Morse code
The Conqueror
if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
in ham radio either. And if you want to say it is for security, you are not
allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
-Dan K3DRQ
Greg Baker
about those who don't know the code. I think the opportunity to pump
signals out on a narrow band to distant parts of the world has its own
charms.
The US Marines still use Morse code, and a few of us keep our keys handy
just in case.
Greg Baker
WB3EBO.
Old Rusty Fist.
The Conqueror wrote in message <37262...@news.gulliver.fr>...
Barry
<joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either.
>-Dan K3DRQ
>
>k3...@qsl.net
>
With your logic, shouldn't you go through basic training before you
get a ham license?
Don or Darla Arnold
and amateur radio were dropped WORLDWIDE on 1 FEB 99.
don
kb5fhx
Barry wrote:
--
OUR WEB PAGE UPDATED 17 April 99
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/6430 Darla and Don's Website
http://hattiesburg.net/columns/darnold.shtml My online column
DARLA (dawn) ICQ# 7341931
Don (weathernut) ICQ# 14664294
Right now we are on the threshold of whatever comes next!!!
MAYBE!!
Gord Skiffington
morse anymore.....a few points never seem to be brought out...or are
only mentioned briefly.
Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied verbatim
easily (you can come close on voice or often do it if words are
standardized but its not easy)......
- Is a mode that is indeed digital but which requires the
most rudimentary interfacing and for which our own "processor" causes
error correcting and speed compensating depending on the ability of the
other "terminal" or "line" conditions.
- Is a mode which transcends language and dialect barriers
when suitable signals are used...such as the international "Q"
signals...and others. Hard to get most computer systems to do that yet
and our ability to merely speak one language (english for example) with
a wide variation of accents is hard enough sometimes.
- Is a mode whose "standardization" is unheard of in
communications, where for at least a hundred years was not obsolete for
the purpose of basic communications (stuff that's GOOD for critical
use...such as lifesaving...and cheap commerce).
- Is a mode which, when the equipment is tired....just
needs a good dinner and a cup o coffee to revive it.....stuff we have
around anyway !
- When send using CW transmission (the 2 are NOT the same!)
is extremely effective, using suitable narrow filters at both ends, for
solid communications under the worst circuit noise and conditions. It
might not be the very best...but when you consider the rudimentary
equipment needed it becomes mighty attractive.
- Is a mode which, because it only requires very basic
equipment, lends itself well to "field repairability".....a handy thing
if you've ever sat in a remote spot and listened to digital signals that
couldn't connect to you...telling yourself...."if they'd only just turn
'em on and off...I could get the message! After all...what is
slower....a slow sent message or one that never arrives????
There's likely lots of other good and bad reasons why anyone should keep
morse alive. Yep its old.....but well made and the fact that it hasn't
undergone a million transformations tells us all that it works well. It
is slow, but when mere text will suffice, is an adequate method of
communication in conjuction with simple equipment. It does require
skill to use...but everything we do also does (Tell me that a windows NT
system hung up on a satellite link doesn't require skill to figure out
what happened!). There is also a thing about operating morse that only
morse operators may truely feel...but its a kindred spirit that
transcends whether you were a mere ham or a skilled commercial operator,
a struggling boy scout trying it or a pilot who was able to make himself
understood when his mic stopped working. To that last end I can only
offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
73 - Gord VE1AJF...(and merchant R/O in recent times :)
Edward L. Dowdy
Gord Skiffington wrote in message <372698...@nbnet.nb.ca>...
W6RCecilA
> Morse - Is a mode ...
Funny, Chapter 8 of "The FCC Rule Book" lists all the modes
available to the Amateur Radio Service and none of those modes
is Morse. I see CW, MCW, Phone, Image, RTTY, Data, Pulse, SS,
and Test, but no Morse.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
Dave Shrader
that authorizes the Amateur Radio SERVICE, requires Morse Code for amateur
licenses.
We have been playing with the definitions of how much morse has to be known,
copied, skill level, etc. but I believe international law still requires it.
Dave
The Conqueror wrote:
> I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
> if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
> think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
Monty Northrup
<skif...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>[snip] There is also a thing about operating morse that only
>morse operators may truely feel...but its a kindred spirit that
>transcends whether you were a mere ham or a skilled commercial operator,
>a struggling boy scout trying it or a pilot who was able to make himself
>understood when his mic stopped working. To that last end I can only
>offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
>despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
>
>73 - Gord VE1AJF...(and merchant R/O in recent times :)
Here, here!
I've been trying to explain to wife/family/friends for over 30 years,
and haven't ever come up with a "reason" for using CW that satisfies
those that don't have the experience. To those who have conquered
their demons, learned to communicate via CW, and discovered the reward
of it, no explanation is necessary.
If the code requirement is dropped (as it may well be), the incentives
that lead one past the hurdles of learning the code, to the most
rewarding experiences offered by CW, will be removed, and perhaps the
ranks of CW ops will diminish. Some will be happy if this should be
the case.
I think it's interesting to observe, that since the proliferation of
digital modes in the last ten years or so, CW activity on the ham
bands seems to have grown, not diminished, both here in the States and
internationally. Considering that many countries don't have a code
requirement anymore, I wonder why that would be, if it truly is a dead
mode?
Saying CW is dead is kind of like saying pianos are useless because
PCs with sound cards can make more sounds, and never need tuning.
Those who play or listen to fine pianos can instantly perceive the
difference, and those whose minds are made up won't be listening for
pianos in the first place.
When I got started 33 years ago, I struggled for a year to get my code
speed to 13 WPM so I could get my "general" ticket and move on to fone
and rtty operation. But 99% of my operation since then has been CW.
Go figure, huh?
73,
monty N5FC
Mark Brown
rec.radio.amateur.equipment and rec.radio.swap & take it
back to policy where it belongs. I could care less if you
want to learn the code or not. Don't learn it & miss some of
the best dx, learn it & work it but don't clutter up groups
where it doesn't belong.
Mark
BD wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound funny to me.. "Better keep your day job..."
>
> W6RCecilA <Cecil....@IEEE.org> wrote in message
> news:372690BC...@IEEE.org...
Will White
correct, strictly speaking, CW * Morse code. The misnomer is as old as the
vacuum tube, though the FCC can be forgiven a bit of idiom and tradition,
can't it?
W6RCecilA wrote:
>
> Gord Skiffington wrote:
> > Morse - Is a mode ...
>
> Funny, Chapter 8 of "The FCC Rule Book" lists all the modes
> available to the Amateur Radio Service and none of those modes
> is Morse. I see CW, MCW, Phone, Image, RTTY, Data, Pulse, SS,
> and Test, but no Morse.
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
--
Will White, KD7BFX
to reply, please click this link mailto:w...@asu.uswest.net
Gord Skiffington
modes of operation for a signal source.....morse is a mode (method) of
communicating information, like voice etc. I know you know the
difference of course....what I see is when green hams (we were all one
eh!) start to confuse all this not understanding that you can send morse
over an FM circuit by keying a tone or by calling that CW. Then they're
scratching their heads the first time we show 'em a signal generator
heheh.
I think we all ought to make our "tech" talk a little more accurate by
times...maybe.
73 - Gord
Mark
-- It's fun!
Mark, KC9C
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:11:06 -0700, Gord Skiffington
<skif...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
Michael Ruther
can do about 15 wpm.
AA7QA
Sir
> easily (you can come close on voice or often do it if words are
> standardized but its not easy)......
It is much easier to copy something from English to English, It is much
harder to copy something from a code back to English and thus more
chance for error.
> - Is a mode that is indeed digital but which requires the
> most rudimentary interfacing and for which our own "processor" causes
> error correcting and speed compensating depending on the ability of the
> other "terminal" or "line" conditions.
Speech is compatible to 99% of the population's "processor", morse code
only to a much smaller percent.
> - Is a mode which transcends language and dialect barriers
> when suitable signals are used...
What?! Neither my English or other foreign language speaking friends
can understand morse code. This is a ridiculous statement.
> and our ability to merely speak one language (english for example) with
> a wide variation of accents is hard enough sometimes.
Yes, accents are hard enough, why make it MORE difficult?! If people
can't understand a store check-out clerk in some weird accent, how many
customers are going to understand him if he emits beeping noises from
his mouth?
