Strange Advert in Feb's RadCom
R V M J
The advert is headed "The Future of Licensing", by John Linford,
G3WGV, who apparently is the Publicity Manager of the First Class CW
Operator's Club (FOC).
It appears in the guise of a RadCom article.
It puts forward a proposal for the future of the amateur licence,
putting forward a "case" for it to be split into three Classes:
Novice, General, and Extra.
The General Class is to comprise today's A and B classes.
One of the optional modules for the granting of an Extra Class
licence, is - have you guessed it? - a Morse test "at a speed that is
consistent with standards on the bands today, say 20 wpm".
Not surpisingly, since this is an advert, no other types of module are
mentioned. It is not stated what the enhancements granted by the Extra
class licence will be.
But why should today's A & B Class amateurs be relegated to the
proposed General Class? When driving licence systems are changed, the
privileges granted are never rescinded by the new style of licence.
Why should radio amateurs be any different? Except, of course, if a
new - superior - type of amateur wanted to take to the air via the
mechanism proposed.
The reasoning behind all this appears to be specious. Commercial Morse
"has been largely superseded", it states, but its validity for amateur
use is not compromised by this, and reasons are put forward why this
is so.
But if Morse isn't good enough for commercial traffic, why is my
receiver pulling in lots of commercial Morse between 4 and 14 Mc/s
every evening?
No figures showing the decline in commercial morse are put forward in
support of this assertion.
It aslo says that "The Morse test as it stands, in no way prepares the
candidate for CW operation on the air". But isn't that the very reason
why the test was changed to QSO-style morse?
"Morse contests continue to attract increasing participation, and
standards continue to rise", it says. But if contest Morse is machine
Morse, exactly what standards are being raised? Would it be acceptable
to use a computer for the proposed 20 wpm CW module?
There is plenty more in the advert for the keen reader. I wouldn't
want to spoil a good read.
When is the opposite case going to be given an airing by the RSGB Ltd?
from
R V M J
To e-mail remove key.
Phil Ingham
<key....@saqnet.co.uk> writes
>
>
>It appears in the guise of a RadCom article.
Working blind here to some extent, I packed in the RSGB many years ago.
>
>It puts forward a proposal for the future of the amateur licence,
>putting forward a "case" for it to be split into three Classes:
>Novice, General, and Extra.
>
>
>But why should today's A & B Class amateurs be relegated to the
>proposed General Class? When driving licence systems are changed, the
>privileges granted are never rescinded by the new style of licence.
>Why should radio amateurs be any different? Except, of course, if a
>new - superior - type of amateur wanted to take to the air via the
>mechanism proposed.
Wrong - when they re-vamped the HGV system, class 2 licences were
combined with the class 3 licences. Those drivers who had taken the
class 2 test suddenly found themselves competing with those who had
never taken the test.
>
>
>But if Morse isn't good enough for commercial traffic, why is my
>receiver pulling in lots of commercial Morse between 4 and 14 Mc/s
>every evening?
As far as I am aware, there are no UK coastal stations who still put
watch on morse transmissions. Some friends of mine work for the
Coastguard and whilst there are still morse operators, it is not a
requirement anymore. Some stations still use morse, many are computer
generated and automated. Morse will still get through were data comms
will not.
>
>No figures showing the decline in commercial morse are put forward in
>support of this assertion.
From when I was an SWL, the morse traffic has dropped by a massive
amount, replaced by other more modern modes. Even a few years ago SITOR,
DFAX etc were more common than morse.
>
>It aslo says that "The Morse test as it stands, in no way prepares the
>candidate for CW operation on the air". But isn't that the very reason
>why the test was changed to QSO-style morse?
Did the morse test as was ever prepare anyone. My morse (and many other
B's) is better than a lot of A's I know, who took the test after an
intense training program and never intended to use it and have now
forgotten it.
>
The whole question of morse revolves around the old chestnuts about
shared bands, a government requirement below 30Meg etc. The real
question is (and it is not my intention to open old wounds or old
debates) do we really need morse and/or two classes of licence these
days. The debate has been going on since I started and it would help if
the RSGB actually came out with some descent arguments for or against
one class and a reason for morse, until then, this argument will be
ongoing.
I remember a CBer saying to me, why go for a licence when I can work the
States on 27 but I would need to learn things to pass the RAE and then
learn morse to do the same on 28.
Whatever, I'm happy on 2 and 70 working DX SSB with or without the morse
and have been since 1981 when I passed the RAE.
73 de
--
Phil Ingham
G6HDD Bolton
Pete Bown
R V M J wrote in message <36af6eb...@news.saqnet.co.uk>...
>
>The advert is headed "The Future of Licensing", by John Linford,
>G3WGV, who apparently is the Publicity Manager of the First Class CW
>Operator's Club (FOC).
>
>
Advert?
Where did it say advert?
Pete GM7PVM
Jack
way to a code free license, and then they suggest an "elite" license for
the very competent morse operator?
It will be interesting to see if this is the RSGB official opinion.
73 Jack
MM0AXL
Who enjoys CW, but doesn't want to force anyone else to.
Pete Bown <pe...@bownsite.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<917496681.24280.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Jim Dunnett
>
>The advert is headed "The Future of Licensing", by John Linford,
>G3WGV, who apparently is the Publicity Manager of the First Class CW
>Operator's Club (FOC).
>
>It appears in the guise of a RadCom article.
>
>It puts forward a proposal for the future of the amateur licence,
>putting forward a "case" for it to be split into three Classes:
>Novice, General, and Extra.
>
>The General Class is to comprise today's A and B classes.
>
>One of the optional modules for the granting of an Extra Class
>licence, is - have you guessed it? - a Morse test "at a speed that is
>consistent with standards on the bands today, say 20 wpm".
>
>Not surpisingly, since this is an advert, no other types of module are
>mentioned. It is not stated what the enhancements granted by the Extra
>class licence will be.
>
>But why should today's A & B Class amateurs be relegated to the
>proposed General Class? When driving licence systems are changed, the
>privileges granted are never rescinded by the new style of licence.
>Why should radio amateurs be any different? Except, of course, if a
>new - superior - type of amateur wanted to take to the air via the
>mechanism proposed.
Why take on so? (!) The FOC don't yet make the rules.
>The reasoning behind all this appears to be specious. Commercial Morse
>"has been largely superseded"...
No it hasn't. This is propaganda put out by the anti-morse
CB-ers. As fast as the PTTs close down their morse services,
they are being bought up by two companies, one American and
one Swedish.
>But if Morse isn't good enough for commercial traffic, why is my
>receiver pulling in lots of commercial Morse between 4 and 14 Mc/s
>every evening?
What do you mean by 'commercial'? Maritime presumably.
Still many MHz of it about.
>It aslo says that "The Morse test as it stands, in no way prepares the
>candidate for CW operation on the air". But isn't that the very reason
>why the test was changed to QSO-style morse?
No. That was done in order to make the test more 'realistic'.
A plain-language passage containing no figures or punctuation
followed by a batch of 5-figure groups wasn't exactly the sort
of thing you'd find on the amateur bands. The test and off-the-
air practice could hardly prepare the student for the real thing.
No QRM, QRN, QSB.
>When is the opposite case going to be given an airing by the RSGB Ltd?
The opposite case is quite simple: A knowledge of morse
should NOT be a requirement for access to HF. However, for
the moment at least there is an international treaty
requirement for such a test. No qualifying speed is
specified, so that 5 WPM would seem eminently sensible
and reasonable until such time as this obligation is
removed by the International regulator.
Some other additional technical or practical examination
for HF access is wide open to discussion, but it must not
be based on morse.
I am pro-morse as a mode. Anti-morse as a gateway to HF!
--
- 73 de Jim, g(m)4rga | Yes to the market economy,
olympus%jimdee.prestel.co.uk | No to the market society.
dynastic%cwcom.net |
marula%zdnetmail.com | - Lionel Jospin, 1998.
g4rga@gb7tjf.#45.gbr.eu |
Rallies Info: www2.prestel.co.uk/jimdee
Pgp key: wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net:11371
Jim Dunnett
wrote:
>My morse (and many other B's) is better than a lot of A's I know,
>who took the test after an intense training program and never
>intended to use it and have now forgotten it.
Hi!!
>The whole question of morse revolves around the old chestnuts about
>shared bands, a government requirement below 30Meg etc.
Correction...international requirement. You can't tear up
treaties to satisfy a few aspirant amateurs.
>Whatever, I'm happy on 2 and 70 working DX SSB with or without the morse
>and have been since 1981 when I passed the RAE.
You're one of the early class-Bs whose dedication to VHF/UHF
was total - achieving much more on these bands in real terms
than most HF-ers ever did. I suspect that the dedication has
flagged somewhat nowadays.
Ian White, G3SEK
>Advert or not, it did seem a strange article for the RSGB. We are on the
>way to a code free license, and then they suggest an "elite" license for
>the very competent morse operator?
That's not what the article said.
For the information of people who haven't had the chance to read it, the
article is by G3WGV, on behalf of the First Class CW Operator's Club -
who are indeed a "CW elite" and strongly in favour of Morse.
But contrary to what some might expect, FOC are actually *opposed* to
the Morse test continuing to be used as a compulsory hoop that everybody
has to jump through. Instead they propose that the exams should contain
a number of modular options, for the candidate to choose. They would
like Morse tests to remain as one of those options, but no longer a
compulsory one.
FOC proposed a three-level licensing structure:
1. Extra Class with new privileges. A 20wpm Morse test would be an
*option* as part of the exams, but there would be other Morse-free
routes to this licence.
2. General Class, amalgamating the existing A and B licenses. The
existing compulsory Morse test would go, and there would be no bar to
non-Morse users on HF.
A Morse test somewhere between 5 and 12wpm would be an *option* as part
of the General Class exams, but again there would be other Morse-free
routes to this licence.
3. Novice Class: well, you should be getting the idea by now...
The implication of the three-level licensing structure is that nobody
would lose anything, and the B and Novice B licensees would gain access
to HF. The additional privileges of the Extra Class would be there for
people who wanted to go for the harder exams.
>It will be interesting to see if this is the RSGB official opinion.
It clearly wasn't, although RSGB did give it space as a contribution to
the debate.
In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
radio they are interested in. The FOC proposals seemed fully compatible
with such a scheme.
73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.demon.co.uk/g3sek
Mike Willis
> Advert or not, it did seem a strange article for the RSGB. We are on the
> way to a code free license, and then they suggest an "elite" license for
> the very competent morse operator?
I don't see anything wrong with an elite license - as long as I get one.
Certainly not for Morse. Perhaps for technical skills.
R V M J
<ph...@geotek.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36af6eb...@news.saqnet.co.uk>, R V M J
><key....@saqnet.co.uk> writes
>>It appears in the guise of a RadCom article.
>Working blind here to some extent, I packed in the RSGB many years ago.
>>But why should today's A & B Class amateurs be relegated to the
>>proposed General Class? When driving licence systems are changed, the
>>privileges granted are never rescinded by the new style of licence.
>>Why should radio amateurs be any different? Except, of course, if a
>>new - superior - type of amateur wanted to take to the air via the
>>mechanism proposed.
>
>Wrong - when they re-vamped the HGV system, class 2 licences were
>combined with the class 3 licences. Those drivers who had taken the
>class 2 test suddenly found themselves competing with those who had
>never taken the test.
Not wrong I'm afraid - before April 1934 one had a Driving Licence.
Post that date the concept of groups was brought in, along with
Driving Tests. Those who already had licences were given an "All
Groups" licence. Similarly, when the new access scheme was brought in
for motorcycles, I keep my "any size" motorcycle licence.
>>But if Morse isn't good enough for commercial traffic, why is my
>>receiver pulling in lots of commercial Morse between 4 and 14 Mc/s
>>every evening?
>
>As far as I am aware, there are no UK coastal stations who still put
>watch on morse transmissions. Some friends of mine work for the
>Coastguard and whilst there are still morse operators, it is not a
>requirement anymore. Some stations still use morse, many are computer
>generated and automated. Morse will still get through were data comms
>will not.
This may well be true. But there is, for whatever reason and however
generated, plenty of morse out there, on other than the amateur bands.
>>
>>No figures showing the decline in commercial morse are put forward in
>>support of this assertion.
>
>From when I was an SWL, the morse traffic has dropped by a massive
>amount, replaced by other more modern modes. Even a few years ago SITOR,
>DFAX etc were more common than morse.
This again may be true. But morse might be the single most common
mode, even if it only makes up less than fifty percent of traffic.
>>It aslo says that "The Morse test as it stands, in no way prepares the
>>candidate for CW operation on the air". But isn't that the very reason
>>why the test was changed to QSO-style morse?
>
>Did the morse test as was ever prepare anyone. My morse (and many other
>B's) is better than a lot of A's I know, who took the test after an
>intense training program and never intended to use it and have now
>forgotten it.
Anecdotal. And you haven't addressed my comment about the style of the
morse test.
>>
>The whole question of morse revolves around the old chestnuts about
>shared bands, a government requirement below 30Meg etc. The real
>question is (and it is not my intention to open old wounds or old
>debates) do we really need morse and/or two classes of licence these
>days. The debate has been going on since I started and it would help if
>the RSGB actually came out with some descent arguments for or against
>one class and a reason for morse, until then, this argument will be
>ongoing.
You could equally say that do we need Extra and General classes as
proposed by this RSGB Ltd scheme.
>I remember a CBer saying to me, why go for a licence when I can work the
>States on 27 but I would need to learn things to pass the RAE and then
>learn morse to do the same on 28.
So what?
>Whatever, I'm happy on 2 and 70 working DX SSB with or without the morse
>and have been since 1981 when I passed the RAE.
Each to his own. You will gain access to the HF bands via this
proposed scheme, whether you want to use them or not. So you benefit
from the licence change.
