears you took a joke seriously.
I never take Tracey (David) seriously.
T.L. Bryant
>: Wayne Green warns against these old coots all the time.
>
>"Doctor" Wayne Green is another crackpot trying to squeeze all the profit
>from the hobby as he possibly can. As an aside, I publicly challenged
>Wayne to debate me on these points. He backed down, not
>surprisingly.
Sounds like Wayne Green doesn't believe in casting pearls before swine.
Tom - N8ECW
T.L. Bryant
>: Now that's a statement that really encourages someone to want to learn
>: something.
>
>He quite obviously didn't want to "learn" something, only expound on his
>ignorance of the issue at hand.
>
Really? It looks to me that he was just being sarcastic with the "Marconi"
statement. Too bad it went over your head.
Tom - N8ECW
Old Biker
> proficency in the radio art (with includes Morse code).
With all due respect, any connection Amateur Radio ever had to "the
radio art" was coincidental. Certainly some amateurs made very
significant contributions to both technology and communications, but the
vast majority did little more than enjoy it as a hobby - and there's
nothing wrong with that. In the beginning, amateurs had to homebrew
their own gear so it was entirely reasonable to expect them to prove
sufficient technical skill to do that before granting them a license.
That need has long since been overtaken by manufacturing technology that
produces $400 transcievers that're far better than anyone can homebrew
for thrice the price and its been like that for over 20 years. I had the
knowledge to design and build 1960's gear, and aced the General/Tech
exam circa 1978, but I'm going to have to do some studying to get the
questions on satellites, packet, etc on the new extra test answered
correctly. I could built a vacuum-tube rig with hand tools but I'll bet
that not one ham in 100 has the equipment to build one from scratch
using modern manufacturing methods: a 100w all-band HF rig thats smaller
than a CB and does everything but wipe your nose. So we do the sensible
thing and buy "appliances" instead. Same goes for code. It's almost as
relevent today as wiring up tube sockets or starting fires with flint
and steel - fun but hardly practical - and kids who grew up with
cell-phones, the internet and other far superior technologies see about
as much need to master it as they do to raise their own potatoes. Beyond
that, the more things change the more they remain the same: I expect
some of these new kids will make significant contributions - not many of
them but there never were many - and the rest will continue to enjoy
amateur radio as a hobby. Can we quit bitching and get on with it - or
is bitching half the fun?
73deKA3DWW
Dwight Stewart
"Robert L. Coyle Jr." wrote:
>
> enter the hobby without demonstrating
> proficency in the radio art (with
> includes Morse code).
Get real, Robert. Lets not put higher emphasis on Morse than it
deserves. Morse, like vacuum tubes, was part of the "radio art" years
ago. Now its just the hobby of a very small minority of the radio community.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
Jim
> restructuring is the product of this "gimme gimme gimme" mentality. The
> League, Fred Maia and Kenwood are out for profit, not advancing amatuer
> radio.
>
Why would anyone want to use Morse Code in the 21st century?????
It makes about as much sense as rubbing two sticks together to make a fire
even though we have a butane lighter in our pockets.
Roger Halstead
"Jim" <jkir...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wYZr5.6517$YZ2.9...@typhoonbleh.nyroc.rr.com...
Just because it's there.
Like playing a guitar for personal enjoyment, flying aerobatics, building up
gear from scratch, or writting "useful" computer programs.
It's not something you do because you have to, but because you want to.
Once you truely learn it, CW becomes a language instead of work.
Unfortunately with the time I've spent on the air over the last 15 years it
is again a bit of work.
Roger (K8RI)
Roger (K8RI)
>
Tracey-Levin
radio. Thats all it is. It keeps out the CB crowd, but its really a dumb,
old fart concept.
If you want to limit the numbers of participants in this hobby, copy the
methods used by law and medical schools.
Morse Code is just dumb.
Tracey Levin
george
Nobody will care.
-George W2DB
Jim <jkir...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wYZr5.6517$YZ2.9...@typhoonbleh.nyroc.rr.com...
SBCmusic
<spam...@dyb.com> writes:
> Why would anyone want to use Morse Code in the 21st century?????
>> It makes about as much sense as rubbing two sticks together to make a fire
>> even though we have a butane lighter in our pockets.
But, yet, there are those who enjoy getting out in the woods, camping and
living a few weekends a year the primitive way. Is it necessary? No, but to
those that enjoy it, it's fun and a challenge.
Or how about those of us who do travel by Bicycle, even though there is a car
in our driveway. Is it necessary to travel by bike? No, but it's a fun
challenge.
I wonder if you speak to campers and bikers (and whatever other examples we
might think of) in the same way you spoke to us. ;))
73 de N9GSU
Jerry W. O'Dell
wrote:
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI) www.RogerHalstead.com
With regard to Morse -------
I have found that the local people who opt for the minimal exams
(boy and are they minimal) go to 2 meters. Stay for a couple of weeks,
and are gone.
Anyone with any intelligence can do 13 wpm, and most of the people
I've been talking to on 40 meters are new hams, and confound it,
they send better than us older guys.
I think, here, we have the lowest common denominator dragging things
down. They know nothing, they won't learn, and .... well I could say
more.
73 jerry w8gnd
Dave Walker
>Why would anyone want to use Morse Code in the 21st century?????
Why don't you ask us when the 21st century gets here.
