Pro CW? PHONE in and say why!
Len Winkler
This sunday, 12-22-96, on the nationally syndicated
Ham Radio & More Show, it's your chance to call in,
toll-free, and voice your reasons why CW needs to
remain a requirement for a General and above ham
license. You'll have up to 90 UNINTERRUPTED seconds
to tell the world why you believe what you do. Even
the host will not comment. So many of the posts here are
about the code and are written and thought out so well,
now is your chance to tell the world. Prepare in advance,
and be ready to say it all within 90 seconds.
The toll-free number is 1-800-293-5366, and that line will
be available 10 minutes before the show starts this sunday.
Below is more information about the show.
Len Winkler, KB7LPW len...@goodnet.com
P.O. Box 9219 kb7...@kc7y.az.usa.na
Phoenix, AZ. 85068-9219 ARIZONA ARRL PIC
Ham Radio & More Show info at:
http://www.goodnet.com/~lenwink/hrm.htm
http://www.tapr.org/hrm (RealAudio site to hear past shows) (Thanks TAPR)
The Ham Radio & More Show airs LIVE each Sunday at 6:00pm ET,
(2300utc), on many local commercial stations throughout the country.
ALSO: LIVE on WWCR Shortwave, 5.070mhz.
ALSO: LIVE on RealAudio at: http://www.AudioNet.com/radio/business/kbnp (Thanks KBNP)
Also available tape delayed via WWCR Shortwave on Mondays,
at 1000utc on 3.210mhz, and Sundays at 0600utc on 5.070mhz.
Support "WOG", the Written Only General!
WOG info at http://www.goodnet.com/~lenwink/wog.htm
Jeffrey Herman
Len Winkler <len...@indirect.com> wrote:
>This sunday, 12-22-96, on the nationally syndicated
>Ham Radio & More Show, it's your chance to call in,
>toll-free, and voice your reasons why CW needs to
>remain a requirement for a General and above ham
>license. You'll have up to 90 UNINTERRUPTED seconds
>to tell the world why you believe what you do. Even
>the host will not comment. So many of the posts here are
>about the code and are written and thought out so well,
>now is your chance to tell the world. Prepare in advance,
>and be ready to say it all within 90 seconds.
Checking the number of listeners again?
>Support "WOG", the Written Only General!
Okay, how about just a two-question exam:
1. Draw the schematic diagram of a complete amateur station; label
all component values.
2. Explain the purpose of each component.
(Taken from the 1928 exam.)
Jeff KH2PZ / KH6
Dana Myers
In article <595ndm$b...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>
>Okay, how about just a two-question exam:
>1. Draw the schematic diagram of a complete amateur station; label
>all component values.
>2. Explain the purpose of each component.
>(Taken from the 1928 exam.)
Well, I suppose we could ask applicants to draw a schematic of
a complete 1928 amateur station, but I'm not sure just how useful
that would be in 1996 (or even 1946). The technical standards
and expectations were different then; a simple one-tube MOPA
transmitter and a one-tube (or maybe two) super-regen receiver
and power supply was common.
It would be hopeless to operate such a station today as anything
more than a novelty. Though the transmitter might be OK, the
receiver would radiate enough signal to work transcontinental
DX and be illegal.
--
* Dana H. Myers K6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are mine and should *
* (310) 348-6043 | not be interpreted or represented as *
* Dana....@West.Sun.Com | those of Sun Microsystems, Inc. *
Curtis Wheeler
PHONE in?
--
Curtis
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
From: my...@West.Sun.COM (Dana Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 17 Dec 1996 23:13:30 GMT
In article <595ndm$b...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>
>Okay, how about just a two-question exam:
>1. Draw the schematic diagram of a complete amateur station; label
>all component values.
>2. Explain the purpose of each component.
>(Taken from the 1928 exam.)
Well, I suppose we could ask applicants to draw a schematic of
a complete 1928 amateur station, but I'm not sure just how useful
that would be in 1996 (or even 1946). The technical standards
and expectations were different then; a simple one-tube MOPA
transmitter and a one-tube (or maybe two) super-regen receiver
and power supply was common.
