LEARN CW AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE!
Roland Stiner
>Just thought that you hams might like to know that your
>stubborn neo-fanatacisim over keeping 150 year old morse code has
>kept two of my associates, each of whom has a Masters in electrical
>engineering, away from your ham radio hobby as they feel that learning a
>150 year old mode of communications in 1997 is a complete waste of valuable
>time.
I did not know that learning the code made you a fanatic... That's news
to me.
---
OLX 1.53 PRIVATE REPLY? E-MAIL ME AT: NK...@JUNO.COM
--
|Fidonet: Roland Stiner 1:2604/151
|Internet: Roland...@cybernet.magsystems.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Gerald Schmitt
In <c8b_970...@magsystems.com>
Roland...@cybernet.magsystems.com (Roland Stiner) writes:
>
>
>>Just thought that you hams might like to know that your
>>stubborn neo-fanatacisim over keeping 150 year old morse code has
>>kept two of my associates, each of whom has a Masters in electrical
>>engineering, away from your ham radio hobby as they feel that
learning a
>>150 year old mode of communications in 1997 is a complete waste of
valuable
>>time.
>
>I did not know that learning the code made you a fanatic... That's
news
>to me.
Apparently in some cases it does. There is hope though. A number of us
have passed the code and still think stand alone code testing should be
done away with. Before you heros tell me to just shut up and learn the
code please check a current call book. Thank you.
Jerry
Patrick Cook
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Robert Casey wrote:
> CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
> excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
> theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
> the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
> I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
> communicating anything.
Vulgarity aside, I'll agree with you to a point here, however....
> I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
> upgraded (antenna restrictions).
Have you ever thought of operating QRP voice??? Believe it or not, you
can. Think about it. Working someone on 80m voice with nothing more than
a wire for an antenna (properly tuned, of course).
Food for thought, perhaps....
73's for now my friend!! :-)
Patrick Cook, KB0OXD
pat...@dimensional.com
Denver, Colorado
Robert Casey
CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
communicating anything.
I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
upgraded (antenna restrictions).
Joe Nihen
Joe Nihen
ko4qc
Robert Casey wrote:
>
> CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
> excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
> theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
> the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
> I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
> communicating anything.
>
> I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
> upgraded (antenna restrictions).
serious enough about the hobby to apply themselves.I would be in favor
of dropping the CW requirements but ONLY if replaced by a much more
technical set of theory/operating exams.
Any time I have second thoughts about this I tune to 11 mtrs and to a
lesser extent,2 mtr.Not much difference,at least in this area.
Ko4qC
Robert Casey
In article <3353C6...@concentric.net> ko...@concentric.net writes:
>Robert Casey wrote:
>>
>> CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
>> excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
>> theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
>> the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
>> I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
>> communicating anything.
>>
>> I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
>> upgraded (antenna restrictions).
> CW is the best thing we have to keep the bands free of those who arent
>serious enough about the hobby to apply themselves.I would be in favor
>of dropping the CW requirements but ONLY if replaced by a much more
>technical set of theory/operating exams.
How about a scheme where I could upgrade from tech + to general if
I take and pass the advanced theory test?
Jim Cummings
ko4qc wrote:
>
> Robert Casey wrote:
> >
> > CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
> > excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
> > theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
> > the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
> > I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
> > communicating anything.
> >
> > I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
> > upgraded (antenna restrictions).
> CW is the best thing we have to keep the bands free of those who arent
> serious enough about the hobby to apply themselves.
However, since it doesn't work as a filter, then it should be
discontinued. One does not cure the problem with even more application
of an inappropriate remedy.
> I would be in favor
> of dropping the CW requirements but ONLY if replaced by a much more
> technical set of theory/operating exams.
For what purpose? Amateur certification is not a "worthiness" test, it
is a means to ensure that amateurs will not interfere with other users on
on the band. Even if the examinations were toughened, so to speak, the
problems will still remain the same - most of the percieved problems is
due to behaviour, not to lack of technical skill. That being the case,
to what end would there being in having a tougher technical examination?
> Any time I have second thoughts about this I tune to 11 mtrs and to a
> lesser extent,2 mtr.Not much difference,at least in this area.
In so far as the CB band is concerned, trying to compare it to the
amateur bands is like trying to compare apples and oranges. On the other
hand, if the 2 metre band has devolved into something that is unpleasant,
what are you doing to make it better. It is somewhat amusing that many
of my amateur brethern make a lot of complaints, but depend on the
government to fix all their percieved problems.