> - Is a mode whose "standardization" is unheard of in
> communications, where for at least a hundred years was not obsolete for
> the purpose of basic communications (stuff that's GOOD for critical
> use...such as lifesaving...and cheap commerce).
Yeah, that's why Police, Fire and Ambulance don't use it.
> is extremely effective, using suitable narrow filters at both ends, for
> solid communications under the worst circuit noise and conditions.
Completely worthless if the person on the other end doesn't understand
code! (which is about 99% of the population)
> - Is a mode which, because it only requires very basic
> equipment, lends itself well to "field repairability"
A washboard is easier to repair than a washing machine too, but not a
good reason to mandate people learning to use it before they are allowed
to buy a washing machine.
.....a handy thing
> if you've ever sat in a remote spot and listened to digital signals that
> couldn't connect to you...telling yourself...."if they'd only just turn
> 'em on and off...I could get the message! After all...what is
> slower....a slow sent message or one that never arrives????
If no one on the other end understands code, it will never arrive.
Why don't advertisers make all their commercials on radio and TV in
morse code so the message could reach more of an audience in bad
conditions? Because MORE people would get the message EVEN IN BAD
CONDITIONS if it is in voice, than in a secret code that they don't
understand.
> There's likely lots of other good and bad reasons why anyone should keep
> morse alive.
There is only ONE. Because it is nostalgic and fun for many people.
Don't take the fun away by forcing it on people that don't want to use
it.
I bet if morse code was not a requirement (for certain classes of
license) more people might take it up. No one wants to learn something
that is forced opon them. People choose hobbies because they have an
interest in them, not because someone hands them a fishing pole and
orders them to fish!
> understood when his mic stopped working.
You people with your mic stopped working BS. Or stranded at the north
pole with nothing for miles but a payphone with a broken microphone.
Always have to try and make up some unrealistic situation to show how
morse code could actually be usefull, and then THAT doesn't even fly!
I don't know of anyone ever going to be in the above situation, but even
IF... would the operator on the phone or the police understand the code
you are punching in on the touch tone pad, or would they think it is a
prank call and hang up? Doesn't really matter, as this situation will
never occur to either of us. They don't have payphones in the middle of
the north pole. Especially with non-working microphones and working
touch tone pads.
To that last end I can only
> offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
> despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
Think about what you just said! Think about WHY it would EVER be
DESPISED! NO ONE would ever depise it if it wasn't shoved down
anyones's throat!
People don't DESPISE model airplane kits. They might if people were
FORCED to build them in order to take up some other hobby!
Sir
>
> If I might add one more...
>
> -- It's fun!
To YOU and many others it is fun, to others it is boring and slow.
To some people restoring old cars is fun, to others it is boring and
slow.
At least car restorer's don't want that hobby to be a requirement in
order to enjoy some other hobby.
Sir
>
> Friend of mine's son is a radio op in the coast guard. He was taught code, and
> can do about 15 wpm.
I know a lot of obsolete skills too. Tape editing with razor blades and
tape come to mind. Perhaps that will save my life in some emergency
when my digital audio workstation breaks, or will allow me to edit in
bad weather conditions.
Don or Darla Arnold
is that ANY reason to use it on a TEST for getting your ticket
keep the subbands..if you want, EXPAND them if you like
IF we use this MODE to test people should we not have a test to see if you can talk correctly for phone, type correctly for packet,
and expand that by building your own computer for digital modes.
THAT'S ALL I AM AGAINST IS FOR A TEST
keep the mode if it makes you happy but don't use it for TESTING.
NUFF SAID
DON
KB5FHX
NCI-1070
MARS AREA COORDINATOR
ARES RACES OPERATOR
SKYWARN FOUNDER
21 YEARS IN NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gord Skiffington wrote:
Howdy Dan....In all the hoopola about whether anyone should or can't use
morse anymore.....a few points never seem to be brought out...or are
only mentioned briefly.
Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied verbatim
easily (you can come close on voice or often do it if words are
standardized but its not easy)......
- Is a mode that is indeed digital but which requires the
most rudimentary interfacing and for which our own "processor" causes
error correcting and speed compensating depending on the ability of the
other "terminal" or "line" conditions.
- Is a mode which transcends language and dialect barriers
when suitable signals are used...such as the international "Q"
signals...and others. Hard to get most computer systems to do that yet
and our ability to merely speak one language (english for example) with
a wide variation of accents is hard enough sometimes.
- Is a mode whose "standardization" is unheard of in
communications, where for at least a hundred years was not obsolete for
the purpose of basic communications (stuff that's GOOD for critical
use...such as lifesaving...and cheap commerce).
- Is a mode which, when the equipment is tired....just
needs a good dinner and a cup o coffee to revive it.....stuff we have
around anyway !
- When send using CW transmission (the 2 are NOT the same!)
is extremely effective, using suitable narrow filters at both ends, for
solid communications under the worst circuit noise and conditions. It
might not be the very best...but when you consider the rudimentary
equipment needed it becomes mighty attractive.
- Is a mode which, because it only requires very basic
equipment, lends itself well to "field repairability".....a handy thing
if you've ever sat in a remote spot and listened to digital signals that
couldn't connect to you...telling yourself...."if they'd only just turn
'em on and off...I could get the message! After all...what is
slower....a slow sent message or one that never arrives????
There's likely lots of other good and bad reasons why anyone should keep
morse alive. Yep its old.....but well made and the fact that it hasn't
undergone a million transformations tells us all that it works well. It
is slow, but when mere text will suffice, is an adequate method of
communication in conjuction with simple equipment. It does require
skill to use...but everything we do also does (Tell me that a windows NT
system hung up on a satellite link doesn't require skill to figure out
what happened!). There is also a thing about operating morse that only
morse operators may truely feel...but its a kindred spirit that
transcends whether you were a mere ham or a skilled commercial operator,
a struggling boy scout trying it or a pilot who was able to make himself
understood when his mic stopped working. To that last end I can only
offer that to those who WON'T use it...it will always be a thing
despised....to those who do or have, a thing revered.
73 - Gord VE1AJF...(and merchant R/O in recent times :)
--
Butch Magee
magee KF5DE
AB7RS
>
> I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
To weed out the serious from the lazy and stupid.
> if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
> think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
> in ham radio either.
What the heck do any of these points have to do with Morse code in the
amateur service?
And if you want to say it is for security, you are not
> allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
Somehow you managed to obscure the meaning of your entire post.
_ _... ..._ _ Tracy
>
> -Dan K3DRQ
>
> k3...@qsl.net
AB7RS
> >morse anymore.....a few points never seem to be brought out...or are
> >only mentioned briefly.
> >
> > Morse - Is a mode that allows communications to be copied verbatim
Morse is not a mode,but a language that is the common one used on the
mode continuous wave.Tracy
Monty Northrup
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either. And if you want to say it is for security, you are not
>allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
Hi ,Dan!
Well, in just a few short days, you've managed to create quite a stir
with your question (wink) ... 19 replies so far, and I bet it ain't
over yet. I've noticed in the past, that nothing gets things stirred
up quite so much as code and licensing issues. Anyway, well done!
I'd like to make an observation about human nature. [Now, please
understand, I'm not talking about you. Heck, you asked a question,
and you seem to be the best example of an open mind I've seen in this
thread so far.] Anyway, I've noticed that when my mind is made up
ahead of time, it tends to adopt as its purpose to support that
decision in any and every way it can. And once that purpose is
established, it will endeavor to interpret everything I hear and see
as evidence I am "right". It doesn't make me right, mind you, but
it's a mighty temptation to judge everything and everybody as either
threatening or supportive, with no gray area between.
So whenever I encounter myself feeling defensive (or offensive) about
a subject, I suspect I've pre-determined how I want things to be, or
how I want things to come out. And that's a warning signal to me that
my mind is pretty much closed. For me, the warning flags went up when
I though somebody might threaten my beloved CW.
But on re-examination, I think both "sides" can find common ground.
We don't necessarily need code proficiency tests for everyone to prove
they can do it ahead of time. Nobody's going to get on the air
sending morse when they only know 12 letters of the alphabet. So,
maybe just a sampling of questions on the written tests, concerning
the use of the mode, would be in order - to show an understanding of
the mode and its operating procedures, for those who have the
potential for using CW. Same would apply to voice, digital modes,
repeaters, satellites, anything that has significant usage on the ham
bands.
