KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog for Tuesday 1 April 2014

[KB6NU via rec.radio.info Admin]

KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

///////////////////////////////////////////
FCC to reinstate Morse Code test

Posted: 01 Apr 2014 07:43 AM PDT
http://www.kb6nu.com/fcc-to-reinstate-morse-code-test/


This just in

Washington, D.C. – April 1, 2014 Today, the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission or FCC) approved Report and Order 14-987af which
reinstates the Morse Code test for General Class and Amateur Extra Class
licensees. It was a big mistake eliminating the Morse Code test, admits
Dotty Dasher, the FCCs director of examinations. We now realize that being
able to send and receive Morse Code is an essential skill for radio
amateurs. As they say, it really does get through when other modes cant.

Not only will new applicants have to take the test, but General Class
licensees who have never passed a code test will have one year to pass a
5-wpm code test. Similarly, Amateur Extra class licensees that never passed
a code test will have one year to pass a 13-wpm test. Those amateurs that
fail to pass the test will face revocation of their operating privileges.
Materials for administering the examinations will be distributed to
Volunteer Examiner Coordinators by the end of April, so that they can begin
the testing on May 1, 2014.

This isnt going to be one of those silly multiple-choice type tests, noted
Dasher. Were going to be sending five-character random code groups, just
like we did in the old days. And, applicants will have to prove that they
can send, too, using a poorly adjusted straight key.

Technician Class licensees will not be required to take a Morse Code test,
nor will a test be required for new applicants. We discussed it, said
Dasher, but decided that since most Techs cant even figure out how to
program their HTs, requiring them to learn Morse Code seemed like cruel and
unusual punishment.

When asked what other actions we might see from the FCC, Dasher hinted that
in the future applicants taking the written exam may be required to draw
circuit diagrams, such as Colpitts oscillators and diode ring mixers, once
again. Were beginning to think that if an applicant passes an amateur radio
license exam it  should mean that he or she actually knows something, she
said.

For further information, contact James X. Shorts, Assistant Liaison to the
Deputy Chief of Public Relations for the FCC at (202) 555-1212
or jim.s...@fcc.gov. For more news and information about the FCC, please
visit www.fcc.gov.


///////////////////////////////////////////
From my inbox: radio demos, free EM simulation, radio builders BBS

Posted: 31 Mar 2014 05:00 PM PDT
http://www.kb6nu.com/from-my-inbox-radio-demos-free-em-simulation-radio-builders-bbs/


Here are some items of note from my inbox:

My partner in crime down at WA2HOM, Ovide, K8EV, is working with Professor
Ray, who does science shows for kids down at the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum,
to develop a show about radio. In researching this, Ovide happened across
the Happy Scientists experiment on AM and FM radio waves. There are a bunch
of other interesting experiments on the site, but you have to subscribe to
the site, in other words pay, to view them.
openEMS is a free and open electromagnetic field solver using the FDTD
method. Matlab or Octave are used as an easy and flexible scripting
interface. I havent yet tried this out, but it sounds like a neat tool to
play around with.
TheRadioBoard is a forum for the homemade radio builder. There are forums
for crystal radio builders, tube radio builders, and solid state radio
builders, as well as a swap forum and antenna forum.

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 4/1/2014 11:36 AM, KB6NU via rec.radio.info Admin wrote:
> KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////
> FCC to reinstate Morse Code test

It wasn't all that funny when I read it on the QCWA reflector
and it didn't magically become any funnier reading it over here.

Just more sour grapes from those that just can't get over the
idea that things change.


--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

[Michael J. Coslo]

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:36:26 PM UTC-4, KB6NU via rec.radio.info Admin
wrote:

> KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

> FCC to reinstate Morse Code test

> Dasher, but decided that since most Techs cant even figure out how to
> program their HTs, requiring them to learn Morse Code seemed like cruel a
nd
> unusual punishment.

I work with many new Hams, of course they are Technicians. These are usuall
y bright, enthusiastic, involved people, many with extensive computer skill
s, and wishing to flesh out their knowledge and gain insight into RF. Exact
ly the path I took. Many have since moved on to General and Extra.

> Were beginning to think that if an applicant passes an amateur radio
> license exam it should mean that he or she actually knows something,
she
> said.

Interestingly enough, I found a licensing guide from 1958 for Novice and Ge
neral classes. It was published by Ameco. Surprisingly any of the questions
and answers from that manual have remained unchanged. Missing of course ar
e the tube equipment related questions.