> Ko4qC
73 and live better digitally
Jim, VE3XJ
Bill Sohl
wa2...@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote:
>In article <3353C6...@concentric.net> ko...@concentric.net writes:
>>Robert Casey wrote:
>>>
>>> CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
>>> excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
>>> theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
>>> the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
>>> I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
>>> communicating anything.
>>>
>>> I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
>>> upgraded (antenna restrictions).
>> CW is the best thing we have to keep the bands free of those who arent
>>serious enough about the hobby to apply themselves.I would be in favor
>>of dropping the CW requirements but ONLY if replaced by a much more
>>technical set of theory/operating exams.
>How about a scheme where I could upgrade from tech + to general if
>I take and pass the advanced theory test?
Visit the nocode web site at www.nocode.org and read Len Winkler's
proposal for a Written Only General (WOG).
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Visit the No-Code WEB site: http://www.nocode.org
Jeffrey Herman
Robert Casey <wa2...@netcom.com> wrote:
>CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
>excessive amount of time to learn,
Yeah, I felt the same way about learning how to type, but the rewards
one reaps significantly outweigh the time spent learning.
If you're a TV watcher, practice a bit of code during commercials.
That should give you about 10 minutes per hour, or about 40 minutes
per night.
You can also practice during your commute to and from work via tapes;
it's no more of a distraction than listening to the car radio.
Jeff
UN93B
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:20:00 -0400, ko4qc <ko...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>Robert Casey wrote:
>>
>> CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
>> excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
>> theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
>> the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
>> I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
>> communicating anything.
>>
>> I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
>> upgraded (antenna restrictions).
> CW is the best thing we have to keep the bands free of those who arent
>serious enough about the hobby to apply themselves.I would be in favor
>of dropping the CW requirements but ONLY if replaced by a much more
>technical set of theory/operating exams.
> Any time I have second thoughts about this I tune to 11 mtrs and to a
>lesser extent,2 mtr.Not much difference,at least in this area.
> Ko4qC
Even with the code requirement, bad apples still slip through.
Would'nt you agree?
Brett
Tony T. Hwang
In article <wa2iseE8...@netcom.com>,
wa2...@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote:
>In article <3353C6...@concentric.net> ko...@concentric.net writes:
>>Robert Casey wrote:
>>>
>>> CW is one of those annoying "motor skills" things that eat up an
>>> excessive amount of time to learn, as compared with learning radio
>>> theory. It kept me out of ham radio about 5 years untill I learned
>>> the damm thing in 1976 and went down to the FCC and took the exam.
>>> I used CW like once or twice. It's too slow and combersome for
>>> communicating anything.
>>>
>>> I live in an apartment, so I couldn't do much on HF even if I
>>> upgraded (antenna restrictions).
>> CW is the best thing we have to keep the bands free of those who arent
>>serious enough about the hobby to apply themselves.I would be in favor
>>of dropping the CW requirements but ONLY if replaced by a much more
>>technical set of theory/operating exams.
>
>How about a scheme where I could upgrade from tech + to general if
>I take and pass the advanced theory test?
Why not all the way upto Extra, Eh?
Pat Bingham
But in your case Jerry, you have not passed enough of it.
Pat K5AO
mondoray
Lets pretend...
I'm 23 years old with summa cum laude from MIT. It just so happens I'm
interested in HF antenna design. BUT - I need to learn CW to get a
license so I can experiment and get published.
Hello?
What's more important - SQL SERVER, Pascal, MS C++, RITTY or CW???
What "filter" do we need? Can I learn 20 wpm of CW and be an as*ho*e on
HF like some of the others, or be able to experiment? Or do I "have to
pay my dues" to a 19th century communications standard?
Bonus points: Suppose I know the Electrical Standards from 1910
Cleveland, Ohio? Do I get an Electrical Contractors license through the
"Grandfathers" clause? If I know how to fix "Gas Lamps" can I be an
electrician? Would you hire me? At $85/hour? Would this be a "filter"?
N1XNC
WA8ULX
Sounds like you have the Ability to learn CW, if you dont want to, do your
Ant design work on VHF, and UHF.
Gerald Schmitt
Please explain. What is enough? Specifically how much should I pass and
why? I have the HF access I need for my interests. I certainly don't
feel a urge to expand my horizons in the CW portions of the bands. The
little snippets of the phone portions reserved for Extras seem for the
most part to be abandoned.
