Why I changed my mind on the code...
Bill Sohl
jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
>On 17 Feb 1997 20:54:00 GMT, "Ron Curry" <rec...@insighttec.com>
>wrote:
>>What is the objective of the code requirment? I submit it once was to
>>ensure that hams had a skill and knowledge set consistant with the
>>technology of the time to keep the level of Ham intellect on the leading
>>edge. I think the current test questions once had a similar objective.
>>However, technology has changed a lot in the last 30-50 years. To be
>>competitive in the communications industry today you need to know about
>>computers, networks, speech compression, channel coding, microwave
>>technology, microcontrollers, digitial design, etc. etc.
>You also need to know how the radio works, and the best way to
>gain that knowledge is to build one.
That is ONE of the ways. It is not necessarily THE BEST. The
approach you suggest assumes that an individual MUST always have
hands on training/study to be competent in any area of technoloy
or knowledge. That is simply not true as technology education
today (as well as in the past) simply does not rely on that
approach.
>CW transmitters still stand
>out as the easiest apparatus to build;
If you limit that to Transmitters, then that is true to
a degree. But there are many other devices which
can be built that offer the same or similar parameters
in terms of ease of construction.
>you gain a wealth of under-
>standing regarding RF electronics, construction practices, modifi-
>cation for optimum performance, all without the heartache of failure
>that can result from attempting to build more complex modes.
I can say the same thing about many other devices too.
>And there
>is really nothing more satisfying than contacting others thousands of
>miles away with something you've built yourself.
Now that is truly a PERSONAL opinion. It can not be stated that
this statement is in any way fact exact as a personal experience
for any one individual.
>Amateur radio is still about operating, and while in the field,
>if something breaks, one should be proficient and feel comfortable
>enough to trouble-shoot the rig and attempt a repair.
Sounds good on paper but is beyond the scope and practcal
application for most situations today. Unless you are at home
with access to the schematics and test equipment (even for
a home brew rig) then the troubleshooting in the field scenario
is not at all applicable. True, there are basic system tests
which anyone should be able to do, but beyond that, you are
into the need for test equipment which is not usually present
in the field.
> The
>experience gained from building will give you that proficiency.
>Cessation of operating due to an otherwise easily repairable malfunction
>makes you nothing but a plug&play operator <spit>. It might take a
>well-needed radio and operator out of the action at a time when
>desperately needed.
Well, since few, if any, field operations today ever will rely
on homebrew equipment, I just don't see any opportunity
for your scenario to play itself out except for basic system testing
such as cable connections, power connections, etc.
In reality, the emergency response activities of any ham
usually doesn't rely on one transmitter anyway. Certainly
not just on one CW transmitter. Having even a CW transmitter
does assume some receive capability also. Receivers
also break at times.
Bill Sohl (Amateur Radio Operator K2UNK)
Internet Instructor, Mount Olive (NJ) Community School
Gary Coffman
In article <5ek0tu$1...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>On 17 Feb 1997 20:54:00 GMT, "Ron Curry" <rec...@insighttec.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What is the objective of the code requirment? I submit it once was to
>>ensure that hams had a skill and knowledge set consistant with the
>>technology of the time to keep the level of Ham intellect on the leading
>>edge. I think the current test questions once had a similar objective.
>>However, technology has changed a lot in the last 30-50 years. To be
>>competitive in the communications industry today you need to know about
>>computers, networks, speech compression, channel coding, microwave
>>technology, microcontrollers, digitial design, etc. etc.
>
>You also need to know how the radio works, and the best way to
>out as the easiest apparatus to build; you gain a wealth of under-
>standing regarding RF electronics, construction practices, modifi-
>cation for optimum performance, all without the heartache of failure
>miles away with something you've built yourself.
Well of course a continous wave transmitter is easy to build (we
aren't allowed to build any other kind), but it is as simple to
arrange for FSK modulation as OOK modulation (and FM modulation
is almost equally trivial, though that doesn't have much application
on HF). The dirty little secret, however, is reception. A receiver
suitable for OOK is also suitable for FSK or SSB (and a FM receiver
is even simpler). There are no simplifications of merit to be noted
here for OOK reception. And decoding is much easier and quicker for
both SSB voice and FSK modulated Baudot/ASCII text than for OOK Morse.
So there is less chance for failure or disappointment. OOK Morse
decoders are notoriously slow, unreliable, and variable in quality.
But machine decoders are quick, reliable, and consistent.
>Amateur radio is still about operating, and while in the field,
>if something breaks, one should be proficient and feel comfortable
>enough to trouble-shoot the rig and attempt a repair. The
>experience gained from building will give you that proficiency.
>Cessation of operating due to an otherwise easily repairable malfunction
>makes you nothing but a plug&play operator <spit>. It might take a
>well-needed radio and operator out of the action at a time when
>desperately needed.
I agree with all of this, to an extent. There is real value to
understanding your equipment, and being prepared to repair it if
necessary. Fortunately, there is no significant difference in the
skills needed to repair a FSK transmitter and receiver than there
is for an OOK setup. Voice systems are slightly more complex, but
again not difficult to understand or repair.
What can be difficult to repair is a poorly documented piece of
haywired construction. If you homebrew, document everything, don't
depend on hazy memory months after the fact. And be neat and use
clean layout practices. Design it for servicability and you'll
save hours of frustration later. Design in diagnostic self-test
features wherever feasible. This will let you troubleshoot with
a minimum of external test equipment.