[Jerry Stuckle]

The major difference being, those were only example questions - not the
real questions on the test. The test questions covered the same
material, but you couldn't just memorize the answers.

For instance, a question might ask for the resonant frequency of an LC
circuit. But the inductor and capacitor values would be different in
the test than the sample question.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Steve Bonine]

On 4/3/14, 10:35 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 4/2/2014 11:50 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

>> Interestingly enough, I found a licensing guide from 1958 for Novice

>> and General classes. It was published by Ameco. Surprisingly any of the

>> questions and answers from that manual have remained unchanged. Missing of

>> course are the tube equipment related questions.

> The major difference being, those were only example questions - not the
> real questions on the test. The test questions covered the same
> material, but you couldn't just memorize the answers.
>
> For instance, a question might ask for the resonant frequency of an LC
> circuit. But the inductor and capacitor values would be different in
> the test than the sample question.

I surprised myself by my reaction to your comment, especially since
we've been beating this horse for years.

Today people memorize the questions and answers from the pool, while in
the past they learned the concepts behind them. I've made this same
argument myself; it seems obvious that learning concepts is better than
memorizing answers.

But is it, really? How much actual electronics did people learn before
the question pool came along? In reality, they spent their time
memorizing formulas that they could use during the test. They retained
most of that information about as long as current candidates retain the
answers to the test pool questions.

Today hams are appliance operators, and the part of the process that is
important relates to regulations and safety, and that's not really
concepts, so whether you learn it by questions for the pool or
memorizing text makes little difference.

Of what possible use to today's ham is calculating the resonance
frequency of an LC circuit? The only reason to force someone to learn
that -- whether they learn it by memorizing a formula or by memorizing
the answer to a question from the pool -- is to build a barrier to
entry. This provides prestige to the people who surmounted the barrier,
which is not an entirely bad thing. But the belief that candidates are
actually learning anything about electronics is, and always has been,
mostly a myth.

[Michael J. Coslo]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 9:41:55 PM UTC-4, Steve Bonine wrote:
> I surprised myself by my reaction to your comment, especially since
> we've been beating this horse for years.
>
>
> Today people memorize the questions and answers from the pool, while in
> the past they learned the concepts behind them. I've made this same
> argument myself; it seems obvious that learning concepts is better than
> memorizing answers.

Better, and easier.

For my Technician test and General, I pretty much
already knew the material, so aside from the (to me) odd stuff
regarding space operations, there was no need to study. Truth is
I can't speak much to that.

All I can say is that the old Ameco Novice test study guide
was elementary school level, and I would have needed to
learn tube equipment stuff for the General, but otherwis
it was not at all more difficult.

For the Amateur Extra, I did do some studying.
What I did was take a lot of the online
exams, and any questions that I missed, I went to one or
another reference, and learned how to get the correct
answer. After I reliably aced the onlines, I took the Extra test
for real.

> But is it, really? How much actual electronics did people learn before
> the question pool came along? In reality, they spent their time
> memorizing formulas that they could use during the test. They retained
>most of that information about as long as current candidates retain the
> answers to the test pool questions.

You pretty much hit it there Steve. Learning different stuff.

Now all that being said, simply memorizing questions and
letter answers is a very wasteful method of taking the tests.
I suspect not as many people do that as we might think.

> Today hams are appliance operators, and the part of the process that is
> important relates to regulations and safety, and that's not really
> concepts, so whether you learn it by questions for the pool or
> memorizing text makes little difference.

Electronics has changed. As for appliance operators, I teach
and instruct projects every year at our mountaintop station.
Last year we did a Quarter wave ground plane and a 3
element Yagi construction class, complete with
calculations. Each person built and tested their antenna.
We made over 20 of each.

I also taught a soldering class for both basic soldering,
and PL-259 soldering.

This year, I am teaching a soundcard communications
group. It's a hands-on group. By the time it is over,
each member involved will be able to send and
receive using either FLDigi or Ham Radio Deluxe.

As part of the process, the first construction project
this year will be a home-brew soundcard to radio interface.
At present, it looks like at least 10 will be built.

Almost all of these folks are young, new hams.

> Of what possible use to today's ham is calculating the resonance
> frequency of an LC circuit?

People in my classes do need some exposure to
formulae.
But once again - times have changed. They have
access to the world's biggest calculator, the internet.
We have reached the age where the old adage proves
true. What you know is not quite as important as
knowing where to find the answer.

And eventually osmosis does it's work.