The FOC will gain what they want - superiority, snobbishness - and the
rest gain nothing, sold to them as progression. Clever, eh? And why
doesn't the RSGB Ltd give equal shakes to other points of view? The
old fallback of "we asked around the clubs" is like saying "morse use
has greatly decreased in use for commercial traffic". There
(carefully) aren't any figures to back it up.
Whatever they do, they don't confuse the issue with facts.
--
Derek Thom
<Jack...@btinternet.com> writes
>Advert or not, it did seem a strange article for the RSGB. We are on the
>way to a code free license, and then they suggest an "elite" license for
>the very competent morse operator?
>
An interesting discussion!
The RSGB is regularly accused of not publishing opinions contrary to its
own.
But when it does (as in fact is often does) some people jump to the
conclusion that the contrary opinion is in fact RSGB "policy" - even
when the article (as is this case) was clearly written on behalf of
another organisation!
Perhaps this shows that the RSGB can never win.
73, Derek
Member of FOC but NOT in favour of compulsory Morse testing.
Morse is attractive enough to stand on its merits, as with other modes.
--
Derek Thom G3NKS
Cheltenham IO81XU
QRV 160m to 70cm
Colin Wright
>Jack wrote:
>>Advert or not, it did seem a strange article for the RSGB. We are on the
>>way to a code free license, and then they suggest an "elite" license for
>>the very competent morse operator?
>That's not what the article said.
No, but that's what it meant. It's wise to read between the lines.
>For the information of people who haven't had the chance to read it, the
>article is by G3WGV, on behalf of the First Class CW Operator's Club -
>who are indeed a "CW elite" and strongly in favour of Morse.
>But contrary to what some might expect, FOC are actually *opposed* to
>the Morse test continuing to be used as a compulsory hoop that everybody
>has to jump through. Instead they propose that the exams should contain
>a number of modular options, for the candidate to choose. They would
>like Morse tests to remain as one of those options, but no longer a
>compulsory one.
But the only "module" they put forward was the CW one. And they said
that 20 wpm was the current standard on the amateur bands (or some
such words, anyway. I say it isn't. There's plent of slower morse
about. Whose "standard" is it?
>FOC proposed a three-level licensing structure:
>1. Extra Class with new privileges. A 20wpm Morse test would be an
>*option* as part of the exams, but there would be other Morse-free
>routes to this licence.
Make sure the FOC is OK, you notice.
>2. General Class, amalgamating the existing A and B licenses. The
>existing compulsory Morse test would go, and there would be no bar to
>non-Morse users on HF.
Why reduce the priveleges of the Class A, which currently are full
priveleges, to a "General" level? I find this totally unacceptable.
>A Morse test somewhere between 5 and 12wpm would be an *option* as part
>of the General Class exams, but again there would be other Morse-free
>routes to this licence.
A bit short on the other options, you notice.
>3. Novice Class: well, you should be getting the idea by now...
>The implication of the three-level licensing structure is that nobody
>would lose anything, and the B and Novice B licensees would gain access
>to HF. The additional privileges of the Extra Class would be there for
Yes they would. Current class A licencees would then not have full
access.
>people who wanted to go for the harder exams.
>>It will be interesting to see if this is the RSGB official opinion.
I bet it is, but don't dare admit it, banging on instead about how
"good" change can be. And not supporting their assertions with any
hard facts.
>It clearly wasn't, although RSGB did give it space as a contribution to
>the debate.
Surprise, surprise. It neatly chimed in with the Claytonsmith
propaganda piece.
>In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
>give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
>radio they are interested in. The FOC proposals seemed fully compatible
>with such a scheme.
Who says?
Not a good enough answer, I'm afraid. Talk to Lambda House about the
current official line.
--
from
Colin Wright
Colin Shaw
>In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
>give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
>radio they are interested in.
The only thing I would add is a graded technical exam,
making it harder and more _technical_.
Colin, G8FRA
jon harris
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:05:44 +0000, Phil Ingham <ph...@geotek.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >My morse (and many other B's) is better than a lot of A's I know,
> >who took the test after an intense training program and never
> >intended to use it and have now forgotten it.
>
>
> >The whole question of morse revolves around the old chestnuts about
> >shared bands, a government requirement below 30Meg etc.
>
> treaties to satisfy a few aspirant amateurs.
>
> >and have been since 1981 when I passed the RAE.
>
> was total - achieving much more on these bands in real terms
> than most HF-ers ever did. I suspect that the dedication has
> flagged somewhat nowadays.
So many of these Class Bs came to AR via CB, as CB use dropped off, so
the new recruits into AR wained as well.
Cheers,
Jon.
jon harris
>
> FOC proposed a three-level licensing structure:
>
> 1. Extra Class with new privileges. A 20wpm Morse test would be an
> *option* as part of the exams, but there would be other Morse-free
> routes to this licence.
That's intriguing. What on earth is the point of having an optional part
in the test? Most importantly what are the other routes? 20 years
continuous membership of the RSGB perhaps?
> 2. General Class, amalgamating the existing A and B licenses. The
> 3. Novice Class: well, you should be getting the idea by now...
>
> The implication of the three-level licensing structure is that nobody
> would lose anything, and the B and Novice B licensees would gain access
> to HF. The additional privileges of the Extra Class would be there for
> people who wanted to go for the harder exams.
So what are the extra priveleges given to those in the 'Extra Class' and
why? It still seems to be the belief that if you are more competant at
operating one mode you should be allowed to use different power,
frequencies etc
Morse as a mode? Great, fine, where would EME etc be without it.
Morse to have sacred parts within bands? Of course to protect it.
Morse ability as a requirement for greater power, access to different
bands?
No ta.
> In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
> give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
> radio they are interested in. The FOC proposals seemed fully compatible
> with such a scheme.
Without seeing the article in full it's hard to say. My gut reaction
though, is that it still retains the elitist attitude that has been
around for years. The RSGB would be proud.
Cheers,
Jon.
jon harris
>
> 73, Derek
>
> Member of FOC but NOT in favour of compulsory Morse testing.
> Morse is attractive enough to stand on its merits, as with other modes.
Indeed, given many peoples reluctance to be forced to do things, if
Morse were to be no longer compulsory, it's popularity would probably
increase!
Cheers,
Jon.
jon harris
> Some other additional technical or practical examination
> for HF access is wide open to discussion, but it must not
> be based on morse.
>
> I am pro-morse as a mode. Anti-morse as a gateway to HF!
I couldn't agree more! As i posted just now, Morse is fine and dandy for
those that want to use it.
I appreciate many Hams panic about the abolition of morse as a gateway
to HF, but for every fear there is a solution that doesn't involve
Morse. IMHO.
Cheers,
Jon.
jon harris
>
> Ian White G3SEK,G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk,Internet writes:
> >In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
> >give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
> >radio they are interested in.
> The only thing I would add is a graded technical exam,
> making it harder and more _technical_.
Of course, one has to wonder why the Pro-Morse people are so against
this...
Cheers,
Jon.
Ian White, G3SEK
Evidence for that statement? There is none.
Ian White, G3SEK
>"Ian White, G3SEK" <G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Jack wrote:
>>>Advert or not, it did seem a strange article for the RSGB. We are on the
>>>way to a code free license, and then they suggest an "elite" license for
>>>the very competent morse operator?
>
>>That's not what the article said.
>
>No, but that's what it meant. It's wise to read between the lines.
"Read between the lines"? Translation: invent statements that aren't
there.
>
>>For the information of people who haven't had the chance to read it, the
>>article is by G3WGV, on behalf of the First Class CW Operator's Club -
>>who are indeed a "CW elite" and strongly in favour of Morse.
>
>>But contrary to what some might expect, FOC are actually *opposed* to
>>the Morse test continuing to be used as a compulsory hoop that everybody
>>has to jump through. Instead they propose that the exams should contain
>>a number of modular options, for the candidate to choose. They would
>>like Morse tests to remain as one of those options, but no longer a
>>compulsory one.
>
>But the only "module" they put forward was the CW one.
Of course - they're a single-issue club. They want to see Morse still in
there as an option, but did not rule out anything else.
>And they said
>that 20 wpm was the current standard on the amateur bands (or some
>such words, anyway. I say it isn't. There's plent of slower morse
>about. Whose "standard" is it?
>
>>FOC proposed a three-level licensing structure:
>
>>1. Extra Class with new privileges. A 20wpm Morse test would be an
>>*option* as part of the exams, but there would be other Morse-free
>>routes to this licence.
>
>Make sure the FOC is OK, you notice.
Make sure that people who want to go the Morse route can still get
licence credit for doing so.
>>2. General Class, amalgamating the existing A and B licenses. The
>>existing compulsory Morse test would go, and there would be no bar to
>>non-Morse users on HF.
>
>Why reduce the priveleges of the Class A, which currently are full
>priveleges, to a "General" level? I find this totally unacceptable.
>
I don't understand you.
>>A Morse test somewhere between 5 and 12wpm would be an *option* as part
>>of the General Class exams, but again there would be other Morse-free
>>routes to this licence.
>
>A bit short on the other options, you notice.
>
As I said, this was a single-issue article. It didn't purport to present
a complete solution because that doesn't exist yet. When it does, it
will be a combination of several different points of view. I would
welcome similar articles from other special-interest groups.
Do *you* have constructive options for other modules?
>>3. Novice Class: well, you should be getting the idea by now...
>
>>The implication of the three-level licensing structure is that nobody
>>would lose anything, and the B and Novice B licensees would gain access
>>to HF. The additional privileges of the Extra Class would be there for
>
>Yes they would. Current class A licencees would then not have full
>access.
>
Sorry, I still don't understand what you're getting at here.
>>In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
>>give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
>>radio they are interested in. The FOC proposals seemed fully compatible
>>with such a scheme.
>
>Who says?
Somebody who has read the whole article. If you have too, it doesn't
show.
g4...@aol.com
key....@saqnet.co.uk (R V M J) wrote:
>
> The advert is headed "The Future of Licensing", by John Linford,
> Operator's Club (FOC).
>
> It appears in the guise of a RadCom article.
>
> putting forward a "case" for it to be split into three Classes:
> Novice, General, and Extra.
>
> The General Class is to comprise today's A and B classes.
>
> One of the optional modules for the granting of an Extra Class
> licence, is - have you guessed it? - a Morse test "at a speed that is
> consistent with standards on the bands today, say 20 wpm".
>
> Not surpisingly, since this is an advert, no other types of module are
> mentioned. It is not stated what the enhancements granted by the Extra
> class licence will be.
>
> proposed General Class? When driving licence systems are changed, the
> privileges granted are never rescinded by the new style of licence.
> Why should radio amateurs be any different? Except, of course, if a
> new - superior - type of amateur wanted to take to the air via the
> mechanism proposed.
>
> use is not compromised by this, and reasons are put forward why this
> is so.
>
> receiver pulling in lots of commercial Morse between 4 and 14 Mc/s
> every evening?
>
> support of this assertion.
>
> candidate for CW operation on the air". But isn't that the very reason
> why the test was changed to QSO-style morse?
>
> standards continue to rise", it says. But if contest Morse is machine
> Morse, exactly what standards are being raised? Would it be acceptable
> to use a computer for the proposed 20 wpm CW module?
>
> There is plenty more in the advert for the keen reader. I wouldn't
> want to spoil a good read.
>
>
> R V M J
> To e-mail remove key.
>
I agree with the above comments and the same question arose as I read this
statement of terms from the author. "What are the options for getting an
'Extra Class' licence.?" Is it that you must first be a G3*** or hopefully it
will be about operating practices and procedures, about the technical ability
to deal with high power rf problems etc. I did not have to take an extra or
prerequisite test to set up and operate my data station via computer
operation. I could decode and send morse at speeds above 20wpm, does this
make me eligible for an'Extra Class' licence?
I would suggest the nmae of 'Extra Class' be changed to High power and not a
name that suggests elitism yet again. I know many well qualified persons who
are keen VHF/UHF operators, builders and technicians that would put many CW
operators to shame, why should they be excluded on the grounds that they do
not wish to thump a key. I do use morse code, not as much now, I took the
test as a means to an end, I think that if there had been a technical exam to
gain my HF licence then I would of went that way as I cuold build, understand
circuits, repair and modify my own equipment. To me that would have benn a
fairer system. I now advocate that morse be an option on an equal par to
technical ability, I would also advocate that progression through the various
grades of licence be by proven contact and length of service etc. For
instance I would introduce the option of a VHF licence holder being given
access to HF bands in the 10m 15m 17m and 12m bands after 3 years of
operation. After one year the log of that station would be reviewed by theirs
peers in a local radio club who would verify contacts logged and review
operationg modes. If the operator has not made the effort during this year
then his hf options are rescinded for a period then he/she would be allowed
to apply for acces again. Something along those lines anyway. Lets see some
sensible options given. Why does the RSGB of which I am a memeber ever in
their surveys seen to report anything similar to what most people talk about
but seem to report favourable findings in the retention of restrstictive
patterns that have held Amateur Radio back.
John G4YMC/PA3HBA
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Phil Ingham
<oly...@0spam.prestel.co.uk> writes
>>shared bands, a government requirement below 30Meg etc.
>
>Correction...international requirement. You can't tear up
>treaties to satisfy a few aspirant amateurs.
Not quite true, under WARC, the bandplans were settled but there was no
real mention of qualifications for usage. IF morse was a requirement for
band usage below 30, then many of the users of these bands would be
banned (military, pmr etc) How can you say that CB with <international>
communication is any different to Amateur. The government even insists
that the frequencies used by cavers (many of whom are amateurs) which
are below 100k can only be used by class A's or anyone who applies for a
licence, when then is no specific plan below 100k.
>
>You're one of the early class-Bs whose dedication to VHF/UHF
>was total - achieving much more on these bands in real terms
>than most HF-ers ever did. I suspect that the dedication has
>flagged somewhat nowadays.
Agreed, I enjoy VHF working with or without morse, I prefer to use QRP
and sometimes the ex-eastern block can only be done in morse. I admire
the 1.8 boys who work the Dobbs super QRP rigs and get their fun out of
morse QSO's. The whole thing really revolves round the competence of the
operator A or B, not whether morse is relevant.