Dave Walker
re-learning Morse Code before the 21st Century arrives
--
Dave Allen Walker Tar Heel State Online www.tarheelstateonline.com
How do YOU think we should pay for Education in North Carolina?
http://www.tarheelstateonline.com/article.pl?sid=00/06/12/1634213
Allen Lee
besides the fact that a cw signal will often than not be received
when other forms are not. Not to mention, what if your mike or ssb
section of your radio quits and you have not other means to
communicate. Just set there and die?
Allen
WB7SWW
Yes, I love CW!
Roger Halstead
N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
"Jerry W. O'Dell" <jwo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:39b409ca...@news.chi.ameritech.net...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 05:35:41 GMT, "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Roger Halstead (K8RI) www.RogerHalstead.com
> With regard to Morse -------
>
>
> I have found that the local people who opt for the minimal exams
> (boy and are they minimal) go to 2 meters. Stay for a couple of weeks,
> and are gone.
It hasn'tworked that way here.
Our area has a lot of no-code techs and many of them have been on for quite
a while. They also attend the emergency services training and have been
quite an assett to the weather nets.
>
> Anyone with any intelligence can do 13 wpm, and most of the people
Intelligence has little to do with code copying ability.
There are several thresholds with speed.
5 WPM can be memorized, but 13 is fast enough that you have to hear word
sounds. 20 is at the point where the subconscious takes over.
Each speed involves a different mode of copy.
Believe me, my subconscious does a much better job of copy than my
conscious. <G> Besides, at that speed I don't have to write anything down.
> I've been talking to on 40 meters are new hams, and confound it,
> they send better than us older guys.
Keyboards and keyers aside, they have better nerves and coordination.
than the "older" folks.
>
I think one thing most CW detractors don't realize is that once past 20 WPM
copy becomes very easy. Far easier than the 5 WPM.
CW is just another mode of communication. No more. No less. Nor is it dumb.
Those kind of statements come from people who don't like it, or don't have
the ambition to take the time to learn it. Learning code does not involve
inteligence, but rather nothing more than repetition. Just plain old
repetition. That means devoting time, regular time each day to learn it.
Using half an hour, or so, per day for a couple of weeks should put nearly
any one over the hurtle. It takes something like 10 to 15 hours to master
the 5 WPM. About another 20-30 to make 13 and maybe 30-60 more to make 20.
It seems rather silly to still be debating the code Vs no code as the rules
have changed and no amount of debating is going to change it back.
I do think they should have kept the Extra speed at 20 as the license has
only been a "presteige" license for years. We only gained a tiny bit of CW
space, which is plenty.
If some one does not want to learn it, that's fine with me. However to call
a mode of communication dumb, is...well....rather dumb. There are many
modes of communication and no one is likely to be using them all.
It's sortta like RTTY. It's still used, even though there are faster and to
me, better, modes. I still don't consider RTTY dumb.
> I think, here, we have the lowest common denominator dragging things
> down. They know nothing, they won't learn, and .... well I could say
> more.
>
It depends on what they have to learn to pass the written.
I don't think passing, or not passing the code test proves much, except
determination. The written test is the "brain power" part.
No amount of testing is going to weed out the malcontents and troublemakers.
Not unless they add a physic exam. <snicker>
At one time many of those were Extras.
I haven't been following the news much and, until this summer, had been off
low bands for some time, so I don't know what percentage of which group
comprise the troublemakers. I guess I'll have to put up someting to listen
to the 80 meter band and see if the one group is still there. <:-))
Since the tests went to multiple choice it has been possible to memorize the
pool, or at least a vast mojority of it. Actually it's pretty difficult not
to memorize for most people. It *just* happens after you go through the
practice exams five or ten times.
73
Roger (K8RI)
> 73 jerry w8gnd
>
Patrick O'Connor
or some other disaster, we'll simply not provide the emergency
communications you'll need to reach your friends (assuming you have any)
and/or family (assuming you have any who will admit being related to
you).)
T. L. Bryant
>I have found that the local people who opt for the minimal exams
>(boy and are they minimal) go to 2 meters. Stay for a couple of weeks,
>and are gone.
>
>Anyone with any intelligence can do 13 wpm, and most of the people
>I've been talking to on 40 meters are new hams, and confound it,
>they send better than us older guys.
>
>I think, here, we have the lowest common denominator dragging things
>down. They know nothing, they won't learn, and .... well I could say
>more.
>
>73 jerry w8gnd
>
Maybe they found how "exciting" ham radio *really* is.
Tom - N8ECW
T. L. Bryant
>>
>> Why would anyone want to use Morse Code in the 21st century?????
>> It makes about as much sense as rubbing two sticks together to make a fire
>> even though we have a butane lighter in our pockets.
>>
>
>Just because it's there.
>Like playing a guitar for personal enjoyment, flying aerobatics, building up
>gear from scratch, or writting "useful" computer programs.
>
>It's not something you do because you have to, but because you want to.
<snip>
Even with the restructuring, it's still a license requirement.
Tom - N8ECW
T. L. Bryant
lockjaw...@tarheelstateonline.com says...
>
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 02:53:16 GMT, Jim pontificated:
>>Why would anyone want to use Morse Code in the 21st century?????
>
>Why don't you ask us when the 21st century gets here.
>
>Dave Walker
>re-learning Morse Code before the 21st Century arrives
Are you sure about that? There are some scholars that have said that because of
a screw-up 1500 or so years ago in calculating the actual birth date of Christ,
the 20 century may have actually started in 1995.
Tom - N8ECW
Larry Kessler
wrote:
>Why would anyone want to use Morse Code in the 21st century?????