One of my biggest tasks however, is protecting
the noobs from discouragement from within.
I like to think that I am building hams.
If there are any problems due to inadequate
preparation, I'll try to remedy that by teaching.

[Dick Grady AC7EL]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 21:41:55 EDT, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

>Today people memorize the questions and answers from the pool, while in
>the past they learned the concepts behind them. I've made this same
>argument myself; it seems obvious that learning concepts is better than
>memorizing answers.

I am the leader of a team of Volunteer Examiners who give Amateur
Radio license exams. Once a year, for those who want to get a
Technician License, we hold a study program, similar to a ham-cram
except that we urge them also to study the question pool ahead of
time. Then we hold a four-hour review in the morning, followed by an
exam in the afternoon. Our pass rate is about 90%.

I always tell them to study to pass the exam. Then find yourself an
Elmer (which we offer to do), because the real learning begins when
you pick up the microphone.

Dick Grady, AC7EL

[Bill Horne]

On 4/6/2014 9:41 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:

> I surprised myself by my reaction to your comment, especially since
> we've been beating this horse for years.

The "code" issue, yes, we've done that to death. As an "Old law" Extra
who passed a 20 wpm code test, I'm entitled to say that the view from
the top of that mountain was not worth the climb.

However, this isn't about code, even as an April Fool's joke.

> Today people memorize the questions and answers from the pool, while in
> the past they learned the concepts behind them. I've made this same
> argument myself; it seems obvious that learning concepts is better than
> memorizing answers.
>
> But is it, really? How much actual electronics did people learn before
> the question pool came along? In reality, they spent their time
> memorizing formulas that they could use during the test. They retained
> most of that information about as long as current candidates retain the
> answers to the test pool questions.

You're right. To be sure, I 'understood' the formulas needed to pass the
tests, but I didn't know what they meant until years later: that is the
difference between theory and practice.

It isn't until the "book" learning is tested by use, and we get to see
the results of those formulas being put to practical tests, that we come
to understand what's actually happening.

For example, while studying for one of my exams, I memorized the fact
that antennas have both an electrostatic and an electromotive field. It
wasn't until years later, when I was called on to teach that fact to
young students, that I had to /think/ about what that /actually/ meant.

I wound up teaching the students what a capacitor is, and we made one in
the class out of saran wrap and tinfoil, and I taught them how to
calculate the amount of capacitance (the meter, mercifully, agreed with
me). I then asked them what would happen if we separated the plates by
addition space, and I showed them an air variable and explained that it
was still a capacitor, and then I asked what happens when we separate
the plates by a few miles.

The puzzled looks on all those young faces gave way to gasps of
astonished understanding and cries of glee when I said "Well, if the
plates are that far apart, we call them antennas". It was an incredible,
and incredibly satisfying moment: I realized that they wouldn't have to
wait for years to understand why an antenna has an electrostatic field -
or why a magnetic loop is less susceptible to noise (which is mostly
electrostatic) than a regular loop.

I knew the formulas. I didn't know the /truth/ until I /had/ to think
about it in practical, explainable ways.

> Today hams are appliance operators, and the part of the process that is
> important relates to regulations and safety, and that's not really
> concepts, so whether you learn it by questions for the pool or
> memorizing text makes little difference.
>
> Of what possible use to today's ham is calculating the resonance
> frequency of an LC circuit? The only reason to force someone to learn
> that -- whether they learn it by memorizing a formula or by memorizing
> the answer to a question from the pool -- is to build a barrier to
> entry. This provides prestige to the people who surmounted the barrier,
> which is not an entirely bad thing. But the belief that candidates are
> actually learning anything about electronics is, and always has been,
> mostly a myth.

It may make more sense to look at ham tests of the 1960's the way I do:
entrance exams for military radio operators, which contain a lot of
questions about practical operation of HF radios in the field.

Questions such as how to calculate antenna length, how to neutralize a
transmitter, how to check a receiver setting against a crystal
calibrator or a frequency reference, were all things of everyday
interest to enlisted men operating Morse code in mobile radio teams.

You see (and this /is/ a subject /I/ regularly beat to death), hams were
a reserve force of radio operators who could be drafted and put to work
quickly when wars broke out. In /that/ paradigm, a few basic formulas
beaten into young minds by rote memorization were /exactly/ what the
War^h^h^h Defense department wanted.