Whether A or B you should enjoy it.
>
73 de
Phil Ingham
-.-
Phil Ingham
<key....@saqnet.co.uk> writes
>>combined with the class 3 licences. Those drivers who had taken the
>>class 2 test suddenly found themselves competing with those who had
>>never taken the test.
>
>Not wrong I'm afraid - before April 1934 one had a Driving Licence.
>Post that date the concept of groups was brought in, along with
>Driving Tests. Those who already had licences were given an "All
>Groups" licence. Similarly, when the new access scheme was brought in
>for motorcycles, I keep my "any size" motorcycle licence.
Depend how you look at it, I had a class 3 HGV and now have a what is
really a Class 2/3, some of the lad I work with were a little bit upset
over that. As to the licence generally, there was a day when they
introduced an HGV test, those how could prove they were driving at that
time got a licence, all others had to take a test.
>
>>>But if Morse isn't good enough for commercial traffic, why is my
>>>receiver pulling in lots of commercial Morse between 4 and 14 Mc/s
>>>every evening?
I didn't say that, what I said was that morse is no longer required as a
qualification. In fact tonight I have just said goodbye to a friend
(after a very good evening !) who is a radio operator in the merchant
service (also an amateur). He does not have any morse knowledge what so
ever. I put the above argument to him and he said that they have a
computer to worry about that, but in the last 3 years he has never heard
a morse transmission of a general nature. His company uses morse
(computer generated) purely to get through any QSB and to save air time
when sending messages that cost money.
>>
>
>You could equally say that do we need Extra and General classes as
>proposed by this RSGB Ltd scheme.
Agreed the whole matter needs sorting out
>
>>I remember a CBer saying to me, why go for a licence when I can work the
>>States on 27 but I would need to learn things to pass the RAE and then
>>learn morse to do the same on 28.
>
>So what?
>
>>Whatever, I'm happy on 2 and 70 working DX SSB with or without the morse
>>and have been since 1981 when I passed the RAE.
>
>Each to his own. You will gain access to the HF bands via this
>proposed scheme, whether you want to use them or not. So you benefit
>from the licence change.
Benefit ? - I am happy to try and work an ex-eastern block on 2 or 70
rather than work on the HF bands. I admire the guys who work QRP on 1.8
etc. But at the end of the day is it not a case of competence of the
operator rather than the bands or modes. I don't think that being able
to send morse at whatever speed is the order of the day, is a substitute
for a good operator who can work the band he/she is on to it's best.
It always strikes me that the only time I hear a majority of A's on
VHF/UHF is when there is a lift and that does not mean that they are
better operators than B's. If HF is so good why do they suddenly appear
?
>
>The FOC will gain what they want - superiority, snobbishness - and the
>rest gain nothing, sold to them as progression. Clever, eh? And why
>doesn't the RSGB Ltd give equal shakes to other points of view? The
>old fallback of "we asked around the clubs" is like saying "morse use
>has greatly decreased in use for commercial traffic". There
>(carefully) aren't any figures to back it up.
>
>Whatever they do, they don't confuse the issue with facts.
Did you really expect them to ?
>
--
73
Phil Ingham G6HDD
_._
Phil Ingham
writes
>Jim Dunnett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:05:44 +0000, Phil Ingham <ph...@geotek.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> was total - achieving much more on these bands in real terms
>> than most HF-ers ever did. I suspect that the dedication has
>> flagged somewhat nowadays.
>
>the new recruits into AR wained as well.
>
--
73 de
Phil Ingham G6HDD
-.-
Jan-Martin Hertzsch
<ph...@geotek.demon.co.uk> asked:
|>
|> ... where have all the 2m SSB operators gone
|>
Here is one, but only with borrowed equipment, and the antenna needs
some work, but anyway - locator is IO 91 SM.
Haven't heard much around 144.300 MHz, but maybe that's because there
is a hill just east of the QTH towards London ...
vy 73 de M0CEF = DL2LFH, Jan-Martin
Chris Packman
It's fine up here on top of the hill !! :)
A friend of mine lives just over the road from the Brunel site and it
seems to be a real RF black hole, he has a terrible job getting any
sort of TV picture from Crystal Palace.
2M SSB seems much quieter now than the busy days of the early 80's when I
first got my licence, to some extent I suspect it's been killed of by
6M which seems to have more to offer to the newcommer ? Also people
don't tend to call CQ or work local stations anymore, preferring
only to come on when the DX cluster tells them there is DX about !
All rather sad really 2M SSB is good fun, with a lot of potential for
long distance contacts when you least expect them !
73 Chris G6XDI near the top of the hill in IO91SM !
--
ch...@xdinet.demon.co.uk http://www.xdinet.demon.co.uk/
Ariel Radio Group News Pages http://www.xdinet.demon.co.uk/ARG/
Railway pages http://www.xdinet.demon.co.uk/rail/
g0...@raynet.net
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:20:39 +0000, "Ian White, G3SEK"
<G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<<<< .... snip .... >>>>
:> Somebody who has read the whole article. If you have too, it doesn't
:> show.
Well said that man. Sadly though, even some posters who claim to have
read it seem unable to understand what was written.
It was actually quite a well-written piece by any standard and is,
furthermore, one of the few attempts we have seen by anyone to offer
genuinely positive suggestions for change. Surely, even those among
us who disagree with the author's suggestions can concede that much ?
Regards,
Greg (G0MAM)
Jan-Martin Hertzsch
Hi, neighbour! ;-)
|> A friend of mine lives just over the road from the Brunel site and it
|> seems to be a real RF black hole, ...
At least, it is deep in the shadow of Hillingdon Hill (or whatever its
name is). It seems to be better rf-wise in western direction.
|> ... Also people
|> don't tend to call CQ or work local stations anymore, preferring
|> only to come on when the DX cluster tells them there is DX about !
Is it really that bad? Maybe I'll call a few times more from now on -
with the new British callsign life has become easier; the "stroked"
callsign was always a bit clumsy ...
I am also surprised that there seems to be so few FM simplex activity
on 70 cm - could anybody tell me on wich frequencies I should listen
in order to "catch" some stations?
|> --
|> ch...@xdinet.demon.co.uk http://www.xdinet.demon.co.uk/
|> Ariel Radio Group News Pages http://www.xdinet.demon.co.uk/ARG/
|> Railway pages http://www.xdinet.demon.co.uk/rail/
Another railfan-radioamateur ;-)
73, Jan-Martin (M0CEF in the valley)
Bob Johnstone
>In article <36B187...@bt.com>, jon harris <jon.p....@bt.com>
>writes
>>Jim Dunnett wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:05:44 +0000, Phil Ingham <ph...@geotek.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You're one of the early class-Bs whose dedication to VHF/UHF
>>> was total - achieving much more on these bands in real terms
>>> than most HF-ers ever did. I suspect that the dedication has
>>> flagged somewhat nowadays.
>>
>>So many of these Class Bs came to AR via CB, as CB use dropped off, so
>>the new recruits into AR wained as well.
>>
from listening around, a lot "did" morse, so that they could use other
modes on HF. Many others just dropped out having >seen it, done it< and
moved on to other challenges. a few still try though, even from here
below Ben Nevis and lesser ? +4000ft ? hills. Make a pretty good wall
they do.
--
Bob Johnstone
Gary Peach
>Jan-Martin Hertzsch wrote:
>> Phil Ingham asked:
>> |>
>> |> ... where have all the 2m SSB operators gone
>> |>
>>
>> Here is one, but only with borrowed equipment, and the antenna needs
>> some work, but anyway - locator is IO 91 SM.
>> Haven't heard much around 144.300 MHz, but maybe that's because there
>> is a hill just east of the QTH towards London ...
>>
Don't you just love these people with a good QTH :)
I'm All kitted up for 2 and no-one to talk to. IN the NEWBURY hole.
I listened quickly last Night,
one signal on the entire banned (sic) S9+60 dB
and he was working cross band duplex with some-one on 10 m ?
So I let him carry on flying his kite.
Even the repeaters were dead as a Dodo, I was beginning to think that my
Antenna had fallen off
>...
>All rather sad really 2M SSB is good fun, with a lot of potential for
>long distance contacts when you least expect them !
>
>73 Chris G6XDI near the top of the hill in IO91SM !
Perhaps you should consider installing a single channel repeater for your
oppo down the hill. ;)
If you're LOS, perhaps you could work uW.
Gary7SLL
R V M J
>
>
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:20:39 +0000, "Ian White, G3SEK"
><G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <<<< .... snip .... >>>>
>
>:> Somebody who has read the whole article. If you have too, it doesn't
>:> show.
>
>Well said that man. Sadly though, even some posters who claim to have
>read it seem unable to understand what was written.
Hmmm. You two are trippingover yourselves not to answer the points
originally raised. Do you feel vulnerable in some way? Is acting as
propagandist for the FOC/RSGB Ltd too much for you?
I did say the articles was a good read. Ergo, I must have read it.
You give the impression that denigration is your only answer. Perhaps
my original posting was too near the reality.
Next time try and deal with the points raised, in the interests of
debate, rather than decrying what you perceive as opposition.
--
R V M J
<G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>>Advert or not, it did seem a strange article for the RSGB. We are on the
>>way to a code free license, and then they suggest an "elite" license for
>>the very competent morse operator?
>
>That's not what the article said.
>
>For the information of people who haven't had the chance to read it, the
>article is by G3WGV, on behalf of the First Class CW Operator's Club -
>who are indeed a "CW elite" and strongly in favour of Morse.
I think the strong favour comes across too strongly. It is simply
being elitist. Put it this way. First Class CW Operators Club, by
definition, has members who have demonstrated a certain level of
skill, which they imply is higher than average. But, because they are
highly skilled, should not their Elite class licence offer them less
privileges, disguised as an "incentive"? A maximum of 10 Watts, and
wire aerials, for example. Clearly these people can get through where
the hoipoloi can't, even with beams and higher power? THAT shopuld
show the rest of us who's who!
>But contrary to what some might expect, FOC are actually *opposed* to
>the Morse test continuing to be used as a compulsory hoop that everybody
>has to jump through. Instead they propose that the exams should contain
>a number of modular options, for the candidate to choose. They would
>like Morse tests to remain as one of those options, but no longer a
>compulsory one.
>
>FOC proposed a three-level licensing structure:
>
>1. Extra Class with new privileges.
>
>2. General Class, amalgamating the existing A and B licenses. The
>existing compulsory Morse test would go, and there would be no bar to
>non-Morse users on HF.
>A Morse test somewhere between 5 and 12wpm would be an *option* as part
>of the General Class exams, but again there would be other Morse-free
>routes to this licence.
And here lies one of the arguments against the proposals for an Elite
Class licence. The FOC, for which you seem to be fronting in the
absence of a club propagandist - I presume they are not up to speed
with the Internet - propose that those with the Class A licence, for
which a competence at 12 wpm is required, are to be lumped in with the
no-morse Class B.
Can you, or a spokesperson for the FOC, please explain why an obvious
alternative is not put forward: Class A becomes Elite Class rather
than General Class?
This counterproposal does not mean I agree with the proposed licence
structure; I put it forward to illustrate the Elitist attitude of the
FOC.
>3. Novice Class: well, you should be getting the idea by now...
>
>The implication of the three-level licensing structure is that nobody
>would lose anything, and the B and Novice B licensees would gain access
>to HF. The additional privileges of the Extra Class would be there for
>people who wanted to go for the harder exams.
Not so. Class A, currently carrying full priveleges, will not do so
under the FOC/RSGB Ltd proposal. That will be a loss.
>>It will be interesting to see if this is the RSGB official opinion.
>
>It clearly wasn't, although RSGB did give it space as a contribution to
>the debate.
But the fact that the RSGB Ltd published it, especially taking into
account the Editorial, strongly suggests that they agree with it.
together with the fact that they never publish the other side of the
debate.
>
>In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
>give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
>radio they are interested in. The FOC proposals seemed fully compatible
>with such a scheme.
As far as modular = Elitist, certainly.
>
>
>73 from Ian G3SEK
Geoff Blake
: But the fact that the RSGB Ltd published it, especially taking into
: account the Editorial, strongly suggests that they agree with it.
: together with the fact that they never publish the other side of the
: debate.
Yes, but isn't a just a matter of sensing the feeling in the "market" - if
they don't get any complaints that that's the way forward.
For my 1d worth:
Existing licencees (not Novice) would get a general class with a similar
level of privileges to the current licence.
Existing Novices licencees would get a restricted class similar to the Novice
licence.
The Extra Class licence would grant certain (what?) extra privileges on
attainment of certain milestones. A demonstrable CW operating capability at
20 wpm could be one milestone. The ability to set up (properly) a tranceiver
from scratch (not just unpack!) could be another example. There could (and
should) be many others.
What we must guard against is the attainment of any advanced licence on
soley operating skills alone, i.e. the ability to send/read morse code at
20 wpm plus a multiple guess exam pass on their own should not entitle one
to an Extra-Class licence. There should be more to an amateur licence than
that.
Geoff
--
--
Geoff Blake ge...@palaemon.demon.co.uk linux 2.0.31
Chelmsford g8...@g8gnz.ampr.org i586
Intel create faster processors - Microsoft create slower processes
R V M J
>Geoff
What a well-reasoned reply in what otherwise, with notable exceptions,
has been a thread with limited sense in it, especially where defence
of the FOC/RSGB Ltd proposals are concerned.
I was interested to note your comments the "operating skills should
not be a basis for extra priveleges" (possibly a paraphrase), my
original assertions were that the proposals as put forward were unfair
to at least the present Class A licencees.
And this is one of many lines that could be taken against this
proposal.
Ian White, G3SEK
together.
R V M J first wrote:
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:20:39 +0000, "Ian White, G3SEK"
>><G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <<<< .... snip .... >>>>
>>
>>:> Somebody who has read the whole article. If you have too, it doesn't
>>:> show.