When troubleshooting and repairing equipment, you look at it
in a different way than when designing or building it. The
skill sets are distinct. This may not be obvious to the casual
amateur, but it is very real. Don't assume that just because
you soldered it together that you know how to go about quickly
and efficiently troubleshooting and repairing it. You probably
don't.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | with previous uucp addresses
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | Email to ke...@radio.org
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Michael Crestohl
After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
and valuable skill. Your attitude sucks! Instead of pissing and moaning
like you do why not move down the band and have a contact or two. You may
actually find that you will meet a better class of person, polite and
courteous, indciative of the old-time spirit and fraternal aspect of the
hobby that attracted you to it in the first place.
Five words a minute is not hard to learn nor will it take up too much of
your time. I challange you to try it and have a few QSOs on CW! See how
different things are at the lower end of the bands. Know of what you
speak.
Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers, appliance operators with no
appreciation for the wonderful privileges available to you. Just listen
to the difference in attitude in the two band portions and then tell me
that CW is useless! That is,if you can!
Michael Crestohl, W1RC
m...@shore.net
Walt N3JPR
> appreciation for the wonderful privileges available to you. Just listen
> to the difference in attitude in the two band portions and then tell me
> that CW is useless! That is,if you can!
>
> Michael Crestohl, W1RC
> m...@shore.net
Michael,their is no longer any doubt in my mind that I am not worthy to
worship at the Church of the Beepers with you and from your abouve quote
I sure can detect the attitude difference between you and I.I have
participated in your worship services before and they sure did put me to
sleep very quickly.I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit
our non-denominational hobbie anytime there are no beeper requirements
and you can chat with people world wide with low power via satellite,we
can even exchange mug-shots and our favorite cookie recipes using one of
the digital modes or just chat and picture each other by our
voices,wouldn't that be neighborly!We do not discriminate because of a
persons race,creed,color or ability to beep.
--
Walt
Pro...@concentric.net
Jay123a
Michael Crestohl wrote:
>
> After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
> no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
> and valuable skill. Your attitude sucks! Instead of pissing and moaning
> like you do why not move down the band and have a contact or two. You may
> actually find that you will meet a better class of person, polite and
> courteous, indciative of the old-time spirit and fraternal aspect of the
> hobby that attracted you to it in the first place.
>
> Five words a minute is not hard to learn nor will it take up too much of
> your time. I challange you to try it and have a few QSOs on CW! See how
> different things are at the lower end of the bands. Know of what you
> speak.
>
> appreciation for the wonderful privileges available to you. Just listen
> to the difference in attitude in the two band portions and then tell me
> that CW is useless! That is,if you can!
>
> Michael Crestohl, W1RC
> m...@shore.net
Hello Michal: Why should us low life CB'ers study the code? To talk to
guys like you? I don't think so!
You should be telling us how wounderful the CW bands are how great the
fraternity of ham radio is, and welcome us with open arms, and offer us
help and assistance .... right?
Jay at jay...@ptw.com .... A good friend to "Big Bob" famous CB'er
and flossifier. Big Bob says " You catch more flies with honey than you
do with vinegar, Ten-4 Good Buddy"
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Michael Crestohl <m...@shore.net> wrote in article
<5epajp$2...@northshore.shore.net>...
> After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
> no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
> and valuable skill. Your attitude sucks! Instead of pissing and moaning
> like you do why not move down the band and have a contact or two.
No, *your* attitude sucks ... you *want* to believe that everyone who
opposes the continuation of the Morse code "religion" is "lazy"
because it makes you feel "morally superior." Well you're NOT.
> You may
> actually find that you will meet a better class of person, polite and
> courteous, indciative of the old-time spirit and fraternal aspect of the
> hobby that attracted you to it in the first place.
What a pile of crap! ... a bunch of geezers pounding brass is NOT
what attracted me to ham radio over 20 years ago ... it was the
RADIO part ... the technology, the experimentation, etc.
> Five words a minute is not hard to learn nor will it take up too much of
> your time. I challange you to try it and have a few QSOs on CW! See how
> different things are at the lower end of the bands. Know of what you
> speak.
First, the bit about 5 wpm is intellectually disshonest ... 5 wpm only gets
you novice privs on HF ... which are so useless that 3 out of 4 novices
does
not continue on ... they quit ham radio in disgust.
Second ... most of us fighting against the code test are NOT "newbies",
but rather long-time hams who passed code tests, have used the code,
and come to the conclusion that mandatory code is bad for ham radio.
Many are even higher class licensees who like, use, even prefer CW as
an operating mode, but are sensible enough to realize that it's "not
everybody's
cup of tea" and that cramming it down everyone's throat is unreasonable,
unnecessary, and counter to the future survival of ham radio.
Third ... as Gary pointed out ... it takes so *damed* long to say anything
in Morse (even at 20 wpm) that it may tend to discourage a lot of arguing
in the CW portions of the bands ... however, there's still a lot of strings
of
dits, swooshing of carriers, "FU FU FU", etc. that's clearly analogous to
the jamming activities of the lids on 80m and 20m.
Please read the article "The Decline of Amateur Radio?" at the Ham Radio
Online web site: http://www.hamradio-online.com/1997/feb/opinion.html
> Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers,
You guys are CBers who beep ... it's the technical pursuits
that a ham make ... not the macho competitive games stuff
that the beepers and the ARRL have promulgated.
> appliance operators with no appreciation for the wonderful privileges
> available to you.
There is NO relation between learning/knowing CW and being an appliance
opearator ... most of the HF hams out there are, unfortunately, appliance
operators ... and they know the code ... the reason for the rise of the
appliance opearator is the availability of (reasonably) good gear at prices
people can (more or less) afford ... and the fact that you beepers, DXers,
and contesters have promoted the "games/competition/sport" aspect
to the point that you've perverted ham radio in to something other than
what it was intended to be ...