When I came into this hobby I had an interest in CW as a part of the
hobby. Attitudes like yours and Ronland's and others have taught me the
error of my ways. If the people you meet on CW are anything like the
procode fools that inhabit these news groups why on earth would anyone
ever want to converse with them. You boys failed to run me off of
amateur radio but you sure did one fine job of running me, and I am
sure a number of others, off of CW. Keep up the good work then there
will be more of use to straighten out the band plan and give phone the
additional bandwidth it truly deserves.
Jerry
Jeffrey Herman
mondoray <mond...@netway1.netway.com> wrote:
>Lets pretend...
>
>I'm 23 years old with summa cum laude from MIT. It just so happens I'm
>interested in HF antenna design. BUT - I need to learn CW to get a
>license so I can experiment and get published.
If you're interested in research you don't need a license. Just find a
ham nearby to assist you with on-the-air testing. (I suspect very few
researchers at Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, MFJ, et al, are licensed hams.)
>What's more important - SQL SERVER, Pascal, MS C++, RITTY or CW???
To whom? Out of the above list, CW is the most important item to me.
>What "filter" do we need? Can I learn 20 wpm of CW and be an as*ho*e on
>HF like some of the others, or be able to experiment? Or do I "have to
>pay my dues" to a 19th century communications standard?
You might note that those behaving as a**holes are using a 20th
century communications mode called SSB, not CW.
Jeff KH2PZ
WA8ULX
I dont understand why these guys would want to ever use Phone on HFits
ancient also and Im sure they would Prefer Digital Modes. So lets just
make a Real HF written Test, and let all these peoplewho want to use
Modern Digital Techs, operate only Modern Digital Modes, and prohibit
there use of Ancient Modes such as CW or of Course Phone.
Gary Coffman
Get rid of the archaic 300 baud speed limit and the 1 kHz occupied
bandwidth limit for digital methods on HF and I bet you'd get lots
of takers.
We can do robust digital voice in 2400 bps (better performance than
SSB in noise and interference, but only occupying 1.2 kHz of spectrum).
Let us use SS at whatever speed we can fit into the band, and we can do
not only robust, but also very high fidelity, voice, really decent rate
data transmissions, and even MPEG-II video movies (and suffer less
mutual interference doing it than with present methods).
Of course, RF is RF, regardless of information encoding method used,
so we need a "Real HF written Test" for *every* HF operator anyway.
There's no reason that demonstrating Pavlovian conditioning in regard
to tone sequences should exempt you from that. If you want to take an
additional Morse speed exam in order to run archaic old OOK Morse, I
guess you can, though it seems to me that the only Morse test that
matters is the one you pass or fail every time you attempt to make
an OOK Morse contact.
In the post-WWII history of amateur radio, I haven't heard of even one
NAL being issued for slow or sloppy Morse (though NALs have been issued
for chirp and hum, but Morse conditioning doesn't address that, radio
knowledge does). So I doubt Morse conditioning is a matter of real concern
to the government (especially today when it no longer has any training value
to the nation).
It's really a very self-limiting issue. If you can do Morse well, you will.
If you can't, you'll either improve or quit trying to use Morse. Either way,
you don't present a problem to the government, or other spectrum users, so
formal speed tests are redundant and serve no useful purpose.
The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare state
purpose of artificial life support for a text encoding method which its
supporters apparently believe can't stand on its own merits. Such subsidies
are always counterproductive. They impede progress by distorting natural
darwinian competition. That distortion, and the attitudes from which it
derives, has already reduced amateur radio (as the lone Morse holdout in
the modern world) to the status of communications backwater.
Our licensing system incentivizes Morse speed to the extent that it
is the highest aspiration toward which an amateur can reach. That's
clearly absurd, and directly counter to the charter purposes of the
amateur radio service.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
K0...@usa.net
Gary Coffman wrote:
> In the post-WWII history of amateur radio, I haven't heard of even one
> NAL being issued for slow or sloppy Morse.....
My one and only "pink slip" from the FCC came for sending Morse
too *fast*!
My repeater ID was clocked at 24WPM, and the speed limit was
(perhaps still is) 20WPM.
73, de Hans
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Paul Keinänen
ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>In article <19970418113...@ladder01.news.aol.com> wa8...@aol.com (WA8ULX) writes:
>>I dont understand why these guys would want to ever use Phone on HFits
>>ancient also and Im sure they would Prefer Digital Modes. So lets just
>>make a Real HF written Test, and let all these peoplewho want to use
>>Modern Digital Techs, operate only Modern Digital Modes, and prohibit
>>there use of Ancient Modes such as CW or of Course Phone.