It wouldn't be that hard to draw the circuit and explain the purpose
of each component for a complete, current technology station. Take a
look at some of the QRP rigs, such as the 49er, 38 Special or such
like. And these can make contacts as well as the 1928 rig can, at
least. The same could be easily done for a SSB rig. But Jeff would
probably claim that you'd have to do it with tubes or discrete
transistors.
Many people would MUCH rather learn do that rather than acquire the
reflexes to use CW. They probably could do it faster, too.
BTW, making it work in the real world or coming up with a new design
would be more of a challenge. And grading grey areas or innovative
designs would be a real problem.
73, doug
tv...@mailbag.com
I think of Ham Radio as a club. Compair it to other clubs. You want to
join a motorcycle club you have to do something to get in, to sort of
"pay your dues" like ride through town with no pants on or something.
To be on the track team you have to work out everyday. Football players
have rules they have to follow to get on the team. Name a quality group
and they all have something you need to do in order to get into it.
Why should Ham Radio be any different? Ham Radio is a hobby, a club, not
a right. Want to be part of the club? Then you got to pay your dues.
Learning the Morse code is a tradition of the Ham Radio fraternity, it
is a common bond that makes Hams different from other people on the
street.
No code Hams have turned the two meter band into nothing more than a
family intercom system, "honey, would you bring a loaf of bread home?"
The same thing would happen to the HF bands. Every CB operator would get
on the ham bands and soon that is what you would have, the same thing
you hear now on a CB radio.
> Len Winkler <len...@indirect.com> wrote:
> >This sunday, 12-22-96, on the nationally syndicated
> >Ham Radio & More Show, it's your chance to call in,
> >toll-free, and voice your reasons why CW needs to
> >remain a requirement for a General and above ham
> >license. You'll have up to 90 UNINTERRUPTED seconds
> >to tell the world why you believe what you do. Even
> >the host will not comment. So many of the posts here are
> >about the code and are written and thought out so well,
> >now is your chance to tell the world. Prepare in advance,
> >and be ready to say it all within 90 seconds.
Jim Martin, WK1V
Curtis Wheeler <cwhe...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>PHONE in?
Yeah, you push those little buttons on the telephone instrument. They
beep and make tones, dual tones as a matter of fact, and it interfaces
into a worldwide network of like instruments.
You can always find out what time it is during the wee hours of the
morning. All you have to do is press a series of at least seven
numbers. Someone will pick up on the other end and say, "Do you know
what time it is? IT'S 3:30 in the BLEEPING MORNING!" Amazing little
things aren't they?
I know they don't come with instructions so hopefully this helps.
Cheers! jim, wk1v
The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force
In article <32B7A6...@mailbag.com>, tv...@mailbag.com wrote:
>I think of Ham Radio as a club. Compair it to other clubs. You want to
>join a motorcycle club you have to do something to get in, to sort of
>"pay your dues" like ride through town with no pants on or something.
That is known as "hazing".
..
>Why should Ham Radio be any different?
We are discussing the requirements for a US Amateur Radio License,
issued by the Federal government. The Federal government does not
and should not maintain private clubs. Amateur Radio is not a private
club! If it becomes perceived as such by the general public, it will die.
Andy Nourse - KC1IP - KEEP THE CODE, DUMP THE CODE *TESTS*
Rich McAllister
tv...@mailbag.com writes:
> I think of Ham Radio as a club. Compair it to other clubs. You want to
> join a motorcycle club you have to do something to get in, to sort of
> "pay your dues" like ride through town with no pants on or something.
....
>
> Why should Ham Radio be any different?
Because entrance to amateur radio is controlled by a government enforced
regulation with the force of law. If I don't like your club, I can start my
own. If I don't like the laws, I can't just make my own.
(Pants-free riding wasn't on the Cal DMV motorcycle test last I checked.)
(Followups set to r.r.a.p; I'm crossposting this followup because
I don't know if tvdon reads r.r.a.p.)
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
Curtis Wheeler
[snip]
> Why should Ham Radio be any different? Ham Radio is a hobby, a club, not
> a right. Want to be part of the club? Then you got to pay your dues.
> Learning the Morse code is a tradition of the Ham Radio fraternity, it
> is a common bond that makes Hams different from other people on the
> street.
The amateur radio service is not club. The FCC is not in the business
of issuing club memberships. You appear to consider learning CW as a
type of hazing. This concept goes right to the top of my list of
cottonheaded reasons to keep code testing. It beats out the previous
number one reason - "People will perish on sinking ships if hams aren't
required to learn code".