> Just listen to the difference in attitude in the two
> band portions and then tell me that CW is useless! That is,if you can!
*Your* attitude supports the contention that CW is *worse* than useless.
To paraphrase what others have written very eloquently of late, the code
and the ARRL are killing ham radio and we have to make some *drastic*
changes to overcome those "forces of evil."
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMxCJNuIP1XFmaCFVAQEJ7QP+Pc2ZPDU2dBfF30XUZiFYF4jPfiXIniA7
W7A2Hy38F01K2Vym7u6z96DvxMk/iSnKq0LiUviWhjHu0gIGQBXuwGxp4GV4SijL
+HVS3y7mHq+BfYU9jKMJ8BQgaTJMnE3EbWj+f2xtM4qCXuyW5XLDX7D0BMBIxVqW
Ycx+dFxjA4M=
=itln
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gary Hicken
Alright!!!! Way to go Michael!
Gary Hicken
Todd Little
Michael Crestohl wrote:
>
> After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
> no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
> and valuable skill. Your attitude sucks!
After reading all this drivel from the pro-code testing group, I've come
to
the conclusion that you're too lazy to use a call sign server. Your
ability to use a computer sucks!
> Instead of pissing and moaning
> like you do why not move down the band and have a contact or two.
Instead of pissing and moaning about people wanting something for
nothing, why not look up a callsign or two and see who you're trying
to condemn as lazy.
> You may
> actually find that you will meet a better class of person, polite and
> courteous, indciative of the old-time spirit and fraternal aspect of the
> hobby that attracted you to it in the first place.
You might actually find that there are extra, advanced, and general
class
licensees that don't hold Morse Code testing in such a god like
position.
> Five words a minute is not hard to learn nor will it take up too much of
> your time. I challange you to try it and have a few QSOs on CW! See how
> different things are at the lower end of the bands. Know of what you
> speak.
Using a call sign server is not hard to learn, nor will it take up too
much of your time. I challenge you to learn a little about the posters
you lambaste before you place both feet firmly in your mouth.
> Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers, appliance operators with no
> appreciation for the wonderful privileges available to you. Just listen
> to the difference in attitude in the two band portions and then tell me
> that CW is useless! That is,if you can!
Otherwise you are just stand along computer users with no notion of how
to use
online services. Just use something other than usenet and see what
a difference it makes. That is, if you can!
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Bill Sohl
m...@shore.net (Michael Crestohl) wrote:
>After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
>no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
>and valuable skill. Your attitude sucks!
And just how does that attitude apply to folks like me (check my
license class)?
>Instead of pissing and moaning
>like you do why not move down the band and have a contact or two. You may
>actually find that you will meet a better class of person, polite and
>courteous, indciative of the old-time spirit and fraternal aspect of the
>hobby that attracted you to it in the first place.
I meet them all the time on phone too.
>Five words a minute is not hard to learn nor will it take up too much of
>your time. I challange you to try it and have a few QSOs on CW! See how
>different things are at the lower end of the bands. Know of what you
>speak.
And what is the challenge you put to me?
>Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers, appliance operators with no
>appreciation for the wonderful privileges available to you. Just listen
>to the difference in attitude in the two band portions and then tell me
>that CW is useless! That is,if you can!
I have and find the two remarkable different just in
what CAN be discussed in the same time frames.
Frankly, my life and time finds CW painfully slow in terms
of information per minute.
Bill Sohl
jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
>>Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.com> wrote:
>> In 25 years, I have NEVER seen a situation where the code would have
>> been any kind of advantage at all.
>That's because you were tuned to the wrong bands. If you would have
>been listening just below the AM bcst band to 500 kHz, you'd have known
>almost every high seas maritime disaster over the last century was
>handled via CW on that freq'y. Even the most recent sinking off the
>East Coast about 2 years ago was handled on 500 kc.
>It was a very good, reliable, and simple system that served the
>maritime community for 80 some years; let's hope its replacement
>will continue to guard "...those who go down to the sea."
Yet, as Jeff very well knows, the US Coast guard has abandoned
that totally. The 500KHz circuits formally monitored by the
Coast Guard were secured officially on 1 April 1995. Indeed,
in the July 95 issue of the Coast Guard magazine "Commandant's
Bulletin", it stated: "Technological advancements have made
morse code obsolete as a means of communication." The
magazine article entitled "The End of Dits and Dahs" also noted
that message totals had "waned to less than 500 a
month in 1994 and 1995 and SOS calls totalled only
2 (two) in all of 1994 and none this year (1995). So it is
a great bit of history, but of absolutely no relavence now.
Furthermore, it is almost two years since the Coast Guard dropped
morse code and there hasn't been any apparent reason to
question the wisdom of the Coast Guard's decision.
Gerald Schmitt
In <5enmp4$4...@news.Hawaii.Edu> jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman)
writes:
>
>
>
>Wonder why Jerry didn't scold you for not signing your callsign?
>He does that to the pro-code folks.
Give it a break Jeff. I asked Casey the idiot if he had a call sign as
a matter of couriosity I expressly said you didn't need a callsign to
post on the internet. Scoldin this is a real reach a PhD candidate
should be able to do better.
73 Jerry
>
>73,
>Jeff KH2PZ
Keith Wood
In article <5epajp$2...@northshore.shore.net>,
m...@shore.net (Michael Crestohl) wrote:
[After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
[no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
[and valuable skill.
"Valuable"?
[[Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers, appliance operators
Oh, yeah, like all those $2000 blackbox HF rigs are going to Novices?