>It makes about as much sense as rubbing two sticks together to make a fire
>even though we have a butane lighter in our pockets.
Because there are times and conditions when CW will get through the
noise and interference when nothing else will.
Larry WB8JEL
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>> The so-called "newer hams" want to enter the hobby without demonstrating
True, but it is still useful when audio speech is precluded.
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>Morse code is a means of holding down the number of people involved in ham
>radio. Thats all it is. It keeps out the CB crowd, but its really a dumb,
>old fart concept.
>If you want to limit the numbers of participants in this hobby, copy the
>methods used by law and medical schools.
>Morse Code is just dumb.
>Tracey Levin
>
Tracey - I definitely recommend a knowledge of more than Morse Code
for law and medical school entry.
Dwight Stewart
SBCmusic wrote:
>
> Or how about those of us who do travel by Bicycle, even though there is a car
> in our driveway. Is it necessary to travel by bike? No, but it's a fun
> challenge.
However, nobody requires proof of bicycle riding proficiency before
you are able to drive that car. Code is just about as removed from the
mainstream radio community as the bicycle is from the car in the analogy above.
Dwight Stewart
Larry Kessler wrote:
>
> Because there are times and conditions
> when CW will get through the noise and
> interference when nothing else will.
And how often if that, Larry? Once per every 100 contacts? Once per
every 1000 contacts? In other words, lets not over state this
"perceived" advantage. In the overwhelming majority of cases, voice
will get through just fine. That is why voice is so widely used, and CW
is not.
SBCmusic
>you are able to drive that car.
True.......but unless I read his post wrong, he didn't say anything about
requirements, he was asking why anyone would want to USE morse code.
73 de N9GSU
T...@sky.net
So is PSK31....
Dwight Stewart
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
> Computers and other consumer
> products are certified safe by
> federal authorities working for
> the people. [snip]
I don't care how certified your equipment is, it still generates RF
emissions. For that matter, computers (and other devices) are not
certified "safe" as far as RF emissions are concerned - they are only
certified to comply with FCC emissions standards.
> You still haven't responded to my
> concern that radio hams may be
> causing the very conditions they
> take such pride in warning the
> public about. [snip]
And I'm not about to waste time responding. There is not a thread of
evidence that normal RF emissions affect overall weather conditions.
Enough said.
jamesr...@my-deja.com
transmitter will produce far LESS e-field v/m than a cell phone. Think
about it - which is more likely to hurt your hearing? A tuba 200 feet
away or a trumpet 6 inches from your ear? They guys where I worked a
few years ago (doing emc testing for a large corporation) told me (I
have no reason to doubt them) that a cell phone will produce about 60
V/M at your head. This may well be dangerous if you tend to talk for
extended periods of time. This appears near the limits set for the
IEEE standard for safety in an uncontrolled environment. A 1Kw 21.2
MHz transmitter is shown at around 10 - 20 V/M in the shack and 14 V/M
12M from the base of a 60 foot tower. The safe uncontrolled limit for
this frequency is around 90 V/M. Draw your own conclusions. Any real
distance (even a neighbor's property) away will show even less e-
field. Of course, commercial broadcast at 50KW will produce a much
stronger signal - but that rapidly diminishes at any real distance from
the antenna. Chances are your microwave and monitor will produce
fields stronger than any ham station anywhere near you. Of course,
there are the guys who like to run the 8 pill (or more) linears in
their cars or trucks. Now you are close to the antenna. Guess who is
more likely to glow in the dark?
73s from Rochester, NY
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jamesr...@my-deja.com
--... ...--
Jim
In article <8p1pk3$srp$1...@208.206.142.87>,
Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote:
> Aw, Will, don't cornfuse those poor boys with hard facts. Their
minds are
> already made up. CW is just "dumb"!
>
> Will wrote:
>
> > It is often enough that during a 3-4 day period a few weeks ago
while
> > there was major flare/CME activity going on and there was very
little
> > audible on any HF band here in Phoenix, round the clock. Very little
> > other than CW of course. There were still several signals above the
> > noise on all bands.
> >
> > de Will KD7BFX
Unclaimed Mysteries
Jim Allen <jma...@altavista.net> wrote hard, worked hard, played hard,
slept hard, wore glasses if he needed them:
> Oh, YOU don't do that stuff, you pay somebody to have it done....... I
don't
> know whether to play the "Elitist" card or the "helpless" card.
Try playing the "fish" card. Sorry to drag you into this. Guess I'm getting
sentimental in my old age.
--
It came from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
A+
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/
Dwight Stewart
jamesr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Dick Carroll wrote:
> >
> > Aw, Will, don't cornfuse those
> > poor boys with hard facts. Their
> > minds are already made up. CW
> > is just "dumb"!
>
> .. .... .- ...- . -. --- -.-. --- -- . -. -
-. -.-. --- -- . -. - -. . . -.. . -.. .-.-.- .. - .-- .- ... .-
... .. .-.. .-.. -.-- .-. . ... .--. --- -. ... ..-.-.- .-.-.
Dwight Stewart
jamesr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> The problem is the strength of the e-field. [snip]
No disagreement, Jim. Actually, I feel rather lucky (especially when
I hear others complain about interference between devices). I'm sitting
in a corner of the living room with a radio, two networked laptops, a
networked laser printer, a phone system, two midi keyboards, and a pile
of other electronic devices. And so far, none of them seem to interfere
with the others - no interference with the network from the radio and no
noise on the radio from the other devices. Its easy, in a situation
like this, to forget that this stuff is throwing out a pile of RF.