>
>I did say the articles was a good read. Ergo, I must have read it.
>
>You give the impression that denigration is your only answer. Perhaps
>my original posting was too near the reality.
>
That particular comment was not addressed to you, and did not refer to
your original posting.
Obviously you had read the article, and you posted your opinion on it.
But I thought that anyone else who hadn't read the article would have
gained a very unrealistic impression of it from your original posting,
so I posted a summary.
>Next time try and deal with the points raised, in the interests of
>debate, rather than decrying what you perceive as opposition.
Now that we've managed to move the debate back to what the article did
say, I'm pleased to oblige.
Second, RVMJ wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:31:50 +0000, "Ian White, G3SEK"
><G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>For the information of people who haven't had the chance to read it, the
>>article is by G3WGV, on behalf of the First Class CW Operator's Club -
>>who are indeed a "CW elite" and strongly in favour of Morse.
>
There are two separate issues here. One is about the place of Morse, and
the other is about "elites".
>I think the strong favour comes across too strongly. It is simply
>being elitist. Put it this way. First Class CW Operators Club, by
>definition, has members who have demonstrated a certain level of
>skill, which they imply is higher than average. But, because they are
>highly skilled, should not their Elite class licence offer them less
>privileges, disguised as an "incentive"? A maximum of 10 Watts, and
>wire aerials, for example. Clearly these people can get through where
>the hoipoloi can't, even with beams and higher power? THAT shopuld
>show the rest of us who's who!
>
That word "elite" obviously triggers very strong emotions and makes you
say silly things... see below for a more sensible discussion.
>>FOC proposed a three-level licensing structure:
>>
>>1. Extra Class with new privileges.
>>
>>2. General Class, amalgamating the existing A and B licenses. The
>>existing compulsory Morse test would go, and there would be no bar to
>>non-Morse users on HF.
>>A Morse test somewhere between 5 and 12wpm would be an *option* as part
>>of the General Class exams, but again there would be other Morse-free
>>routes to this licence.
>
>And here lies one of the arguments against the proposals for an Elite
>Class licence. The FOC, for which you seem to be fronting in the
>absence of a club propagandist - I presume they are not up to speed
>with the Internet - propose that those with the Class A licence, for
>which a competence at 12 wpm is required, are to be lumped in with the
>no-morse Class B.
>
It's the other way around: the implication is that B licensees would get
all the privileges that A licensees have now, including HF.
If that were to happen, A licensees would lose no privileges, but B
licensees would gain some. Even the FOC could accept that, so where's
the problem?
>Can you, or a spokesperson for the FOC,
I am not 'fronting' or a spokesperson for the FOC. Please stop saying
that. My only interest in posting the summary was to see a fair debate
based on what FOC actually did say.
>please explain why an obvious
>alternative is not put forward: Class A becomes Elite Class rather
>than General Class?
>This counterproposal does not mean I agree with the proposed licence
>structure; I put it forward to illustrate the Elitist attitude of the
>FOC.
>
>
That is the second area of debate, whether to add an extra tier of
licence above the present two, which are based on the present RAE and
Novice RAE. Let's keep this totally separate from the Morse issue.
The debate is about whether you think that the present RAE-based level
should be the top one. The alternative view is that we might be able to
negotiate more privileges if we're prepared to undertake more self-
training.
Unfortunately you call this "elitist", and it seems to conjure up some
very fixed views and strong emotions.
To my mind, there are two very different kinds of elites. One kind hangs
on tight to the secrets of its success, and shuts out anybody who the
present members do not want. I despise that attitude and want nothing to
do with it.
I support the other kind of elite, the kind that welcomes anybody who
shares their interest, and actively helps them to do it as well as they
possibly can. For example, if someone wants to become a top-flight
VHF/UHF DXer, I've written and compiled a book that will give them a
flying start. The more people choose to join that particular elite, the
better!
I said:
>>The implication of the three-level licensing structure is that nobody
>>would lose anything, and the B and Novice B licensees would gain access
>>to HF. The additional privileges of the Extra Class would be there for
>>people who wanted to go for the harder exams.
>
RVMJ replied:
>Not so. Class A, currently carrying full priveleges, will not do so
>under the FOC/RSGB Ltd proposal. That will be a loss.
>
There are two separate aspects to this proposal. If either one bothers
you, please explain why.
1. Merging of existing A and B licences in to one General class. The FOC
proposal is that existing A licensees would not lose any operating
privileges they already have. They would only be joined by existing B
licensees in having the *same* privileges.
2. Adding an Extra class above the General class. Again, the FOC
proposal is that General class licensees would not lose any existing
operating privileges. They would only lose their present position of
being the highest licence class.
There seems to be some confusion here between "privileges" (things
you're allowed to do) and some notion of "position" in the Amateur Radio
pecking order - which is something very different...
>>>It will be interesting to see if this is the RSGB official opinion.
>>
>>It clearly wasn't, although RSGB did give it space as a contribution to
>>the debate.
>
>But the fact that the RSGB Ltd published it, especially taking into
>account the Editorial, strongly suggests that they agree with it.
That's probably true. Although it focused on one aspect of the licensing
structure (the role of Morse) IMO it was constructive, ie pro FOC's
special interest but not anti anything else. I'd be very happy to see a
lot more proposals in a similar vein, but from other points of view.
Then sometime we will all need to sit down and work out an agreed
position to put to the RA.
>together with the fact that they never publish the other side of the
>debate.
Depends what you mean by "the other side": is it a different proposal,
or just an anti-RSGB view?
Please do start a new thread and tell us how you *would* like the
licence to be - not a reaction quoting anybody else's views, but a clean
new posting that actually says what *you* want.
Chris Packman
<URL:mailto:xc...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Chris Packman wrote
> >It's fine up here on top of the hill !! :)
>
>
> Don't you just love these people with a good QTH :)
> I'm All kitted up for 2 and no-one to talk to. IN the NEWBURY hole.
> I listened quickly last Night,
> one signal on the entire banned (sic) S9+60 dB
> and he was working cross band duplex with some-one on 10 m ?
>
> So I let him carry on flying his kite.
> Even the repeaters were dead as a Dodo, I was beginning to think that my
> Antenna had fallen off
Saturday night is allways quiet on the VHF bands unless it's a contest
weekend, I wish there was some form of organised activity scheme for the
VHF / UHF / SHF bands though........... thinks......
Monday... Microwaves (this is already an established practice)
Tuesday ..2M
Wends.....70Cms
Thurs.....6M
Fri.......4M
Call on the 1/4 hrs ???
Just an idea ?
> Perhaps you should consider installing a single channel repeater for your
> oppo down the hill. ;)
GB3WL and GB3HL used to be in between the two of us about a mile away
on a high building very near the top of the hill !!!!
> If you're LOS, perhaps you could work uW.
If we used 70cms I have a 21ele Tonna, I suspect we would only need uW !!
73 Chris ...
Chris Packman
<URL:mailto:mas...@radagast.brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant302051b49%K...@xdinet.demon.co.uk>, Chris Packman
> <ch...@xdinet.demon.co.uk> writes:
> |>
>
>
> |> A friend of mine lives just over the road from the Brunel site and it
> |> seems to be a real RF black hole, ...
>
> At least, it is deep in the shadow of Hillingdon Hill (or whatever its
> name is). It seems to be better rf-wise in western direction.
Yes you should be fine that way, however you will probably suffer from
the Chiltern Hills in the NW direction.
> I am also surprised that there seems to be so few FM simplex activity
> on 70 cm - could anybody tell me on wich frequencies I should listen
> in order to "catch" some stations?
The local 2M and 70cms repeaters were on top of hillingdon Hospital
about a mile from both of us ! However they have now been moved to
somewhere in W5, however GB3HL the 70cms should still be Ok on 433.075,
GB3NS is usually very strong here, you could try that one on 433.250 ?
There has never been a lot of local 70cms simplex working !
If you want a sked for a chat drop me a note and we can arrange something
i'm QRV 2M,70cms,23cms and 13cms (6M is out at the moment as the antenna
is lost somewhere in the garden !)
> |> Railway pages http://www.xdinet.demon.co.uk/rail/
>
> Another railfan-radioamateur ;-)
Guilty as charged !
> 73, Jan-Martin (M0CEF in the valley)
73 Chris (G6XDI sort of near the top of the hill !)
Derek Thom
<ch...@xdinet.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Saturday night is allways quiet on the VHF bands unless it's a contest
>weekend, I wish there was some form of organised activity scheme for the
>VHF / UHF / SHF bands though........... thinks......
>
>Monday... Microwaves (this is already an established practice)
>Tuesday ..2M
- NO!
Tuesday evening has long been designated Four Metres Activity Evening!
>Wends.....70Cms
>Thurs.....6M
>Fri.......4M
- NO! See above
>
>Call on the 1/4 hrs ???
>
>Just an idea ?
>
An excellent idea in principle!
--
Derek Thom G3NKS
Cheltenham IO81XU
QRV 160m to 70cm
The above views are my own and are not necessarily those of any organisation
of which I am a member.
Jan-Martin Hertzsch
<ch...@xdinet.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> (W London)
|> The local 2M and 70cms repeaters were on top of hillingdon Hospital
|> about a mile from both of us ! However they have now been moved to
|> somewhere in W5, however GB3HL the 70cms should still be Ok on 433.075,
|> GB3NS is usually very strong here, you could try that one on 433.250 ?
Well, I know on which frequencies the repeaters are operated - in case
I should need help or so, they might be useful. But I don't like calling
via relais just for a QSO - I find such QSOs rather boring, at least from
the "experimental point of view" ... Therefore, I asked for simplex
activity.
[However, a while ago in Berlin, I called deliberately via a relais -
I wanted to try how one could operate from an underground train ;-)]
|> There has never been a lot of local 70cms simplex working !
Very sad ... one should expect a few 2Es monitoring the usual calling
frequencies for F3E or J3E ...
The proposal for an activity scheme sounds good! I support this idea.
73, Jan-Martin (M0CEF)
Bob Johnstone
writes
Well said, Confirms that I am not alone in expressing words similar to
the above. Still don't like morse though. One of my friends (a GM8 ) in
Moray-shire was a Telegraghist with the Post Office, his question is,
why should he sit a basic morse test when he was a professional operator
who still reads the stuff at 35+ wpm.
--
Bob Johnstone
Jim Dunnett
wrote:
>In article <36B187...@bt.com>, jon harris <jon.p....@bt.com>
>writes
>>Jim Dunnett wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:05:44 +0000, Phil Ingham <ph...@geotek.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You're one of the early class-Bs whose dedication to VHF/UHF
>>> was total - achieving much more on these bands in real terms
>>> than most HF-ers ever did. I suspect that the dedication has
>>> flagged somewhat nowadays.
>>
>>So many of these Class Bs came to AR via CB, as CB use dropped off, so
>>the new recruits into AR wained as well.
>>
>Agreed - where have all the 2m SSB operators gone
Agreed - where have all the 2m non-packet operators gone?
--
- 73 de Jim, g(m)4rga | Yes to the market economy,
olympus%jimdee.prestel.co.uk | No to the market society.
dynastic%cwcom.net |
marula%zdnetmail.com | - Lionel Jospin, 1998.
g4rga@gb7tjf.#45.gbr.eu |
Rallies Info: www2.prestel.co.uk/jimdee
Pgp key: wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net:11371
Jim Dunnett
wrote:
>>Correction...international requirement. You can't tear up
>>treaties to satisfy a few aspirant amateurs.
>
>Not quite true, under WARC, the bandplans were settled but there was no
>real mention of qualifications for usage. IF morse was a requirement for
>band usage below 30, then many of the users of these bands would be
>banned (military, pmr etc) How can you say that CB with <international>
>communication is any different to Amateur. The government even insists
>that the frequencies used by cavers (many of whom are amateurs) which
>are below 100k can only be used by class A's or anyone who applies for a
>licence, when then is no specific plan below 100k.
The so-called CB-ers are an anomaly. It could be argued that
they have no control over the radiated frequency, modulation
etc. therefore harmless. I would disagree. 'CB' on HF should
never have been sanctioned.
Amateur Radio is NOT 'CB'. The fact remains that for Amateur
Radio, a morse test is, for the moment, necessary for operation
below 30 MHz. No qualifying speed is specified. Member
administrations of the ITU are bound by treaty to require tests
for HF access. Removal of this requirement is on the agenda for
discussion. There is no working slot at the next WARC conference
to discuss this, therefore it will be some time before this rule
will be amended (it's been allocated a very low priority).
So. The best that can be done is to reduce the qualifying speed
to 5 WPM in the interim pending its eventual abandonment by the
ITU. This really ought to be a reality now, not next year or
the year after or the year after that...
>>You're one of the early class-Bs whose dedication to VHF/UHF
>>was total - achieving much more on these bands in real terms
>>than most HF-ers ever did. I suspect that the dedication has
>>flagged somewhat nowadays.
>
>Agreed, I enjoy VHF working with or without morse, I prefer to use QRP
>and sometimes the ex-eastern block can only be done in morse. I admire
>the 1.8 boys who work the Dobbs super QRP rigs and get their fun out of
>morse QSO's. The whole thing really revolves round the competence of the
>operator A or B, not whether morse is relevant.
Quite agree. There are SOME similarities between 1.8 and 2m!
No-one has mentioned that there are also many Class-As who
prefer the VHF/UHF bands to HF!
Jim Dunnett
>Colin Shaw wrote:
>>
>> Ian White G3SEK,G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk,Internet writes:
>> >In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
>> >give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
>> >radio they are interested in.
>> That seems like the voice of reason in this debate.
>> The only thing I would add is a graded technical exam,
>> making it harder and more _technical_.
>
>Of course, one has to wonder why the Pro-Morse people are so against
>this...
Who's against it?
But consider also that too many licence classes with
different priveleges would be difficult to administer
and police. Try to keep it as simple as possible, please.