I've cobbled together, modified and rebuilt more equipment than any
half dozen average Extras, especially the guy who bought the 200W
soldering gun to do a MIKE CABLE.
And you know what? I've never seen a schematic with the values in
dits and dahs . . .
Keith Wood
In article <5eqp2s$1...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
jeff...@Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) wrote:
[MN Maniac <mnma...@aol.com> wrote:
[>How then do you explain the large numbers of licensed amateurs like myself
[>who HAVE passed the Morse hazing ritual, yet are adamantly oposed to it's
[>continuance as a mandatory testing element?
[>-Drew in Sunny Central Florida-
[> CB Radio KADF-6895 since September, 1976
[
[
[You passed a fill-in-the-blank test given after 5wpm code was sent
[(which amounts to one letter every two seconds). Some hazing ritual.
So are you saying that the code ritual was of no value because it
wasn't hard enough?
Jerry B. Altzman
In a way, yes. The current code testing system is a *lousy* test of
ability to receive aural Morse. So it's doubly worthless.
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman There is no universe -- P. Halmos +1 212 785 4445
jba...@cs.columbia.edu jba...@scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML
Roger J. Buffington
Michael Crestohl wrote:
>
> After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
> no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
> and valuable skill.
SNIP!
>
> Michael Crestohl, W1RC
> m...@shore.net
Golly, Michael. I'm an Extra Class ham, and was originally licensed in
1966. I'm also one of the more vocal proponents for ending the Morse
Code requirement for HF privileges. Are you directing your comments at
me?
Posts like yours, that attack the arguers rather than the arguments, are
not productive, and serve only to inflame tempers. Why don't you stick
to the arguments rather than make personal comments against those with
whom you disagree?
For the record, I don't view Morse Code as a valuable skill. It is a
recreational skill, and it is nice that some people still enjoy it. But
it is never used by amateurs in emergency communications, and has been
abandoned by essentially all other radio services. It is an
anachronism.
--
-
Roger J. Buffington
USC Law School, Class of 97
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather.
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers."
"Bill Clinton is a bore, and will always be a bore." -- David Brinkley
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger J. Buffington
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
. Not voice, not RTTY,
> but CW. *The* disaster net of this century was held on 500 kHz from
> sundown to sunrise, and on 8364 kHz during daylight hours. It worked
> flawlessly. Equipment and procedures were simple. Hopefully what
> replaces it will work as well.
>
> 73 from the Central Pacific,
> Jeff KH2PZ
I agree that Morse Code has a glorious past. My father (in whose honor
I have taken this callsign, which was once his) was a WW2 Radio Op
aboard ship. He was very proud of that. He also knew that those days
are past.
It's over, Jeff. All the stuff you say WAS true. But not any more. It
is over...
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.com> wrote in article
<orSEzwUN...@bctv.com>...
> In article <5epajp$2...@northshore.shore.net>,
> m...@shore.net (Michael Crestohl) wrote:
> [After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
> [no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
> [and valuable skill.
>
> "Valuable"?
>
> [[Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers, appliance operators
>
> Oh, yeah, like all those $2000 blackbox HF rigs are going to Novices?
>
> I've cobbled together, modified and rebuilt more equipment than any
> half dozen average Extras, especially the guy who bought the 200W
> soldering gun to do a MIKE CABLE.
>
> And you know what? I've never seen a schematic with the values in
> dits and dahs . . .
That may all be true, Keith, but you *haven't* worshiped at the altar of
the god Samuel Morse ... so, they still think you're a "heathen."
Too bad *they* don't have a clue as to what's *really* valuable and
important ... that's why ham radio is in such dire straights ...
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMxI6/uIP1XFmaCFVAQFpugP+J5XN8lUcqhP0C2qR5lHNf/Xj3iduSKCn
FGiGJadC/+Db6teGOpEHTUmgZP8Ld5z/zg8WQ2vlKetwtNpGhEY840njGCYcEW1X
4NN1FzVjN9ETShizCZHcMkzzCPR+bnFt8fB1AaYJHtzA9Wrk3D23AXHjHAVKhGVm
oTyjK8hi+0o=
=Ca8d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jeffrey Herman <jeff...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in article
<5erk5t$3...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
> "Roger J. Buffington" <rog...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >Name me one time, one disaster net, where CW was actually used in the
> >fashion you describe. You try to compare Morse Code to CPR. But CPR is
>
> On or off the amateur bands? I guess it doesn't matter - a distress
> is a distress no matter what freq'y you're on. With that in mind,
> CW has played *the* major mode of choice for distress communications
> on the high seas for a glorious 80+ year period. Not voice, not RTTY,
> but CW. *The* disaster net of this century was held on 500 kHz from
> sundown to sunrise, and on 8364 kHz during daylight hours. It worked
> flawlessly. Equipment and procedures were simple. Hopefully what
> replaces it will work as well.
>
> 73 from the Central Pacific,
> Jeff KH2PZ
Jeff ... you're being a bit missleading again, through omission and
half-truth.
Your own beloved Coast Guard abandoned CW, because, in the words of
the Commandant, I believe quoted by Bill Sohl a day or so ago, that it had
become "obsolete because of advances in modern communications
technology." (if the previous quote is not 100% exact, I appologize,
I'm "quoting" it from memory, but I'm 100% sure that I'm very close and
the meaning has not been distorted in *any* way ... the Commandant's
statement clearly said essentially what I "quoted" above.)