73,

Bill, W1AC

(Filter QRM to write to me directly)

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

I passed the UK full exam a month ago. The paper had 62 questions, with 4
multiple choice answers. The UK system is different to the US system
insofar as there's no "question pool" to memorize, but, looking at old UK
papers from the 40s through 70s at this site: http://www.g4dmp.co.uk/rae/,
I'm struck by how similar many of the questions are in them to those in the
2014 paper I sat. Our hobby, whilst broad, is also apparently quite narrow!
Not much changes from one decade to the next, it seems.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone

[Steve Bonine]

On 4/8/14, 12:34 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
> On 4/6/2014 9:41 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:
>
>> I surprised myself by my reaction to your comment, especially since
>> we've been beating this horse for years.
>
> The "code" issue, yes, we've done that to death. As an "Old law" Extra
> who passed a 20 wpm code test, I'm entitled to say that the view from
> the top of that mountain was not worth the climb.

And I can't pass up the opportunity to wax reflective on this topic.

The FCC did me a huge favor when they built the licensing structure in
the 1960s. I was forced first to learn code at a whopping 5 wpm to pass
the Novice exam, then I had exactly one year to raise that speed to 13
wpm to pass the General exam, or I was out of business as a ham. That's
hefty incentive for a teenager who is hanging around with a bunch of
older ham radio operators, respects them, and wants to join the
fraternity. But initially it was far from fun; I would most certainly
not have spent the time to develop cw skill if it were not for the fact
that it was "use it or lose it".

Somewhere in this process, cw became fun. Learning cw is much like
learning a new language in the sense that at first it's drudgery and at
some point things change. Or at least that's the case for me; I know
that there are a lot of people who never reach that point, either for cw
or for spoken languages. And that's fine; I am not implying that you're
not a "real ham" if you don't operate cw, any more than you're not a
"real ham" if you don't do moonbounce or any of the other potential
aspects of the hobby.

The point I'm making is simple: Because I had to, I learned a skill
that provided me with a huge amount of enjoyment in my life.
Conversely, if I hadn't had this gun to my head, I wouldn't have gone
through the pain to do it, and I would have missed out on the joy that
cw has brought me through the years.

You may think that my next comment will be how I'm so upset that the
code requirement was removed for ham radio licenses. This is not the
case. I recognize the fact that we need new people coming into the
hobby, and that the cw requirement was effectively closing the door to
potential new hams. I'd rather have new people enter the hobby and then
see a tiny number of them become cw operators than have the entire hobby
collapse. Even though it's a bit counter-intuitive, I think that at the
end of the day there will be more new cw operators without the cw
requirement than with it.

But it makes me sad that so few people will enjoy the pleasure of cw.
It's not feasible to have the same structure in place now as was in
place in the 1960s, so I'm afraid that the art of cw operating is going
the way of the bulletin board system. Times change.

> You see (and this /is/ a subject /I/ regularly beat to death), hams were
> a reserve force of radio operators who could be drafted and put to work
> quickly when wars broke out. In /that/ paradigm, a few basic formulas
> beaten into young minds by rote memorization were /exactly/ what the
> War^h^h^h Defense department wanted.

Yes Bill, you're absolutely right, and this is a good point.

I remember a QSO I had years ago with a ham who had just retired from
the Navy. He was upset that the Navy was not teaching a lot of the
skills that he considered basic, including Morse code and navigating
using basic tools like a sextant. His prediction has stuck with me all
these years ... he said that if there was ever another large war, that
both sides would disable the navigation satellites of the other then the
navies of both countries would wander around helpless for the duration
of the conflict.

[Michael J. Coslo]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 12:08:00 PM UTC-4, Steve Bonine wrote:

> The point I'm making is simple: Because I had to, I learned a skill
> that provided me with a huge amount of enjoyment in my life.
> Conversely, if I hadn't had this gun to my head, I wouldn't have gone
> through the pain to do it, and I would have missed out on the joy that
> cw has brought me through the years.

<snip>

> But it makes me sad that so few people will enjoy the pleasure of cw.
> It's not feasible to have the same structure in place now as was in
> place in the 1960s, so I'm afraid that the art of cw operating is going
> the way of the bulletin board system. Times change.

It's always a two sided issue. I'm a hyperactive ham. I participate
in Public Service, I Elmer individuals, and teach various skills to
Various ham Groups. I'm a VE, and Administer one of the largest
QSO Parties in the nation. I also manage a world class contest station
and provide a likewise critical digipeater.

I'm also nearly deaf, with severe tinnitus.