And, Oi, you lot! When the time comes, contribute input
to whatever consultation process may be put in place when
it's asked for. Let it not be like the last time when
neither the RSGB nor the RA could decide who was ticking
the boxes and counting up the ticks; where the majority of
amateurs were too indolent or apathetic to get off their
backsides to respond to a straightforward questionnaire.
Jim Dunnett
>Indeed, given many peoples reluctance to be forced to do things, if
>Morse were to be no longer compulsory, it's popularity would probably
>increase!
You mean if sex were to be made illegal, people would fornicate
more than they do now?
(And fornicate themselves to death like the mice that have been
in the news recently).
Bob Johnstone
>In article <36af6eb...@news.saqnet.co.uk>,
> key....@saqnet.co.uk (R V M J) wrote:
>>
>> The advert is headed "The Future of Licensing", by John Linford,
>> G3WGV, who apparently is the Publicity Manager of the First Class CW
>> Operator's Club (FOC).
>>
>> It appears in the guise of a RadCom article.
>>
>> It puts forward a proposal for the future of the amateur licence,
>> putting forward a "case" for it to be split into three Classes:
>> Novice, General, and Extra.
>>
>> The General Class is to comprise today's A and B classes.
>>
>> One of the optional modules for the granting of an Extra Class
>> licence, is - have you guessed it? - a Morse test "at a speed that is
>>
Snip
I would suggest the nmae of 'Extra Class' be changed to High power and
not a name that suggests elitism yet again. I know many well qualified
persons who are keen VHF/UHF operators, builders and technicians that
would put many CW operators to shame, why should they be excluded on the
grounds that they do not wish to thump a key. I do use morse code, not
as much now, I took the test as a means to an end, I think that if there
had been a technical exam to gain my HF licence then I would of went
that way as I cuold build, understand circuits, repair and modify my own
equipment. To me that would have benn a fairer system. I now advocate
that morse be an option on an equal par to technical ability, I would
also advocate that progression through the various grades of licence be
by proven contact and length of service etc.For instance I would
introduce the option of a VHF licence holder being given access to HF
bands in the 10m 15m 17m and 12m bands after 3 years of operation.
>After one year the log of that station would be reviewed by theirs
>peers in a local radio club who would verify contacts logged and review
>operationg modes. If the operator has not made the effort during this year
>then his hf options are rescinded for a period then he/she would be allowed
>to apply for acces again. Something along those lines anyway. Lets see some
>sensible options given. Why does the RSGB of which I am a memeber ever in
>their surveys seen to report anything similar to what most people talk about
>but seem to report favourable findings in the retention of restrstictive
>patterns that have held Amateur Radio back.
>
>John G4YMC/PA3HBA
>
Bob GM1YGV Comments>>>>I endorse much of the above. A point though? To
me a Competence in morse code cannot match a competence in technical
ability to operate or construct Radio Tx/Rx. Many of the best Morse code
operators of all time had never even heard of "radio". They were called
Telegraghists or a similar word. Let us take this morse code out of the
ladder to HF, let us put a genuine interest in, and proven operating
experience in Amateur Radio more to the front of any stage of incentive
licencing however many tiers may be decided on. I do not consider
"Novice" Licencees lesser beings than I am, I do not consider "A"
licensees better than I am. I do consider many have some abilities that
I would like to be capable of emulating, whether A's, B's, or Novice. I
am however saddened by the fact that some Radio Amateurs DO consider
themselves to be superior beings. Not a progressive Radio Amateur spirit
that.
> Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Bob Johnstone
jon harris
>
> |>
> |> ... where have all the 2m SSB operators gone
> |>
>
> Here is one, but only with borrowed equipment, and the antenna needs
> some work, but anyway - locator is IO 91 SM.
> Haven't heard much around 144.300 MHz, but maybe that's because there
> is a hill just east of the QTH towards London ...
Look how few multimode 2m radios there are now, at at such a cost. That
combined with the attitude of so many only to come out for contests mean
that a lot of decent guys have just given up and shut up shop.
Cheers,
Jon.
da...@psilink.co.uk
Dunnett) said:
>
>No-one has mentioned that there are also many Class-As who
>prefer the VHF/UHF bands to HF!
>
I'll admit to that.
Especially using CW for Aurora on 6M and 2M. My trouble, at the
moment, is not having a decent antenna set up as I'm in a rented place
and need the Landlords permission.
Not that he's likely to say 'No' unreasonably, it's just a little down
the priority list here at the moment. :o)
Hving been on HF, whilst having no VHF/UHF antennas, I have to say
that operating on crowded noisy bands full of all sorts of crud is not
my idea of great fun. HI!
Maybe I should advertise for a portable mast and go CW VHFing on the
hills. :o)
Dave (G0DJA)
da...@psilink.co.uk
<b...@gm1ygv.demon.co.uk> entertained us all with:
>Well said, Confirms that I am not alone in expressing words similar to
>the above. Still don't like morse though. One of my friends (a GM8 ) in
>Moray-shire was a Telegraghist with the Post Office, his question is,
>why should he sit a basic morse test when he was a professional operator
>who still reads the stuff at 35+ wpm.
You could ask why a Formular One racing driver needs to pass the
driving test, Bob.
The answer is because that's what you have to do to drive a car on the
road. Same thing, at present, for HF access and the Morse test.
However, from this reply, please don't assume that I'm in favour of
retaining the Morse test. :o)
Dave (G0DJA)
da...@psilink.co.uk
<ch...@xdinet.demon.co.uk> entertained us all with:
>
>Monday... Microwaves (this is already an established practice)
>Tuesday ..2M
>Wends.....70Cms
>Thurs.....6M
>Fri.......4M
Excuse a wry smile here! :o)
Tuesday has been 4M activity night for a while now. The trouble with
all of these otherwise excellent suggestions is that people don't know
about them, or don't remember until too late, or find that the
particular night on which their favourite band is having its
'activity' period clashes with something else they want to do......
How about an Inactivity night? Based on the low turn out for many
'Activity' periods then more people would be on because they forgot
they were supposed to be inactive.
Dave (G0DJA)
da...@psilink.co.uk
all with:
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:03:40 +0000, Bob Johnstone
><b...@gm1ygv.demon.co.uk> entertained us all with:
>
>>Well said, Confirms that I am not alone in expressing words similar to
>>the above. Still don't like morse though. One of my friends (a GM8 ) in
>>Moray-shire was a Telegraghist with the Post Office, his question is,
>>why should he sit a basic morse test when he was a professional operator
>>who still reads the stuff at 35+ wpm.
>
>You could ask why a Formular One racing driver needs to pass the
>driving test, Bob.
I *must* get a spellchecker for Free Agent sometime!
:o)
Dave (G0DJA)
R V M J
<very big snip>
Reply to Ian G3SEK.
My original posting was not intended to cover the entire case put
forward by the FOC in support of the changes it would like to see. I
read the entire article, and then chose to challenge some of the
FOC's assertions that it put forward in support of it's case. I also
challenged a central tenet of the FOC's proposal.
I also encouraged people to read it, in the interests of greater
dissemination than RadCom can cover, and also to ecourage debate.
These assertions made were:
a) declining levels of morse on the (non-amateur) HF bands
b) the "current standard" on the amateur HF bands being 20 wpm
c) contest morse standards rising
d) inadequacy of the current Morse test
The central theme was that of Class A mapping to "General" Class.
The case for a) has never been supported by any figures. Anecdotal
evidence, no matter how often repeated, is no substitute for this.
Until figures are published the assertion simply cannot be taken as
valid. For example, Morse might be declining in use on the
non-amateur HF bands. But other modes might be declining faster,
leaving Morse in a pre-eminent position. Until we have some numbers,
we will never know, and the FOC - or any other organisation - cannot,
use this as a supportive argument.
There cannot be a case for b) as it is an emotive rather that
factual statement.
Similarly for c) especially as contest morse is frequently machine
morse, and therefore irrelevant to the "increasing skills"
requirement for the proposed "Extra" Class.
b) and c)are not a sound bases for proposing an
"Extra" Class, being emotional rather than factual. It rather lets
down the FOC's case for this particular change.
As far as d) is concerned, the form of the morse test was changed to
make it more realistic. Whether any test could ever encompass total
realism is doubtful. Even the one proposed by the FOC. So perhaps a
"super" Morse test for "Extra" priviliges isn't the way to go. But
that should not be so much a basis for scrapping it as making it
"better".
I also took issue with Class A mapping to "General" Class. I
counter-proposed for the sake of discussion that Class A maps to
"Extra" class in the event that such a class comes about, which of
course results in Class B mapping to "General" class. In this way
everybody gains something, presuming that the "Extra" Class
privileges count as a gain.
I feel that you have not answered the points I put forward.
I say, in the absence of any counterargument, that
the FOC's case is built on supposition and emotion. The article smacks
of an unpleasant form snobbishness or superiority that could easily
be called Elitist.
I'm afraid their case is, as presented, weak.
Jim Dunnett
wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>
>> Advert or not, it did seem a strange article for the RSGB. We are on the
>> way to a code free license..
What do you mean 'on the way'? We have had a code-free
ticket for years - class B.
Jim Dunnett
>One of my friends (a GM8 ) in Moray-shire was a Telegraghist
>with the Post Office, his question is, why should he sit a
>basic morse test when he was a professional operator
>who still reads the stuff at 35+ wpm.
I could probably have wiped the floor with the GPO
MRGC at GLV who tested me, but I still had to take the test.
Even a professional GPO telegraphist would have to take the
test. Perhaps he could have tested himself?!
The rules specify 12 WPM for amateurs, not 35+ (!)
Jim Dunnett
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:37:04 GMT, oly...@0spam.prestel.co.uk (Jim
>Dunnett) said:
>>
>>No-one has mentioned that there are also many Class-As who
>>prefer the VHF/UHF bands to HF!
>>
>I'll admit to that.
>
>Especially using CW for Aurora on 6M and 2M. My trouble, at the
>moment, is not having a decent antenna set up as I'm in a rented place
>and need the Landlords permission.
>
>Not that he's likely to say 'No' unreasonably, it's just a little down
>the priority list here at the moment. :o)
Buy your own house. Out in the country, miles from any QRM.
>Hving been on HF, whilst having no VHF/UHF antennas, I have to say
>that operating on crowded noisy bands full of all sorts of crud is not
>my idea of great fun. HI!
VHF does have that advantage, relative lack of pollution.
>Maybe I should advertise for a portable mast and go CW VHFing on the
>hills. :o)
Even less pollution - RF and environmental!
Chris Otley
wrote:
>Jan-Martin Hertzsch wrote:
>> |> ... where have all the 2m SSB operators gone
>> |>
>>
>> Here is one, but only with borrowed equipment, and the antenna needs
>> some work, but anyway - locator is IO 91 SM.
>> Haven't heard much around 144.300 MHz, but maybe that's because there
>> is a hill just east of the QTH towards London ...
>
>Look how few multimode 2m radios there are now, at at such a cost. That
>combined with the attitude of so many only to come out for contests mean
>that a lot of decent guys have just given up and shut up shop.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jon.
There must be thousands of mutimodes for 2M out there, like the
ubiquitous FT 290, available on the secondhand market if you don't
want to spend too much.
Over the last few years the multiband rigs like the Icom Ic706 Ic746
and the Yaesu 847 have come on the market, at a price of course.
I still use my IC 202 SSB/CW transceiver which I got back in the mid
70's, and it still works well.
BTW I try to be QRV on 2M SSB, unfortunately only on weekday mornings
between 10:00 and 13:00. I work /M or /P from IO93EI, over 420M ASL,
in N.Derbyshire.
I run 150W and about 8dBd ant.
Yesterday I talked to 6 or 7 stations in about one and half hours on
the band.
Unfortunately I have to agree with another point in this thread, a
good QTH is what you need for VHF/UHF. And at the moment I live in a
valley surrounded by 700-800 foot hills not very good for DX on 2M!
You have to keep the receiver switched on and listen on the band, but
don't be just a 'licensed listener', put out a CQ call from time to
time. There are people out there, honest!
Ciao... Chris G4CYA.
Gary Peach
Chris Otley wrote
> jon harris wrote:
>>Jan-Martin Hertzsch wrote:
>>> |> ... where have all the 2m SSB operators gone
>>> |>
>>>
>>
>>Look how few multimode 2m radios there are now, at at such a cost. That
>>combined with the attitude of so many only to come out for contests mean
>>that a lot of decent guys have just given up and shut up shop.
>
>ubiquitous FT 290, available on the secondhand market if you don't
>want to spend too much.
>
>Unfortunately I have to agree with another point in this thread, a
>good QTH is what you need for VHF/UHF. And at the moment I live in a
>valley surrounded by 700-800 foot hills not very good for DX on 2M!
>
>You have to keep the receiver switched on and listen on the band, but
>don't be just a 'licensed listener', put out a CQ call from time to
>time. There are people out there, honest!
The problems seems to be that it takes for ever to get a band well populated
but only a few moments to empty it.
Once there is some occupancy there simple MUST be a reason to keep coming
back.
Really the content of most QSOs is hard conducive to regular support.
This ng gets support because there is a variety of topics and a ready
audience.
Why people should find nothing to say once they have a mic in their fist I
wonder why they bothered to sit the RAE and then shell out for a licence in
the first place.
If we are to re-awaken 2m, and keep it awake, then it requires effort upon
everyone's part. To call CQ as suggested every 15 minutes for the week
beginning the 15 February, (before the good weather has everyone doing
something else), and once you do get into QSO make sure that you hold up
your end. Make sure that you observe the break at overs to let in those that
are bound to be listening. If you do manage to get the mic make sure that
you have something to say and KEEP on saying it. While there is occupancy
there is always a chance of bringing up others. Especially if you are saying
something interesting. The same applies to the other modes.
Why 12.5 kHz channel spacing was introduced at this late stage, when it
could have been the making of the band some time ago, I am at a loss.