As for the "Hopefully what replaces it will work as well." ... clearly the
combination of redundant, predominantly digital, technologies offered
by the GMDSS will be far more effective and reliable than a "sparks"
with a straight key ... any assertion to the contrary flies in the face of
the mass of engineering facts that caused the international maritime
community to adopt new technologies and retire Morse ... a decision
that was actually at least a decade overdue ...
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAwUBMxI9duIP1XFmaCFVAQGw5QQAgBOmkN7bMaB7a6nuDDvT19xiKL8O0fCs
8BZdZaZGKF+bmBfrPLiePudYKThDaW7PrqYA/70qgL2ms+SGmp1BSPRNHJBhkwiv
4GsLfgsJkTgxFG2ffV625hojPPJCNbTNBJHRPtRtzrTnJ/FWnMN80wD60lzTL8zF
MRX4CwVCjfI=
=yXlc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hans_...@adc.com
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> ... clearly the combination of redundant, predominantly digital,
> technologies offered by the GMDSS will be far more effective
> and reliable than a "sparks" with a straight key ...
As someone who spent a major portion of my life on the high seas,
I desparately hope you are correct.
But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
Maybe we just ought to keep a few "sparks with a straight key"
around until the "effective and reliable" nature of GMDSS is
better demonstrated.
73, de Hans, K0HB
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Todd Little
hans_...@adc.com wrote:
> But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
> a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
> of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
Was the an explanation of the cause of the false alarms?
> Maybe we just ought to keep a few "sparks with a straight key"
> around until the "effective and reliable" nature of GMDSS is
> better demonstrated.
Is it GMDSS that isn't "effective and reliable", or is it the
inappropriate or improper use of GMDSS that is causing the
problems? Have there been incidences where GMDSS has not gotten
a real event reported?
Changes in technology are almost always accompanied by human
glitches that need to get worked out. Witness people warming
their pets in microwave ovens, or pick your own favorite
misuse of new technology. That shouldn't be a condemnation
of the technology, but at most a condemnation of insufficient
change management.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
hans_...@adc.com
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> ... clearly the combination of redundant, predominantly digital,
> technologies offered by the GMDSS will be far more effective
> and reliable than a "sparks" with a straight key ...
Then Hans wrote:
> As someone who spent a major portion of my life on the high seas,
>I desparately hope you are correct.
>But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
>a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
>of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
>Maybe we just ought to keep a few "sparks with a straight key"
>around until the "effective and reliable" nature of GMDSS is
>better demonstrated.
To which Todd Little responded:
> Was the an explanation of the cause of the false alarms?
>
> Is it GMDSS that isn't "effective and reliable", or is it the
> inappropriate or improper use of GMDSS that is causing the
> problems? Have there been incidences where GMDSS has not gotten
> a real event reported?
>
> Changes in technology are almost always accompanied by human
> glitches that need to get worked out. Witness people warming
> their pets in microwave ovens, or pick your own favorite
> misuse of new technology. That shouldn't be a condemnation
> of the technology, but at most a condemnation of insufficient
> change management.
>
The article had little detail (actually, the reference to GMDSS was
an "oh, by the way" comment to illustrate a point which the journal
was making about "expected vs. observed" results of change) so I
can't answer your question. The article, and my comment, were not
a condemnation of the technology but rather a caution to "go slow"
when transitioning in such a critical application.
Hans
Steve - KF2TI (Landing, NJ)
In article <01bc22b8$1b765d00$9fc1...@cstevens.usr.com>, ca...@ais.net
says...
> Too bad *they* don't have a clue as to what's *really* valuable and
> important ... that's why ham radio is in such dire straights ...
>
> Carl - wa6vse
> ca...@ais.net
Actually, rather than Dire Straights??, I would have thought Carl would
have quoted Helplessly Hoping by Crosby, Stills and Nash
--
Steve KF2TI
What one individual only dreams of doing can
be accomplished by many individuals collectively
Robert Kennedy
Keith Wood
In article <01bc22b8$1b765d00$9fc1...@cstevens.usr.com>,
"Carl R. Stevenson" <ca...@ais.net> wrote:
[-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[
[
[Keith Wood <kei...@bctv.com> wrote in article
[<orSEzwUN...@bctv.com>...
[> In article <5epajp$2...@northshore.shore.net>,
[> m...@shore.net (Michael Crestohl) wrote:
[> [After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
[> [no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
[> [and valuable skill.
[>
[> "Valuable"?
[>
[> [[Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers, appliance operators
[>
[> Oh, yeah, like all those $2000 blackbox HF rigs are going to Novices?
[>
[> I've cobbled together, modified and rebuilt more equipment than any
[> half dozen average Extras, especially the guy who bought the 200W
[> soldering gun to do a MIKE CABLE.
[>
[> And you know what? I've never seen a schematic with the values in
[> dits and dahs . . .
[
[That may all be true, Keith, but you *haven't* worshiped at the altar of
[the god Samuel Morse ... so, they still think you're a "heathen."
Well, I passed my 5WPM in 1981 . . .
[Too bad *they* don't have a clue as to what's *really* valuable and
[important ... that's why ham radio is in such dire straights ...
I think some of them are looking forward to bragging "I was the last
ham in my state."
Bill Sohl
hans_...@adc.com wrote:
>Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>> ... clearly the combination of redundant, predominantly digital,
>> technologies offered by the GMDSS will be far more effective
>> and reliable than a "sparks" with a straight key ...
>As someone who spent a major portion of my life on the high seas,
>I desparately hope you are correct.
>But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
>a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
>of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
>Maybe we just ought to keep a few "sparks with a straight key"
>around until the "effective and reliable" nature of GMDSS is
>better demonstrated.
