Honest code elimination question...no flames please
N3THJ
was inquiring about the elimination of the code requirement.
I really didn't have an answer, other than they were supposedly
taking it up this month at the big meeting. Has anyone in here
heard anything in regards to what may happen or when?
This is an honest question and I am looking for honest
answers. Please reply to the NG, as I don't need my mailbox filled
with flames.
Thanks, Bill
Dan/W4NTI
issue. If they vote to not require CW any longer then the FCC will likely
do the same. But don't get in a rush. It ain't gonna happen tomorrow.
And for goodness sakes ... how hard is 5 words per minute.
Dan/W4NTI
"N3THJ" <n3thj20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c2e4de$e56884a0$82878685@clip...
KB9TMP
"Dan/W4NTI" <w4...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b4asgq$kqt$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> The next WARC conference (this year I think) will possibly consider that
> issue. If they vote to not require CW any longer then the FCC will likely
> do the same. But don't get in a rush. It ain't gonna happen tomorrow.
>
> And for goodness sakes ... how hard is 5 words per minute.
>
> Dan/W4NTI
>
For me it was the hardest test I ever had to take,
but I did it anyway and passed. I hope they don't
get rid of the 5WPM test. Now I'm glad I had to
do it! I learned something I otherwise never would
have tried to learn.
--
'73' From KB9TMP
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing,
if you can fake that, you've got it made."
-Groucho Marx
Carl R. Stevenson
The "World Radiocommunications Conference" (WRC-03) will take place
from early June through early July this year in Geneva, Switzerland. (I
expect
to be there as part of the US Delegation.)
The regional positions prepared so far, as well as the national positions
that
are known, all indicate that the elimination of the Morse proficiency test
requirement
from the ITU ("International Telecommunications Union") Radio Regulations
will
be a "slam dunk."
After the international (treaty) requirement is removed from the radio
regulations,
administrations will be free to remove corresponding Morse test requirements
from their national regulations for licence classes that allow access to the
frequencies
below 30 MHz.
73,
--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
<mailto:wk...@wk3c.com> (general personal e-mail and NCI e-mail)
<mailto:wk3...@wk3c.com> (QSO, QSL, skeds, only, please)
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
<http://www.nocode.org>
"N3THJ" <n3thj20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c2e4de$e56884a0$82878685@clip...
Dee D. Flint
While there are people working to do this, there is no way to be certain if
or when it will happen. Even though it may be considered at this summers
conference, there's no guarantee that it will be voted on and there's no
guarantee what direction such a vote would take. In addition, even if the
ITU drops the requirement, each country will still have the freedom to keep
it if they so use. Here in the US, it would take many months. First of
all the FCC would put out a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Then there
would be time allowed for comments. And finally the FCC might or might not
change it. This entire process would take quite a long time.
In the time that it would take for this change to happen, IF it happens, a
person could learn the code and be on the air for months. It is pointless
to wait. Especially since the sunspot cycle is on the declining side of the
cycle. The average person can learn the 5wpm in approximately 30 hours of
study and practice using modern study methods. Two fifteen minute sessions
per day every day and you've got it in only two months.
Dee Flint, N8UZE
Larry Roll K3LT
<n3thj20...@hotmail.com> writes:
Bill:
The remaining 5 WPM Morse code testing requirement will most likely
be eliminated after the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03)
happening this June in Geneva. This is when the ITU radio regulation
S25.5 will be presumably voted out of existence, making it possible for
the separate national radio regulatory agencies (like the FCC in the United
States) to eliminate code testing as a requirement for an amateur radio
license with full HF privileges. I have no doubt that this will, indeed,
occur. It will NOT be a good thing for the ARS. (That is my opinion,
not a "flame.")
73 de Larry, K3LT
Len Over 21
<n3thj20...@hotmail.com> writes:
One of the many topics to be discussed, perhaps voted on,
at WRC-03 (World Radio Conference 2003) in Geneva,
Switzerland, mid June into beginning July, is a revision
of all S25 Recommendations for interenational amateur
radio. That includes S25.5, the one Recommendation that
addresses International Morse Code testing for all amateur
radio licenses having below-30-MHz privileges.
Only administrations may vote on Recommendations at a
WRC. The United States administration is represented by
members of the Department of State, Federal Communications
Commission, and National Telecommunications and
Information Agency (NTIA). There are several "observers" and
"advisors" invited to be with the USA administration party but
they have no voting power.
WRCs (formerly World Administrative Radio Conferences or
WARCs) are held approximately biannually. All come under
the ITU-R or International Telecommunications Union radio
section. The ITU is a United Nations body. ITU establishes
Recommendations on spectrum allocations and regulatory
rules. These Recommendations are not binding but are held
by administrations under an honor system, pledges to support
the decisions made under the ITU.
A great many topics are scheduled to be covered at WRC-03.
A list of those to be addressed only by the US administration
is found on the FCC website: Click on "International" under
Bureaus on the FCC home page, then click on "WRC" at the
International Bureau main page. There are several downloadable
documents at the FCC WRC page. Amateur radio action item
numbers are 1.7.1 through 1.7.3., those previously discussed
by IWG-6 (Informal Working Group 6). One of those documents
should be a copy of the IARU (International Amateur Radio
Union) position on revision of all within S25; that may also be
found at the IARU website, www.iaru.org.
The FCC has stated in 1990 under FCC 90-53 (establishment
of the no-code-test Technician class) and in 1999 under 99-412
(Report and Order on US amateur radio restructuring) that a
morse code test is not considered useful to the FCC in their
determination of granting an amateur radio license. They also
stated that the code test must be kept to honor the obligation
of membership in the ITU. As a further note, FCC regulations
were changed some years back to make a morse code sending
test optional to examiners...despite ITU-R Recommendation
clearly stating that the morse code examination test must
include "reception by ear and transmission by hand."
ITU-R Recommendation S25.5 does not establish any
International Morse Code word rate. That examination rate
is optional to each member country's administration. IARU
suggestions include a complete rewrite of all S25 articles.
There is no accurate opinion at this time as to whether any
amateur radio recommendations will be voted on at WRC-03.
The list of action items slated for that Conference is quite long
and numerous. Most of the action items involve spectral
allocations and technical Recommendations for international
communications carriers and the commercial/governmental
radio services. The 40 meter SWBC versus amateur frequency
occupancy issue has not reached a solution since 1979 when
it was brought up at WARC-79.
ARRL has taken a passive stance on the examination morse
code test, neither for retention nor elimination. IARU has taken
a position of revision of most articles in S25, including an
elimination of the International Morse Code test for a license.
The USA administration preliminary position paper supports the
IARU suggestions according to the FCC WRC page. NTIA has
taken a position two years ago that it favors elimination of the
morse code test. NTIA is the agency under the Commerce
Department that regulates and coordinates all USA government
radio use; FCC (an independent agency) regulates only US civil
radio use.
There are a variety of opinions among other nations
administrations' radio regulatory agencies on amateur radio
matters at WRC-03. Some favor elimination of the code test
while others favor retention of the code test. Everyone will have
to wait for what transpires in Geneva at WRC.
Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person
Alun Palmer
news:20030307231300...@mb-ma.aol.com:
Lots of interesting posts. There has been no doubt for many years which
way the vote will go, despite what some would have you beleive. Once it
can be brought to a vote, the Morse test requirement will be abolished by
the ITU. The only trick, however, is geting it to a vote. In fact, the
vote should have taken place on, I think, three previous occasions since
1995, but either didn't make the final agenda or else the whole conference
was postponed. Frankly, it would have been carried by a few votes back in
1995, and would be a landslide now, largely because maritime use of CW
ended in the meantime. There is little likelihood that it will not be
voted on this time, however, as I think (or at least hope) that the ITU
realise that the credibility of the ITU itself and their whole decision-
making process is at stake if they continue to delay voting on any single
issue to this extent, no matter what that issue is. I confess I wrote them
a letter saying just that, but got no reply.