Like all other radio services, amateur radio serves the public
interest. It is not a private playground. I don't believe that the
morse code requirements of the current U.S. license structure are best
serving the public interest anymore and should be changed.
> No code Hams have turned the two meter band into nothing more than a
> family intercom system, "honey, would you bring a loaf of bread home?"
> The same thing would happen to the HF bands. Every CB operator would get
> on the ham bands and soon that is what you would have, the same thing
> you hear now on a CB radio.
No-code hams have not wrecked anything. Pro-coders and old timers
regularly conduct the same type of unimportant communications with other
hams and even use the auto patch to call home. (Personally, I despise
the routine use of autopatches.) The bands may be more crowded but I
challenge you to come up with any proof that the "lid per capita" is any
higher now than it was before 1991.
--
Curtis
tv...@mailbag.com
The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force wrote:
>
> The Federal government does not and should not maintain private clubs. > Amateur Radio is not a private club! If it becomes perceived as such > by the general public, it will die.
>
> Andy Nourse - KC1IP - KEEP THE CODE, DUMP THE CODE *TESTS*
You are right, Amateur Radio is not a private club, any person that
takes the test and passes it can become a license holder. Most of the
general public does not even take the time to vote in government
elections, I doubt they could give a hoot about Ham Radio.
There are lots of government sponsored clubs, the first one that pops to
mind are sport teams. The Green Bay packers are owned by the City of
Green Bay, look at all the baseball teams that get big new ball parks
from the government. I am sure the list goes on and on if one were to
sit down and think about all the "clubs" that get money from the
government. Ham Radio does not really get money from the government like
other groups do, the only cost for the government is for record keeping
and such.
If a person is not interested enough in the radio arts to put forth the
small amount of effort it takes to get a license these days, then they
do not deserve the privilege of using the Ham bands.
James W. KELLEY
>Okay, how about just a two-question exam:
>1. Draw the schematic diagram of a complete amateur station; label
>all component values.
>2. Explain the purpose of each component.
>(Taken from the 1928 exam.)
>
>Jeff KH2PZ / KH6
>
Ever take a look at the schematic of a 1928 radio Jeff? Has about 4 parts.
KC5WCP
tv...@mailbag.com wrote:
>I think of Ham Radio as a club. Compair it to other clubs. You want to
>join a motorcycle club you have to do something to get in, to sort of
>"pay your dues" like ride through town with no pants on or something.
Now there's a vision
>To be on the track team you have to work out everyday. Football players
>have rules they have to follow to get on the team. Name a quality group
>and they all have something you need to do in order to get into it.
What would be wrong with a stringent written test?
>Why should Ham Radio be any different? Ham Radio is a hobby, a club, not
>a right. Want to be part of the club? Then you got to pay your dues.
>Learning the Morse code is a tradition of the Ham Radio fraternity, it
>is a common bond that makes Hams different from other people on the
>street.
I do pay dues. To my club, to the ARRL, to keep the repeater going. By
volunteering my time. By being technically efficient and knowlegable.
Not to mention courteous and kind to other hams.
>No code Hams have turned the two meter band into nothing more than a
>family intercom system, "honey, would you bring a loaf of bread home?"
>The same thing would happen to the HF bands. Every CB operator would get
>on the ham bands and soon that is what you would have, the same thing
>you hear now on a CB radio.
Not to mention 80/40/20 meters. :) Yeah that code sure defeats the
ignorance doesn't it! Sure there is lots of family oriented activity
on 2m. WHY NOT!?! 2m is mostly localized comms, or would you prefer to
see them us 160? Let's not forget that HAM radio is also FAMILY
oriented, or do those pesky kids sprouting up bother you like the
CBers do?
And you never hear anyone ever using two for dxing. Nope I never
talked 11 grid squares last week when the band was open. You never
hear those guys with DXCC(thats right DXCC not VUCC) working other
countries on two. Now where are those pesky downlinks for the
satellites??????? Duh.....two!
Yeah us TWOers sure are plug dumb and annoying and never contribute to
the hobby. Nope. And as soon as code is dropped and some advanced
class idiot jams my QSO on 80 I'm gunna hunt his dumb ass down and
show the FCC and ARRL what needs to be done with CW.