Gary7SLL
jon harris
>
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:03:40 +0000, Bob Johnstone <b...@gm1ygv.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >One of my friends (a GM8 ) in Moray-shire was a Telegraghist
> >with the Post Office, his question is, why should he sit a
> >basic morse test when he was a professional operator
> >who still reads the stuff at 35+ wpm.
>
> I could probably have wiped the floor with the GPO
> MRGC at GLV who tested me, but I still had to take the test.
>
> Even a professional GPO telegraphist would have to take the
> test. Perhaps he could have tested himself?!
>
> The rules specify 12 WPM for amateurs, not 35+ (!)
Interesting this...When my father first got his Class A he found many
guys wouldn't QSO as he could only get up to 15wpm or so. At first he
thought they were being bl**dy minded, but some guys did come through
and say they found it hard to slow down too much if they were used to
sending at 20-25 or so. Does anyone else find this, or is it a load of
bunkum?
Regards,
Jon.
jon harris
>
> >Jan-Martin Hertzsch wrote:
>
> >> |> ... where have all the 2m SSB operators gone
> >> |>
> >>
> >> some work, but anyway - locator is IO 91 SM.
> >> Haven't heard much around 144.300 MHz, but maybe that's because there
> >
> >Look how few multimode 2m radios there are now, at at such a cost. That
> >combined with the attitude of so many only to come out for contests mean
> >that a lot of decent guys have just given up and shut up shop.
> There must be thousands of mutimodes for 2M out there, like the
> ubiquitous FT 290, available on the secondhand market if you don't
> want to spend too much.
That's very true, but many new and old guys always like to buy new and
the dedicated 2m SSB radio is a dying breed. Having said that, maybe
it's due to lower demand...
> Over the last few years the multiband rigs like the Icom Ic706 Ic746
> and the Yaesu 847 have come on the market, at a price of course.
At over a grand that's a big price premium over a new 290 (if you can
still find one) and if you're a class B you can't use a good percentage
of it.
> I still use my IC 202 SSB/CW transceiver which I got back in the mid
> 70's, and it still works well.
I'm sure, a nice radio. I wish i had one, or persuade my dad to give me
his!
> BTW I try to be QRV on 2M SSB, unfortunately only on weekday mornings
> between 10:00 and 13:00. I work /M or /P from IO93EI, over 420M ASL,
> in N.Derbyshire.
>
> I run 150W and about 8dBd ant.
not /m for very long i shouldn't imagine!!
> You have to keep the receiver switched on and listen on the band, but
> don't be just a 'licensed listener', put out a CQ call from time to
> time. There are people out there, honest!
I think that is a big problem, it's almost as though no-one wants to be
seen to be the first to put a call out. Also try putting out a CQ call,
then 10mins later putting out a CQ-contest call, sadly there seems to be
a big difference in the number of responses...:-(
Cheers,
Jon.
jon harris
> Why 12.5 kHz channel spacing was introduced at this late stage, when it
> could have been the making of the band some time ago, I am at a loss.
Quite, anyone know why?
Cheers,
Jon.
Andy Lake
Jim Dunnett wrote:
> Buy your own house. Out in the country, miles from any QRM.
Hah! I did that, there are only 3 dwellings within a mile of me...
Unfortunately my Economy 7 electricity meter radiates broadband QRM at s9+
centered on 144.230MHz! Is it worth complaining to the Elec Co. about this?
Does anyone know why this QRM should occur at this frequency? (i.e.
internal workings of a radio-controlled E7 meter..) I've not found QRM
anywhere else in the spectrum.. (yet)...
Otherwise a good QTH, c. 580ft asl.
73
Andy
Ian White, G3SEK
>
><very big snip>
>
>Reply to Ian G3SEK.
>
>My original posting was not intended to cover the entire case put
>forward by the FOC in support of the changes it would like to see. I
>read the entire article, and then chose to challenge some of the
>FOC's assertions that it put forward in support of it's case. I also
>challenged a central tenet of the FOC's proposal.
>
>I also encouraged people to read it, in the interests of greater
>dissemination than RadCom can cover, and also to ecourage debate.
>
So far, so good...
[Warning - I've moved some of the quoted text below, so that everything
about point (a) appears before moving on to point (b), etc. This should
make it easier for others to follow.]
>These assertions made were:
>
>a) declining levels of morse on the (non-amateur) HF bands
>
>The case for a) has never been supported by any figures. Anecdotal
>evidence, no matter how often repeated, is no substitute for this.
>Until figures are published the assertion simply cannot be taken as
>valid. For example, Morse might be declining in use on the
>non-amateur HF bands. But other modes might be declining faster,
>leaving Morse in a pre-eminent position. Until we have some numbers,
>we will never know, and the FOC - or any other organisation - cannot,
>use this as a supportive argument.
All that the original article said about point (a) was: "Although
commercial Morse has been largely superseded, this does not compromise
its validity for *amateur* communications... The argument that
commercial Morse has been superseded is irrelevant and should be
discounted."
In other words: all that FOC said about your point (a) is that it's
irrelevant to what we choose to do inside amateur radio. Therefore,
unless you can explain why we should consider it relevant, it has no
further place in this argument.
>b) the "current standard" on the amateur HF bands being 20 wpm
>
>There cannot be a case for b) as it is an emotive rather that
>factual statement.
>
About this point, the original article said (and I'm quoting all I can
find, anywhere in the article):
"Very little Morse is sent at 12 WPM these days, and even less is sent
on a straight key."
For the proposed Extra Class, the OPTIONAL Morse test should be "at a
speed that it is consistent with standards on the bands today, say about
20WPM."
You have a strange use of the word "emotive". The FOC article is stating
opinions, but they are based on easily verifiable facts. Just listen on
the HF CW bands, choose any reliable method of estimating sending
speeds, and collect the statistics. You will indeed find a lot of people
sending at about 20 WPM, and about equal numbers above and below that
speed.
I think that the more factual evidence you collect, the more it will
support FOC's statements about the speeds in use.
>c) contest morse standards rising
>
>Similarly for c) especially as contest morse is frequently machine
>morse, and therefore irrelevant to the "increasing skills"
>requirement for the proposed "Extra" Class.
>
The original article said: "Morse contests attract increasing
participation, and standards continue to rise."
Increasing participation is a simple matter of record. Rising standards
is a judgement, but on this particular specialist point I'd be more
willing to accept FOC's expert judgement than either yours or my own.
You're missing the point about "machine Morse". It may be machine sent,
but in CW contests it is ALWAYS received by ear - that's where the skill
lies. Human skill in receiving Morse has always exceeded our ability to
send it for long periods without mechanical aids. We now realise that
the old telegrapher's complaint of "glass arm" was none other than
repetitive strain injury. That's why it became necessary to invent first
the mechanical bug key, then the electronic keyer, and now the computer.
>The central theme was that of Class A mapping to "General" Class.
>b) and c)are not a sound bases for proposing an
>"Extra" Class, being emotional rather than factual. It rather lets
>down the FOC's case for this particular change.
>
On the contrary, it's your arguments for b) and c) that don't stand up
to examination.
>d) inadequacy of the current Morse test
>As far as d) is concerned, the form of the morse test was changed to
>make it more realistic. Whether any test could ever encompass total
>realism is doubtful. Even the one proposed by the FOC. So perhaps a
>"super" Morse test for "Extra" priviliges isn't the way to go. But
>that should not be so much a basis for scrapping it as making it
>"better".
>
The FOC proposal is not to "scrap" the Morse test, but to make it
optional and also to make it better.
Agreed, no practicable kind of Morse test could even encompass total
realism; but changing the test passage to a QSO format rather than plain
text was only one step in that direction.
(IMO - and this is me talking, not FOC - the next step should be to
abolish the requirement to write everything down. The skills needed to
use Morse on the air are actually based on NOT writing everything down,
but concentrating on the parts of the message that are truly
significant. Therefore the present Morse test format is still training
people AWAY from the skills they will need to use Morse on the air.
A more appropriate test would be to send the QSO passage as it is done
now, allowing candidates to write down as much or as little as they
choose, and then give them a question paper about what was sent. The aim
would be to test how much of the significant details they have really
copied and understood, using whatever notes they had chosen to make Such
a test could be as hard as you like, especially if it is a "fill in the
blanks" type and insisted on 100% accuracy to gain each mark.
Back to the debate at hand...)
>I also took issue with Class A mapping to "General" Class. I
>counter-proposed for the sake of discussion that Class A maps to
>"Extra" class in the event that such a class comes about, which of
>course results in Class B mapping to "General" class. In this way
>everybody gains something, presuming that the "Extra" Class
>privileges count as a gain.
>
>I feel that you have not answered the points I put forward.
Maybe I didn't understand your proposal... and maybe I still don't.
FOC policy is that compulsory Morse testing should no longer be used to
distinguish between different classes of licence. Since the Morse test
requirement has been the *only* distinction between the existing A and B
licences, they propose to abolish it by giving all existing A privileges
to B licensees too.
You seem to be proposing to maintain a distinction between class A (maps
to Extra) and class B (maps to General). What is the logical basis for
your proposal that existing A licensees should continue to have more
privileges? The only difference is that they have passed a Morse test -
a reason that even the self-confessed "Morse elite" club rejects!
>
>I say, in the absence of any counterargument, that
>the FOC's case is built on supposition and emotion. The article smacks
>of an unpleasant form snobbishness or superiority that could easily
>be called Elitist.
I think that all of those accusations apply more to your own proposals
than to FOC's.
Advance notice: I'm pulling out of this thread very soon, because my
main objective has not been to argue with RVMJ, but simply to see the
FOC proposal reported accurately.
I hope that enough has been said on both sides to allow people to make
their own judgements.
73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.demon.co.uk/g3sek
Bob Johnstone
<oly...@0spam.prestel.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:19:08 +0000, jon harris <jon.p....@bt.com> wrote:
>
>>Colin Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian White G3SEK,G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk,Internet writes:
>>> >In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
>>> >give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
>>> >radio they are interested in.
>>> That seems like the voice of reason in this debate.
>>> The only thing I would add is a graded technical exam,
>>> making it harder and more _technical_.
>>
>>Of course, one has to wonder why the Pro-Morse people are so against
>>this...
>
>Who's against it?
>
>But consider also that too many licence classes with
>different priveleges would be difficult to administer
>and police. Try to keep it as simple as possible, please.
>
>And, Oi, you lot! When the time comes, contribute input
>to whatever consultation process may be put in place when
>it's asked for. Let it not be like the last time when
>neither the RSGB nor the RA could decide who was ticking
>the boxes and counting up the ticks; where the majority of
>amateurs were too indolent or apathetic to get off their
>backsides to respond to a straightforward questionnaire.
>
preffered option is that all consultation should take place though one
representative body, the RSGB. CB which has been legaly allied (yes!) to
Amateur Radio licencing has also had to conform to this. Not a lot of
people responded to previous questionaires issued by the RSGB to uk
radio amateurs in their RA recognised role of representing ALL radio
Amateurs, however a lot did start "howling at the moon", most
inefectively. Indolent and apathetic? Yes.
--
Bob Johnstone
Bob Johnstone
writes
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:03:40 +0000, Bob Johnstone
>
>>Well said, Confirms that I am not alone in expressing words similar to
>>Moray-shire was a Telegraghist with the Post Office, his question is,
>>why should he sit a basic morse test when he was a professional operator
>>who still reads the stuff at 35+ wpm.
>
>driving test, Bob.
>
>road. Same thing, at present, for HF access and the Morse test.
>
>However, from this reply, please don't assume that I'm in favour of
>retaining the Morse test. :o)
>
different from public road driving. The skill of accurately sending and
receiving morse IS the same for professional and Amateur, Only in the
practicle language used is there a difference, which the Current morse
test tries to reflect. All modes have their own foibles yet only
morse/cw foibles have to be tested upon. A lighthearted touch, I got
put off assuming a couple of weeks ago, by a workmate "ass u me". my
response was "ass u me?". I support all modes, used in the agreed band
segments. If I get flamed for the latter sentence, tough.
--
Bob Johnstone
jeff
writes
<snippety-snip>
>Interesting this...When my father first got his Class A he found many
>guys wouldn't QSO as he could only get up to 15wpm or so. At first he
>thought they were being bl**dy minded, but some guys did come through
>and say they found it hard to slow down too much if they were used to
>sending at 20-25 or so. Does anyone else find this, or is it a load of
>bunkum?
>
a different perspective.
When in a reasonably long 'rag-chew', I find that my speed gradually
increases (getting used to the other guy's fist, familiarity with the
subject, etc.). Once the natter really gets going, I head-copy most of
it, only writing down odd bits as an aide-memoire for my own over. If
the speed drops much below about 22 - 25 wpm, I start having trouble
remembering what has been sent (probably old age !). At 15 or so wpm, I
*have* to write everything down - it becomes a bit like listening to
someone talking v e r y s l o w l y. I imagine that the guys who
spoke to your dad had been head-copying at a fair old speed and found
the slower morse a pain to copy.
73 de Jeff
--
Jeff (g0uka)
Remove "SPAMKILLER" in address, if replying by e-mail
Gary Peach
da...@psilink.co.uk wrote
>Chris Packman entertained us all with:
>>
>>Monday... Microwaves (this is already an established practice)
>>Tuesday ..2M
>>Wends.....70Cms
>>Thurs.....6M
>>Fri.......4M
>
>Excuse a wry smile here! :o)
>
>Tuesday has been 4M activity night for a while now. The trouble with
>all of these otherwise excellent suggestions is that people don't know
>about them, or don't remember until too late, or find that the
>particular night on which their favourite band is having its
>'activity' period clashes with something else they want to do......
>
>How about an Inactivity night? Based on the low turn out for many
>'Activity' periods then more people would be on because they forgot
>they were supposed to be inactive.
It seems that any proposal should be based upon the "possible".
The first thing would be to have a register/list of Who is QRV on what bands
and at what time(s) they are most likely to be available.