The domestic process is another matter. The FCC decision-making process is
long and complicated, which is actually done to protect the public. Some
think that it could take even as long as two years to get through the FCC,
although that's about the longest estimate. Some other countries are
already planning to ditch the Morse test immediately after WRC 03, notably
the UK, but the FCC are unable to do that, as they have to consult on any
changes they make. 'Immediate', by civil service standards, means a few
months, so in the US I wouldn't necessarily expect it to happen before
2004, as it won't be 'immediate'! But it will happen. My XYL is waiting
for element 1 to be abolished before she upgrades to General, but she is
in no hurry. She will get there eventually.
73 de Alun, N3KIP
Dwight Stewart
> A friend of mine is looking at upgrading to
> General, and was inquiring about the elimination
> of the code requirement. I really didn't have
> an answer, (snip)
I agree with the others, Bill. S25.5 will likely be voted out if it ever
comes up for a vote. No delegation today has taken a public position
opposing this. The question is whether it will come up for a vote. The
conference has a full agenda, covering many subjects. Because of that,
S25.5 may never make it to the table. In other words, it is possible, but
I'm not convinced it is a done deal at this conference.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Dee D. Flint
"Larry Roll K3LT" <yo...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030307230345...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> The remaining 5 WPM Morse code testing requirement will most likely
> be eliminated after the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03)
> happening this June in Geneva. This is when the ITU radio regulation
> S25.5 will be presumably voted out of existence, making it possible for
> the separate national radio regulatory agencies (like the FCC in the
United
> States) to eliminate code testing as a requirement for an amateur radio
> license with full HF privileges. I have no doubt that this will, indeed,
> occur. It will NOT be a good thing for the ARS. (That is my opinion,
> not a "flame.")
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
One cannot be sure. They tried to get a vote at the last WRC and failed.
So a person really should not count on it but instead proceed as if it were
going to stay.
Dee Flint, N8UZE
Radio Funtimes
get their ham ticket tomorrow if they did not have
to learn the stupid arcane archaic code. These people
would be an asset to the hobby, yet the code is a
hinderance. (what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
The only reason I did is I was single whe I got my
ticket back in '76. You would thisnk ARRL would
put code to bed once and for all. Finally, to anyone
who thinks code is a "screwball barrier" take a listen
to 14.313 14.275 and parts of 75 at night.
So much for that hollow-argument!! Oy Vey.... : )
"N3THJ" <n3thj20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c2e4de$e56884a0$82878685@clip...
Dan/W4NTI
Dan/W4NTI
"KB9TMP" <kb9...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:v6ibeap...@corp.supernews.com...
WA8ULX
>hinderance. (what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
>workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
If they dont have enough time to learn the code, then how will they have enough
time to operate?
Dee D. Flint
"Radio Funtimes" <stinkyh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e6a...@snipnews.snip.net...
> Bill, I know 4 good Electrical Engineers who would
> get their ham ticket tomorrow if they did not have
> to learn the stupid arcane archaic code. These people
> would be an asset to the hobby, yet the code is a
> hinderance. (what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
> workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
> The only reason I did is I was single whe I got my
> ticket back in '76. You would thisnk ARRL would
> put code to bed once and for all. Finally, to anyone
> who thinks code is a "screwball barrier" take a listen
> to 14.313 14.275 and parts of 75 at night.
> So much for that hollow-argument!! Oy Vey.... : )
If they don't have time to study the code, then they don't have time to
study for the written tests either. Afterall a good percentage of the tests
are rules, regs, operating practices, propagation, etc. You can't pass it
on electronics theory alone.
Dee Flint, N8UZE
Len Over 21
<dee...@qix.net> writes:
>If they don't have time to study the code, then they don't have time to
>study for the written tests either.
Sorry, but that's an illogical and irrelevant statement.
The code test exists as a separate element. A code test has
always been a US amateur license test regulation. That does
NOT mean it must always be there.
The argument is whether or not the code test is relevant to the
granting of a US amateur radio license. The FCC is on record
(since 1990) of stating it is NOT relevant. See FCC 90-53.
See FCC 99-412.
>You can't pass it on electronics theory alone.
That was never an issue.
Perhaps the QPC syllabus should have questions on a right
attitude? Belief in olde tyme hammus superioris? Strict
adherence to tradition, jargon, methods, standards and
practices? Marching in ranks to the same drumbeat?
If morsemanship is the Premier skill of amateur radio, such a
strict requirement (of some in the "ham community") then,
by all means, change the hobby activity to the Amateur
Radiotelegraphy Service. Or possibly the Archaic Radio-
telegraphy Service since there is a dwindling number of
professional morsemen in the international radio world.
Study hard, work hard, exaggerate the license test into a
PhD-equivalent academic test and anyone could be as
great and wonderful as the olde tyme hammes.
Radio Funtimes
"Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
news:CJqaa.4705$se1.2...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> If they don't have time to study the code, then they don't have time to
> study for the written tests either. Afterall a good percentage of the
tests
> are rules, regs, operating practices, propagation, etc. You can't pass it
> on electronics theory alone.
>
> Dee Flint, N8UZE
Ain't it just funny how whenever the topic of
relaxation of the code requirements come along
it always merits a goofy response by the "true believers"
I mean these CW diehards are just as committed
and ready and goofy enuf to lay down their life for
the cause!
They remind me of the Pallie Suicide Bomber,
all-ready-to-go with his explosives belt securely
strapped on, waiting at the bus stop for the #43
to Hebron....
Or a kook Larouche plebe, ready to pounce on you
at the airport because you must know that the Queen
of England is REALLY a space-ailen from the planet remulac....
Or an ailen abductee from the Raelian cult who just
cloned your baby.....
How I love he convoluted logic of these CW mullett-heads!
You have to really wonder if those voices they claim to
be hearing from the "Space Brothers" on 7.2-- Mhz or
on Art Bell's radio show can be "cured" with a good
regimine of Prozac, diet and exercize....
Oy-Vey!
"Only two things are infinite, the
universe and human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"I was frantically spinning my chair away from the screen and covering my
daughter's eyes with one hand while trying to click the picture away, but
as soon as I did MORE pictures popped up, and then more, covering the
screen with explicit images of people and animals and possibly, at one
point, Elmo..... I finally had to turn my computer off to make it all go
away."
- Dave Barry tries to find "Elmo" on the web for his daughter of two.
Mike Coslo
> Bill, I know 4 good Electrical Engineers who would
> get their ham ticket tomorrow if they did not have
> to learn the stupid arcane archaic code.
Good idea! Lets apply that to my own experience:
I'll probably never do satellite comms, so I want no questions about that
on my test.
And they have a lot of nerve having questions about Maximum powers,
because I don't ever plan to operate over a hundred watts. Get thos
questions out!
I don't have enough space to put up a 160 meter antenna, so why should
they ask me any questions about the band edges at that frequency?
> These people would be an asset to the hobby, yet the code is a
> hinderance.
That is a good excuse.<not> How are people who refuse to learn something
because they don't have the initiative to learn something they might not
like going to be an asset?
> (what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
> workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
I work 50+ hours a week, am Captain of an ice hockey team that plays 2-3
games a week, and while I was studying for my ticket, I was ferrying my
son around with his ice hockey team. I have other hobbies too. These
must not be very energetic engineers!
Mike Coslo
Game, set, and match!
- Mike KB3EIA -
me
learning something that really don't want to do.
"Mike Coslo" <mco...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3E6A4EC6...@adelphia.net...