>
>Get rid of the archaic 300 baud speed limit and the 1 kHz occupied
>bandwidth limit for digital methods on HF and I bet you'd get lots
>of takers.
Is this restriction maintained as a request by the ARRL or does the
FCC have a genuine interest to maintain that restriction and what is
the motivation in that case ?
Paul OH3LWR
Roger, W6VZV
Gary Coffman wrote:
>
>
> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare >state
> purpose of artificial life support for a text encoding method >which its
> supporters apparently believe can't stand on its own merits. Such >subsidies
> are always counterproductive. They impede progress by distorting >natural
> darwinian competition. That distortion, and the attitudes from >which it
> derives, has already reduced amateur radio (as the lone Morse >holdout in
> the modern world) to the status of communications backwater.
>
> Our licensing system incentivizes Morse speed to the extent that >it
> is the highest aspiration toward which an amateur can reach. >That's
> clearly absurd, and directly counter to the charter purposes of >the
> amateur radio service.
>
> Gary
A superb post, Gary. Very well said, very well indeed.
--
Roger J. Buffington
W6VZV (a non Morse-code using extra class ham)
USC Law, Class of '97
------------------------------------------------------------
"I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather.
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers..."
------------------------------------------------------------
Warping with OS/2 Warp 4.0 and Netscape for OS/2
Michael P. Deignan
Gary Coffman wrote:
>
>
> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare state
The true purpose behind the morse code test elimination crowd is to
coddle the welfare-state "I want it all for nothing" mentality. Want
to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
the "gimme" crowd outcry faster than a welfare recipient without a check
on the 4th of the month.
The requirement exists, so "just do it" to get the privileges, or don't
do it and don't get the privileges -- its that simple.
MD
--
-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
-- with my guns.
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Bill Sohl
kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>>
>>
>> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare state
>[more blah anti blah code blah gibberish blah deleted blah]
>The true purpose behind the morse code test elimination crowd is to
>coddle the welfare-state "I want it all for nothing" mentality.
MD wants to assciate those of us that oppose continued
code testing as "welfare state" proponents yet he fails to
see that it is only the welfare state mentality of affirmative
action (by mandating code) that keeps the interest and use alive.
If that isn't true, then there is NO reason for code testing because
it will continue to be used and learned after an end to code testing.
>Want
>to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
>below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
>the "gimme" crowd outcry faster than a welfare recipient without a check
>on the 4th of the month.
If code testing at 5wpm makes no sense, why would you
expect anything but a more adamanet opposition if
20 was suggested as the requirment.
>The requirement exists, so "just do it" to get the privileges, or don't
>do it and don't get the privileges -- its that simple.
Translation, the rule exists and it thus is self justified.
As to doing it, how many times does MD need to have
it said that the majority of us opposing code testing
have already done it.
Gerald Schmitt
In <5jatha$p...@anomaly.ideamation.com> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com
(Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>>
>>
>> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare
state
>[more blah anti blah code blah gibberish blah deleted blah]
>
>The true purpose behind the morse code test elimination crowd is to
>to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
>below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and
watch
>the "gimme" crowd outcry faster than a welfare recipient without a
check
>on the 4th of the month.
>
don't
>do it and don't get the privileges -- its that simple.
>
If you can't win the debate with logic then just delete the other
side's words. A new low Mike. Beep beep.
Jerry
Gerald Schmitt
In <5jb7ri$5...@jupiter.planet.net> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare
state
>>[more blah anti blah code blah gibberish blah deleted blah]
>
>>The true purpose behind the morse code test elimination crowd is to
>>coddle the welfare-state "I want it all for nothing" mentality.
>
>code testing as "welfare state" proponents yet he fails to
>see that it is only the welfare state mentality of affirmative
>action (by mandating code) that keeps the interest and use alive.
>If that isn't true, then there is NO reason for code testing because
>it will continue to be used and learned after an end to code testing.
Au contrare Bill, MD understands it all to well which is why he deleted
Gary's well worded logical points. Perhaps his new sig line will be;
"If ya can't beat 'em delte 'em.
Jerry
>
>>Want
>>to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code
examinations
>>below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and
watch
>>the "gimme" crowd outcry faster than a welfare recipient without a
check
>>on the 4th of the month.
>
>If code testing at 5wpm makes no sense, why would you
>expect anything but a more adamanet opposition if
>20 was suggested as the requirment.
>
>>The requirement exists, so "just do it" to get the privileges, or
don't
>>do it and don't get the privileges -- its that simple.