Who is the we you speak of? The government? Hams?
Regardless, how should those "sparks with a straight key"
be put to use? That's the pronlem with all the fantasy
of CW saving the day in a global disastor. There is NO
such CW capability in place now and any global disastor
isn't going to miraculously rely on CW when the many
emergency systems (those of commercial, police, hams,
military and others) neither use or have any intention of using
CW.
Carl R. Stevenson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
hans_...@adc.com wrote in article <8568825...@dejanews.com>...
>
>
> Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>
> > ... clearly the combination of redundant, predominantly digital,
> > technologies offered by the GMDSS will be far more effective
> > and reliable than a "sparks" with a straight key ...
>
> As someone who spent a major portion of my life on the high seas,
> I desparately hope you are correct.
As an offshore sailor with well over 20,000 blue-water miles under
my keel and a radio system/equipment design professional, I am
confident that I am correct ...
> But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
> a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
> of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
Hans ... I would surmise that what you're referring to is a press
missunderstanding of someone's mention of the historically high
false alarm rate on EPIRBs ... the new 406MHz EPIRBs are not only
more reliable and powerful, they are individually coded with a unique
digital code that is pre-registered with COSPAS/SARSAT authorities,
allowing most of the false alarms to be expediently dealt with.
Through the use of improved techniques, they also allow a much better
postion fix and support truly global coverage because the satellites can
"store and forward" the observations from locations that do not have
mutual visibility with a ground station ... the older generation "Class B"
EPRIBs could be fixed by the satellites, but without "store and forward"
so the coverage was VERY lacking, particularly in the southern hemisphere
where many locations have no mutual visibility with a ground station.
> Maybe we just ought to keep a few "sparks with a straight key"
> around until the "effective and reliable" nature of GMDSS is
> better demonstrated.
You just won't give up the fanciful thinking based on romantic notions,
will you Hans?
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQCVAgUBMxQMF+IP1XFmaCFVAQFDGwP9FXZtMPS69EjLx1pUf1QwXnBm5G/h4dRS
Ia7EQ9C93DERyER1Udhf6Pj/Q1PQ6Q/8mbCZcK6wJBnJZwKcuWGCG6amymqYIZmk
PFjn9GQPQwmfi+rIPekT05f1wH9ydTK/pWDQx+jFjgY1pkAe8Wa6E6Phh4eH0nk2
5QUnGrNc2Tk=
=zh59
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Phil Kane
In a message to ALL dated 02-25-97 LIT...@AMERITECH.NET wrote:
> But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
> a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
> of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
Li> Was the an explanation of the cause of the false alarms?
Ah yes, the famous "WOLF" poster for 97% false alarms.....
In the mid 1980s when the SARSAT/COSPAS system was put into
service (121.5 MHz distress beacons, marine version called
EPIRBs and aircraft version called ELTs) it was found that
yes, indeed, 97% of the "alerts" were not distresses. They
were usually due to mishandling of the beacon which would set
them off. I and my cohorts ran around many a night df-ing them
and shutting them off, because if it was not a bona fide
distress neither the CAP nor the USCG wanted to deal with it,
and the chaser of last resort was and still is the FCC.
Probably the all-time winner was an improperly secured ELT that
was in an aircraft which was disassembled and packed in a cargo
container for shipment from California to New Zealand. The
satellites heard the ELT through the container -- those suckers
can hear a lot of things that defy belief!! It was a bit tricky
to df it on the ground, but our ace snoop, David Doon, found it
about ten minutes before the container was supposed to be
hoisted aboard a container ship. Had he not found it, SARSAT
would have tracked it all across the Pacific on its 5 week
journey......
Back to the poster.....
In the educational campaign to get pilots to check 121.5 MHz
before locking up the plane, RCA, NOAA and the FAA put out a
poster with the word WOLF in bold black letters, arranged in
a ten by ten matrix. In three of the 100 slots, the word WOLF
was replaced with the word HELP in the same exact size but in
red. The theme of the poster was "Don't cry wolf - check your
radio".
I still have one (framed) hanging in my office.
No doubt that is the origin of the 97% false alarm figure.
BTW - the EPIRB/ELT component of the GMDSS has now switched to
406 MHz with digital ID of the vessel/aircraft.
73 de Phil Kane - K2ASP (since 1952)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: phil...@toadhall.com (Phil Kane)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Cummings
hans_...@adc.com wrote:
> >But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
> >a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
> >of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
>
> >Maybe we just ought to keep a few "sparks with a straight key"
> >around until the "effective and reliable" nature of GMDSS is
> >better demonstrated.
>
Actually, we are in the midst of the transistion from the Morse code based
system to GMDSS. GMDSS was approved as a replacement by member of IMO (the
International Maritime Organization) in 1978 (I believe) through admendments
of the SOLAS agreement (Safety of Life at Sea). The first GMDSS subsystems
(VHF DSC, I believe) were installed in Europe in the early 80's, and we have
been in a transition period since then, until 1Feb99, when GMDSS
implimentation is complete and Morse code will be abandoned as a means of
distress and safety communications. Indeed, I believe that many Russian
ships indeed carry Morse code ops, even thought they are equipped with GMDSS
apparatus. But that is due to the fact that they have insufficient numbers
of deck officers qualified to operate that equipment.
> To which Todd Little responded:
>
> > Was the an explanation of the cause of the false alarms?
> >
> > Is it GMDSS that isn't "effective and reliable", or is it the
> > inappropriate or improper use of GMDSS that is causing the
> > problems? Have there been incidences where GMDSS has not gotten
> > a real event reported?