Mike Coslo
> At least, the engineers were smart enough to see the waste of time in
> learning something that really don't want to do.
>
And since they don't have the time to learn, they don't have the time to
be an asset to the hobby.
- Mike KB3EIA -
me
theory be. Oh gee, they now have to read the rules and regulations. That
should take an evening at worst case scenario.
The code would take how long? And no plans to use it.
"Mike Coslo" <mco...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3E6A57F1...@adelphia.net...
Dan/W4NTI
licensees. If you take a listen you will find that the TRASH is coming from
the NO CALLSIGN individuals.
This does not apply to KB1EVE, or WA9KJI.
Dan/W4NTI
"Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
news:CJqaa.4705$se1.2...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
>
Mike Coslo
> Let's see.. They have an electrical engineering degree. How hard would the
> theory be. Oh gee, they now have to read the rules and regulations. That
> should take an evening at worst case scenario.
>
> The code would take how long? And no plans to use it.
That's pretty much the case for me. Took me 6 months of around an hour a
day study. For most people it would take a fair amount less time. And
I'm 90 percent digital (computer) modes 10 percent contesting
The written test took around a week of brushing up, was no sweat
whatsoever. For some others it would be.
To me, it boils down to: If you want it, this is how you get it. I wanted
it, I learned Morse. These others just don't want it that much. Their loss.
- Mike KB3EIA -
me
code is not even 50 percent of the average operators air time.
With the thinking that I have observed, everyone should have to learn how to
ride a horse to get a drivers license.
Dee D. Flint
statement was simple. That is if they don't have time to study one part of
the material, they don't have time to study the rest of it either as the
written portions will also take time and effort. I did not imply nor state
that any particular item was better or worse than another or had any
particular virtue.
However, I will not be drawn into further discussion on this topic with you
as I have already seen on this newsgroup how you extract conclusions not
stated or even implied in the postings to which you respond.
Dee Flint, N8UZE
"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030308141645...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Dee D. Flint
> news:CJqaa.4705$se1.2...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > If they don't have time to study the code, then they don't have time to
> > study for the written tests either. Afterall a good percentage of the
> tests
> > are rules, regs, operating practices, propagation, etc. You can't pass
it
> > on electronics theory alone.
> >
> > Dee Flint, N8UZE
>
Your conclusions below are illogical. I have not stated that there is any
particular virtue in any particular test element in this thread. If they
don't have time to study one element, they don't have time to study the
others nor will they have time to operate. Therefore "lack of time" is an
irrelevant argument. For example, if someone said "well I can learn Morse
code quick but don't have time to study the written," I would consider that
just as much of a "lame excuse" and not a reason to change the written
requirements. The requirements are stated, we don't have the power to
change them unilaterally. Anyone who lets something like this hold them
back is being silly. It's like saying you are not going to join a club or
lodge simply because you don't like one of the members.
Dee D. Flint
"me" <m...@here.com> wrote in message
news:b4dlj4$muj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Let's see.. They have an electrical engineering degree. How hard would the
> theory be. Oh gee, they now have to read the rules and regulations. That
> should take an evening at worst case scenario.
>
> The code would take how long? And no plans to use it.
>
You have to MEMORIZE not just read the rules, regs, operating procedures,
etc. That takes time. Very few engineers have a photographic memory. Even
with an electrical engineering degree, it will take probably 30 hours to
learn all the stuff for the tech test and another 30 for the general. Now
there are exceptions but the guy who read the book one night and passed the
test the next is NOT representative.
Dee Flint, N8UZE
Vshah101
>Honest code elimination question...no flames please
Too late. (See posts below).
From: "KB9TMP" kb9...@juno.com
>I hope they don't
>get rid of the 5WPM test. Now I'm glad I had to
>do it! I learned something I otherwise never would
>have tried to learn.
Do you often not like doing something and then enjoy it after you are pressured
to?
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Radio Funtimes" stinkyh...@yahoo.com
>Bill, I know 4 good Electrical Engineers who would
>get their ham ticket tomorrow if they did not have
>to learn the stupid arcane archaic code. These people
>would be an asset to the hobby, yet the code is a
>hinderance. (what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
>workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
Good point.
You can get a technician class license and not have to learn code. However, its
also the Ham culture of Q codes, rituals, appliance operator oriented, not
technical (except antennas - to outfit radios) hobby that scare away EEs.
Despite the hype of it being a technical hobby, most Hams are uninterested in
this aspect. Since most Hams do not share their interests EEs don't want to
join.
From WA8ULX:
>If they dont have enough time to learn the code, then how will they have
>enough
>time to operate?
Why should they learn an irrelevant skill at all? Why make time for something
of no interest? Also, when it is in line with their field, it is easier to
justify and make time for.
From Dee Flint, N8UZE
>If they don't have time to study the code, then they don't have time to
>study for the written tests either. Afterall a good percentage of the tests
>are rules, regs, operating practices, propagation, etc. You can't pass it
>on electronics theory alone.
Like I said above, the written material is related with their field, so it is
easier to study for this than the code.
From Mike Coslo:
>I'll probably never do satellite comms, so I want no questions about that
>on my test.
>
> And they have a lot of nerve having questions about Maximum powers,
>because I don't ever plan to operate over a hundred watts. Get thos
>questions out!
>
> I don't have enough space to put up a 160 meter antenna, so why should
>they ask me any questions about the band edges at that frequency?
You may never plan to do those things, but you may end up doing them anyway.
For example, at Field Day. Therefore you should be tested on this. You will
never use Morse, so you should not be tested for it.
Also, its also wrong to link Morse code to the higher license class. Its not
just a matter of not being tested on it. Its linking it to an unrelated
(technical) license class test.
>That is a good excuse.<not> How are people who refuse to learn something
>because they don't have the initiative to learn something they might not
>like going to be an asset?
How about the Ham culture that says you must learn Morse code, and not those
other things? You don't seem to be against Hams not learning those other
skills.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: lenover21:
> Perhaps the QPC syllabus should have questions on a right
> attitude? Belief in olde tyme hammus superioris? Strict
> adherence to tradition, jargon, methods, standards and
> practices? Marching in ranks to the same drumbeat?
Ham radio is a cult. If one observed Hams at some club meeting and Hamfest one
would see this. You must believe and follow the traditions if you are to be a
Ham.
KØHB
:
: Ham radio is a cult.
:
Well then I guess that makes you a cult member. Welcome.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Most Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke
Vshah101
>don't have time to study one element, they don't have time to study the
>others nor will they have time to operate. Therefore "lack of time" is an
>irrelevant argument.
They would know <most of the> written material, so this would take alot less
time. On the other hand, it would take alot longer to learn the code. So, they
would have time to learn the material, but not the code.
>It's like saying you are not going to join a club or
>lodge simply because you don't like one of the members.
Not exactly. Even though many aspects could be possible, the Ham culture is
heavily sided towards contesting, operating, Morse, and antennas.
me
Would an electrial engineer be an addition to a hobby that is interested in
electronics?
"Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
news:s2vaa.5430$se1.2...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Vshah101
>You have to MEMORIZE not just read the rules, regs, operating procedures,
>etc. That takes time. Very few engineers have a photographic memory. Even
>with an electrical engineering degree, it will take probably 30 hours to
>learn all the stuff for the tech test and another 30 for the general. Now
>there are exceptions but the guy who read the book one night and passed the
>test the next is NOT representative.
The general and Extra tests are just as easy as the technician class test. The
test can be learned in 8 hours, WITHOUT an EE degree. Are you saying, one 8
hour session on a weekend is too much time? These are 8 hour "license in a day"
classes, where the test is given right after these classes. At least 75% of
those pass on the first try.