>
Glen Quarnstrom
kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>>
>>
>> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare state
>[more blah anti blah code blah gibberish blah deleted blah]
Too bad you didn't actually read what Gary wrote. It was one of the
most logical, rational, and evenhanded things I've ever read on this
topic.
>The true purpose behind the morse code test elimination crowd is to
>coddle the welfare-state "I want it all for nothing" mentality. Want
Nonsense. You're ranting from emotion, not debating from reason.
Nothing you say is even worth reading, much less responding to.
>-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
>-- with my guns.
>--
>-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
I find your boilerplate .sig particularly interesting. There seems to
be quite a correlation between this type of bigotry and the "CW
Forever" types.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
WB7DOW @ KB7CFD.ID.USA.NOAM
Ed Legenza AA6NI
Michael P. Deignan wrote:
>
> Gary Coffman wrote:
> >
> >
> > The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare state
> [more blah anti blah code blah gibberish blah deleted blah]
>
> coddle the welfare-state "I want it all for nothing" mentality. Want
> below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
> the "gimme" crowd outcry faster than a welfare recipient without a check
> on the 4th of the month.
>
> do it and don't get the privileges -- its that simple.
>
> --
> -- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
> -- with my guns.
> --
> -- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
I don't have a problem with your opinions. Welfare state maybe, but the
gimmie crowd exists wether they are working or not. There IS a
mentality that feels everything should be their RIGHT! BS
ED AA6NI
Jeffrey Herman
kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>Want
>to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
>below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
Only if the sent text is coded groups - no plain text. Then you'll
get my vote.
Jeff KH2PZ / KH6
Gary Coffman
In article <5j76r7$1...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>mondoray <mond...@netway1.netway.com> wrote:
>>Lets pretend...
>>
>>I'm 23 years old with summa cum laude from MIT. It just so happens I'm
>>interested in HF antenna design. BUT - I need to learn CW to get a
>>license so I can experiment and get published.
>
>If you're interested in research you don't need a license. Just find a
>ham nearby to assist you with on-the-air testing. (I suspect very few
>researchers at Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, MFJ, et al, are licensed hams.)
And as usual, you'd be wrong. The RF design field is very small,
particularly the HF part of it. And it isn't a highly profitable
field to enter. Many who work in the field come to it through
their love of amateur radio. Most of those to whom it is just a
job quickly move on to more profitable endeavors.
In this field, if you stay, you're either a back marker who can't do
better for yourself, a cut and paste hack content to use the same
stale old designs year after year, or you love it so much you willingly
sacrifice career advancement and better pay to stay in it. Most of the
latter are hams. It wouldn't be very satisfying at all to such a person
to design something new and not be permitted to actually use it as it
was intended to be used. That's the real pay off.
If you look at the companies providing amateur equipment, in the
past and today, you find a ham or hams behind the products. You
really should get to Dayton some time and talk to these people.
I've met a lot of them over the years, from Art Collins to several
of the men who design today's Icom, Kenwood, and Yaesu radios.
Of course they get paid for what they do, but most of them could
earn more designing other things.
For a private person without a commercial contract, the *only* pay
one gets for designing something new for amateur radio is often
the thrill of actually using it on the air, and the satisfaction
of knowing it works just as you've predicted it would. Lots of new
amateur stuff gets its start that way, from someone who can't leave
electronics at the office, but who must do it at home in his spare
time too. Amateur packet started that way. The basis of the TNCs
sold by MFJ and PacComm came from people working at home, after
hours, because they just couldn't stop the ideas from coming.
The same for the amateur satellite builders.
Of course you can't understand that. You're so mired in the past
that you've never felt the feeling of bringing something new into
the world. It might not be much, just a particularly clever hack,
or a subtly more elegant circuit, but it is yours, something no
one else has done exactly that way before. The first time it works
is a rush that has to be experienced to be understood. But you'd
deny that rush to those who don't beep Morse.
A lady at a cocktail party once asked Issac Asimov, "How can you
think of all those crazy ideas?" He answered, "How can you not?"
To a good designer, the ideas just won't stop coming. He's driven
to build and test them. If he can't do that in amateur radio, he'll
do it somewhere else. People who would have created new things in
amateur radio now turn instead to other cutting edge fields where
there aren't artificial and irrelevant barriers thrown in their paths,
and where the watchword isn't "That's not the way great grandpappy
did it."
Thankfully, a few do hang on in amateur radio, but think how much
more we could be doing if we weren't actively trying to discourage
these people. The best pay of all is when someone says, "Neat, how
does it work?" That's heard all too infrequently today among amateurs.