> >
> > Changes in technology are almost always accompanied by human
> > glitches that need to get worked out. Witness people warming
> > their pets in microwave ovens, or pick your own favorite
> > misuse of new technology. That shouldn't be a condemnation
> > of the technology, but at most a condemnation of insufficient
> > change management.
> >
>
> The article had little detail (actually, the reference to GMDSS was
> an "oh, by the way" comment to illustrate a point which the journal
> was making about "expected vs. observed" results of change) so I
> can't answer your question. The article, and my comment, were not
> a condemnation of the technology but rather a caution to "go slow"
> when transitioning in such a critical application.
>
> Hans
>
IMO has indeed gone slowly, the transistion period is now 15 years old and
still won't be finalized for about another two years. However, it is
generally recognized that most of the false alarms can be attributed to lack
of operator training. Indeed, I once had a story related to me that once an
installer had told the officers of the ship that they were to press the
little red button on their radio (marked as ALARM) everytime they left watch.
It is no wonder that there are a lot of false alarms. Not only that, but
these radioes are now becoming cheap enough that the recreational boating
sector are starting to install these radioes. Considering the inattention
of many administrations with respect to operator certification for the
recreational boating sector, it is not at all surprising that ALARM button
pushing will be the maritime service equivalent of amateur repeater
kerchunking, only with more serious results.
73 and live better digitally
Jim, VE3XJ
Clint Bradford
The ARRL Letter Vol. 16, No. 7 February 14, 1997
__________________________________
* Address changes: Kathy Capodicasa, N1GZO, e-mail kcapo...@arrl.org.
* Editorial: Rick Lindquist, N1RL, e-mail elind...@arrl.org.
__________________________________
IN THIS EDITION:
* Speak up! Little LEOs target 219-225 MHz!
COMMENTS NEEDED BY MARCH 4! ARRL OPPOSES LITTLE LEO EFFORT TO INCLUDE 219
TO 225 MHZ
Commercial satellite interests seeking access to bands below 1
GHz--including amateur allocations at 146 and 430 MHz--now have added 220
MHz to their "wish list." For the first time, Little LEO (low-earth orbiting
satellite) interests have proposed including 219-225 MHz in their list of
desired allocations for the non-voice, non-geostationary (NVNG)
mobile-satellite service (MSS). The move was contained in the industry's
so-called "flexible allocation proposal," delivered at the February 13,
1997, meeting of FCC Informal Working Group (IWG) 2A. Little LEO targets now
include 146 to 148, 219 to 225 and 430 to 450 MHz. The ARRL and AMSAT were
among those objecting to the concept, and the League is urging those who
agree with their position to comment to the FCC by March 4. IWG-2A has been
preparing draft proposals for the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference
(WRC-97). These will be reviewed during a March 5 meeting of the FCC's
WRC-97 Industry Advisory Committee that is preparing draft proposals for
consideration by the United States as it gets ready for WRC-97
The ARRL and AMSAT statement said the latest proposal affecting amateur
allocations in the 219 to 225 MHz segment came "at the last possible moment"
and "without any technical support whatsoever." The League and AMSAT pointed
out that the little LEO proponents have had more than a year to complete a
technical study of the possibilities of sharing with the amateur services in
the 144 to 148 MHz and 420 to 450 MHz bands. "They have not demonstrated
compatibility for sharing these amateur bands but over the evolution of
their document have proposed various 'new ideas' for use of these bands."
The little LEO flexible allocation strategy for WRC-97--submitted as
IWG-2A/86 (Rev. 6)--is to propose broad allocations. The apparent theory is
that most administrations would find reasons to oppose little LEO use of
specific bands in the crowded spectrum below 1 GHz, but that a broad
allocation would permit different implementations in different countries
depending on local circumstances.
At the February 13 meeting, a coalition of spectrum interests--including
land mobile, amateur, broadcasting, and military--opposed the flexible
allocation concept on three grounds: that the concept is simply an invention
to avoid performing technical sharing studies that would demonstrate the
unfeasibility of sharing; that it is inconsistent with decades of ITU
allocations practices; and that, if adopted, the concept would be counter to
US interests. The coalition document is identified as IWG-2A/107.
The ARRL and AMSAT submitted a further statement of opposition, citing the
absence of any technical studies that might support sharing with the amateur
service or the amateur-satellite service and pointing out that the little
LEOs have completely mischaracterized the nature of ITU Resolution 640
regarding the use of certain amateur bands in the event of natural
disasters. The ARRL/AMSAT paper, revised to reflect opposition to the late
proposal to include 219-225 MHz, is identified as IWG-2A/108 (Rev. 1).
Amateurs also might find interesting the comments of the Department of
Defense, identified as IWG-2A/101 (Rev. 1). These address the 430 to 450 MHz
segment the Little LEOs seek to share.
Anyone wishing to register support for the ARRL/AMSAT submission should send
a brief e-mail message to wr...@fcc.gov. The Subject line should say
"Reference No. ISP-96-005 IWG-2A." A simple statement to this effect, "I
support the ARRL/AMSAT opposition to the NVNG MSS flexible allocation
proposal," will be included in the public record and will help to drive home
the point that there is broad-based opposition to poorly conceived sharing
proposals.
Please note! The proposals the League opposes are not FCC proposals, nor are
they endorsed by any other branch of the government. They are industry
proposals. The League's objective is to demonstrate there is broad citizen
opposition to the industry proposals, so the government will not adopt them
as US proposals. So, please don't "flame" the FCC if you comment.
Additional arguments or evidence also is welcome. Important! Comments should
reach the FCC no later than March 4, 1997!