Dan/W4NTI
recomendations.
Dan/W4NTI
"KØHB" <kØh...@arrl.DOTORG> wrote in message
news:KAuaa.9584$wJ1.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dee D. Flint
"Vshah101" <vsha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030308175823...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> From: "Dee D. Flint" dee...@qix.net
> >If they
> >don't have time to study one element, they don't have time to study the
> >others nor will they have time to operate. Therefore "lack of time" is
an
> >irrelevant argument.
>
> They would know <most of the> written material, so this would take alot
less
> time. On the other hand, it would take alot longer to learn the code. So,
they
> would have time to learn the material, but not the code.
No an electrical engineer would NOT know "most" of the material. The bulk
of the material is rules, regs, operating procedures, propagation, station
setup, digital modes, etc. The electronics is only a small portion of the
testing.
Dee Flint, N8UZE
Dee D. Flint
> The general and Extra tests are just as easy as the technician class test.
The
> test can be learned in 8 hours, WITHOUT an EE degree. Are you saying, one
8
> hour session on a weekend is too much time? These are 8 hour "license in a
day"
> classes, where the test is given right after these classes. At least 75%
of
> those pass on the first try.
>
>
Have you taken the General and Extra. They are not as easy as you imply.
As far as these "license in a day" classes, they are a serious disservice to
the prospective amateurs who take them. The material goes into the
individual's short term memory only rather than in the long term memory.
The objective should be to get this into long term memory so that you can
access it when you need it. Thus a few days after the test the person has
forgotten most of the material that he/she has studied. So now you have a
person who has passed the test and yet has almost no more knowledge than an
unlicensed individual since they will not retain it more than a few days.
The "license in a day" classes would be good as a test preparation for some
one who has taken the time to learn the material before the class.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dan/W4NTI
'standard'. Folks dont know what PEP is, or how to measure it for the
various modes. They don't know the basic 468/Fmhz formula for a 1/2 wave in
free space dipole.
Etc. Etc.
But they are dang good at screaming 'contact', and such as that.
Can someone help me here? What is a signal report of 7 by 9 mean and what
the heck is Seventy Thirds?
Dan/W4NTI
"Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
news:eqwaa.5450$se1.2...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Brian
Learning the code was a huge sink of time. Trying to use it was
another "less than useful" sink of time.
I see that you never spent enough time at it to become "proficient"
(proficient in the words of Larry, Dick, Dave, et al).
Larry Roll K3LT
<dee...@qix.net> writes:
>"Larry Roll K3LT" <yo...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20030307230345...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>> The remaining 5 WPM Morse code testing requirement will most likely
>> be eliminated after the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03)
>> happening this June in Geneva. This is when the ITU radio regulation
>> S25.5 will be presumably voted out of existence, making it possible for
>> the separate national radio regulatory agencies (like the FCC in the
>United
>> States) to eliminate code testing as a requirement for an amateur radio
>> license with full HF privileges. I have no doubt that this will, indeed,
>> occur. It will NOT be a good thing for the ARS. (That is my opinion,
>> not a "flame.")
>>
>> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>>
>
>One cannot be sure. They tried to get a vote at the last WRC and failed.
>So a person really should not count on it but instead proceed as if it were
>going to stay.
>
>Dee Flint, N8UZE
Dee:
Agreed. However, those actively interested in the elimination of the code
testing requirement are not likely to do so. They will more likely wait and
see what happens in Geneva this Summer than proceed to learn a fun and
useful communications skill in order to attain full amateur privileges.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Len Over 21
<w4...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
>Does this cult require 'human sacrafice' ?? If so I have some
>recomendations.
Do you want to be first in line? Be our guest... :-)
Len Over 21
<w4...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
>Sorry to tell you Dee....but the short term ham license appears to be the
>'standard'. Folks dont know what PEP is, or how to measure it for the
>various modes. They don't know the basic 468/Fmhz formula for a 1/2 wave in
>free space dipole.
>
>Etc. Etc.
Lost your PEP, dynamite Dan? :-)
BTW, a dipole length in feet is approximately 468 divided by
the frequency in MegaHertz, not milliHertz. Tsk, tsk, tsk,
nothing is allocated below 9 Hz.
[do you know why that is an approximation?]
Len Over 21
<dee...@qix.net> writes:
Nonsense. Engineers are ALSO cognizant with regulations and
procedures...of considerably more radio services than just
amateur radio. They must also keep up to date, not only on the
new but that which is being developed...rather than stay frozen
in some strata of time on standards and practices of more than a
half century past.
Leonard H. Anderson
Life Member IEEE
>
>Dee Flint, N8UZE
Len Over 21
<dee...@qix.net> writes:
>You have jumped to conclusions that I neither stated nor implied.
Sorry, but your implication was quite clear. No need to jump
to any conclusions.
>My
>statement was simple. That is if they don't have time to study one part of
>the material, they don't have time to study the rest of it either as the
>written portions will also take time and effort.
No, you are presumptuous in relating an aural-mental cognition
skill about an aperiodic monotonic on-off pattern coding (morse
code) AS IF it were exactly the same as knowing about
regulations, theory, operating practices, etc. It obviously isn't.
>I did not imply nor state
>that any particular item was better or worse than another or had any
>particular virtue.
Ah, but the implication was clear to many. Witness the responses
you've achieved.
>However, I will not be drawn into further discussion on this topic with you
>as I have already seen on this newsgroup how you extract conclusions not
>stated or even implied in the postings to which you respond.
You are miffed? :-)
You've already been drawn by making your first posting. There
is no erasing of anything. Further denial or claims to the
contrary is invalid.
You've related ALL test elements as some sort of "time in taking"
concept...as if all had the same basis for comparison. They
don't. Aural-mental cognition is NOT the same as intellectual
knowledge (broad, general use of "intellectual") required on the
written test elements.
What you previously wrote was:
>> >If they don't have time to study the code, then they don't have time to
>> >study for the written tests either.
Invalid. That equates skills necessary for test passing as the
same for all TYPES of test elements. Those skills are NOT
the same. That should be obvious.
Let's consider the test elements from the FCC's probable point
of view. They are the only USA agency granting US amateur
radio licenses so that should be fair. The FCC has many
regulations about US amateur radio and those regulations are
of many types, from frequency allocations to modes and
modulations to classes of licenses to quite a sizeable number
of technical regulations. In none of those regulations does the
FCC demand that OOK CW codings be done over and above
any other allocated mode, any allocated band, by any class
of licensee. Mode and modulation are all optional to use...yet
there is only a single mode that has ever been required in a
license examination, morse code.
The FCC has stated 13 years ago and again 4 years ago that
it does not consider morse code skills as viable for its purpose
in determining whether or not a license applicant should be
granted that license. That should be a clue...but those who
have bought into the concept of morse code skill as a prime
requirement in amateur radio cannot accept it.
The retention or elimination of US amateur radio examination
test element 1 is NOT about "time." It is about whether it is
useful to the only agency that grants US amateur licenses.
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service operators cannot rule over
the FCC no matter how much they demand that others do
exactly as they did...once.
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
> wa8...@aol.com (WA8ULX) wrote in message news:<20030308121846...@mb-bd.aol.com>...
> > >the code is a
> > >hinderance. (what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
> > >workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
> >
> > If they dont have enough time to learn the code, then how will they have enough
> > time to operate?
>
> Learning the code was a huge sink of time. Trying to use it was
> another "less than useful" sink of time.
>
So continous posting of inane drivel to this NG is a productive use of your time by comparison. We
see.
>
> I see that you never spent enough time at it to become "proficient"
> (proficient in the words of Larry, Dick, Dave, et al).
So tell us how you divined that brilliant conclusion.