>>What's more important - SQL SERVER, Pascal, MS C++, RITTY or CW???
>
>To whom? Out of the above list, CW is the most important item to me.
Figures.
>>What "filter" do we need? Can I learn 20 wpm of CW and be an as*ho*e on
>>HF like some of the others, or be able to experiment? Or do I "have to
>>pay my dues" to a 19th century communications standard?
>
>You might note that those behaving as a**holes are using a 20th
>century communications mode called SSB, not CW.
You're so smug. But you still haven't explained the strings of dits
and swishing carriers that your oh so pure CW operators use to attempt
to interfere with machine text mode transmissions. Or those who send
FU FU FU in Morse (very fast) over ongoing QSOs. It is a daily occurance,
but they must really be SSB operators in disguise, eh Jeff? They just
*couldn't* be Morse tested CW operating assholes now could they?
Yeah they could. SSB doesn't have an exclusive on this sort of
behavior. You find them operating every mode, including OOK Morse.
And if you fingerprint their transmitters, you can often find them
later signing their calls in a QSO down at the very bottom of the
band. Morse tested, Extra Class, CW operating, *assholes*.
I'd like to send a HARM missile chasing down the carrier of one
in particular who lives down in Florida. He delights in trying to
disrupt digital QSOs, then going down to the bottom of the band
and bragging about it to his CW cronies. He's one reason I'd like
to be able to use SS on HF. That would frustrate the hell out of
him, if he knew there was a SS QSO going on and he couldn't even
find it to try to jam it.
He's a lot like you, Jeff. Eavesdropping on his conversations
with his cronies (machine decoded), I've learned he's ex-merchant
marine, and hates everything newer and better than Morse. He's
also apparently ignorant as a post about newer technologies
because he thinks he's broken up a lot of digital QSOs. But
all he's really done is slow them down. The machines just
patiently keep trying until they get the message through.
He and you probably have a common ancestor in Ned Lud.
Brian Carling
THAT'S IT!!
Michael you are a genius!
Finally a SIMPLE straightforward response to the anti-code whiners!
Let's have a FORMAL PROPOSAL to the FCC to eliminate ALL issuing of
ham license to ANYONE who cannot pass a 20 wpm code test!
He he he he he he he he he! That ought to stop the babies, he he he!
On 19 Apr 1997 12:57:14 -0400, kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael
P. Deignan) wrote:
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>>
>>
>> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare state
>[more blah anti blah code blah gibberish blah deleted blah]
>
>The true purpose behind the morse code test elimination crowd is to
>coddle the welfare-state "I want it all for nothing" mentality. Want
>to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
>below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
civet
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:57:16 GMT, gl...@NOSPAM.cyberhighway.net (Glen
Quarnstrom) posted:
>kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>
>>Gary Coffman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The only purpose Morse speed testing serves today is the welfare state
>>[more blah anti blah code blah gibberish blah deleted blah]
>
>Too bad you didn't actually read what Gary wrote. It was one of the
>most logical, rational, and evenhanded things I've ever read on this
>topic.
>
>>The true purpose behind the morse code test elimination crowd is to
>>coddle the welfare-state "I want it all for nothing" mentality. Want
>
>Nonsense. You're ranting from emotion, not debating from reason.
... nice to see someone else noticed ...
>Nothing you say is even worth reading, much less responding to.
>
>>-- Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have
>>-- with my guns.
>>--
... good point -- guns are not needed anyway
>>-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
>
>I find your boilerplate .sig particularly interesting. There seems to
>be quite a correlation between this type of bigotry and the "CW
>Forever" types.
>--
... "boilerplate" -- maybe ... i think one could also possibly imply
other things as well ...
>gl...@cyberhighway.net
>WB7DOW @ KB7CFD.ID.USA.NOAM
civet
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:52:28 GMT, ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman)
posted:
>In article <5j76r7$1...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>>mondoray <mond...@netway1.netway.com> wrote:
-- sliced --
... well said ... it seems to me some people are wired in certain ways
and sometimes the wiring compels them to be afraid of anything new,
different, non-status quo, or which cannot be understood ... sadly, a
response is all too often "acted out" by striking out or attacking
that which is feared, much in the manner of the ex-mm-er and his
cronies ... those who feel powerless when they allow themselves to be
intimidated and challenged when confronted by that which they cannot
(or will not) handle, may say they are "not afraid," yet their other
words and actions belie this ... again, all too often, the result is
unnecessary interference in the lives of others: everyone suffers ...
would it be unreasonable to propose that, since one cannot have
everything, and one cannot have everything their way all the time, and
since all the people cannot be pleased all the time, it might be of
value to be open and flexible, willing to compromise, and in the
process, finding life easier to be lived (live and let live)? ...