Rush Johnson
Curtis Wheeler wrote:
> The amateur radio service is not club. The FCC is not in the business
> of issuing club memberships. You appear to consider learning CW as a
> type of hazing. This concept goes right to the top of my list of
> cottonheaded reasons to keep code testing. It beats out the previous
> number one reason - "People will perish on sinking ships if hams aren't
> required to learn code".
>
Of course this argument will never be resolved...there are strong points
on either side of the issue, and you appear to approach the situation as
alot of folks do, without looking at what has made Amateur Radio work
besides part 97.
Unfortunately, the rules and regulations the FCC set up regarding the
Amateur Radio Service do not really address what keeps the service
working, what keeps people coming back to the hobby. That's where
things depart from the neat world of rules and regulations or even pure
logic.
People like to belong to something special. We like to identify with
groups. We are attracted to the notion of community. And what is
particularly interesting is that people who share a common background
that may have involved some hardship, some fun, some challenge etc. tend
to be proud of their "heritage". You see this all over the place in
Alumni organizations, VFW groups, etc. It is that collection of
experience that helps glue the Amateur Radio Service together and make
it something special....not just a collection of rules and regulations
that we can use to stake our claim to spectrum space with. It is
community.
As we slowly take away the significant things from Amateur Radio that
create a sense of shared identity, a sense of community (like the CW
requirement, or homebrewing equipment), we start to lose those things
that keep us "bonded", that keep us comiserating (!), that keep us
mutually respectful of each others' committment to the hobby.
Replace that experience with a 610 form, a few bucks, and the published
answers to a simple quiz and your community goes away forever and is
replaced with a reasonable facsimile of CB in the 70's. I for one
loathe a future like that for amateur radio. Make room for tradition;
value is there, intended or not.
73.
Rush Johnson
NR4M (ex WD4AEI)
nr...@bellatlantic.net
Dana Myers
In article <59a11k$9...@news.service.uci.edu>,
Jeff has not only looked at the schematics of a 1928 radio, he's
posted such a schematic in ASCII art once or twice... I'll bet
he's in Lake Tahoe without net.access right now
;-)
The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force
In article <32BB50...@bellatlantic.net>,
Rush Johnson <nr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>As we slowly take away the significant things from Amateur Radio that
>create a sense of shared identity, a sense of community (like the CW
>requirement, or homebrewing equipment), we start to lose those things
>that keep us "bonded", that keep us comiserating (!), that keep us
>mutually respectful of each others' committment to the hobby.
We don't have a sense of community about the CW requirement. Far from it.
It is a source of division instead. Ever since "incentive" licensing
came into effect ham radio in the USA has been divided in this way.
Do away with the tests and we'll do away with a lot of division.
Plenty of new hams and not-so-new ones will still discover CW,
and they may like it better for not being force-fed it.
Bill Nelson
James W. KELLEY <jwke...@e4e.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>
>>Okay, how about just a two-question exam:
>>1. Draw the schematic diagram of a complete amateur station; label
>>all component values.
>>2. Explain the purpose of each component.
>>(Taken from the 1928 exam.)
>>
>>Jeff KH2PZ / KH6
>>
>
Ever take a look at the schematic of a 1928 radio Jeff? Has about 4 parts.
4 parts? Even a simple crystal set has that many. A complete amateur
station has a lot more than that.
Bill
michael silva
As one with clearly too much time on my hands I pulled out my treasured
1931 Handbook (close enough?) and counted 15 parts in the basic 2-tube
regen, and 26 in the MOPA transmitter. Add a handful for RX batteries
and TX power supply and you're at 50 or more.
(I'm just glad Jim didn't claim there were only 4 parts in a '50s
vintage color TV...that would have shot my whole holiday!)
73,
Mike, KK6GM
ca...@ais.net
In <32B8B7...@mailbag.com>, tv...@mailbag.com writes:
>
>If a person is not interested enough in the radio arts to put forth the
>small amount of effort it takes to get a license these days, then they
>do not deserve the privilege of using the Ham bands.
>
I agree with you in principle ... those people who have no interest in
*radio* technology (the "art" in "radio art", NOT CW, which is simply
telegraphy, which has existed for far longer than radio) don't deserve
to be hams ... even if they can copy 20+wpm of Morse code.