W5TIT
news:b4e3h4$c4l$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Sorry to tell you Dee....but the short term ham license appears to be the
> 'standard'. Folks dont know what PEP is, or how to measure it for the
> various modes. They don't know the basic 468/Fmhz formula for a 1/2 wave
in
> free space dipole.
>
> Etc. Etc.
>
> But they are dang good at screaming 'contact', and such as that.
>
> Can someone help me here? What is a signal report of 7 by 9 mean and what
> the heck is Seventy Thirds?
>
> Dan/W4NTI
>
Hey Dan? Really. C'mon. There's got to be things about amateur radio,
scientific and non-scientific that you've missed or don't know. Or do you
know everything there is to know about it?
By the way--I know about PEP. I know that I don't want to be bothered with
it, so the most power I'll ever run is about 50-100 watts. So, why would I
have to keep that knowledge up in my brain? Are you a walking, talking
encyclopedia of amateur radio. Have you retained absolutely everything you
ever learned about amateur radio?
The items of which you speak above, by the way: the 7X9 signal report and
people saying Seventy Thirds? You complain first of people not knowing what
you believe to be some pretty important aspects of ham radio, but end with
complaining about something pretty trite--the way someone chooses to
communicate though they are within the rules and regs. Which is it that
bothers you the most? Because I've heard some pretty darned "learned" ham
radio operators that communicate like idiots. And, I've heard some pretty
darned dumb amateur radio operators that communicate like experts. So, Dan,
what is that you're actually angry about?
Kim W5TIT
W5TIT
> The orginial point was why should the engineers even have to learn the
code.
>
> Would an electrial engineer be an addition to a hobby that is interested
in
> electronics?
>
>
Isn't that a most arrogant attitude? Just because of your potential
contribution, you should be given leeway? Pshaw...
Kim W5TIT
Alun Palmer
You are wrong, I'm afraid. I am an EE, and I went in to take the Tech, as
I had a no-code UK licence, and passed also the General and Advanced
papers **without** reading the books for those elements. That's not
reading them the night before, but actually not reading them atall. I
don't think that would be rare for an EE, I think it would be quite
representative, especially if we were talking about someone lke myself who
had actually worked in RF. I didn't take the Extra written on that
occasion only because they didn't have a spare element 4B paper, but I
could have passed that too. I had of course read Part 97 more than just
the night before, and I had read a book on elements 2 and 3A. Could I have
just read Part 97 the night before and then passed all the written
elements in one session? In my opinion, yes, although I had a foreign ham
ticket as well as an EE degree.
73 de Alun, N3KIP
BTW, I am a 20wpm Extra, and I have never made a single CW QSO
Dan/W4NTI
Dan/W4NTI
"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030309010626...@mb-fy.aol.com...
Dan/W4NTI
your idiotic response.
Have a nice day
Dan/W4NTI
"W5TIT" <sevent...@eightyeight.net> wrote in message
news:EDAF21B2823D0AD4.B863DE4A...@lp.airnews.net...
Dee D. Flint
"Alun Palmer" <elek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9339787B0B3D...@130.133.1.4...
> You are wrong, I'm afraid. I am an EE, and I went in to take the Tech, as
> I had a no-code UK licence, and passed also the General and Advanced
> papers **without** reading the books for those elements. That's not
> reading them the night before, but actually not reading them atall. I
> don't think that would be rare for an EE, I think it would be quite
> representative, especially if we were talking about someone lke myself who
> had actually worked in RF. I didn't take the Extra written on that
> occasion only because they didn't have a spare element 4B paper, but I
> could have passed that too. I had of course read Part 97 more than just
> the night before, and I had read a book on elements 2 and 3A. Could I have
> just read Part 97 the night before and then passed all the written
> elements in one session? In my opinion, yes, although I had a foreign ham
> ticket as well as an EE degree.
>
> 73 de Alun, N3KIP
>
> BTW, I am a 20wpm Extra, and I have never made a single CW QSO
You are definitely NOT representative of the typical EE. You already had a
ham radio background so you already knew theory, propagation and operating
procedures. You read Part 97 fairly thoroughly from your own admission.
Thus you had done the equivalent studying. You don't have to use
pre-prepared study guides but must learn the material somewhere, which is
what you did. Even if you could have done it all in the night before that
doesn't mean that every EE could have. A person doesn't have to use any
particular method of learning or particular set of books.
Some one with ONLY an electrical engineering degree and no other background
could have passed the tests with no further study. They aren't born knowing
the material on rules, regs, propagation,etc and they don't learn it in
college.
The books are merely a handy compilation of the material that will be
addressed in the tests. There's no requirement to use that particular
approach to preparing for the test. Since you had already covered the
material by other means of learning and studying, it would have been
pointless to have read them.
Dee Flint, N8UZE
Dee D. Flint
have passed ..."
"Dee D. Flint" <dee...@qix.net> wrote in message
news:foMaa.5701$se1.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Dee
> Nonsense. Engineers are ALSO cognizant with regulations and
> procedures...of considerably more radio services than just
> amateur radio. They must also keep up to date, not only on the
> new but that which is being developed...rather than stay frozen
> in some strata of time on standards and practices of more than a
> half century past.
And just when did colleges and universities add radio service rules
and regulations to the EE curriculum or any other curriculum?
Engineers won't know them without studying them.
Dee
> procedures...of considerably more radio services than just
> amateur radio. They must also keep up to date, not only on the
> new but that which is being developed...rather than stay frozen
> in some strata of time on standards and practices of more than a
> half century past.
Dee
> From: "N3THJ" n3thj20...@hotmail.com
>
> >Honest code elimination question...no flames please
>
> Too late. (See posts below).
>
> From: "KB9TMP" kb9...@juno.com
> >I hope they don't
> >get rid of the 5WPM test. Now I'm glad I had to
> >do it! I learned something I otherwise never would
> >have tried to learn.
>
> Do you often not like doing something and then enjoy it after you are pressured
> to?
Actually this ends up being quite common in the everyday world. I
know many adults who have state that they are glad their parents made
them take piano lessons or on the other hand regretted that their
parents let them give it up. As kids, they did not like it but as
adults their perspective had changed.
The same happens in college. For example, I had to take some computer
programming classes even though I was in engineering not computer
science. I did not care for it at the time. Yet later, this became
one of my favorite job activities. I could have avoided jobs needing
this skill but having it opened up more opportunities.
One could go on and on with examples of things that people are
required to learn throughout their lives that at the time they don't
see any reason for but later find useful.
me
hobby.
"W5TIT" <sevent...@eightyeight.net> wrote in message
news:87177F84FA833D64.05A561ED...@lp.airnews.net...
N2EY
<dee...@qix.net> writes:
>While there are people working to do this, there is no way to be certain if
>or when it will happen. Even though it may be considered at this summers
>conference, there's no guarantee that it will be voted on and there's no
>guarantee what direction such a vote would take.
Agreed, Dee, but if/when the question does come up, I doubt very much that
there will be adequate support among the various nations to keep the Morse code
test requirement in place. Just my opinion, based on a lot of things I've read.
>In addition, even if the
>ITU drops the requirement, each country will still have the freedom to keep
>it if they so use.
Agreed. And this is one of the arguments that will most probably be used
against keeping the ITU requirement! Boils down to 'if the government of
Country X wants to keep the Morse code test(s), nothing in the ITU treaty will
stop them. However, Countries Y and Z won't have to do so.'
>Here in the US, it would take many months. First of
>all the FCC would put out a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Then there
>would be time allowed for comments. And finally the FCC might or might not
>change it. This entire process would take quite a long time.
>
Maybe not.
FCC asked for commentary on the code test requirements as part of the 2000
restructuring NPRM (98-143). Well over 2000 comments were received, the
majority of them supporting continued code testing at either two speeds or
three speeds.