>
>Gary
>--
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
>Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
>534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
... thank you for thinking, even when it seems others cannot -- or
will not ...
Jim Cummings
> >to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
> >below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
>
> get my vote.
> Jeff KH2PZ / KH6
How incongruous! Test an individual for a skill which is prohibited by
law to use on the amateur bands.
73 and live better digitally
Jim, VE3XJ
Jeffrey Herman
In article <335B97...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>> >Want
>> >to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
>> >below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
>> Only if the sent text is coded groups - no plain text. Then you'll
>> get my vote.
>How incongruous! Test an individual for a skill which is prohibited by
>law to use on the amateur bands.
Coded, meaning random, Jim. Sending plain text allows the examinee to
"predict" upcoming letters - that doesn't entirely test his ability
to copy at speed.
>73 and live better digitally
That would be difficult since we live in a world of continuums.
>Jim, VE3XJ
Jeff KH2PZ
Casey Bahr
In article <5jg6hi$p...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>In article <335B97...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
>Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
>>> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>
>>> >Want
>>> >to watch something funny? Suggest elimination of all code examinations
>>> >below 20WPM, requiring 20WPM for any class of amateur license and watch
>
>>> Only if the sent text is coded groups - no plain text. Then you'll
>>> get my vote.
>
>>How incongruous! Test an individual for a skill which is prohibited by
>>law to use on the amateur bands.
>
>Coded, meaning random, Jim. Sending plain text allows the examinee to
>"predict" upcoming letters - that doesn't entirely test his ability
>to copy at speed.
Maybe true in most cases, though I find I can copy at higher
speeds using random letter groups on my trainer than I can during a
real QSO. That's because in a QSO I either start to anticipate the words
or tend to read what I'm writing and it throws off my concentration
and I miss the next 4 or 5 characters (this is above 15 wpm).
On the other hand, using random text requires some sort of solid copy
requirement. Kinda tough to ask multiple-guess questions on that!
Casey
KK7FX
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jeffrey Herman <jeff...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in article
<5jg6hi$p...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>
> Coded, meaning random, Jim. Sending plain text allows the examinee to
> "predict" upcoming letters - that doesn't entirely test his ability
> to copy at speed.
What? How many "real world" QSOs consist of 5 letter code groups?
(Answer virtually none ...) Testing on plain text has more sense because
it allows the contextual "reading around the gaps" that is *normal* in
real world situations where OOK Morse is used to transmit messages.
You're getting *really* radical when you suggest that the Pavlovian
conditioning of receiving OOK Morse by ear must be taken to the
level of copying pure gibberish in order to have "merit." Talk about
being a brainwashed cult fanatic!!!!
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBM1vIk+IP1XFmaCFVAQGb6wP/VAdv6NjKRzRwxEG2ac4ElmAZNZrlLvBG
9dqmOvGOijLutSA2qPVlKCMB5kIX+FQT5/xXLoZOhYdDD1GK1MGRM36MeCFxw3A/
9JFdmFZBfwe1vTqlC5ynCHBWb1buZc4mNbZoDiCf3q55zeu3eaCYlXDTdiGwt/nu
Qm+VwBu6SnM=
=E3Hg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Casey Bahr <cas...@ssd.intel.com> wrote in article
<5jgave$d...@news.co.intel.com>...
>
> On the other hand, using random text requires some sort of solid copy
> requirement. Kinda tough to ask multiple-guess questions on that!
>
> Casey
> KK7FX
Of course it would ... that's *exactly* what Jeff and other rabid,
fanatical pro-coders would like to see ... anything that makes
the code test harder and more pro-code-eletist ... after all,
since (in their twisted perspectives) "the code is all that makes
a *true* ham" the harder the code test the better ...
Of course that's completely counter to the future survival of
ham radio and to its' ability to meet its' charter goals, but
who cares? After all, we're talking about a cult religion
(the Morsedist Sect) and they're *really* zealous.
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBM1vJtOIP1XFmaCFVAQFzSQP+MHsy5GIq+SplknZNilUkpuYGnPLSCBXZ
qEH8FJSrv2xLAayl06so7ZGUyzPdBzA8LKoa1AU/Er6c8y3LuvSvw07ikxzvFtqX
8u4RnSlI6iZr7FHzIVsc1G/7vGX2+TvXu6hVxSCH42VtS2uBTiIzi/FoEO00optO
A5j8Ink1jzU=
=4WIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jim Cummings
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> In article <335B97...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
> Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
> >Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> >> Only if the sent text is coded groups - no plain text. Then you'll
> >> get my vote.