After that, it's up to us avid CW fans to promote and expose the
positive and rewarding aspects of the mode (and there are many). We
haven't done a good job of that thus far, maybe as a result of being
so defensive.
As for actually learning CW, when I think about it (at least for me),
the fastest part of the learning curve was when I was practicing it
"on-the-air", without the pressure of "having to pass a test". It
also happened to be the time that I really learned to love it.
Come on, folks - both pro and con - let's look for new viewpoints,
consider them with an open mind, and see if we can't make the amateur
service even more fun and more friendly than it already is.
73,
monty N5FC
Allan Kaplan
scholar. It is very difficult to convey to the no-code types what an
aesthetic experience proficiency in morse provides, but even this
long-time CW op has come to realize that using the code test as a
barrier to amateur radio is unproductive. To the others: Welcome to
ham radio -- be tolerant, and 73.
deW1AEL, Allan.
Hrafnkell Eiriksson
* > I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
*
* To weed out the serious from the lazy and stupid.
Well all the "lazy and stupid" go use the Internet today for satisfying
their need for playing with technical stuff and communicating with
people. Those who are not "lazy and stupid" go through learning all
the electronics and regulations that you have to learn to get a ham licence.
--
//-----------------------//-------------------------------------------------
// Hrafnkell Eiriksson // Student of Computer- and Electrical engineering
// hke...@rhi.hi.is // at the Univeristy of Iceland
// // "Blessed are they who go around in circles,
// Finger for PGP key // for they shall be known as Wheels"
Michael Ruther
case of the coast gaurd. The guy was taught code as part off the m.o.s. to be a
radio operator.
I think as far as the coast gaurd the military still thinks it is important to have
coded operators.
Mike AA7QA
Dave Shrader
method will be international Morse code.
Sir
how to play the harp before you were allowed to play the flute?
What if you didn't like the harp and only wanted to play the flute, and
other flute players called you lazy for not wanting to waste time
learning an instrument you had no intention of ever playing?
Some people want to get into the hobby of radio to talk on the radio.
They have no desire to use morse code. How silly it would be to waste
the time to learn morse code, only to forget it once one has the license
to go ahead and use voice.
Only people who intend to USE morse code should learn it.
Rudolph M. Marcelletti
Don or Darla Arnold wrote in message <3727AA1D...@datasync.com>...
ALL the below are VERY CORRECT and TRUE, BUT,
is that ANY reason to use it on a TEST for getting your ticket
keep the subbands..if you want, EXPAND them if you like
IF we use this MODE to test people should we not have a test to see if you can talk correctly for phone, type correctly for packet,
and expand that by building your own computer for digital modes.
THAT'S ALL I AM AGAINST IS FOR A TEST
keepe the mode if it makes you happy but don't use it for TESTING.
Mark Brown
rec.radio.amateur.equipment and rec.radio.swap. This
argument has bben going on forever (years!) & will not end
until the fcc changes the rules one way or the other.
Joe wrote:
>
> What a lame analogy.....what if dont mean SHIT in the real
> world!!!!WHAT IF your mama gave your dad a blow job on a particular
> night.....where would you be?
Joe
Mike Dickman
>
> Keith Lodahl <loda...@internetwis.com> wrote in message
> 372A70E8...@internetwis.com...
> >If it is intended to be a "twit filter" then it is failing. Just listen on
> the
> >low bands and tell me of the professionalism shown by all operators found
> there.
> >The Conqueror wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing
> >requirements
>
> >> level of operator competentancy.
> >> It may indeed be an outdated means of "seperating the men from the
> >> boys" but until a suitable replacement can be implemented,
> >> CW is it....JUST DO IT !!!
> >> Practice, practice practice !!!
> >> Hugh Duff, VA3TO Toronto
> >>
> Well well then the STUPID have taken over the bands already with the CW test
> STILL in effect. A simple thing such as the PHOENETIC ALPHABET is destroyed
> all the time by operators who have GREAT CW skill. The only way for the
> phoenetic alphabet to work is when ALL use it correctly. The stupid have
> taken over and can't even use this SIMPLE thing correctly.
> We should change the test right now and make all of those old timers take a
> RELEVANT operating and proficiency test. Man that would clean a lot of the
> deadwood.Guys who can copy 30WPM CW but can't string a dipole. No wonder you
> are scared of losing the cw req most of you would LOSE your license if
> asked to retest.
> Operating knowledge will allways be better than operating 1 mode.
> Andrew
> VE1VVV
I would like to know how CW maintains this "level of operator
competentancy"? While "we" are debating CW, the Internet, cable modems,
sat. phones, cell phones are passing us in technology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*** average temperature 6 below ***
sunrise 10:48 am sunset 2:44 pm
giving 3 hours 56 minutes of possible sunshine
Mike (KD4LLA)
For the people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord <grin>!
The longer Bill Clinton stays in office, the more we pay.
Our justice system pays because he has opened the door for millions of
us to play games with the notion of telling "the whole truth" under
oath. Our military personnel pay because they have to carry out their
duties while grappling with questions regarding the motives of their
commander in chief. Our national intellect pays because, with his
myriad verbal contortions and willful deceptions, the president has
become little more than a walking, talking insult to our intelligence.
Finally, the taxpayers pay because, in his efforts to keep "looking
presidential" and "doing the work of the people," he is creating more
new programs and growing the government.
Haven't we paid enough already?
See my web page at http://www.alaska.net/~mdickman/Index.htm
Jeffrey Herman
>Well all the "lazy and stupid" go use the Internet today for satisfying
>their need for playing with technical stuff and communicating with
>people.
Using an untold number of billions of dollars worth of other people's
equipment, along with millions of miles of phone lines.
>Those who are not "lazy and stupid" go through learning all
>the electronics and regulations that you have to learn to get a ham licence.
True. And we use only our own equipment (which many of us have built
ourselves).
Jeff KH6O
Sir
Jeffrey Herman
rec.radio.swap. Please eliminate rrs from your fol-ups, for:
Please accept this reminder of the following item which
appears in the rec.radio.swap FAQ/charter:
"PLEASE DO NOT POST DISCUSSION ARTICLES TO THIS GROUP. If you really must
post, please do so to the appropriate discussion group. Use email whenever
possible, especially if you feel someone has committed a breach of
etiquette."
(The full FAQ is posted by myself on the 15th of each month.)
For a smoother-running newsgroup, please abide by the charter.
Jeff KH6O (rec.radio.amateur working-group)
Will White
thing, but this is way over the top, ranting politivcal spam.
Mike Dickman wrote:
>
>
> *** average temperature 6 below ***
> sunrise 10:48 am sunset 2:44 pm
> giving 3 hours 56 minutes of possible sunshine
>
>
> Mike (KD4LLA)
>
> For the people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord <grin>!
>
> The longer Bill Clinton stays in office, the more we pay.
>
> Our justice system pays because he has opened the door for millions of
> us to play games with the notion of telling "the whole truth" under
> oath. Our military personnel pay because they have to carry out their
> duties while grappling with questions regarding the motives of their
> commander in chief. Our national intellect pays because, with his
> myriad verbal contortions and willful deceptions, the president has
> become little more than a walking, talking insult to our intelligence.
> Finally, the taxpayers pay because, in his efforts to keep "looking
> presidential" and "doing the work of the people," he is creating more
> new programs and growing the government.
>
> Haven't we paid enough already?
>
> See my web page at http://www.alaska.net/~mdickman/Index.htm
--
Karl Klingman
Jack C Empson Jr
needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out. Soon enough
all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest of the
ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
**************************************************
* Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
* State University of New York @ Buffalo *
* 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
* Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
**************************************************
186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
Mark Morgan
<emp...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>That's ok we can argue all we want about keeping the code test, but something
>needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out. Soon enough
>all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest of the
>ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
I hope you will endose my adding tot hese sentiments, the idea
of not only bring ing people in but treating them so they want to
stay. I think the number of new is just barely enough ifwe got them to
stay, but more would nice
>
>**************************************************
>* Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
>* State University of New York @ Buffalo *
>* 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
>* Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
>**************************************************
>
>186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
>
>
Mark Morgan
kb9rqz.