But, as far as "Unclaimed Mysteries" is concerned, changing the
weather with this stuff is the least of my worries.
Unclaimed Mysteries
Dwight Stewart <stew...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:39B6EF22...@sccoast.net...
> But, as far as "Unclaimed Mysteries" is concerned, changing the
> weather with this stuff is the least of my worries.
Fact: whenever severe weather is occurring, these Skywarn radio hams are
using their transmitters. Cause or effect?
--
It came from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/
Dan/W4NTI
already in the area. Effect or Cause?
Dan/W4NTI
--
"Just tellin the truth, and they cain't stand it."
Unclaimed Mysteries
Dan/W4NTI <w4...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p8g2q$uh7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> Fact: Skywarn is not activated unless and until severe weather is
> already in the area. Effect or Cause?
Yes.
robe...@my-deja.com
> Larry Kessler wrote:
> >
> > Because there are times and conditions
> > when CW will get through the noise and
> > interference when nothing else will.
>
> And how often if that, Larry? Once per every 100 contacts? Once
per
> every 1000 contacts? In other words, lets not over state this
> "perceived" advantage. In the overwhelming majority of cases, voice
> will get through just fine. That is why voice is so widely used, and
>CW is not.
Actually, the reason voice is widely used, and CW is not, is because
people are used to voice, and are AFFRAID of learning CW.
I admit it. I use voice most of the time because I have to run 100%
mobile, and any time I do CW I have to concentrate enough that I'd run
myself off the road.
And then there's the power aspect. You don't need a kilowatt of juice
to pump a CW signal through in most circumstances.
Plus, I've been there when the SunSpot cycle is at its flattest. CW is
sometimes a god-send then.
Robert
N6GKY
Jon Johnson
This thread has gone on for quite some time, but I don't believe Mr.
Code has been asked his opinion.
Old Biker
There is nothing wrong with enjoying code and there should continue to
be bands set aside for it, just like we have special seasons for those
who hunt with bow and arrow.
OTOH, there is nothing magic about it either. Any advantage it may have
can be easily realised by software and equipment that automatically
generates code as typed on a keyboard. The main reason this isn't more
popular is most code "experts" have such poor fists that machines cannot
copy their transmissions.
Can't we simply leave code to those who enjoy it and move on?
73deKA3DWW
bobby
T
H
E
R
E
A
R
E
A
F
E
W
A
D
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
S
T
O
V
O
I
C
E
Beside data rate there are subtle things like voice inflection.
I'd like to get HF but code is just unrecognized beeps to me,
and a small waste of money for useless cassette tapes...
73 Bobby
Dick Carroll wrote in message <8p1p3p$srp$0...@208.206.142.87>...
>
>
>Tracey-Levin wrote:
>
>> Morse code is a means of holding down the number of people involved in
ham
>> radio. Thats all it is. It keeps out the CB crowd, but its really a
dumb,
>> old fart concept.
>> If you want to limit the numbers of participants in this hobby, copy the
>> methods used by law and medical schools.
>>
>> Morse Code is just dumb.
>>
>> Tracey Levin
>
> You ever think of learning a basic method of communications, with which
you may
>communicate without complex equipment, when other, more modern means just
are
>not available?
> Probably not. That makes YOU dumb, not he communications mode known as
>radiotelegraph code..
>
>
Larry Saletzki
not respond to such a crude title. But if you happened to be watching the
World news in the last few weeks the last thing heard from the sailors in
the Russian Submarine was tapped out on it's hull in morse code. NO maybe
you may never find yourself in a sunken submarine about ready to drown...
but someday maybe you will be trapped under a fallen road span after an
earth quake or buried under rubble in the path of a tornado... and with no
way to communicate except the tapping of a soda can.... Then let's see you
say F*** morse code.... What a narrow mind. Larry WA9VRH
Jon Johnson <Jon.J...@Telocity.com> wrote in message
news:39B7E530...@Telocity.com...
Barry D
news:8p9chf$25e$1...@news.dpc.net...
> I didn't see the message that prompted this response and nominally I would
> not respond to such a crude title. But if you happened to be watching the
> World news in the last few weeks the last thing heard from the sailors in
> the Russian Submarine was tapped out on it's hull in morse code. NO maybe
> you may never find yourself in a sunken submarine about ready to drown...
> but someday maybe you will be trapped under a fallen road span after an
> earth quake or buried under rubble in the path of a tornado... and with no
> way to communicate except the tapping of a soda can.... Then let's see you
> say F*** morse code.... What a narrow mind. Larry WA9VRH
>
I think the report of sailors tapping out morse code to the rescuers was a
bogus piece of info from the russians.
Probably morse code has outlived it's usefulness, I think it should simply
be considered another mode of operation in amateur radio and should not be a
qualification.
Barry D.
Dwight Stewart
robe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Actually, the reason voice is widely
> used, and CW is not, is because
> people are used to voice, and are
> AFFRAID of learning CW.
If you mean that they're afraid (one "f"), I don't think so, Robert.
The simple fact is that very few people have the time to devote to
learning code, or very few are willing to devote the time to learning code.
We live in a very busy world, with long work hours, chores, family
requirements, volunteer activities, an abundance of recreation
(television, computers, etc), and a nearly endless list of social
activities. Right or wrong, people today are simply choosing to spend
their time on other things instead of learning code. In other words,
they are not willing to take time away from those other activities to
learn code because they value those other activities more than they
value code.