>
> >How incongruous! Test an individual for a skill which is prohibited by
> >law to use on the amateur bands.
>
> Coded, meaning random, Jim. Sending plain text allows the examinee to
> "predict" upcoming letters - that doesn't entirely test his ability
> to copy at speed.
>
Random groups testing would be likely deemed to be in violation of the secret
codes and cypher provisions that we all must abide. Again I point out it is
incongruous that Herman, being a professional operator, would advocate
testing of a skill that upon the face of it would be illegal if transmitted
on the amateur bands.
But I have to admit the arguement is moot because there is no good reason for
Morse code testing in any case, so there is no point in belabouring this
silly notion. Besides, Herman can only digest one thought at a time, more
than that and he seemingly is unable to form a response.
> >73 and live better digitally
>
> That would be difficult since we live in a world of continuums.
>
Only those whose imaginations are limited would think so...
> >Jim, VE3XJ
>
> Jeff KH2PZ
None the less, 73 and live better digitally
(and Herman would find it so much more satisfying too!)
Jim, VE3XJ
Anthony R. Gold
In article <1997Apr20....@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>
ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us "Gary Coffman" writes:
> In article <5j76r7$1...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman)
> writes:
> >If you're interested in research you don't need a license. Just find a
> >ham nearby to assist you with on-the-air testing. (I suspect very few
> >researchers at Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, MFJ, et al, are licensed hams.)
>
> And as usual, you'd be wrong. The RF design field is very small,
> particularly the HF part of it. And it isn't a highly profitable
> field to enter. Many who work in the field come to it through
> their love of amateur radio.
It may be true on the rf side but not throughout. No active hams
would keep putting cw reception on the wrong sideband for the amateur
band in use. Does anyone make a rig which does this one bit right?
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
K0...@usa.net
Jim Cummings wrote:
> Random groups testing would be likely deemed to be in violation of the secret
> codes and cypher provisions that we all must abide.
We're talking of *testing* (as in audio tape?), not *transmitting*.
Where's the "violation"? Canadian law may be different.
(Just wondering out loud, ya know.)
<ducking and running>
de Hans, K0HB
~~~
Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear.
~~~
Bill Sohl
Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>> >> Only if the sent text is coded groups - no plain text. Then you'll
>> >> get my vote.
>>
>> >How incongruous! Test an individual for a skill which is prohibited by
>> >law to use on the amateur bands.
>Random groups testing would be likely deemed to be in violation of the secret
>codes and cypher provisions that we all must abide.
Much as I disagree with the idea of random group testing, I will
note that I see no conflict with part 97 if such random group
testing is strictly that (i.e. never on the air). The secret
codes and cyphers is only for on the air transmission.
Even at that, if what is sent on the air is known to be
random groups and characters for code practice purposes
between two hams, that too wouldn't (IMHO) be in violation
of part 97 since there is nothing in the sense of secret codes
being used.
> Again I point out it is
>incongruous that Herman, being a professional operator, would advocate
>testing of a skill that upon the face of it would be illegal if transmitted
>on the amateur bands.
Same as above.
>But I have to admit the arguement is moot because there is no good reason for
>Morse code testing in any case, so there is no point in belabouring this
>silly notion.
To which I absolutly agree.
Ryan McNeilly
Joe Nihen wrote:
So?
So... It is a bit difficult to do CW while driving. That is the only
place where I will be able to do HF since I also live in an apartment.
--Ryan
KC7BYE
Peter Reed
Ryan McNeilly (rmcn...@sequeltech.com) wrote:
: Joe Nihen wrote:
: So?
: --Ryan
: KC7BYE
You can always drive to the top of a hill, by a lake, sea etc. You have
the pick of a QTH to operate from. No need to "do CW" while driving.
Park, enjoy the view and the DX!
Peter, G4BVH
Jim Speck
and there are those of us who enjoy CW while in motion.
73, Jim W5AI
Peter Reed <mp...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote in article
<5jnia1$5...@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>...
Robert Casey
>: So... It is a bit difficult to do CW while driving. That is the only
>: place where I will be able to do HF since I also live in an apartment.
>
"QLF" (key with your left foot) CW while driving.
*****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS*****
NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5,
Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent
to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the
amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Coupe70
get a life.......