Somethings may have been lost, and other things gained.
I wouldn't have gotten past Novice, and would no longer
be a ham under the old system.

But in the context of old things that are of some value,
I learned the slide rule just before it was abandoned
for calculators. Until that time, I was pretty bad at math.
Then almost as soon as the first class started, something
Clicked, and clicked hard.

Instant math weenie. That mechanical device with all the
strange groupings of numbers was an epiphany for me.

I love me some electronic calculator goodness, but out in the garage
I still use my slide rules.

And the batteries seem to last forever!

[Bill Horne]

On 4/9/2014 8:51 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

> I love me some electronic calculator goodness, but out in the garage
> I still use my slide rules.
>
> And the batteries seem to last forever!

In the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)
at M.I.T., there is a log-log sliderule, complete with holster, mounted
on the wall in a glass case.

There's a sign on it:

"In case of power failure, break glass"

73,

Bill W1AC


--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 4/9/2014 7:51 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 12:08:00 PM UTC-4, Steve Bonine wrote:
>
>> The point I'm making is simple: Because I had to, I learned a skill
>> that provided me with a huge amount of enjoyment in my life.
>> Conversely, if I hadn't had this gun to my head, I wouldn't have gone
>> through the pain to do it, and I would have missed out on the joy that
>> cw has brought me through the years.

I got my Novice license in 1967. Same routine. Upgrade or die.
It was fun at 5 WPM and every QSO was special. "Oh hey, I'm
talking to a guy 100 miles from here. Pant pant."

Getting my code speed up to 13+ so I could upgrade was painful.
I passed the code test, passed the General test, then got told
"As long as you're here, take the Advanced test too." Passed
that as well.

Okies, got my ticket, and I did do some CW on 40 meters, mostly
with two friends of mine but it never really "clicked" with me.

Early in 2005, I took the Extra test and passed it. So here I
am. Every year I make it a point to do at least ONE CW contact
for Straight Key Night. It's still painful, but I do because I
can.

>
> But in the context of old things that are of some value,
> I learned the slide rule just before it was abandoned
> for calculators. Until that time, I was pretty bad at math.
> Then almost as soon as the first class started, something
> Clicked, and clicked hard.
>

Summer of 1970 between my Junior and Senior year in High school.
Mr. Guest, our math algebra and geometry teacher had a summer
course on using a slide rule. Of course we had the ten foot long
rule hanging up over the chalk board.

I don't remember what happened to my 10" yellow Pickett, but I
still have my 10" Cleveland Institute of Electronics slide rule.
And I have a 6" mini that fits nicely in my pocket protector. ;-)

I have an HP-10C which I love dearly. But most everything I do, I
do with a pair of TI scientific calculators I bought 30 years ago.

[Phil Kane]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:51:42 EDT, "Michael J. Coslo"
<n3li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I love me some electronic calculator goodness, but out in the garage
>I still use my slide rules.

To quote my (step)son - "...to slay saber-tooth tigers ?? " <G>

I still have my 12" and 6" K+E Duplex Log Log Vectors from undergrad
and graduate school days (both decades before calculators were on the
market) sitting in front of me.

OnTopic - I don't remember whether I used either for my FCC exams.

Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

[Howard Lester]

"Foxs Mercantile" wrote

> I got my Novice license in 1967. Same routine. Upgrade or die.
> It was fun at 5 WPM and every QSO was special. "Oh hey, I'm
> talking to a guy 100 miles from here. Pant pant."
>
> Getting my code speed up to 13+ so I could upgrade was painful.

Everyone's different, and everyone has a different experience of it all. I
got my Novice as a teen in 1963. (Yes, "pant-pant!" for those "DX"
contacts.) My friend and I decided to go for our Generals a few months later
to beat the $4 exam fee that was to be instituted January 1964. (Talk about
"incentive licensing!") We worked on our code (not painful for us), and we
went down to the FCC office during Christmas vacation. We both passed. I've
enjoyed CW (and phone) to this day. Fortunately for me I still hear plenty
of CW on the bands. A good fist makes for good music.

Howard N7SO

[Phil Kane]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:11:24 EDT, Foxs Mercantile <jda...@att.net>
wrote:

>I have an HP-10C which I love dearly. But most everything I do, I
>do with a pair of TI scientific calculators I bought 30 years ago.

TI-35. Still have and use mine - albeit very infrequently - and it's
still on the original battery. It's twice as thick as my wife's
"smart"phone. (don't have, nor do I want to have, one of my own).