So, unless the world suddenly slows down, or code increases in value
in the eyes of those people, that situation is not likely to change in
the future.
Dwight Stewart
Larry Saletzki wrote:
>
> I didn't see the message that prompted
> this response and nominally I would
> not respond to such a crude title.
> But if you happened to be watching the
> World news in the last few weeks the
> last thing heard from the sailors in
> the Russian Submarine was tapped out
> on it's hull in morse code.
Don't read these newsgroups very often, do you, Larry? This topic has
been discussed in length in the rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroup. If
you had read those discussions, you would have seen that the reports of
sailers tapping code on the hull were wrong. It appears that this
report was the result of someone's overactive imagination - later
corrected by officials in Russia, and reported in several publications
(links were given in the other newsgroup).
Dan K Nelson
news:zlYt5.159869$c5.41...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
And even if you were trapped under a pile of rubble in a quake or tornado,
ANY type of tapping noise that could be heard would get you the help you
need. You could even beat out you own rendition of a favorite song... as
long as you could make SOME kind of noise...
73 de W6DKN
jamesr...@my-deja.com
I know, I just couldn't resist! The whole thing gets silly at times
and I just had a brain spasm and had to add the comment to the silly
response!
Wishing you all the best (really) from Rochester, NY
Jim (AA2QA)
Old Biker
> We live in a very busy world, with long work hours, chores, family
> requirements, volunteer activities, an abundance of recreation
> (television, computers, etc), and a nearly endless list of social
> activities. Right or wrong, people today are simply choosing to spend
> their time on other things instead of learning code. In other words,
> they are not willing to take time away from those other activities to
> learn code because they value those other activities more than they
Thank you for your well reasoned post.
Fact is the "value" of code, and amateur radio, has diminished over the
years. The ability to build a rig and communicate with people all over
the world was extremely valuable when radio was new and a long distance
call might cost a days pay but now we do all that over the internet with
no investment in long hours of study or practice. It's as unreasonable
to expect a person brought up on the internet to learn code as it is to
demand that we homebrew all our transcievers. The Romans had a god "Dis
Pater" (Father Time) who constantly created things then ate them. We
became "appliance hams" and now "welfare hams". That's life ....
73deKA3DWW
jamesr...@my-deja.com
no cents key on modern keyboards!) to this thread. Even IF (and there
isn't, I assure you) there was a cause/effect - bear in mind what work
is. It is a product which includes TIME. In other words, 1000 watts
for 10 minutes is the same as 100 watts for 100 minutes or 10 watts for
1000 minutes. How many hams are there in the US? Half a million? How
many are inactive (or dead)? In Monroe county, NY, the Rochester
Amateur Radio Association has a couple hundred members. How many
hams? I don't know, but I doubt it is more than a few thousand. Many
may only use VHF/UHF and are likely at or below 50 watts. Myself, I
simply use an HT (1 or 2.5 watts). That is around what a cell phone
uses. I would submit there are a heck of a lot more cell phone users
than VHF/UHF ham operators - and I see them yakking at the supermarket
and at work all the time! Then there are the HF hams. How many
active? A couple of hundred - maybe. Ok, say there are a thousand
(and I doubt that). How much power? Most are using 100 watt HF rigs.
A very few are running kilowatts. How often? A couple of days a
week? How long? An hour or two at a time? Now, look at WHAM, a
commercial broadcast station. 50,000 watts, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. That is only one of many AM broadcast stations in our area.
Then there are the FM transmitters. A dozen, perhaps? How much
power? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Oh yes, television! Channel 8,
10, 13, 21, 31, and two UHF stations I don't watch. What is the
effective radiated power of those things? 100,000 watts each? 16
hours a day, 7 days a week. The total combined power of the hams
wouldn't reach these levels - and the hams are on the air a combined
total of what percent? 0.5? This thing is insane. Also, any time you
think the hams (or CBers who probably have more amps on the air at any
time than all the hams combined) can effect the weather - and what
about the commercial stations - just wait for a sun storm. You will
see one sun storm wipe out all of the communications all over the
globe. You give man more credit than he will ever be worth when it
comes to affecting the weather with radio waves.
Oh, shucks! My darn washing machine is oversudsing. I have to go.
Must be some ham radio operator affecting the machine.
73s,
Jim AA2QA
Dwight Stewart
jamesr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I hope you guys don't mind my adding
> my 2 cents worth (hey, there ain't
> no cents key on modern keyboards!)
> to this thread.
Sure there is ( ¢ ). Its some keystroke combination of the dollar key
(alt, alt-shift, etc). On my Mac, it's the "option-4" keystroke
combination. Don't know what it is on the PC, but I'm sure its there.
Of course, I'm not absolutely sure the character I typed will show up
correctly on your screen - often the Macs and PCs use slightly different
ASCII codes for these odd characters, so it may show up on your screen
as garbage.
> Even IF (and there isn't, I assure you)
> there was a cause/effect [snip]
Spent way too much time on this already. I'll pass.
> Oh, shucks! My darn washing machine is
> oversudsing. I have to go. Must be some
> ham radio operator affecting the machine.
Oh no, another myth to debunk. Oversudsing is not caused by stray RF
energy - it is caused by over-zealous people (often male) who think that
if a little laundry soap will get it clean, a little more will get it
even cleaner.
It seems to be mainly a "guy-thing," probably caused by conditioning
during our endless quest to get that bolt just a little tighter (usually
until the bolt breaks), or that barbeque grill just a little hotter
(until flames are shooting fifty feet into the air).