Once all of that information is available then a few exploratory proposals
for a time / band schedule might be offered for consideration.
The fact is that none of us have complete current information on the state
of play. And who wants to do what. I would certainly like to spend more time
with a mic in my hand, or and on air mode of some sort.
I suppose a few log book entries: just a count of the numbers times and
bands would help.
I am presently QRV on 2m only, any mode; but stuck down a hole.
I suppose my only real choice for serious play would be to kit myself out
for EME. or Packet (need TNC etc.)
I must admit that EME is the most interesting, but some personal practical
restrictions make that unlikely. ;(
Gary7SLL
R V M J
<very big snip>
As far as my point a) is concerned:
I'm sure you are aware that it was the FOC that said in it's article:
>"Although commercial Morse has been largely superseded..."
I challenged the FOC to produce figures to support this.
They - and no one else either - has done so.
They then went on to say
>"... this does not compromise its validity for *amateur*
>communications...The argument that
>commercial Morse has been superseded is irrelevant and should be
>discounted."
I find this a curious way to develop an argument. If they had not
said the first part of the sentence, their statement would have been
unchallengeable. One wonders why they chose to make the point in this
way.
It is still up to the FOC to prove their assertion here.
Moving on to point b) we find:
The FOC says:
>"Very little Morse is sent at 12 WPM these days, and even less is sent
>on a straight key."
And you say:
> You will indeed find a lot of people sending at about 20 WPM, and
> about equal numbers above and below that speed.
Please state the results of any kind of authoritative survey that
would support either of these statements.
>I think that the more factual evidence you collect, the more it will
>support FOC's statements about the speeds in use.
The FOC - and you - are making the assertions, with respect it's up
to the FOC and you to prove them.
And for point c):
>The original article said: "Morse contests attract increasing
>participation, and standards continue to rise."
Which is, of course, an unsupported assertion about standards.
>You're missing the point about "machine Morse". It may be machine sent,
>but in CW contests it is ALWAYS received by ear - that's where the skill
>lies.
I can understand the point about skill, but please quote figures to
support the "always". Computers can, and do, decode morse.
Moving on to d):
>The form of the morse test was changed to
>make it more realistic. Whether any test could ever encompass total
>realism is doubtful.
I think we agree on this. So why should an unrealistic Morse test be
used to gain "Extra" class privileges?
Then the final part:
I also took issue with Class A mapping to "General" Class. I
counter-proposed for the sake of discussion that Class A maps to
"Extra" class in the event that such a class comes about.
And you said:
>Maybe I didn't understand your proposal... and maybe I still don't.
I thought it a clear and simple proposal. I'm sorry you don't
understand it.
Finally, I said:
>>I say, in the absence of any counterargument, that
>>the FOC's case is built on supposition and emotion. The article smacks
>>of an unpleasant form snobbishness or superiority that could easily
>>be called Elitist.
To which you answered:
>I think that all of those accusations apply more to your own proposals
>than to FOC's.
Which is a cheap shot, considering that none of the FOC's assertions
that I took issue with have been supported by factual evidence.
Human responses to situations are motivated from a spectrum ranging
from logic-based on the one hand, to emotion-based on the other. I
have asked at every turn for logic-based answers to questions
designed to elicit the reasoning behind the FOC assertions, in order
to
avoid emotional responses and move the debate along.
I have not received any factual responses to which logic could be
applied. I am therefore left with the conclusion that I am dealing
logically with an issue that is primarily emotive on the part of
yourself and the FOC.
Finanlly, you said:
>Advance notice: I'm pulling out of this thread very soon.
And so am I. It is to be regretted that there couldn't have been more
logic in the
discussion, but we may now have seen the true colours of those who
wish to use Morse as a route to an "Extra" class licence.
da...@psilink.co.uk
said:
>Interesting this...When my father first got his Class A he found many
>guys wouldn't QSO as he could only get up to 15wpm or so. At first he
>thought they were being bl**dy minded, but some guys did come through
>and say they found it hard to slow down too much if they were used to
>sending at 20-25 or so. Does anyone else find this, or is it a load of
>bunkum?
Ever tried riding a bike next to a begginner who has only just learned
to balance?
Similar problem. It *is* possible, but you need to be patient and not
go speeding off without them otherwise they get disillusioned and give
up.
Mind you, it is worth remembering that you were once a beginner. Both
on a bike and a key. :o)
Dave (G0DJA)
da...@psilink.co.uk
>Unfortunately my Economy 7 electricity meter radiates broadband QRM at s9+
>centered on 144.230MHz! Is it worth complaining to the Elec Co. about this?
What make is it?
Give me some more details, make, model, serial No. etc., and I'll make
a few calls to see if it's a problem that is known about. Also, which
PES (Public Electricity Supplier) area are you in? [1]
[1] Or, if you prefer their old name, what Electricity Board area are
you in?
Dave (G0DJA)
da...@psilink.co.uk
<b...@gm1ygv.demon.co.uk> said:
>>The answer is because that's what you have to do to drive a car on the
>>road. Same thing, at present, for HF access and the Morse test.
>>
>>However, from this reply, please don't assume that I'm in favour of
>>retaining the Morse test. :o)
>>
>A good reply to my "G8" Q' however the skills of formula one are
>different from public road driving. The skill of accurately sending and
>receiving morse IS the same for professional and Amateur, Only in the
>practicle language used is there a difference, which the Current morse
>test tries to reflect. All modes have their own foibles yet only
>morse/cw foibles have to be tested upon. A lighthearted touch, I got
>put off assuming a couple of weeks ago, by a workmate "ass u me". my
>response was "ass u me?". I support all modes, used in the agreed band
>segments. If I get flamed for the latter sentence, tough.
Ok then, what about the guy I used to know who taught Canoeing and
Climbing, but had to be 'tested' by some of his ex-pupils every year
to retain certificates to lead parties on various grades of rivers
and climbs?
The trouble is, once you start saying that such-and-such a person is
exempt then there is always someone so near the cut off that they will
say 'Why do *I* have to take it, but *they* don't?'
Dave (G0DJA)
g4...@aol.com
> Blake) wrote:
>
> >R V M J (key....@saqnet.co.uk) wrote:
> >
> >: But the fact that the RSGB Ltd published it, especially taking into
> >: account the Editorial, strongly suggests that they agree with it.
> >: together with the fact that they never publish the other side of the
> >: debate.
> >
> >Yes, but isn't a just a matter of sensing the feeling in the "market" - if
> >they don't get any complaints that that's the way forward.
> >
> >For my 1d worth:
> >
> >Existing licencees (not Novice) would get a general class with a similar
> >level of privileges to the current licence.
> >
> >Existing Novices licencees would get a restricted class similar to the Novice
> >licence.
> >
> >The Extra Class licence would grant certain (what?) extra privileges on
> >attainment of certain milestones. A demonstrable CW operating capability at
> >20 wpm could be one milestone. The ability to set up (properly) a tranceiver
> >from scratch (not just unpack!) could be another example. There could (and
> >should) be many others.
> >
> >What we must guard against is the attainment of any advanced licence on
> >soley operating skills alone, i.e. the ability to send/read morse code at
> >20 wpm plus a multiple guess exam pass on their own should not entitle one
> >to an Extra-Class licence. There should be more to an amateur licence than
> >that.
>
> >Geoff
>
> What a well-reasoned reply in what otherwise, with notable exceptions,
> has been a thread with limited sense in it, especially where defence
> of the FOC/RSGB Ltd proposals are concerned.
>
> I was interested to note your comments the "operating skills should
> not be a basis for extra priveleges" (possibly a paraphrase), my
> original assertions were that the proposals as put forward were unfair
> to at least the present Class A licencees.
>
> And this is one of many lines that could be taken against this
> proposal.
> --
> from
> R V M J
> To e-mail remove key.
I have written to the RSGB also about the 'advertisement for the FOC. I
enclose it here as I have a strong feeling that it may not reach the printed
page but instead be filed in a dark place, after all I am only a poor member
and not part of an elitist club. The Last Word
February 2, 1999
Last night I watched 'News at Ten' a somewhat renowned broadcast ending with
a feature which was prompted by another news report in one of the National
Newspapers over the weekend. That feature was about the end of Commercial
Morse usage for Marine traffic. It explained that new technology was such
that with the push of a button the position of marine traffic was relayed to
wherever. The video clip contained a gentleman that explained the origins of
Morse in the 19th century and how it was now regarded a World War II
technology as far as communications goes. He did explain however that it was
still used by 'radio hams'. All extremely interesting when compared to the
article titled 'The Future of Licensing' enclosed in Februarys RadCom.
The articles titled has to be challenged, unless this has already been decided
as the path the licence will take and its format is set in stone. This article
should have been entitled 'An advert for the elitist First Class CW Operators
Club and how we see the future of the licence.'
This article should never have been accepted by the RSGB for publication
under that guise. It should have been accepted as a letter from a member club
of the RSGB, a small one at that, on how it would like to see the licence
develop with regard to Morse Code. There are elements that can be agreed upon
such as the Morse being optimal under certain conditions, Data modes can
claim that also but we do not have to pass a computer or data test to
operate. Morse is bandwidth efficient when used with the proper filters for
the receiver then signals outside that pass-band are unheard. Unfortunately
Morse users do not always employ these filters. Simple low cost equipment for
receiving is available for DSB transmission and receivers and have been the
subject of many kit suppliers over the years. This however does not advocate
the fact that we should all use DSB. All modes are comparable and why not,
there are many operators out there each with their own interest on the band.
Data operators, SSB operators, and CW operators all are equal but only one of
this group defends its right to be the deciding factor on whether a station
should hold an HF licence. This is preposterous why not subdivide the Amateur
by having a test for each mode, this would be unthinkable but yet we listen
to and read articles by persons advocating a bias to Morse code. The point of
any test is to provide 'Quality Assurance' and ' Commitment' of the
personages that attempt such a test. Morse may also require that commitment
etc. but it should not be seen in this modern day to be the only way forward
into a HF licence or higher power access. I agree that Morse is a valid means
of communication, but I do not agree that it should be the barrier that stops
many just as dedicated operators from achieving access to the HF bands.
The structure of the licence as laid out in this advertisement for the F.O.C.
leaves a lot to be desired. Who is going to take away rights earned by other
H.F. operators who only passed a 12wpm test and give them to VHF licence
holders, surely not the RSGB, a Society by name that is supposed to support
the Radio operator, whether as a listener or operator. HF licence holders
have earned the right to operate the HF frequencies, VHF licence holders have
done likewise.
A solution to limiting access to the HF licence, which seems to be the purpose
of the present system and is being proposed by the FOC with regard to its
'Extra Class' (Seems like another elitist term) would be the introduction of
written examination for each level of access or a Morse test.
Technically those who opt for the written examination, such as the RAE,
should have more technical ability than those who can thump a key at 12 or 20
words a minute. We would improve standards in a progressive way a way that
could be verified by clubs up and down the country by inspection of the
station log. This would show the number of contacts made in that 1st year of
operation and would not require examination after that period, as proficiency
would have been proven. This goes back to the days when operators that gained
an HF licence had to operate on Morse for 12 months after passing the test.
The structure of the licence would then read Novice Licence, VHF Licence, High
Power VHF Licence, HF licence and High Power HF Licence.
Get away from the proposal of 'Class' A and B, both install schoolboy memories
of 1st and 2nd class. The real terms as mentioned above should be used.
Band planning for Morse usage should be protected with a relevant section
set- aside internationally for that particular mode. Bear in mind that Data
operators are equally justified in their defence of a particular section of
each band and as both sets of operators must agree the efficient bandwidth of
both modes would therefore mean that there is not a huge requirement for
bandwidth allocation. I also believe that contest should be limited to a
sector of the band and allow the other operators a free section to rag-chew
upon.
The idea of Morse being one of the options for high power access cannot be
justified, as very little power is needed to make a good contact even in bad
conditions. Data modes should also be excluded from high power operation. The
only method of gaining a high power licence should be a method that shows you
are technically competent to cure interference problems, that you can
demonstrate your ability to install a safe station, that you can demonstrate
your ability to understand and repair or fault find circuitry that is employed
at high power.
This will ensure the proficiency of the operators of the Amateur Licence.
The effect of the Internet cannot be ignored as a contributory factor to the
lessening numbers of young people interested in the hobby, remember FOC, this
is a hobby not a profession, although this hobby, just as photography can lead
to a lifetime in a relevant profession.
Young people can access the Internet without having to pass a test or put up
with the divisions that are extremely defended within this hobby. All the
magazines that promote the Internet state how easy it is, our magazines go out
of their way at times to put barriers up to entry and then we have factions
that wish to put up more and more difficulties.
Amateur Radio is at a crossroads but the way ahead is barred by the
insistence that we carry on with our World War II technology and the
insistence that Morse is the answer to better operators. What a load of
dribble, better operators are made by improving the access and support in the
hobby, by giving a better goal structure to achieve and options for
progression to the next level that should be monitored and supported by local
clubs supported in turn by the RSGB at ground level. All examinations now are
based on competency gained over a period not just tests.
The final sentence in the FOC advertisement states it all, the FOC will make
you do as they wish or else. Smacks of fascism doesn't it, well going back to
the War, they didn't win then either.
Author J R McCallum G4YMC/PA3HBA A HF/VHF SSB and CW operator (at a
comfortable 15 wpm) who can send at 20+wpm, but so can my computer.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jim Dunnett
>Jim Dunnett wrote:
>
>> Buy your own house. Out in the country, miles from any QRM.
>
>Hah! I did that, there are only 3 dwellings within a mile of me...
>Unfortunately my Economy 7 electricity meter radiates broadband QRM at s9+
>centered on 144.230MHz! Is it worth complaining to the Elec Co. about this?
It shouldn't. Complain. Bitterly.
Jim Dunnett
><very big snip>
>
>As far as my point a) is concerned:
>
>I'm sure you are aware that it was the FOC that said in it's article:
>
>>"Although commercial Morse has been largely superseded..."