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

>From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

[Steve Bonine]

On 4/9/14, 7:51 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

> I'm also nearly deaf, with severe tinnitus.
>
> Somethings may have been lost, and other things gained.
> I wouldn't have gotten past Novice, and would no longer
> be a ham under the old system.

Odd.

I kept a TCC sked with a deaf ham for years. She could copy cw with the
best of us.

For those who don't know what a "TCC sked" is . . . the National Traffic
System (NTS) had (has?) section nets (ARRL section, usually) that fed
into region nets (a few states grouped together, roughly like FCC call
areas), that fed into area nets (basically one for each time zone). In
order not to introduce a day delay, eastbound traffic between areas was
handled by off-net schedules, and the folks who did them were called the
Transcontinental Corps (TCC). I held down the CAN (central area) to EAN
(eastern area) slot one night a week for several years.

And as long as I'm typing, I'll relate an exchange that I still
remember. The SOP in passing formal traffic on cw is, when there is a
word or name that is long, weird, oddly-spelled, or otherwise prone to
being mis-copied, you send it, send the question-mark character, then
repeat it to be sure that there is not an error. I was sending traffic
one night and conditions were not all that great, so when I got to the
surname of the recipient of the message I started to repeat it. We were
operating break-in, QSK, where I could hear between my characters if the
receiving operator "broke" me, which she did, with the comment, "Very
common Polish name no need to repeat". I was laughing too hard to
repeat it anyway.

73, Steve KB9X

[Michael J. Coslo]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:45:25 PM UTC-4, Steve Bonine wrote:
> On 4/9/14, 7:51 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

>
> > I'm also nearly deaf, with severe tinnitus.
>
>
> > Somethings may have been lost, and other things gained.
> > I wouldn't have gotten past Novice, and would no longer
> > be a ham under the old system.
>
> Odd.
>

> I kept a TCC sked with a deaf ham for years. She could copy cw with the
> best of us.

That's great. But there are different levels and types of deafness.

I have two separate tones, one in each ear. right is around 7.5 KHZ, left is maybe 4K. Also a sound that makes it seem that I'm hearing a lawnmower outside the house.24/7.

Some frequencies I can't hear at all. But in general SSB has better bandwidth than my hearing I don't hear much above 2KHz.

And oddly enough whereas many deaf people talk very loudly, my own voice thunders in my ears, and I tend to be a low talker.

What happens to many people in my situation is that they are driven half mad by the noise. Many opt for having their auditory nerves cut. Fortunately my brain has "rewired" itself to sort of de-emphasize the noise, or else I'm just a little more adaptable.

But I cannot separate background noise from intelligence of people speaking, or CW tones. That ringing that occurs when you use a filter is enough to make OOK Morse difficult to decode for me. What I got, you most definitely do not want.

So while I did learn OOK Morse to pass the code test, it was very unpleasant for me. What I got, you most definitely do not want.

The closest analogy I can come up with is a person with bad cataracts. They can see light and dark, bright lights are dazzling, and they cannot bring anything into sharp focus.

Anyhow, I don't want to drop into the stereotype of old dudes talking about their ailments, so hopefully people can just accept the veracity of my claims.

[Dick Grady AC7EL]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:00:37 EDT, "Howard Lester"
<howardx...@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Foxs Mercantile" wrote
>
>> I got my Novice license in 1967. Same routine. Upgrade or die.
>> It was fun at 5 WPM and every QSO was special. "Oh hey, I'm
>> talking to a guy 100 miles from here. Pant pant."
>>
>> Getting my code speed up to 13+ so I could upgrade was painful.
>
>Everyone's different, and everyone has a different experience of it all.

WhenI was first licensed in 1998, General required 13 wpm and Extra 21
wpm. I decided to get the no-code Tech. In 2000, the FCC lowered the
code speed to 5 wpm for both General and Extra. I decided that I
could do that, and upgraded to Extra.

I have never used CW on the air.

I became a Volunteer Examiner, and I had to administer code tests. We
had to monitor the code playing on the boombox to make sure that it
was correct. Fortunately, we had the text of the message in front of
us. I remember reading ahead on the text and thinking: "There is a Z
coming along soon. What the heck is the code for Z? Oh, now I
remember."

Also, I rarely operate HF. I tried some DX SSB, and did not care for
it, primarily because I could not separate the 2 to 3 voices I was
hearing all at once. My only ham shack is my auto, with VHF/UHF.

"Different strokes for different folks."

Dick Grady, AC7EL