We're not sure why some women also put too much soap in the machine,
but I suspect it has somthing to do with sex in the bedroom. But I'll
just leave that theory to your imagination.
Richard McCollum
<jamesr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8pbqaq> >
news:8p8g2q$uh7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > >
> > > Fact: Skywarn is not activated unless and until severe weather is
> > > already in the area. Effect or Cause?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
I don know, Jim. Then how come a contest seems to cause a band opening??
Dick N0BK
Kenn
want it all right now without any extra effort on my part" - If the time
ever comes where the satellite communications are gone - CW will still exist
for communications - PS FWIW, The military still requires the learning of
morse code - the only thing they stopped was the broadcasting of reports in
CW.
jamesr...@my-deja.com
communications are scheduled, the moon becomes visible at both
locations! Good heavens, this is even bigger than I thought!
Keith Wood
Which military would that be, Kevin? How many WPM do they require? For
which specialty tracks?
Last I heard, the only CW net on the USDOD roster was on ELF, and that
is computer-to-computer.
Kenn
types of communications modes are used. CW has been and will always be the
backup mode for the DOD. When all else fails, and static fills the airways
you can ALWAYS modulate the static for communication. And for the record,
it's 22 WPM.
"Keith Wood" <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message
news:39BAA12C...@bctv.com...
Will
de Will KD7BFX
Dwight Stewart
Kenn wrote:
>
> [snip] The military still requires the
> learning of morse code - the only thing
> they stopped was the broadcasting of
> reports in CW.
Sorry, Ken, but CW has completely, or almost completely, disappeared
in the military. No current communications MOS (job) training requires
a knowledge of code (contrary to your claim above) and there is
certainly no widespread use of code by military personnel.
By the way, a few people in this newsgroup have claimed that code is
still used by special forces units, but this claim has not been verified
by any reliable source (special forces units typically refuse to discuss
training or operations).
Gord Skiffington
thing (morse using cw) to the "instant gratification" crowd. Sure had
to laugh though as I read your attempts, thinking to myself, "what a
good idea"....the military isn't stupid.....work hard at getting the
general populace and commercial users to abandon the thing......get the
expertise OUT of general circulation.....then by gosh we'll (military)
have something special once again (even if for backup)!
I can hear the laughter......but was the joke understood?
73 - Gord Skiffington - VE1AJF
Gary Coffman
>Kenn wrote:
>>
>> [snip] The military still requires the
>> learning of morse code - the only thing
>> they stopped was the broadcasting of
>> reports in CW.
>
>
> Sorry, Ken, but CW has completely, or almost completely, disappeared
>in the military. No current communications MOS (job) training requires
>a knowledge of code (contrary to your claim above) and there is
>certainly no widespread use of code by military personnel.
Not quite true. Navy signalmen (the blinking lamp guys) still have to
know Morse, but radiomen (all branches) are no longer required to
know Morse.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
Gary Coffman
>Last I heard, the only CW net on the USDOD roster was on ELF, and that
>is computer-to-computer.
That's MSK (Minimum Shift Keyed), not CW, and it is convolutionally encoded,
not Morse encoded.
Kenn
"Gary Coffman" <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:f95nrssr15qks05ff...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:55:58 -0400, Dwight Stewart <stew...@sccoast.net>
wrote:
> >Kenn wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip] The military still requires the
> >> learning of morse code - the only thing
> >> they stopped was the broadcasting of
> >> reports in CW.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, Ken, but CW has completely, or almost completely, disappeared
> >in the military. No current communications MOS (job) training requires
> >a knowledge of code (contrary to your claim above) and there is
> >certainly no widespread use of code by military personnel.
code, however comma, the requirement of code is still in place for personnel
in key communications positions. These positions are not listed in your
recruiting guides, but as I said , are used for backup communications in
case of total loss of electronics. I never said there was widespread use by
all military, just that CW will always be the DOD's backup. I checked with a
special communication SPECOM acquaintance and was assured that CW is alive
and well in the military. On a special note - in the movie "Independence
Day", after the aliens destroyed the communications satellites and the cell
phones and internet no longer worked, the long range communications were
handled with CW - This is still the universal language - I can still "talk"
to a ham in Botswana w/o any knowledge of his language, and he with me. Say
what you will, but the facts speak for themselves. Even the internet was
invented for the DOD for backup communications, but they still haven't
improved on the simple effectiveness of CW transmissions. - BTAR
Keith Wood
Kenn wrote:
>
> "Gary Coffman" <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:f95nrssr15qks05ff...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:55:58 -0400, Dwight Stewart <stew...@sccoast.net>
> wrote:
> > >Kenn wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [snip] The military still requires the
> > >> learning of morse code - the only thing
> > >> they stopped was the broadcasting of
> > >> reports in CW.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, Ken, but CW has completely, or almost completely, disappeared
> > >in the military. No current communications MOS (job) training requires
> > >a knowledge of code (contrary to your claim above) and there is
> > >certainly no widespread use of code by military personnel.
> You are correct that no MOS or NEC (job) training requires a knowledge of
> code, however comma, the requirement of code is still in place for personnel
> in key communications positions.
Hmmmmmmmm . . .
They don't train code for any MOS, but key positions require it . . ?
That sounds to me like there is a dwindling pool of people to fill those
key positions . . .