Privacy of unsolicted email is not assured
Unsolictied email will be published forwared
or ourwise disclosed as I see fit.
sending unsolitcied Email will be
deemed aceptance of these terms
Marv Luse
> That's ok we can argue all we want about keeping the code test, but something
> needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out. Soon enough
> all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest of the
> ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
>
> **************************************************
> * Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
> * State University of New York @ Buffalo *
> * 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
> * Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
> **************************************************
>
> 186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
Jack,
Brass pounders will always be around, and in large numbers too. As for new blood in
Amateur Radio, there is plenty of that too. Where did the notion that Amateur Radio
is dying come from? At my extra class exam (recent) there were about 5 youngsters
aged about 10 taking the 5 WPM code test. Come to think of it, there were kids
testing at every one of the test sessions I attended.
I think we need to worry more about the F layer falling.
73,
Marv
AB0IO
H. Adam Stevens
Thank you for an independent observation.
I suspect the same small fraction of 13 year olds are still learning code. Like many
things that require a little work up front, CW is worth it.
73
H.
de wa5igw
Marv Luse wrote:
> snip--
Don W6JL
> Brass pounders will always be around, and in large numbers too. As for new blood in
> Amateur Radio, there is plenty of that too. Where did the notion that Amateur Radio
> is dying come from? At my extra class exam (recent) there were about 5 youngsters
> aged about 10 taking the 5 WPM code test. Come to think of it, there were kids
> testing at every one of the test sessions I attended.
>
> I think we need to worry more about the F layer falling.
>
> 73,
>
> Marv
> AB0IO
Marv OM,
I agree with you. I don't see ham radio 'dying' at all. I operate in
excess of 12 hours a week on the air, basically all CW. Over half of
that is mobile CW. The CW bands have plenty of ragchewing going on all
the time. I know, I am one of them. And I spend almost all my time on
only one band: 40M. A while ago I worked a 16 year old in Phoenix who
was running homebrew TUBE-TYPE gear he had made himself, from old
handbook articles. Said he just wanted to play around with tubes is
all. Have worked several newer hams, some in their teens, who started
with codeless techs, then discovered (some to their total amazement)
that CW is an excellent ragchewing mode, and works very well. Some are
excellent CW ops, know procedure, know how to listen, with less than 2
years experience in ham radio. They try to spread their enthusiasm to
some of their non-CW friends, often with no luck. So they go their own
ways.
The message here? You are either interested or you are not. Nothing
new going on here. CW will continue to be used by the many who find it
enjoyable, that is, can attain reasonable skill at it. Apparently many
non-cw ops think we are all WORKING to use it, writing stuff down, using
straight keys, egad! Hey, it is just another language guys, if you are
proficient, and is effortless to use. If you're not wired for it, there
are many other modes to use. That is one of the beauties of ham radio.
73,
Don, W6JL
Keith Lodahl
Don W6JL wrote:
> Marv Luse wrote:
SNIP
>
>
> If you're not wired for it, there are many other modes to use. That is one of the
> beauties of ham radio.
>
> 73,
> Don, W6JL
That is the point. There are many modes that don't use CW. Many that are interesting and
satisfying that don't need knowledge of CW to use. The hobby is diverse and growing more
so all the time. Yet there is truly only one test for suitability to belong to the club:
knowledge of code.
I have the skill to pass the practical test (and have with the training software) through
Advanced, yet I hold only a Tech ticket because of the code. I am still trying but I
haven't found my method for learning code yet. I memorized the tapes, and have tried a
couple of different computer tutor programs, but so far I have not been able to master CW.
I will get it eventually, but it is not coming easy. I resent comments from other hams
about being an "appliance user" or the comments on this list about code being a "moron
filter." We all have assets in different areas. Learning the code is just plain a bitch
for me, and is for others.
I see Techs filling key spots in many clubs, taking on important jobs in weather nets,
coordinating public service activities and the like. Some of these folks will upgrade, and
some will not. The code will be an obstacle for some, the practical test will be an
obstacle for some, and some are content with what they can do with their current ticket.
None deserve to be looked down upon because of lack of code speed.
--
Keith Lodahl
Mayville, Wisconsin
Don or Darla Arnold
don
kb5fhx
Keith Lodahl wrote:
--
J W Schermerhorn
Except that novices have no phone privileges on the amateur HF bands
that most would want to use.
Don or Darla Arnold wrote:
>
> WELL SAID
> don
> kb5fhx
jpos
code to earn a award in his Tiger Cub Scout group. He is a seven year old
that came to me to learn the code, and has no interest in radio, I would
think that anyone who is interested in radio should stop crying about it and
donate the 15 minutes a night for 2 weeks, and learn it.
No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
surf the net....
Jerry N9DKQ
not a Brass Pounder.....
Marv Luse wrote in message <373198C1...@dimensional.com>...
>Jack C Empson Jr wrote:
>
>> That's ok we can argue all we want about keeping the code test, but
something
>> needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out.
Soon enough
>> all the brass pounders will be gone and then the FCC can sell of the rest
of the
>> ham spectrum. How soon we have forgotten about 220 MHz.
>>
>> **************************************************
>> * Jack Empson Instructional Support Technician *
>> * State University of New York @ Buffalo *
>> * 10 Norton Buffalo, New York 14260 *
>> * Voice 716.645.3518 Fax 716.645.3198 *
>> **************************************************
>>
>> 186000 mps it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
>
>Jack,
>
Don W6JL
> I have the skill to pass the practical test (and have with the training software) through
> Advanced, yet I hold only a Tech ticket because of the code. I am still trying but I
> haven't found my method for learning code yet. I memorized the tapes, and have tried a
> couple of different computer tutor programs, but so far I have not been able to master CW.
> I will get it eventually, but it is not coming easy.
>
> Keith Lodahl
> Mayville, Wisconsin
Hi Keith OM,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
In WWII, the military taught Morse code to literally thousands of
people from all kinds
of backgrounds and abilities. Many of them were not doing it
voluntarily, either!
I myself cannot see where using "tapes" and "computers" is an
effective learning method
for learning to use the code conversationally, as we do in ham radio.
First of all, it
is boring, listening to basically boring content being sent. As you
said, you eventually
memorized the tapes. That should be a clue that that is not the way to
learn the
code. Why not listen to something interesting instead?
To become comfortable with CW, you have to 'USE IT' for some purpose.
Listening to real-live
conversations on the air is what made CW take off quickly for me.
Fortunately, in those days
there was no distracting temptation to somehow 'use a computer' (a
distinct advantage, from
what I can see). Second of all, it does nothing to teach you how to
listen to REAL
WORLD signals off the air, while at the same time, you are internalizing
what is being said.
This is what worked for me. It has been music to my ears ever since,
and is definitely my
preferred mode for ragchewing on the air, compared to using voice.
When you are otherwise
just wasting time (ex: while driving), sound out everything you see
written: street signs,
license plates, etc etc. Make the sounds of CW very familiar to
yourself, so that
you associate those sounds immediately with the letters and numbers and
punctuation.
This all requires zero investment in $$, and can be done anywhere,
anytime. Lastly,
listen ON THE AIR to real CW QSO's, as much as you can, to all kinds of
fists, in various
conditions of in the clear to buried in the QRN/QRM. Watch out! You
might suddenly
become hooked; that is a risk you take. If that happens, you will
suddenly see yourself
on the other side of the perennial code argument, and can't for the life
of you figure
out what all the fuss is about; it has happened to many others, HI.
Lastly, like anything else, CW is not fun for EVERYONE. Some people
just do not take to it.
But that is a very small group indeed, I think. Especially at the
moderate speeds required.
After all, 5 WPM you can practically look up real time. 13 WPM actually
requires that you
know and can respond almost immediately to the characters. This does
not seem to much
to ask, for a large number of us. I believe it is an essential part of
one's education
to become a ham and to use HF (the 'real' ham radio to me).
You can do it.
73 and GL,
Don, W6JL
Don W6JL
> Mayville, Wisconsin
Keith,
I forgot one other important point in my post. DON'T WRITE STUFF
DOWN. Copy it in your head; that is how you will be using it
for ham radio ragchewing. Writing it down is an (unnecessary and
limiting) habit that you don't want to get into if you can
avoid it. I sometimes run into ops on the air who ask me
(as I am working mobile CW) "how do you write it down?". Egad.
73,
Don, W6JL
Bob Lewis
your head 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for months on end. At that rate,
you could copy in your sleep. After passing a military test at 35 wpm I
nearly flunked 13 WPM in front of the FCC. The FCC wouldn't send 5
letter groups, they wouldn't let me use headphones, and they made me
write it down with a pen and paper, no mill (typewriter). Took some on
the air time to normal conversation.