The complete ARRL/AMSAT opposition statement and other comments will be
posted by February 15 on the ARRLWeb page, http://www.arrl.org/ under Band
Threat News.
===========================================================
The ARRL Letter is published by the American Radio Relay League, 225 Main
St, Newington, CT 06111; tel 860-594-0200; fax 860-594-0259. Rodney J.
Stafford, KB6ZV, President; David Sumner, K1ZZ, Executive Vice President.
Circulation, Kathy Capodicasa, N1GZO, e-mail kcapo...@arrl.org.
Editorial, Rick Lindquist, N1RL, e-mail elind...@arrl.org.
(Continued to next message)
Clint Bradford
(Continued from previous message)
Visit the ARRLWeb page at http://www.arrl.org.
The purpose of The ARRL Letter is to provide the essential news of interest
to active, organizationally minded radio amateurs faster than it can be
disseminated by our official journal, QST. We strive to be fast, accurate
and readable in our reporting.
Material from The ARRL Letter may be reproduced in whole or in part, in any
form, including photoreproduction and electronic databanks, provided that
credit is given to The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.
ke4jcd
On 23 Feb 1997, Michael Crestohl wrote:
> After reading all this drivel I have come to the conclusion that you
> no-code advocates are just too lazy to make the effort to learn a new
> and valuable skill. Your attitude sucks! Instead of pissing and moaning
> like you do why not move down the band and have a contact or two. You may
> actually find that you will meet a better class of person, polite and
> courteous, indciative of the old-time spirit and fraternal aspect of the
> hobby that attracted you to it in the first place.
>
> Five words a minute is not hard to learn nor will it take up too much of
> your time. I challange you to try it and have a few QSOs on CW! See how
> different things are at the lower end of the bands. Know of what you
> speak.
>
> Otherwise you are no more than enhanced CBers, appliance operators with no
> appreciation for the wonderful privileges available to you. Just listen
> to the difference in attitude in the two band portions and then tell me
> that CW is useless! That is,if you can!
>
> Michael Crestohl, W1RC
> m...@shore.net
>
>
Well I think that CW is a Dying Art Form. It's a part of Amateur
Radio and Should and always be keeped. Now I'm a NO-Code Tech. and don't
plan to get HF due to all the QRM. VHF and UHF is more my thing. I never
cared for DX on the CB and I still don't on ham radio. But I do know CW
and can read about 13 words a Min. I do think Amateur Radio is not like it
use to be. Now you just go to the store buy your Radio, Ant, Cable's, and
ect. Building rig's and other parts are gone too. Now there trying to
remove CW witch is no longer good for sending messages for the Gov. For
computer's have taken it's place. But this is not the Gov. this is A HOBBY
and CW is part of it. As fare a "enhanced CBer's" Well I see no real
difference from CB and Ham radio. Most CBer's like Most ham's today love
to talk DX and if you don't your going to DIE or your head is not on to
tight. I run across this becouse I HAVE NO use for DX and like just local
QSO with my friends. I moved off CB becouse of all the TRASH and DXing
witch I careless for. But I still till people about DXing and if you like
it on CB you'll love it on HAM. For it's all the time on HF.
I think you get the point. Amateur Radio is a HOBBY! So you all
better get out your code key's and start learning CW!!! If you want HF so
bad. If not Talk to me on VHF or UHF! :) Right my friend!
If code is droped then Amateur Radio is done for! 14.313 all
bands! For CBer's will come to HAM Radio and bring there TRASH with them.
:( Plus you see now that the FCC and ARRL can't stop CBer's now with a Ham
License just think how it will be WITH NO CODE AT ALL!
Thank about it! :(
\\"""//
(o o)
+--------------oOO--(_)--OOo---------------+
: Bob - KE4JCD :
: E-Mail: ke4...@cris.com :
: The Magic Of Amateur Radio Telnet BBS :
: http://www.cris.com/~ke4jcd :
+--------------.oooO---Oooo.---------------+
( ) ( )
\ ( ) /
\ _) ( _/
Zack Lau
Gary Coffman wrote:
>
> What can be difficult to repair is a poorly documented piece of
> haywired construction. If you homebrew, document everything, don't
> depend on hazy memory months after the fact. And be neat and use
> clean layout practices. Design it for servicability and you'll
> save hours of frustration later. Design in diagnostic self-test
> features wherever feasible. This will let you troubleshoot with
> a minimum of external test equipment.
In my opinion, one of the best ways to document something is to
write it up for publication so that others can critique it. Being
able to troubleshoot something you designed over the phone is an
excellent indication that you know the circuit well --Zack Lau W1VT
KC5WCP
Todd Little <lit...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>hans_...@adc.com wrote:
>> But just last night I read in a British journal that they are suffering
>> a "false alarm rate" of 97% on GMDSS, causing concern because
>> of the cost of follow up and fear that a "real" event will be dismissed.
>Was the an explanation of the cause of the false alarms?
>> Maybe we just ought to keep a few "sparks with a straight key"
>> around until the "effective and reliable" nature of GMDSS is
>> better demonstrated.
>Is it GMDSS that isn't "effective and reliable", or is it the
>inappropriate or improper use of GMDSS that is causing the
>problems? Have there been incidences where GMDSS has not gotten
>a real event reported?
Inappropriate use. Some people just don't know which button to push :)
>Changes in technology are almost always accompanied by human
>glitches that need to get worked out. Witness people warming
>their pets in microwave ovens, or pick your own favorite
>misuse of new technology. That shouldn't be a condemnation
>of the technology, but at most a condemnation of insufficient
>change management.
>73,
>Todd
>N9MWB
Eric