FCC, however, reduced the code test requirement to the single 5 wpm code test
(Element 1). FCC specifically said it found only one reason to keep any code
tests at all. That reason was the ITU treaty requirement.
FCC said code testing served 'no regulatory purpose' other than meeting the
treaty requirement for HF/MF ham licenses.
FCC also denied all petitions for reconsideration of its decision.
Seems pretty obvious that without the treaty requirement, FCC could just
eliminate Element 1 and be done with it. FCC could say that the issue had been
adequately argued in 1998, 1999 and 2000 and that they were simply acting on
their previous conclusion.
As you say, Dee, no guarantees, but it looks pretty promising.
However, before the FCC does remove the code test, it's pretty obvious that
S25.5 would have to go away (mid-summer at the earliest?) AND the Senate would
have to ratify the revised ITU treaty (fall? winter?). Even if FCC doesn't do
the full NPRM thing, it will be late this year at the earliest before we see
changes.
>In the time that it would take for this change to happen, IF it happens, a
>person could learn the code and be on the air for months. It is pointless
>to wait. Especially since the sunspot cycle is on the declining side of the
>cycle. The average person can learn the 5wpm in approximately 30 hours of
>study and practice using modern study methods. Two fifteen minute sessions
>per day every day and you've got it in only two months.
I agree 100%. There's lots of great freeware out there (G4FON's was mentioned
here recently, for example) to make learning as easy as possible.
And in the process, a ham will have learned a very useful basic radio
communication skill.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Vshah101
>One could go on and on with examples of things that people are
>required to learn throughout their lives that at the time they don't
>see any reason for but later find useful.
You have given some good examples. I see that now.
Vshah101
>And just when did colleges and universities add radio service rules
>and regulations to the EE curriculum or any other curriculum?
>Engineers won't know them without studying them.
Having an EE degree helps alot for the written test. Even for the rules and
regulations section. You're right - these sections usually do not get covered
in an EE curriculum. One can benefit from these aspects. Thats one thing I like
about the written tests. The material for the tests is very good - IF one
learns the material. It gives good coverage in the various aspects of amateur
radio.
Believe it or not, I really appreciate the safety section, rules section, etc.
True, I focus on the circuit theory section, but I appreciate the rules and
regulations section. I may not want to master those areas, but I appreciate
having some knowledge of these areas.
Vshah101
>hobby.
By the way, who is "me".
I have addressed that question in this thread. I believe EEs would feel out of
place in Ham radio clubs today, and therefore not want to join.
I believe that engineers would benefit the hobby. Lets not drive away people,
the addition of, who can be a benefit to the hobby's publicity.
The way to do this is to start or join "experimenter" clubs. Also, having more
awards such as "Worked All Bands" as opposed to "Worked All States". This would
encourage acheivements in these areas. Having topics such as "return loss" at
conventions, instead of "how to use soup cans in building antennas" would help
also.
N2EY
<stinkyh...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Bill, I know 4 good Electrical Engineers who would
>get their ham ticket tomorrow if they did not have
>to learn the stupid arcane archaic code.
Don't they know that the Technician class of amateur radio license has not had
a code test for more than 12 years?
>These people
>would be an asset to the hobby,
If they cannot spare the time to learn enough to pass the 5 wpm code test, when
will they have the time to be "an asset to the hobby"?
> yet the code is a
>hinderance.
Do you mean the code TEST or the code itself?
>(what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
>workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
Plenty that I know.
What about people from other walks of life? Do you think 'engineers' should get
some sort of free ride?
>The only reason I did is I was single whe I got my
>ticket back in '76. You would thisnk ARRL would
>put code to bed once and for all.
Code or code test?
Besides, it's the FCC who make the rules, not ARRL. And FCC won;t change the
rules until the ITU treaty changes.
>Finally, to anyone
>who thinks code is a "screwball barrier" take a listen
>to 14.313 14.275 and parts of 75 at night.
>So much for that hollow-argument!! Oy Vey.... : )
Are any of those folks actually USING code to communicate?
73 de Jim, N2EY (also MSEE & BSEE)
Brian
> Brian wrote:
>
> > wa8...@aol.com (WA8ULX) wrote in message news:<20030308121846...@mb-bd.aol.com>...
> > > >the code is a
> > > >hinderance. (what Engineer who puts in 9+ hour
> > > >workdays and has a family has the time to learn code?)
> > >
> > > If they dont have enough time to learn the code, then how will they have enough
> > > time to operate?
> >
> > Learning the code was a huge sink of time. Trying to use it was
> > another "less than useful" sink of time.
> >
>
> So continous posting of inane drivel to this NG is a productive use of your time by comparison. We
> see.
Seems to work for you, Extra DICK.
> > I see that you never spent enough time at it to become "proficient"
> > (proficient in the words of Larry, Dick, Dave, et al).
>
> So tell us how you divined that brilliant conclusion.
Through brilliance and divination.
W5TIT
> What Im angry about is the dumbing down of Amateur radio...as evidenced by
> your idiotic response.
>
> Have a nice day
>
> Dan/W4NTI
>
And, I think your response accurately reflects that I hit the nail on the
head. You have a nice day, too.
Kim W5TIT
W5TIT
> Still, no answer to the question of the engineers being an addition to the
> hobby.
>
Of course! Anyone is a great addition to the hobby. What I was responding
to is the statement "...why should the engineers even have to learn the
code."
Kim W5TIT
Vshah101
>Does this cult require 'human sacrafice' ??
No, the Ham radio cult does not require human sacrifice.
A subcult of Ham radio (Wouff Hong) believes in torture (by some odd looking
torture device), however.
Bill Sohl
"N3THJ" <n3thj20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c2e4de$e56884a0$82878685@clip...
> A friend of mine is looking at upgrading to General, and
> was inquiring about the elimination of the code requirement.
> I really didn't have an answer, other than they were supposedly
> taking it up this month at the big meeting. Has anyone in here
> heard anything in regards to what may happen or when?
> This is an honest question and I am looking for honest
> answers. Please reply to the NG, as I don't need my mailbox filled
> with flames.
> Thanks, Bill
FYI, from the Amateur radio Newsline #1334, March 7, 2003
RADIO RULES: WRC-03 GETS US POSITION
The U. S. Department of State has forwarded several agenda items to Geneva
as
being this nations opening position at the 2003 World Radiocommunictions
Conference. The most important of these relate to International Radio
Regulation s-25 and its sub-parts. Included in the initial United States
position is rewording S 25 subpart 1 to give member nations more authority
to
determine the points of communication of the amateur stations it has
licensed.
The suggested modifuication reads that administrators shall verify the
technical and operational qualifications of any person wishing to operate an
Amateur station.
The United States is also proposing to eliminate regulation 25.5. This is
the
rule that mandates Morse Code peoficiency examinations for all candidates
for
an Amateur license with high frequency operating priveleges. The United
States
says that its time to remove the Morse testing requirement and leave the
decision as whether or not to test for code up to individual I-T-U mermber
nations. (W5YI)
me
The addition of awards would only add interest to a limited group of
individuals in the hobby.
Internet is doing a better job at attracting interest. One could only
imagine how far the Internet would have gotten if it had a 5 WPM code
requirement.
"Vshah101" <vsha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030309174745...@mb-fr.aol.com...
me
"W5TIT" <sevent...@eightyeight.net> wrote in message
news:53BCD908063FD0A9.2A63ECDF...@lp.airnews.net...
Jim Hampton
Folks would be surprised how quickly one can learn the code. When Vietnam
was hot, the Navy needed people as hospital corpsmen and radiomen. The
entire company ahead of me in RM A school was shipped to 'Nam. Fail and
sail. Of my class, only two of us could copy Morse code when we started.