So maybe we need a Ham Radio Boot Camp to force people to learn the
code. Lets see.... we also need a typing test in case the new ham wants
to use a keyboard. Two actually, one for the computer keyboard and one
for teletype machines (you never know when one of those mechanical
monsters will be only communications available). Almost forgot, a speech
test in case he wants to work SSB or FM. :-)
Or.. how about we just give a written test on basic theory, regulations,
and accepted operating practice?
Phil Wheeler
Don W6JL wrote:
>
> I myself cannot see where using "tapes" and "computers" is an
> effective learning method
> for learning to use the code conversationally, as we do in ham radio.
> First of all, it
> is boring, listening to basically boring content being sent. As you
> said, you eventually
> memorized the tapes.
>
Some software (e.g., Morse Tutor Gold) is pretty effective, in that it
sends typical, but random, QSOs. Of course that may be boring (many
qsos are!), but it is better than the old 5 element groups.
Phil
Don
Monty Northrup
> I forgot one other important point in my post. DON'T WRITE STUFF
>DOWN. Copy it in your head; that is how you will be using it
>for ham radio ragchewing. Writing it down is an (unnecessary and
>limiting) habit that you don't want to get into if you can
>avoid it. I sometimes run into ops on the air who ask me
>(as I am working mobile CW) "how do you write it down?". Egad.
Hi Don!
Hmmm... I've heard this admonishment before, and I really don't
understand it. I've been operating almost exclusively CW for over 30
years, and I've always written it down. It feels natural to me. It
goes in my ears, it comes out my hand. It's not particularly legible
above 30 wpm, mind you, but I can refer back to my notes in a ragchew
and remind myself of what was said. (I can't recall a 10 minute
monologue, but I can if it's written in front of me). Later on ( 2 or
3 qsos late), I can jot down a note or two in the log if I want. My
wife can look over my shoulder if she wants. When visitors come over,
they can see that the process actually works... morse in, words out.
Above 35 wpm or so, I'll put the pencil down and copy entirely in my
head, but if somebody throws a long unfamiliar and non-phonetic word
out there at 45 wpm, I'll probably miss it, and I've found that's
usually the case for people that "only copy in their head", even at
slower speeds. And speaking of slower speeds, people that copy only
in their heads have difficulty with copying 10 wpm qsos... I think you
forget what was sent at the beginning of the word at that speed... hi.
Besides the practicalities, I think it's easier and faster to learn
code while writing it down. As you decipher a letter aurally, you
write it down, see it with your eyes, and it connects you with the
part of your brain that already knows how to read and write.
Hey, different strokes for different folks, but I think it's a lot
easier and more practical to learn code while writing it down, and
make the transition to head-only copy later on if you need or want to.
Am I the only one in hamdom that thinks so?
73,
monty N5FC
Reg Edwards
> People talk too much about morse code.
de de de dah de dah
William Lee
Don wrote in message <3733AFFD...@usit.net>...
Oscar
>
> Don wrote...
> > People talk too much about morse code.
> de de de dah de dah
Perhaps dididiDahdiDah???
LESIUREsuitLARRY
>
> Don wrote...
> > People talk too much about morse code.
> ======================================
> de de de dah de dah
--
I AM A HUNK OF BURNING LOVE. OH BABY
H. Adam Stevens
dadadah
WA5IGW
Sir
> code to earn a award in his Tiger Cub Scout group. He is a seven year old
> that came to me to learn the code, and has no interest in radio,
Well why not FORCE him to learn about radio before he can use morse
code? It is ok for him to want to learn Morse Code and not anything
about radio, but not the other way around?!
I would
> think that anyone who is interested in radio should stop crying about it and
> donate the 15 minutes a night for 2 weeks, and learn it.
If your son doesn't have to learn or like radio to enjoy Morse Code,
then people who want to use or like radio do not have to learn Morse
Code.
> No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
> surf the net....
Of course not, no one complains about having to learn how to use a ham
radio before surfing the repeaters either, but what if you made them
learn Russian before they were allowed to use the internet? Then you
would get the same complaints.
Sir
>
> On Fri, 7 May 1999 08:21:11 -0500, jpos <jp...@mobilemark.com> wrote:
> >No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
> >surf the net....
> >
>
> *possible* with MS-Windows, you might want to choose a different
> analogy. Sigh.
The best analogy would be having to learn Morse Code in order to use the
internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
Ham radio.
Michael Young
code. Looking at FCC Part 97, you can qualify for a Technician's license
with only a written procedure and absolutely minimal theory test. No
Morse code test!
It seems your wish has been granted, and quite some time ago at that.
Run on over to your nearest VEC testing facility. There's no need to
stop to thank me.
Michael.
Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote in message news:373628...@sir.com...
Dean Craft
Sir wrote in message <373639...@sir.com>...
True enough; however, it has everything to do with the es-prit de corps of
ham radio. Knowing that one has gone through, and survived, the identical
trials and tribulations of his or her counterparts, builds a unique bond of
dedication and purpose. The instant gratification crowd of today has no
appreciation for that bond.
Dean Craft -- W4IHK
Jim
>The best analogy would be having to learn Morse Code in order to use the
>internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
>and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
>Ham radio.
Now that sounds like a plan, a Morse code test to get on the internet
would keep some of you no-code peckerwoods out of the DX newsgroup
and about a half dozen other ones this 'discussion' doesn't belong in.
Is it REALLY necessary to post this crap to every ham newsgroup there
is ? Some of us have already learned Morse code, we aren't looking for
any good reasons not to....
73, Jim KH2D
Woofle
<joethe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was just wondering why they still keep the Morse code testing requirements
>if the military doesn't use it anymore and telegraphs are not that common. I
>think because they stopped it for the marines, there's no point in using it
>in ham radio either. And if you want to say it is for security, you are not
>allowed to use codes when intended to obscure meaning.
>
>-Dan K3DRQ
>
>k3...@qsl.net
>
>
Now, LOOK. Haven't you watched the movie Independence Day?
It was Morse Code that saved the world! :-)
>
>
Michael Young
Michael.
Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote in message news:373639...@sir.com...
> Rich Mulvey wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 7 May 1999 08:21:11 -0500, jpos <jp...@mobilemark.com> wrote:
> > >No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before
they can
> > >surf the net....
> > >
> >
> > Considering that I was "surfing the net" before it was even
> > *possible* with MS-Windows, you might want to choose a different
> > analogy. Sigh.
>
Phil Wheeler
methinks!
I'm a bit in between; write down name, qth, rst, etc. -- but usually
head-copy the rest.
Phil
Phil Wheeler
Monty Northrup wrote:
>
> Above 35 wpm or so, I'll put the pencil down and copy entirely in my
> head,
Not up to those speeds, alas; above 35 wpm or so I tune in a slower
station.
> but if somebody throws a long unfamiliar and non-phonetic word
> out there at 45 wpm, I'll probably miss it, and I've found that's
> usually the case for people that "only copy in their head", even at
> slower speeds.
Agree!
> And speaking of slower speeds, people that copy only
> in their heads have difficulty with copying 10 wpm qsos.
And with that: Too slow and you cannot copy words, only letters; then I
must write it all down.
Phil
Ray
can turn your computer on or learning to ride a horse before you can get
your driving license just so you can relate to horse power.
Bring back the dark ages too!
Ray
Jim <kh...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7h5vi6$4es$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote:
>
> >The best analogy would be having to learn Morse Code in order to use the
> >internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
> >and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
> >Ham radio.
>
Mark Morgan
>I just finished giving my seven year old his code lesson. He's learning the
>code to earn a award in his Tiger Cub Scout group. He is a seven year old
>that came to me to learn the code, and has no interest in radio, I would
>think that anyone who is interested in radio should stop crying about it and
>donate the 15 minutes a night for 2 weeks, and learn it.
If only it were that simple. You and the otehr ProCoders can't accept
the fact it aint so. Haven't you read QST lately
>
>No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they can
>surf the net....
You have to learn window before using the Net. Gee did not know that.
Indeed I know plenty of Net users that don't do windows. but then if
it were true that you did it is not likely that we would hear much
from them.
But My My the Federal governement requires knowledge of windows in
order to surf the net. I never knew that Thanks for telling me
>
>Jerry N9DKQ
>not a Brass Pounder.....