> These positions are not listed in your recruiting guides,
If they exist, they will still be on the MOS list, with a written set of
performance requirements. Please provide MOS numbers.
> but as I said , are used for backup communications in case of total loss of electronics.
How are you going to send and recieve CW without electronics?
Heliograph? Or maybe a chain of Navy ships will sit on stations across
the Pacific to flash light signals from San Francisco to Hawaii . . ?
> I never said there was widespread use by all military, just that CW will always be the DOD's backup.
You might actually be right about this -- but you have completely failed
to prove your assertions.
> I checked with a special communication SPECOM acquaintance and was assured that CW is alive and well in the military.
Please provide his grade, MOS and unit for verification.
> On a special note - in the movie "Independence
> Day", after the aliens destroyed the communications satellites and the cell
> phones and internet no longer worked, the long range communications were
> handled with CW -
That movie was fiction. Starting with the little green guys and ending
with a president flying a fighter. I worked with the guys who wrote and
produced it (when they did "Universal Soldier"). They're great guys,
but neither of them has any military communications experience.
> This is still the universal language - I can still "talk" to a ham in Botswana w/o any knowledge of his language, and he with me.
I fail to see how "mbooga rajo shas xxonx" would make any more sense in
Morse than over phone . . .
Kenn
military that do not appear on MOS codes - I don't know what military you
were in or how high up in the organization, but my guess is you weren't very
high up on the food chain. If you want to go on believing everything is
black and white vote for the big "W" in the next election. PS - If you were
the communications expert you seem to claim to be you would know what BTAR
meant.news:39BBDE4F...@bctv.com...
Dan/W4NTI
k...@bctv.com wrote:
> Morse than over phone . . .
>
Q and Z signals. All internationally known and understood.
Dan/W4NTI
--
"Just tellin the truth, and they cain't stand it."
Keith Wood
Kenn wrote:
>
> Sorry son, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are many things in the military that do not appear on MOS codes
Sorry, "son," this sounds just like the standard "it's classified, so
you wouldn't have heard of it" line used by people who Really Weren't
There, whenever they are asked to provide any fixed details. The
hostility to any request for details is also common from RWT's, a
defense mechanism to jingle-jangle.
The fact is that, if it is officially there, it's in the book somewhere,
someone's ERs depend on it, and it won't be a secret. If it isn't
officially there, it's a HOBBY, not doctrine.
>- I don't know what military you
> were in or how high up in the organization, but my guess is you weren't very
> high up on the food chain.
Your guess is wrong. I'm high enough in the food chain to be able to
verify your information -- except for the minor detail that you haven't
given any.
Keith Wood
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
>
> In article <39BBDE4F...@bctv.com>,
> k...@bctv.com wrote:
>
> > Morse than over phone . . .
> >
> Q and Z signals. All internationally known and understood.
Your point is taken but if the answer to "QRZ?" is "mbooga rajo shas
xxonx," the answer to "QRU?" is "mbooga rajo shas xxonx," and you give a
9-minute, 23-second explanation about your house, car, dog, kids and
gallstone removal, then get "mbooga rajo shas xxonx" as a response, have
you REALLY established communication . . ? ;)
Gord Skiffington
those good Q signals (I understand the Z sigs were mostly military as
they weren't part of a merchant R/O's training, nor Amateur). The query
QRZ? would receive the same reply regardless of language QRZ callsign.
QRA? would receive the reply QRA name (of vessel etc). Of course if the
person at the other end doesn't use 'em correctly - nothing will work
(nor any computer system either). You could inquire QOD1? (Can you
communicate with me in English for example) if plain language other than
routine traffic passing was desired. Those darn Q sigs worked amazingly
well.....I remember on 2 occasions working foreign merchant coast
stations (we're talking late 1980's here) who could not speak any
english in one case and limited in the other......no problem, call,
reply, wait your turn is......go up to freq pair.....ready to
receive.....what is your accounting authority....any more traffic.....2
telephone calls with numbers.....<next heard dialtone and calls to
Canada>...back to morse....finished....1 more message.....received
ok....no more traffic.....and then somehow we all seemed to understand
cul or seeu and a couple o' dits.
There was lots of good stuff there never carried over to modern
communications - I can hear the groaners lighting their complaining
flames now.
73 - Gord VE1AJF
Dwight Stewart
Kenn wrote:
>
> You are correct that no MOS or NEC (job)
> training requires a knowledge of
> code, however comma, the requirement
> of code is still in place for personnel
> in key communications positions. These
> positions are not listed in your
> recruiting guides, but as I said , are
> used for backup communications in
> case of total loss of electronics. I
> never said there was widespread use by
> all military, just that CW will
> always be the DOD's backup. I checked
> with a special communication SPECOM
> acquaintance and was assured that CW
> is alive and well in the military.
Not according to the Navy's Communications Technology Branch, Kenn
(the branch which sets Navy communications policy and procedures). When
I contacted them a couple of years ago, a representative of their public
affairs department was not aware of any code use in the Navy, nor was he
able to find anyone in that facility that was aware of any code use. In
other words, as far as he could tell, code was a thing of the past in
the Navy.
I even asked about your notion of code used as a backup for regular
communications. His response was that it would be a poor backup since
nobody would know how to use it. However, he did state that there was
probably reference material on most vessels that explained code, as well
as material possibly available for most communications personnel, so it
might be possible to use code as a last resort, but he was not aware of
any set procedure for this.