There were a few dozen folks in that class - and every one of 'em went from
zero to 16 words per minute in a fairly limited number of weeks (in addition
to having to memorize the baudot code for teletype along with everything
else). A lot of people whine about ham radio being a 'cult', then turn on
their transceivers and start yelling 'audioooooo' and '10-4, good buddy'.
Heck, what is this 'eagle' stuff with golf? Must be a cult, huh? What is a
pre-emptive bid in bridge? All they're trying to do is prevent the
opposition from bidding, so why not call it something like a 'shut-out' bid?
Gee, must be a cult. All these rules and regulations! Heck, I drive the
speed limit or less, why should someone tell me I must drive on the right
side of the road when I'm left-handed? Must be discrimination, right?
Well, I guess I got suckered into this old thread once again :)
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
--
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030309185414...@mb-fz.aol.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03
Len Over 21
"W5TIT" <sevent...@eightyeight.net> writes:
Kim, you know personally this "m...@here.com"?
The "m...@here.com" reiterated a previous question, then added
another question. Are questions indicative of an "arrogant
attitude" or is that some secret hamspeak?
Len Over 21
<dee...@qix.net> writes:
>> The code would take how long? And no plans to use it.
>
>You have to MEMORIZE not just read the rules, regs, operating procedures,
>etc. That takes time. Very few engineers have a photographic memory. Even
>with an electrical engineering degree, it will take probably 30 hours to
>learn all the stuff for the tech test and another 30 for the general.
Oh? Last I was in formal engineering classes, we didn't have
any eidetic prerequisites or required units in "photographic
memory" courses or training. :-) Such is not in any syllabus
familiar to me. Maybe things have changed...?
>Now
>there are exceptions but the guy who read the book one night and passed the
>test the next is NOT representative.
Good point. Back at the beginning of March, 1956, I borrowed
a loose-leaf notebook of all the FCC Rules and Regulations (old
system of distributing paper hard-copies and revisions) and
crammed for a week prior to test time in Chicago, 90 miles
away. Took all four parts of the First Class Radiotelephone
(Commercial) test, passed them all. I crammed from a borrowed
set of regs because I couldn't get a Q&A book that went to
First in my home town of 80 thousand population that year.
I was 23, a few weeks after release from active Army duty, then
only a high school graduate and US Army schools did not cover
civil radio standards and practices. US Army did not teach
morse code to all signal corps personnel 1950s. In fact, not a
single one of the 43 high-powered transmitters at ADA in Tokyo
used morse codings to link the Far East Command Hq with
the USA and rest of Pacific armed forces 1953 to 1956. They
still don't and ADA is still the callsign of Hq USARPAC.
Alun Palmer
I realised that's what you meant to say. I still think that an EE who had
actually worked in RF could just have read part 97 the night before. Now,
if we were talking about someone whose professional background was, say,
computers or power generating, then maybe you're right.
Alun Palmer
news:f7f8aca6.03030...@posting.google.com:
Studying rules isn't rocket science, though. It doesn't add up to much
compared with learning the theory.
Len Over 21
<aa...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>Folks would be surprised how quickly one can learn the code. When Vietnam
>was hot, the Navy needed people as hospital corpsmen and radiomen. The
>entire company ahead of me in RM A school was shipped to 'Nam. Fail and
>sail.
US amateur radio is NOT the USN or any other branch of the
military. Really.
The Southeast Asia Live Fire Exercise was 1964 to 1973, over
thirty years ago. Lots of things have changed in the last 30
years. Really.
Have you inquired whether or not any branch of the US armed
forces uses morse code for regular or tactical communications?
Outside of passive ELINT operations, part of the M.I., none is
used today. Really.
But, to reiterate, US amateur radio is NOT a branch of the US
armed forces. Really.
>Well, I guess I got suckered into this old thread once again :)
Yes, I guess you did. Really. :-)
Len Over 21
(Dee) writes:
Sorry to break the news to you, but engineers don't stop learning
the minute they graduate. :-)
True, rules and regs are seldom a topic in any engineering class,
but regulations and standards and such have the annoying habit
of changing! In order to keep up, engineers have to study those
at work or on their own time. Not in a formal school classroom.
There a different kind of "test" on "knowing regulations" pertaining
to work. If required to know them, engineers get paid. If they are
required to know them but don't, chances are good they won't get
paid. Sound reasonable? :-) No pretty certificates if what is
needed to know is known, no callsigns to write after a signature,
just the regular paycheck being regular.
Ever hear of "MIL-STD?" :-)
Dick Carroll
me wrote:
> Still, no answer to the question of the engineers being an addition to the
> hobby.
>
What makes you think that just because someone is an engineer he would
automatically be
a valuable addition to ham radio?
Brian
What makes you think that someone who cannot pass a 5wpm code exam
wouldn't be a valuable addition to HF ham radio?
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: vsha...@aol.com (Vshah101)
>Date: 3/8/03 5:18 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030308181817...@mb-fr.aol.com>
>The general and Extra tests are just as easy as the technician class test.
Having not taken them, from what authoratative source are you basing your
opinion, Vipul?
>Are you saying, one 8
>hour session on a weekend is too much time?
WHOA! YOU have stated in here how the additional tests required to
upgrade are a WASTE of time...So now YOU are insinuating how EASY it is to
upgrade? Then why haven't YOU, Vipul?
>At least 75% of
>those pass on the first try.
Afraid you won't make the cut?
Steve, K4YZ
Bert Craig
> The next WARC conference (this year I think) will possibly consider that
> issue. If they vote to not require CW any longer then the FCC will likely
> do the same. But don't get in a rush. It ain't gonna happen tomorrow.
>
> And for goodness sakes ... how hard is 5 words per minute.
>
> Dan/W4NTI
Re. your last question, Dan; I really don't think many of them don't even
want to give it an honest try. Otherwise, the question might be...how easy
is 5-wpm?
--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
KB9TMP
"Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:ni1ba.17269$gi1....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Bert
I studied code for 3 years before passing the test, but I didn't try that
hard
the first 2 1/2 years. The last 6 months is when I got serious and got with
it!
It still wasn't "easy", but it was something that "most" anyone can do!
I'm glad I went ahead and did it, instead of waiting for the ITU to drop it.
>
> --
> 73 de Bert
> WA2SI
>
>
--
'73' From KB9TMP
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing,
if you can fake that, you've got it made."
-Groucho Marx
me
Duh?
"Dick Carroll" <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3E6C4089...@att.net...
>
>
Len Over 21
brian...@juno.com (Brian) writes:
According to the olde tyme hamateurs in here, no-coders don't
have the Right Attitude. They aren't valuable unless they've
been tested at 20 WPM morse. :-)
See Roll, see Heil, see Dick snarl and sneer down the hill...:-)
Len Over 21
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
>>The general and Extra tests are just as easy as the technician class test.
>
> Having not taken them, from what authoratative source are you basing
>your opinion, Vipul?
When did the hostile action hero last take an amateur radio
examination? :-)
There are at least two separate "test" simulators on-line, both
of which use the very same question pool data as any VE
session. It is very, very easy to gauge the "easiness" or
"hardness" of all the written test elements...by anyone.
>>Are you saying, one 8
>>hour session on a weekend is too much time?
>
> WHOA! YOU have stated in here how the additional tests required to
>upgrade are a WASTE of time...So now YOU are insinuating how EASY it is to
>upgrade? Then why haven't YOU, Vipul?
The morse code test is considered a waste of time by many.
FCC is on record as far back as 1990 on its opinion that a
morse code test is not worthwhile to its evaluation of license
grants.