Mark Morgan
kb9rqz.
Privacy of unsolicted email is not assured
Unsolictied email will be published forwared
or ourwise disclosed as I see fit.
sending unsolitcied Email will be
deemed aceptance of these terms
Mark Morgan
wrote:
>True enough; however, it has everything to do with the es-prit de corps of
>ham radio. Knowing that one has gone through, and survived, the identical
>trials and tribulations of his or her counterparts, builds a unique bond of
>dedication and purpose. The instant gratification crowd of today has no
>appreciation for that bond.
That is saying that it is a hazing ritual. If more of you wanted to be
honest and call it that and defend it on that bais I'd have more
resopect, I'd alos be on HF becuase the FCC would acted even sooner to
end but..
It is also incorrect and inaccurate to say that the trails of all
people learning Code are indentical, as can be claerly seen by reading
the claims of the ProCoders on the ease of learning code
>
>Dean Craft -- W4IHK
Mike not Mic
can upgrade. I guess talk is cheap or where the neck are my Elmers.
--
Howdy! I'm "Mike not Mic"!
You are in contact with Tornado Alley
I'm a Storm Spotter here in Lawton Oklahoma.
My call is W5OLD and all my radios smell like smoke!
Send all traffic to w5...@sonetcom.com
Phil Wheeler <w7...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<37368CC0...@mindspring.com>...
: But Don did say he was operating mobile CW; best *not* write it down,
: methinks!
:
: I'm a bit in between; write down name, qth, rst, etc. -- but usually
: head-copy the rest.
:
: Phil
:
: Monty Northrup wrote:
: >
: > On Fri, 07 May 1999 12:29:02 -0700, Don W6JL <W6...@ixpres.com> wrote:
: > > I forgot one other important point in my post. DON'T WRITE STUFF
: > >DOWN. Copy it in your head; that is how you will be using it
: > >for ham radio ragchewing. Writing it down is an (unnecessary and
: > >limiting) habit that you don't want to get into if you can
: > >avoid it. I sometimes run into ops on the air who ask me
: > >(as I am working mobile CW) "how do you write it down?". Egad.
: >
: > Hi Don!
: >
: > Hmmm... I've heard this admonishment before, and I really don't
: > understand it. I've been operating almost exclusively CW for over 30
: > years, and I've always written it down. It feels natural to me. It
: > goes in my ears, it comes out my hand. It's not particularly legible
: > above 30 wpm, mind you, but I can refer back to my notes in a ragchew
: > and remind myself of what was said. (I can't recall a 10 minute
: > monologue, but I can if it's written in front of me). Later on ( 2 or
: > 3 qsos late), I can jot down a note or two in the log if I want. My
: > wife can look over my shoulder if she wants. When visitors come over,
: > they can see that the process actually works... morse in, words out.
: > Above 35 wpm or so, I'll put the pencil down and copy entirely in my
: > head, but if somebody throws a long unfamiliar and non-phonetic word
: > out there at 45 wpm, I'll probably miss it, and I've found that's
: > usually the case for people that "only copy in their head", even at
: > slower speeds. And speaking of slower speeds, people that copy only
: > in their heads have difficulty with copying 10 wpm qsos... I think you
:
John Ryding
because of international agreements. In order to work DX, the ITU still
requires a code proficiency. What speed varies with the country issuing the
license, so the FCC could easily reduce the speed, but there would still be the
minimum requirement.
I consider myself an "appliance operator" and haven't used code for a long
time. I am one of those that would like to see it dropped as well. We are not
preserving a tradition, trying to keep anyone out, or making ourselves an
exclusive group. Amateur radio should advance the radio art, have a trained
pool of operators for emergencies, and improve international relations. These
can be done without CW, but until the ITU changes its policy, the FCC has no
choice.
Rev. John Ryding
WW0H
Sir
>
> I have great news for you! You CAN become a ham without learning Morse
> code. Looking at FCC Part 97, you can qualify for a Technician's license
> with only a written procedure and absolutely minimal theory test. No
> Morse code test!
>
> It seems your wish has been granted, and quite some time ago at that.
The technician license does NOT allow you to use ANY of the Ham bands
below 6 meters. Thus you DO have to pass a Morse Code test if you want
to be a HAM without restrictions. A technician license is like a
fishing license that only allows you to fish in a small fraction of
small lakes. Only you don't have to know Morse Code for the fishing
license with no restricions on lakes.
Sir
>
> Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote:
>
> >The best analogy would be having to learn Morse Code in order to use the
> >internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
> >and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
> >Ham radio.
>
> Now that sounds like a plan, a Morse code test to get on the internet
> would keep some of you no-code peckerwoods out of the DX newsgroup
> and about a half dozen other ones this 'discussion' doesn't belong in.
>
> Is it REALLY necessary to post this crap to every ham newsgroup there
> is ? Some of us have already learned Morse code, we aren't looking for
> any good reasons not to....
Well if they would replace the Morse Code with Russian and make you
learn Russian with a test to keep your HF priviledges, I'm sure you
would be posting some comments on how you don't understand why you need
to learn Russian if you only plan to use English. And then the Hams
that allready KNOW Russian would tell YOU to shut up and stop
complaining and posting as they aren't looking for any good reasons not
to have to learn Russian.
There are going to be a lot of posts to newsgroups that don't happen to
have subject matter that is of personal interest to you. Lots of YOUR
posts will not have any interest to lots of other people too.
Read the threads of the subjects you find interesting and skip over the
ones you do not. Seems like a lot of wasted time to reply to threads
that don't interest you.
Greg Baker
Sir wrote in message <373B73...@sir.com>...
Sir
> >> >No one complains about having to learn how to use windows before they
> can
> >> >surf the net....
> >> >
> >>
> >> *possible* with MS-Windows, you might want to choose a different
> >> analogy. Sigh.
> >
> >internet, as Morse Code has as much to do with knowing how to operate
> >and work the internet as it does with knowing how to operate and work a
> >Ham radio.
>
> ham radio.
Ham radio has changed. Packet, Satellite, R/C, television, and so much
more had nothing to do with what you said above. Perhaps all wood
workers should be required to be able to use old hand made tools of the
1800s before they are allowed to use modern power tools for the same
reason you gave.
Knowing that one has gone through, and survived, the identical
> trials and tribulations of his or her counterparts, builds a unique bond of
> dedication and purpose.
If I want to wash my clothes, I would find no bond of dedication or
purpose by using a washboard. I would prefer to use a washing machine
and dryer, and would not appreciate being forced to perform a test using
the washboard before I am given the PRIVILEDGE of being allowed to use a
washing machine. Would you? Or are you one of those lazy people that
think they should be allowed to use Washing Machines without ANY sort of
a test? How would we be able to keep CB'rs from using washing machines?
The instant gratification crowd of today has no
> appreciation for that bond.
Better sell your car and walk to work, don't use that Microwave oven
either as that is for instant gratification and convienience too. Get
out those two sticks, rub them together, and cook your food the hard
way.
Using Morse Code was at one time an instant gratification and
convienient thing too over writing and sending a letter pony express.
Did people despise Morse Code back then because IT was more convienient
and gave instant gratification?
All inventions give us convienience and instant gratification. That is
a GOOD thing. Civilization finds better more efficient ways of doing
things. Wanting to find an easier and better way of doing things is
intelligent. Finding ways to make things more difficult is idiotic and
stupid.
Sir
> It was Morse Code that saved the world! :-)
Yes, in science fiction movies you can show that Morse Code is very
important and usefull. But what if I make a movie in which Morse Code
causes the destruction of our entire universe?
Sir
>
> What about Tech Plus license holders?
What about it? Code test required.
Jim Kehler
>There are going to be a lot of posts to newsgroups that don't happen to
>have subject matter that is of personal interest to you. Lots of YOUR
>posts will not have any interest to lots of other people too.
You appear to be so engrossed in your efforts to convince the rest
of the world that you are incapable of attaining anything in life that
requires effort that you seem to have totally missed the point.
The reason we have thousands of newsgroups is because the world is
filled with millions of people with different interests.
Although your inability to learn Morse code seems to be the current
focus in YOUR life, the rest of us don't necessarily view your lack
of motivation as an earthshaking event.
REC.RADIO.AMATUER.POLICY was created with the sole intent
of giving you a forum in which to air your views. Please feel free to
use it to your hearts content.