As for the other branches, it appears to be the same situation - code
has been eliminated. In the Army, for example, code was eliminated as a
training requirement almost thirty-five years ago. I know this both
from my experience as a radio operator in the Army (MOS 31M) and from
recently talking to the education director at the Army's Signal School
at Ft. Gordon.
So, contrary to your acquaintance's claim, CW is not "alive and well"
in the military.
jamesr...@my-deja.com
the dates when morse was eliminated - I joined the US Navy in 1967 -
and became a radioman (since my other options were either a 6 year
commitment for communications technician or electronics technician, or
become a hospital corpsman which they deperately needed in Vietnam).
They had a morse code requirement which at the time had either been
dropped to 16 WPM or dropped down from 16 WPM. Which, I cannot recall
as I turned in one page of perfect copy at 40 WPM and was promptly
dropped (passing, of course) from the class. In 1967 there was a code
requirement but it was being phased out at that time. I heard a lot of
complaints from radiomen that had their high - speed endorsement (which
meant extra pay IF they used it in their job) who were NOT being
utilized. At that time, teletype had pretty much taken over most of
the traffic (electronic encryption being applied, naturally). I wish I
knew when they dropped all requirements, but I can assure you that
there WAS a requirement in 1967 which was in the process of being
watered down, eventually to be phased out. Quite frankly, there are
digital modes which can result in perfect copy in conditions that I
doubt morse code could be copied (at least by a human) at any
reasonable speed (say over 10 WPM - which is very slow). Hopefully,
all of us can get beyond the realization that it is over - CW as a
requirement is done - and get on with our lives.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
Keith Wood
jamesr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Hopefully,
> all of us can get beyond the realization that it is over - CW as a
> requirement is done - and get on with our lives.
Some people see CW as their only true skill -- they got through the
Theory by memory tricks. They don't realize that being a good OPERATOR
is more important than what MODE they use.
Old Biker
>
> Our society is reduced to "I saw it, I wanted it, I whined, I got it" and "I
> want it all right now without any extra effort on my part"
That's only partly true. The rest of it comprises selfish people who
believe that everybody should suffer whatever hardship they suffered. If
they got a sunburn, everybody otta have a sunburn. If they got cancer,
everybody should have cancer. If they had to learn code, everybody ....
- If the time
> ever comes where the satellite communications are gone - CW will still exist...
And when BICs and matches all go away, dry sticks ...
agi...@cvn.net
>
> Kenn wrote:
> >
> > You are correct that no MOS or NEC (job)
> > training requires a knowledge of
> > code, however comma, the requirement
> > of code is still in place for personnel
> > in key communications positions. These
>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> As for the other branches, it appears to be the same situation - code
> has been eliminated. In the Army, for example, code was eliminated as a
> training requirement almost thirty-five years ago. I know this both
> from my experience as a radio operator in the Army (MOS 31M) and from
> recently talking to the education director at the Army's Signal School
> at Ft. Gordon.
>
> So, contrary to your acquaintance's claim, CW is not "alive and well"
> in the military.
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net
35 years ago would be 1965. I joined the army on June 13th, 1966 as a
radio
operator ( MOS 05B). I spent 6 weeks at Ft Jackson, SC learning radio
prodedures, equipment operating, and CW to the required speed of 15
groups (based on groups of 5 random characters) per minute. Since I had
mastered the code that fast, I was sent to Ft Gordon, GA for 8 weeks to
be a Radio Teletype Operator (MOS 05C). We learned RTTY procedures,
more radio equipment (how many folks remember the old AN/GRC-26's or
GRC-46's), and had to maintain the code speed at 15 groups per minute or
better.
I went to Viet Nam in March of 1967 with the 53rd Signal Battalion. As
well
as the Radio teletype and voice nets, we maintained three CW nets. The
OM's
on those nets always slowed down to 15 GPM when a new OP hit the air,
but it wasn't long before we were cruising between 20 - 25 GPM. When I
made corporal in 1968, I had my first Skill Qualification Test and had
to test out at the 'slow' speed of 15 GPM.
Up until I changed MOS to 34H in 1980, I had to take that SQT every year
and pass that test at 15 GPM. I still had the 05C4J2H MOS when I
changed. I retired from the Army in 1988 and the 05C was still listed
as my secondary MOS.
So my friend, I don't know whether the fellow you talked to had any
historical knowledge of Army communications or not, but I was there when
they wrote the book and I have my official papers to prove it. I didn't
pay close attention to what happened to the radio MOS's after I
transfered to 34H, but I know what happened prior to that.
My last assignment was with 7th Signal Cmd at Ft Ritchie, MD. I had an
E6 and an E5 05C working for me and they both still had to take the
SQT. As I was retiring, the Army did a massive consolidation of MOS
qualifiers. The 05 MOS's were rolled up into the 31 skill sets and my
34H became a 29J. I can tell you that code was used far after "35 years
ago".
Tony -- KF3BX
Dwight Stewart
jamesr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip] I wish I knew when they dropped all
> requirements, but I can assure you that
> there WAS a requirement in 1967 which
> was in the process of being watered down,
> eventually to be phased out. [snip]
Don't know enough about the Navy to help (my dad was Navy early in his
carrer, but switched to Air Force mid career). I know when I went to
the Army's Signal School in the early 70's (from memory, March through
May, I think), code was pretty much gone. At least is was gone in my
MOS, and in the two MOS's of my room mates.
Anyway, assuming that all the branches dropped it at about the same
time, it looks like it happened sometime in the very late 60's to very
early 70's. So, I guess 30 years ago would be a better estimate.