Two four-year-olds "passed" a Novice and Technician class
respectively in 1998...under the old (pre-restructuring) amateur
regulations. Shall everyone "upgrade" to four-year-old
intellectual radio capacity?
>>At least 75% of
>>those pass on the first try.
>
> Afraid you won't make the cut?
Steam, we'll just put you down as maybe nine-year-old level,
how's that? :-)
Jim Hampton
1) Yes, Vietnam was 30 years ago. Really.
2) No, the military does not use Morse. Really.
3) All I was saying is that it is *not* a big deal. Really.
4) Yep, I sure did get suckered into it again :))) REALLY!
Best regards,
Jim AA2QA
--
------------------------------------
Make Unlimited phone calls from your PC to ANY phone in the World!
http://www.eboom.com/free/
"Len Over 21" <leno...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030310002542...@mb-fc.aol.com...
Bert Craig
news:v6pep5q...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:ni1ba.17269$gi1....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> > "Dan/W4NTI" <w4...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Dan/W4NTI
> >
> > Re. your last question, Dan; I really don't think many of them don't
even
> > want to give it an honest try. Otherwise, the question might be...how
easy
> > is 5-wpm?
>
> Bert
> I studied code for 3 years before passing the test, but I didn't try that
> hard
> the first 2 1/2 years. The last 6 months is when I got serious and got
with
> it!
> It still wasn't "easy", but it was something that "most" anyone can do!
>
> I'm glad I went ahead and did it, instead of waiting for the ITU to drop
it.
>
> --
Kewl beans! The 5-wpm test is only an entry-level exam, not a "proof of
proficiency." It's just a starting point from which one can choose many
different paths. Glad to hear that you went ahead and just did it. I
certainly didn't mean to imply that it's "easy" for everyone, but as you
pointed out...very doable. Take it easy. :-)
Dan/W4NTI
The bottom line is LAZY.
And don't forget...we owe them because they didn't ask to be born.
Good grief.
Dan/W4NTI
"Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:Jl9ba.98113$gf7.21...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Vshah101
>Sure its do-able and easy. Heck you can memorize 5 wpm for dang sakes.
>The bottom line is LAZY.
After a certain number of words per minute encoding/decoding is automatic, a
type of "motor-memory". Therefore it can be said that the 13wpm coders are
lazier than the 5wpm coders since they are relying on motor-memory.
If a 13wpm coder "forgot" how to code at 5 wpm, this coder should relearn 5
wpm. Since these are two different skills, it seems a coder should learn BOTH
13wpm AND 5wpm.
Dick Carroll
me wrote:
> Well, duh... What's the hobby about? Do I need to expplain it to you?
>
> Duh?
>
Well DUH, indeed. If you believe that just because someone is an engineer he
will automatically
be an asset to ham radio you badly need someone to explain "it" to YOU.
me
"Dick Carroll" <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3E6D6A7B...@att.net...
Dick Carroll
me wrote:
> Duh Duh Dick. Do you think the engineers would be a liability??
>
Why would they automatically be an asset just because they're engineers?
Anyone who has such limited interest that they won't consider meeting the
requirements because they include one minor one they would rather not
fulfil might not be interested enough to be even involved. There are lots of
people even engineers who hold licenses but do nothing with them. Even
engineers.
That doesn't make them an asset, valuable or otherwise.
If you believe otherwise it shows your lack of familiarity with ham radio.
Dave Heil
Folks are welcome to see me, Len but you aren't going to get away with a
false statement like the one you've posted. I've never written anything
to indicate that I believe there is a corollary between code speed and
attitude. You and Brian BOTH seem to have trouble with the truth.
Dave K8MN
Brian
> Folks are welcome to see me, Len but you aren't going to get away with a
> false statement like the one you've posted. I've never written anything
> to indicate that I believe there is a corollary between code speed and
> attitude. You and Brian BOTH seem to have trouble with the truth.
>
> Dave K8MN
Interesting. You declare 5wpm as NOT proficient, yet you don't know
if 0.02wpm is proficient or not. Hmmm.
I think you're the one who waffles with the truth, and has an attitude
about the code.
73, Brian
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Message-id: <20030310212203...@mb-cq.aol.com>
>After a certain number of words per minute encoding/decoding is automatic, a
>type of "motor-memory". Therefore it can be said that the 13wpm coders are
>lazier than the 5wpm coders since they are relying on motor-memory.
What BS.
At 13 and greater WPM, the code is "heard" just like a second language. I
don't "hear" the letters being sent...I "hear" the words.
>If a 13wpm coder "forgot" how to code at 5 wpm, this coder should relearn 5
>wpm. Since these are two different skills, it seems a coder should learn BOTH
>13wpm AND 5wpm.
The epitome of silly.
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 3/10/03 3:08 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <v6pvpd6...@corp.supernews.com>
>2) No, the military does not use Morse. Really.
Rephrase that to say the military does not use Morse Code ROUTINELY and
you'll be OK. Morse Code IS stil taught to some branches and used both
passively (intercept) and for some covert operations.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Dick Carroll
me wrote:
> The real problem in this newsgroup is dealing with the reality that morse
> code is not even 50 percent of the average operators air time.
>
> With the thinking that I have observed, everyone should have to learn how to
> ride a horse to get a drivers license.
That's not logical, Me. One might find some logic in requiring knowledge
and
skill in a variety of the components of driving that are not always
used, which mnay never be needed,but which one may find useful or that
are a often used
part. Morse code is a longtime much used part of ham radio even today.
Few hams operate satellite comms or are VE's but the rules mandate that
the tests cover those topics.
That is a valid comparison.
Dick Carroll
Mike Coslo wrote:
>
> To me, it boils down to: If you want it, this is how you get it. I wanted
> it, I learned Morse. These others just don't want it that much. Their loss.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
'Hi Mike and 'me'.... All this sure sounds like what many of us OT's
have been
saying for a long, long time! <g> Of course the parameters have changed
a
bit but the form and principle remains.
Looks to me like there will be people complaining about the tests until
there are NO
tests.
73, Dick
me
an early form of transportation. It is a tradition that was used for
hundreds of years. Wouldn't you want to keep up the tradition? Just think,
you can brag to your friends that you can ride a horse. In an emergency, you
and the Lone Ranger can ride for help. Everybody in the newsgroup would be
impressed.
What parts of the driving test would you want to delete?
"Dick Carroll" <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3E6E078F...@att.net...
me
Engineers?
I could see your arguement if it were Mechanical Engineers, Industrial
Engineers, Civil Engineers, maybe Chemical Engineers.
"Dick Carroll" <dic...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3E6D7D08...@att.net...
Dave Heil
Doesn't matter much to me if you are playing stupid or whether you are
actually stupid, Brian.
Someone whose maximum code speed is five words per minute is not
proficient at morse code.
Someone who uses a morse code speed of .02 wpm may or may not be
proficient at morse code. That would depend on the maximum speed at
which he is capable.
Hmm, indeed.
Dave K8MN
Brian
Oh, please. Just make the tests relavant. You can do that, can't you?
Maybe not.
Dan/W4NTI
Dan/W4NTI
"Vshah101" <vsha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030310212203...@mb-cq.aol.com...
Len Over 21
>me wrote:
>
>> Duh Duh Dick. Do you think the engineers would be a liability??
>
> Why would they automatically be an asset just because they're engineers?
>Anyone who has such limited interest that they won't consider meeting the
>requirements because they include one minor one they would rather not
>fulfil might not be interested enough to be even involved. There are lots of
>people even engineers who hold licenses but do nothing with them. Even
>engineers.
>That doesn't make them an asset, valuable or otherwise.
>If you believe otherwise it shows your lack of familiarity with ham radio.
Big Dick, you are an ass-et to radio amateurism.