Posting your Morse code dribble in multiple newsgroups is not going
to gain you any support. Many unmotivated whiners before you have
proven this point.
Some people have things they want in life because they are willing to
expend the effort required to obtain those things, whatever that effort
may be. It is obvious to us that you are not one of those people.
What apparently is not obvious to you is that the rest of us don't care.
73, Jim KH2D
Mark Brown
NOT THE REST OF THE HAM GROUPS PLEASE TAKE IT WHERE IT
BELONGS!!!!!!!
Sir
You all contribute to the thread, so you DO all care, else I would be
the only one and there would be no thread. I did not start the thread,
and it appears to be the most popular topic here right now. Even YOU
can not resist reading and replying to this.
Sir
>
> I will try one last time.
I hope that's a promise.
Michael Young
Michael.
Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote in message news:373B73...@sir.com...
Michael Young
> Ham radio has changed. Packet, Satellite, R/C, television, and so
much
> more had nothing to do with what you said above.
Yep. So what's the problem doing this above 50 MHz?
Michael.
Jeff Johns
> What about it? Code test required.
Yup! I'm a + and will soon be a General<g>. CW is really addictive and it's
amazing what you notice once you learrn it. Just the other day I was
watching a AAMCO Transmission commercial on TV the other day. Their motto is
"Double A, beep beep, M, C, O", it subconciously dawned on me that the "beep
beep" is Morse for the M <g>. It's also nice to finally be able to know
what the repeaters say when they ID.... it's not always just the callsign :)
Anyways, CW may not be for eveybody, I guess that's why we have different
license classes. There is a place for all of us in ths hobby!
73 Jeff W4JEF
*--------- Jeff Johns W4JEF - AMSAT# 32615 - QRP-L# 1857 ----------*
|je...@scott.net w4...@amsat.org | Reserve Patrol Captain |
| Satellite: Mir R0MIR-1, AO-27 | Jefferson County Sheriff's Dept|
|200LX+BayPac+FT50=Portable Packet| QTH Birmingham, AL USA |
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
*--------- Jeff Johns W4JEF - AMSAT# 32615 - QRP-L# 1857 ----------*
|je...@scott.net w4...@amsat.org | Reserve Patrol Captain |
| Satellite: Mir R0MIR-1, AO-27 | Jefferson County Sheriff's Dept|
|200LX+BayPac+FT50=Portable Packet| QTH Birmingham, AL USA |
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Allan Kaplan
You are a contemporary example of a ham who put in an honest effort at
CW instead of shying away from the work, and then found out how much
satisfaction the mode affords! Good luck on your upgrade; CW operation
is the best way to upgrade your code proficiency. Enjoy your hobby!
73 de W1AEL
Tony Pelliccio
> Greg Baker wrote:
> >
> > What about Tech Plus license holders?
>
5WPM isn't impossible. And there are currently efforts to make the
maximum 12WPM. Kind of frosts me when I think about it but I'm glad I got
my 20WPM over and done with.
Tony
--
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR
== Trustee WE1RD
H. Adam Stevens
BD wrote:
> Not too up on the humor-thing, eh?
>
> Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote in message news:373B7A...@sir.com...
just.do.itemail.ro
> What if you wanted to play the flute, but a law required that you learn
> how to play the harp before you were allowed to play the flute?
>
> What if you didn't like the harp and only wanted to play the flute, and
> other flute players called you lazy for not wanting to waste time
> learning an instrument you had no intention of ever playing?
>
> They have no desire to use morse code. How silly it would be to waste
> the time to learn morse code, only to forget it once one has the license
> to go ahead and use voice.
>
> Only people who intend to USE morse code should learn it.
90% of the automobile drivers out there don't intend to use anything
they *learned* to get their drivers license, why not drop that
requirement too? Just let 'em all drive, drop the roadtest
requirement!
>That's ok we can argue all we want about keeping the code test, but something
>needs to be done to bring people into amateur radio not keep them out.
Ever stop to think that maybe the government intended to keep some
people out? Why not drop the code requirment for commercial broadcast
while we're at it?
>I suspect the same small fraction of 13 year olds are still learning code. Like many
>things that require a little work up front, CW is worth it.
>73
And worth some pride too... ever heard of the rite of passage. Why
not do *something* you can take pride in instead of changing the rules
so you don't have to apply hardly any effort?
> If you're not wired for it, there are many other modes to use. That is one of the
> beauties of ham radio.
Absolutly!!! The whole spectrum above 50 mhz is wide open for those
who have no interest in CW. You knew it before you got into radio...
So what's the problem? (but be forwarned... you'll hear alot of CW
there too. Moonbounce, contesting, etc.)
>The key to keeping code from dying is those of you who are proficient MUST take
>those of us willing to learn under your wing and pass it on to us....
Seems all the *old Timers* around here left me to my own devices...
Wonder *how* I did it...... hmmmmm
>If you efforts to find someone in Ft. Worth fail, Why dont you and your
>buddies get on the 2 meter radio and teach each other?
5 wpm is NO CODE. It's like an open book test. If you *try* to learn
the code with *any* effort at all, you *will* pass the 5 WPM test.
From there you'll meet hundreds of others in the same boat on 40 & 80
mtrs.
*Plenty* of practice to hone your skills. I had a problem getting over
10 wpm myself once licensed as a P, but got on the air with a friend
of mine for an hour a nite over the period of a week, pushing
ourselves to the limit, and passed General that weekend. *USE IT* once
you get it.
> I have the skill to pass the practical test (and have with the training software) through
> Advanced, yet I hold only a Tech ticket because of the code. I am still trying but I
> haven't found my method for learning code yet. I memorized the tapes, and have tried a
> couple of different computer tutor programs, but so far I have not been able to master CW.
> I will get it eventually, but it is not coming easy.
Sounds about normal to me...
if you study... it will come......
>If your son doesn't have to learn or like radio to enjoy Morse Code,
>then people who want to use or like radio do not have to learn Morse
>Code.
Did you're mama ever say "who ever said life was fair?" Just 'cause
you want to learn gun handling doesn't mean you have to kill someone.
I don't have a son, but I have to pay school tax.... WHAAAAA!
Hope I hit a few sore neves here. Amateur radio isn't the only thing
in life that will require you to learn something proficiently to do
(unlike my spelling to post to the group).
Take a look back at all the things that got lax on the rules in the
past and see what happened to them. Do you really want amateur radio
to go that route?
The hardest part about learning the code is to just put away all
the excuses you have as to why you < can't / don't have time for /
shouldn't have to / are just to darn lazy to > learn the code *and do
it.*
Next thing you know, after they start packaging up an extra class
radio amateur operators license in all the HF radios (sound familiar?)
They'll be whining that the FCC should abolish CW off the airwaves
'cause they can't handle not being able to understand what is going on
on the bottom half of the band.
I might could stomach letting a small portion of the prime DX bands
go for the slow coders (P's),and leave the rest of the licese
structure alone. But I hope at least that they leave the extra class
alone so that *some* of us can keep a little pride in something that
we *worked for* instead of crying about it 'till we got it for next to
nothing.
If anyone out there is interested in *learning* CW and going to EXTRA
in 6 months, e-mail me. All it requires is about 4 hours a week of
*dedication*... You have to *want to do it* to do it.
The others.... FLAME AWAY, got my asbestos boxers on.
Breaker Breaker x.19x.xxx.xxx, catch me on the bottom 150 khz of the
band good buddy, c'mon back!
||||||||||||||||BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEP||||||||||||||||||
Richard Whiten/WB2OTK
NOT!
Sir
>
> Cutting here -n- there from all the threads:
>
> > What if you wanted to play the flute, but a law required that you learn
> > how to play the harp before you were allowed to play the flute?
> >
> > What if you didn't like the harp and only wanted to play the flute, and
> > other flute players called you lazy for not wanting to waste time
> > learning an instrument you had no intention of ever playing?
> >
> > They have no desire to use morse code. How silly it would be to waste
> > the time to learn morse code, only to forget it once one has the license
> > to go ahead and use voice.
> >
> > Only people who intend to USE morse code should learn it.
>
> 90% of the automobile drivers out there don't intend to use anything
> they *learned* to get their drivers license,
Give me an example, I can't think of one thing you learn to get a
driver's license that you wouldn't need to know when you drive.
why not drop that
> requirement too? Just let 'em all drive, drop the roadtest
> requirement!