>
>I challenged the FOC to produce figures to support this.
>They - and no one else either - has done so.
It has, slightly, due to the useless and unpopular GMDSS
system, but where would you get the figures from?
Jim Dunnett
>Jim Dunnett wrote:
>> The rules specify 12 WPM for amateurs, not 35+ (!)
>
>Interesting this...When my father first got his Class A he found many
>guys wouldn't QSO as he could only get up to 15wpm or so. At first he
>thought they were being bl**dy minded, but some guys did come through
>and say they found it hard to slow down too much if they were used to
>sending at 20-25 or so. Does anyone else find this, or is it a load of
>bunkum?
A little truth and much chauvinism!
Slowing down from 45 to 5 COULD be painful for some. Nonetheless
your father's correspondents were being bloody-minded. You ALWAYS
slow down to the speed of your correspondent. Anything else is not
only bad operating, but bad manners as well.
Bob Johnstone
writes
>On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:05:41 +0000, Bob Johnstone
><b...@gm1ygv.demon.co.uk> said:
>>>The answer is because that's what you have to do to drive a car on the
>>>road. Same thing, at present, for HF access and the Morse test.
>>>
>>>However, from this reply, please don't assume that I'm in favour of
>>>retaining the Morse test. :o)
>>>
>>A good reply to my "G8" Q' however the skills of formula one are
>>different from public road driving. The skill of accurately sending and
>>receiving morse IS the same for professional and Amateur, Only in the
>>practicle language used is there a difference, which the Current morse
>>test tries to reflect. All modes have their own foibles yet only
>>morse/cw foibles have to be tested upon. A lighthearted touch, I got
>>put off assuming a couple of weeks ago, by a workmate "ass u me". my
>>response was "ass u me?". I support all modes, used in the agreed band
>>segments. If I get flamed for the latter sentence, tough.
>
>Ok then, what about the guy I used to know who taught Canoeing and
>Climbing, but had to be 'tested' by some of his ex-pupils every year
>to retain certificates to lead parties on various grades of rivers
>and climbs?
ok then, when were you re-tested on morse to enable you to keep your
valued "a" licence class, or any-one else (uk) for that matter?
>
>The trouble is, once you start saying that such-and-such a person is
>exempt then there is always someone so near the cut off that they will
>say 'Why do *I* have to take it, but *they* don't?'
>
>
>Dave (G0DJA)
what cut off do you refer to? the morse pass lasts forever in real term,
it does not matter if after some years, one does not know their "a" from
their "r" their "s" from their "e", or indeed their elbow. The same
goes, sadly, for much else in amateur radio, including the self
training. This is obvious from the many comments over the years equating
to "I had to do it, therefore I will not allow any change to take place"
--
Bob Johnstone
jon harris
> >
> The RA repeatedly state that while they must respond to anyone their
> preffered option is that all consultation should take place though one
> representative body, the RSGB. CB which has been legaly allied (yes!) to
> Amateur Radio licencing has also had to conform to this. Not a lot of
However CB users don't contact the RSGB they use the BCBC. The BCBC is
in a similar mould to the RSGB in so far that it states it represents
*all* licensed users yet only accepting input from members. At the the
last count some only some 900 out of 40,000 licensed CB users were
members of the BCBC...
Cheers,
Jon.
Ged
writes
>
>However CB users don't contact the RSGB they use the BCBC. The BCBC is
>in a similar mould to the RSGB in so far that it states it represents
>*all* licensed users yet only accepting input from members.
totally ignores them.
--
Ged
Bob Johnstone
>> >
>> The RA repeatedly state that while they must respond to anyone their
>> preffered option is that all consultation should take place though one
>> representative body, the RSGB. CB which has been legaly allied (yes!) to
>> Amateur Radio licencing has also had to conform to this. Not a lot of
>
>in a similar mould to the RSGB in so far that it states it represents
>last count some only some 900 out of 40,000 licensed CB users were
>members of the BCBC...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jon.
full stop is. Most would agree I think, that it would be a very strange
Society indeed who paid as much attention to non-members as members. I
have yet to see where the stone tablets say "thou shall not accept input
from non members". Same subject different tack, I listen to non RSGB
members as I am sure many more also do, any honest non-destructive
comment should be recognised as useful in forming ones views. Therefore
non-members views do in a way get passed into RSGB representation on
behalf of all Radio Amateurs. However, non-member views I am afraid, do
not pay the expences.
--
Bob Johnstone
Jan-Martin Hertzsch
|>
|> Look how few multimode 2m radios there are now, at at such a cost. That
|> combined with the attitude of so many only to come out for contests mean
|>
The cost argument doesn't really hold, Who told the people that they all
have to buy a brand new rig? Of course, some do, but then, they usually
sell the old one, and somebody else will be able to get a less expensive
piece of equipment ... I believe that there are affordable multimode VHF
(and UHF!) rigs for nearly everyone; even for an "el cheapo" type like
me ;-) - and I have great fun with that 25 years old FT-221 at home!
I'm in particular surprised that there is not that much activity in
the London area - although there is that hill towards the east, I should
expect to hear some more stations than I have heard up to now ...
There are so many people living here, surely some of them must be
radio amateurs ...
vy 73, Jan-Martin
Jon Harris
>
> In article <36B81B...@bt.com>, jon harris <jon.p....@bt.com>
> writes
> >
> >However CB users don't contact the RSGB they use the BCBC. The BCBC is
> >in a similar mould to the RSGB in so far that it states it represents
> >*all* licensed users yet only accepting input from members.
> totally ignores them.
Whoops, sorry i stand corrected!
Cheers,
Jon.
Jan-Martin Hertzsch
<xc...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
|> (Chris Packman's suggestion for a VHF "timetable" and Dave's comments)
|> It seems that any proposal should be based upon the "possible".
|> The first thing would be to have a register/list of Who is QRV on what bands
|> and at what time(s) they are most likely to be available.
OK, I'll continue: QRV on 2 m in J3E, A1A (pse qrs) and F3E, up to 100 W,
awfully slow rotating Yagi antenna. Locator IO91SM. Also QRV on 70 cm,
but F3E only and just 2 W - nevertheless avoiding the relay stations.
Usually qrv on weekday evenings, the odd low-power F3E QSO can also
be done during the day.
vy 73 de M0CEF, Jan-Martin
Gareth Rowlands
mas...@radagast.brunel.ac.uk (Jan-Martin Hertzsch) wrote:
> I should expect to hear some more stations than I have heard up to now ...
> There are so many people living here, surely some of them must be
> radio amateurs ...
There are a few amateurs around your way, but often, they are in the PUB
in the Evenings !
73, Gareth (in Hayes)
Jon Harris
> >> >
> >> The RA repeatedly state that while they must respond to anyone their
> >> preffered option is that all consultation should take place though one
> >> representative body, the RSGB. CB which has been legaly allied (yes!) to
> >> Amateur Radio licencing has also had to conform to this. Not a lot of
> >
> >in a similar mould to the RSGB in so far that it states it represents
> >last count some only some 900 out of 40,000 licensed CB users were
> >members of the BCBC...
> Again however, My comment did not say cb'ers were RSGB, notice where the
> full stop is.
Duly noted.
> Most would agree I think, that it would be a very strange
> Society indeed who paid as much attention to non-members as members. I
Yes true, but *if* the RSGB state they represent Ham Ops interests then
they should take into account the views of all Ham Ops, otherwise they
represent their members not Hams as a whole.
As the RSGB seems to be the only source for callsign information etc
perhaps an investigation by the M&MC would be in order :-)
> Same subject different tack, I listen to non RSGB
> members as I am sure many more also do, any honest non-destructive
> comment should be recognised as useful in forming ones views. Therefore
> non-members views do in a way get passed into RSGB representation on
> behalf of all Radio Amateurs. However, non-member views I am afraid, do
> not pay the expences.
Agreed, but a lot of their activities make me feel very uncomfortable.
Perhaps giving the option of not having RadCom and reducing the annual
fees? Otherwise £36 quid or whatever it is now is bad value for what
should a lobbying organisation.
Cheers,
Jon.
Derek Thom
writes
>Yes true, but *if* the RSGB state they represent Ham Ops interests then
>they should take into account the views of all Ham Ops, otherwise they
>represent their members not Hams as a whole.
>
amateurs.
>As the RSGB seems to be the only source for callsign information etc
>perhaps an investigation by the M&MC would be in order :-)
They are not the only source - at least a couple of other organisations
market a CR-ROM based callbook; at least they did, I've not seen their
adverts recently.
>Agreed, but a lot of their activities make me feel very uncomfortable.
>Perhaps giving the option of not having RadCom and reducing the annual
>fees? Otherwise £36 quid or whatever it is now is bad value for what
>should a lobbying organisation.
Join up and lobby for change!
73, Derek
--
Derek Thom G3NKS
Cheltenham IO81XU
QRV 160m to 70cm
The above views are my own and are not necessarily those of any organisation
of which I am a member.
Jim Dunnett
>> Most would agree I think, that it would be a very strange
>> Society indeed who paid as much attention to non-members as members. I
>
>Yes true, but *if* the RSGB state they represent Ham Ops interests then
>they should take into account the views of all Ham Ops, otherwise they
>represent their members not Hams as a whole.
Who are these 'hams' you go on about? You wouldn't be referring
to us Radio Amateurs, would you?
>As the RSGB seems to be the only source for callsign information etc
>perhaps an investigation by the M&MC would be in order :-)
The source is, in reality, SSL.
Phil Ingham
<De...@g3nks.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Yes true, but *if* the RSGB state they represent Ham Ops interests then
>>they should take into account the views of all Ham Ops, otherwise they
>>represent their members not Hams as a whole.
>>
>amateurs.
>
problem, I contacted the RSGB, they said they could not help if I was
not a member. I explained that I only wanted advice not their
intervention or whatever. They told me to write in to them - I did,
their reply was to send me a membership form.
Whilst I agree they are there to serve members first (I was a member but
gave it up some 12 years ago), they are the only body we have to
represent us. If that is their attitude to a cry for help, then it makes
one wonder what their agenda actually is.
--
Phil Ingham
G6HDD
Bob Johnstone
snipsnip
>> Most would agree I think, that it would be a very strange
>> Society indeed who paid as much attention to non-members as members. I
>
>they should take into account the views of all Ham Ops, otherwise they
>represent their members not Hams as a whole.
>
>As the RSGB seems to be the only source for callsign information etc
>perhaps an investigation by the M&MC would be in order :-)
>
>> members as I am sure many more also do, any honest non-destructive
>> comment should be recognised as useful in forming ones views. Therefore
>> non-members views do in a way get passed into RSGB representation on
>> behalf of all Radio Amateurs. However, non-member views I am afraid, do
>> not pay the expences.
>
>Perhaps giving the option of not having RadCom and reducing the annual
>fees? Otherwise £36 quid or whatever it is now is bad value for what
>should a lobbying organisation.
Perhaps something little known. RadCom, due to it's advertising,
actually provides revenue to help defray expences in representing all
radio amateurs. It is not a "cost" to members. Ask some-one living near
to you who is a member to let you see the accounts which are published,
you will then understand that all the various enterprises, particularly
the foreign venues do cost an awful lot of cash. If all radio Amateurs
who benefit from the "lobbying" shared the cost then that cost would be
in the region of £14. Note that quite a few who mention using the WARC
bands and of course the other bands which have become "open" to amateur
use, do not and will not, share the negotiating and lobbying cost. They
seem to regard RSGB endevours as a form of free welfare. I and now you,
know they are misguided.
--
Bob Johnstone
Gary Coffman
>jon harris wrote:
>>Colin Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian White G3SEK,G3...@ifwtech.demon.co.uk,Internet writes:
>>> >In that debate, the idea of modular exam is gaining momentum. That would
>>> >give candidates the choice to concentrate on the aspects of amateur
>>> >radio they are interested in.
>>> That seems like the voice of reason in this debate.
>>> The only thing I would add is a graded technical exam,
>>> making it harder and more _technical_.
>>
>>Of course, one has to wonder why the Pro-Morse people are so against
>>this...
>
>
>73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
> 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
> http://www.ifwtech.demon.co.uk/g3sek
Pardon me for horning in as an outsider. From what I've gathered here,
the FOC proposes to use a Morse test as an alternative to some other
test (presumably a technical test) as a route to the proposed "Extra"
license. If so, it would indeed seem that they want to substitute Morse
skill for technical knowledge (or some other knowledge not yet mentioned).
That would appear to be the point being made by Mr. Harris and Mr. Shaw.
The evidence requested by Mr. White seems to be contained in the FOC
proposal itself since that is what they are reported to be proposing.
Now retaining my outsider status, I would remark that it would seem
that to gain identical privileges, identical requirements should hold.
To have one person gain privileges through one route, and another
to gain those same privileges through another route, is highly likely
to lead to inequity. How is the equality of requirement to be measured
and established if the requirements are fundamentally of a differing
kind? In other words, how many WPM Morse does it take to offset
knowledge of Kirchhoff and Ohm?
Fundamentally, I suppose I'm saying that to preserve equity, there
can only be one standard for all. And I would add, that standard
should be one which satisfies legitimate regulatory interest. In other
words, what regulatory concern does a particular part of the exam
address? Is it something with a history of creating operating
infractions? Or put another way, has your RA issued citations for
too slow Morse use on your bands? If not, then why is Morse speed
even a matter being addressed by examinations? And why should
it now be allowed to displace some things which are of regulatory
concern?
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke...@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
Ian Brown
from Phil Ingham <ph...@nospam.geotek.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Whilst I agree they are there to serve members first (I was a member but
> gave it up some 12 years ago), they are the only body we have to
> represent us. If that is their attitude to a cry for help, then it makes
> one wonder what their agenda actually is.
I wholehearted agree with your treatment.
Unfortunetely, members often get the same treatment, minus the
membership application form.
Ian - GM0ILB >>