That would be like dropping the rules and technical requirements on the
ham test. Both are needed and used by everyone in Ham radio. We are
talking about Morse Code which does NOT have to be used in order to
operate Ham radio. If it was required to learn how to ride a horse to
get that driver's license, then you could argue about that, but they
don't test for stuff EVERY driver won't need to know in order to drive.
> Ever stop to think that maybe the government intended to keep some
> people out?
No, they droped the code on the tech to get people in, not out. They
would drop the code for other classes too if they could, but it is an
international requirement, so it will take a bit longer to do.
Why not drop the code requirment for commercial broadcast
> while we're at it?
There never was or is a code requirement for commercial broadcast.
RADIO MAN
>
Really, there should be no requirement for Morse Code. Why they even
got rid of the 500 KILOCYCLE Morse Code Frequency for ships.
--
RADIO SCANNERS, CITIZENS' BAND RADIOS, SHORTWAVE RADIOS,
FAMILY RADIO SERVICE RADIOS, HAM RADIOS ARE FUN!!!!
RADIO MAN
>
> > What apparently is not obvious to you is that the rest of us don't care.
>
> the only one and there would be no thread. I did not start the thread,
> and it appears to be the most popular topic here right now. Even YOU
> can not resist reading and replying to this.
saying that we did it and you should too. That is baloney. What some
cheese with that wine?
j reynolds
required to and should know cw. however I dispute the use of a speed
test in that particular language for upgrade or access to spectrum.
5wpm satisfies the intl. treaty, we should be testing on tech.
knowledge or added knowledge of the rules and regs, for upgrade
purpose. It used to be that you needed to know hand signals for your
drivers test. I believe they dropped that requirement in my state, but
even if it was still in place, should we test how fast one can give
them to upgrade our drivers license, or how fast we can recognize
various shapes and colors of road signs. No of course not and speed
should not be an issue in amatuer radio cw. Only a working knowledge
of the code is needed and that is what should be mandated. If an
individual wants to use cw to a large extent and increases their
speed, so be it, but for others that use fm ssb etc. basic working
knowledge is all that is necessary and all that should be required.
On Tue, 18 May 1999 08:21:29 -0500, WebMonkey <cl...@below.com> wrote:
>Sir wrote:
>>
>> just.do.it email.ro (AE) wrote:
>> >
>> > Cutting here -n- there from all the threads:
>> >
>> > > What if you wanted to play the flute, but a law required that you learn
>> > > how to play the harp before you were allowed to play the flute?
>> > >
>> > > What if you didn't like the harp and only wanted to play the flute, and
>> > > other flute players called you lazy for not wanting to waste time
>> > > learning an instrument you had no intention of ever playing?
>> > >
>> > > They have no desire to use morse code. How silly it would be to waste
>> > > the time to learn morse code, only to forget it once one has the license
>> > > to go ahead and use voice.
>> > >
>> > > Only people who intend to USE morse code should learn it.
>> >
>> > 90% of the automobile drivers out there don't intend to use anything
>> > they *learned* to get their drivers license,
>>
>> Give me an example, I can't think of one thing you learn to get a
>> driver's license that you wouldn't need to know when you drive.
>>
>> why not drop that
>> > requirement too? Just let 'em all drive, drop the roadtest
>> > requirement!
>>
>> That would be like dropping the rules and technical requirements on the
>> ham test. Both are needed and used by everyone in Ham radio. We are
>> talking about Morse Code which does NOT have to be used in order to
>> operate Ham radio. If it was required to learn how to ride a horse to
>> get that driver's license, then you could argue about that, but they
>> don't test for stuff EVERY driver won't need to know in order to drive.
>>
>> > Ever stop to think that maybe the government intended to keep some
>> > people out?
>>
>> No, they droped the code on the tech to get people in, not out. They
>> would drop the code for other classes too if they could, but it is an
>> international requirement, so it will take a bit longer to do.
>>
>> Why not drop the code requirment for commercial broadcast
>> > while we're at it?
>>
>> There never was or is a code requirement for commercial broadcast.
>
>on a 50mHz and above note:
>99% of the repeaters in my area use morse id 'exclusively'
>mine excluded of course =] [a pleasant mix of voice and morse]
>kinda nice to know what the repeater 'call' is.....
>--
>A.C. Curtis
>KBØWLF
>53.45 and 442.45, 77.0Hz enc/dec [multi-cast repeater system]
>mailto:dem...@rollanet.org
>http://www.rollanet.org/~demoman
David
H. Adam Stevens
Well said.
I'm thinking of one area where I use Morse outside of ham radio: flying. Navigation
aids identify in Morse, but a 5 WPM proficiency suffices. Good. I like your idea.
H.
WA5IGW
j reynolds wrote:
> I must agree that due to intl. treaty users on the hf bands are
> required to and should know cw. however I dispute the use of a speed
> test in that particular language for upgrade or access to spectrum.
> 5wpm satisfies the intl. treaty, we should be testing on tech.
> knowledge or added knowledge of the rules and regs, for upgrade
> purpose. It used to be that you needed to know hand signals for your
> drivers test. I believe they dropped that requirement in my state, but
> even if it was still in place, should we test how fast one can give
> them to upgrade our drivers license, or how fast we can recognize
> various shapes and colors of road signs. No of course not and speed
> should not be an issue in amatuer radio cw. Only a working knowledge
> of the code is needed and that is what should be mandated. If an
> individual wants to use cw to a large extent and increases their
> speed, so be it, but for others that use fm ssb etc. basic working
> knowledge is all that is necessary and all that should be required.
snip--
H. Adam Stevens
Is CW relevant? The Navy thinks not. It's still valid and satisfying.
I'm no 35 WPM Extra, just an Advanced. I took my last code test at the Dallas
FCC office in April of 1964, 13 WPM. The damn government already stole my First
Phone, I don't want it to redefine my ham license, too. Just create a new
ticket? Been done.
The service does need to evolve with technology, no one uses spark much.
I have no simple solution.
73
H.
WA5IGW
Mother Nature
making me hot......<g>
RADIO MAN
Mark Brown
POSTING TO GROUPS WHERE THIS DOESN'T BELONG IS IN BAD FORM
PLEASE CEASE & DESIST.
Keith Bennett
>Jim Kehler wrote:
>>
>> Sir <s...@sir.com> wrote:
>>
>> >There are going to be a lot of posts to newsgroups that don't happen to
>> >have subject matter that is of personal interest to you. Lots of YOUR
>> >posts will not have any interest to lots of other people too.
>>
>> You appear to be so engrossed in your efforts to convince the rest
>> of the world that you are incapable of attaining anything in life that
>> requires effort that you seem to have totally missed the point.
>>
>> The reason we have thousands of newsgroups is because the world is
>> filled with millions of people with different interests.
>>
>> Although your inability to learn Morse code seems to be the current
>> focus in YOUR life, the rest of us don't necessarily view your lack
>> of motivation as an earthshaking event.
>>
>> REC.RADIO.AMATUER.POLICY was created with the sole intent
>> of giving you a forum in which to air your views. Please feel free to
>> use it to your hearts content.
>>
>> Posting your Morse code dribble in multiple newsgroups is not going
>> to gain you any support. Many unmotivated whiners before you have
>> proven this point.
>>
>> Some people have things they want in life because they are willing to
>> expend the effort required to obtain those things, whatever that effort
>> may be. It is obvious to us that you are not one of those people.
>>
with Soc Penpals? I don't really care anything about radio
communications of any sort. So why not just keep this on the boards that
apply and take it off soc.penpals. As far as I am concerned amateur
radio is atrocious, even worse than CB used to be here. I have never
heard of so much crap on any wavebands before. How these people get
operating licenses is beyond me.
--
From the ORIGINAL Trojan Horse!
Please note that correct e-mail address is:-
trojan...@virgin.net
[Copyright 1999 by Trojan Horse]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=24561
UIN #3457372
http://members.home.net/magickal1/soc/
wwp.mirabilis.com/3457372
345...@pager.mirabilis.com
Keith Bennett
writes
>Please remove the cross post to rec.radio.amateur.dx
>
Keith Bennett
<m_na...@hotmail.com> writes
>Hi from soc.penpals and let me say that all of this technical talk is
>making me hot......<g>
Wern't we supposed to take this off the listings?
CQ-CQ-CQ2!!