However, having a Morse code test has NOTHING to do with the radio art
.. read the ITU definition of ham radio ... it's a service devoted to
private tecnical investigations ... NOT a "gaming place for people who
want to yack, beep, and 'chase DX'" ... those things are permissable,
but they are NOT the "reason for being" of ham radio.
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
Jim Kehler
an...@tiedye.com (The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force) wrote:
>In article <32BB50...@bellatlantic.net>,
> Rush Johnson <nr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>As we slowly take away the significant things from Amateur Radio that
>>create a sense of shared identity, a sense of community (like the CW
>>requirement, or homebrewing equipment), we start to lose those things
>>that keep us "bonded", that keep us comiserating (!), that keep us
>>mutually respectful of each others' committment to the hobby.
>We don't have a sense of community about the CW requirement.
Certainly we do. At least amongst those of us who use it we do.
73, Jim KH2D
Michael P. Deignan
>>I agree with you in principle ... those people who have no interest in
>>*radio* technology (the "art" in "radio art", NOT CW, which is simply
>>telegraphy, which has existed for far longer than radio) don't deserve
>>to be hams ... even if they can copy 20+wpm of Morse code.
>
>That's about the most elitist statement I've ever heard. What you're saying is
>that people who simply want to be hams because they think it would be an
>enjoyable hobby or pastime don't deserve to be hams.
Yup. That's Carl for you. In one sentence he will call CW-supporters a
bunch of ignorant elitists, yet in the next breath tell you how only
people with PhDs in EE should be hams. He'll also usually tell you how
he has forgotten more RF theory while standing in front of the urinal
(not a short period of time, given general prostrate health at his age)
than the entire combined population of all amateurs throughout the
entire universe put together knows.
MD
--
--
-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people." -- T-shirt slogan
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Thomas R. Sundstrom
Listening to Len's Ham Radio & More show early this morning on WWCR and
this pro-code, anti-code business... and Len's promotion of the no-code
General...
Did'ja ever notice that high speed code atop music is used throughout
the programming to move from feature to feature?
Hmmm... ironic, isn't it?
Tom W2XQ
--
Thomas R. Sundstrom t...@trsc.com
TRS Consultants http://www.trsc.com
PO Box 2275 244...@mcimail.com
Vincentown, NJ 08088-2275, USA
+1 609 859 2447 | Fax +1 609 859 3226
< Contributing Editor, "Radio & Communications", ACP Symes Magazines >
T.L.Bryant
>I agree with you in principle ... those people who have no interest in
>*radio* technology (the "art" in "radio art", NOT CW, which is simply
>telegraphy, which has existed for far longer than radio) don't deserve
>to be hams ... even if they can copy 20+wpm of Morse code.
That's about the most elitist statement I've ever heard. What you're saying is
that people who simply want to be hams because they think it would be an
enjoyable hobby or pastime don't deserve to be hams.
>However, having a Morse code test has NOTHING to do with the radio art
>.. read the ITU definition of ham radio ... it's a service devoted to
>private tecnical investigations ... NOT a "gaming place for people who
>want to yack, beep, and 'chase DX'" ... those things are permissable,
>but they are NOT the "reason for being" of ham radio.
Maybe so, but it it's no reason to keep a person from becoming a ham simply
because they don't fit *your* criteria of what a ham should be.
>Carl - wa6vse
>ca...@ais.net
Tom - N8ECW
Steve - KF2TI (Landing, NJ)
In article <59joc6$j...@nerd.apk.net>, tbr...@cannet.com says...
>
> >I agree with you in principle ... those people who have no interest in
> >*radio* technology (the "art" in "radio art", NOT CW, which is simply
> >telegraphy, which has existed for far longer than radio) don't deserve
> >to be hams ... even if they can copy 20+wpm of Morse code.
>
> That's about the most elitist statement I've ever heard. What you're saying is
> that people who simply want to be hams because they think it would be an
> enjoyable hobby or pastime don't deserve to be hams.
Welcome to the ARS according to CARL. Be pepared to be the target of
lies, insults and disgusting e-mail messages (which of course he';; deny
sending). But as you have read, that's EXACTLY what Carl is saying. NO
YACKERS. DX'ERS, CONTESTERS, GAMERS or RAGCHEWER!!! plain and simple.
Besides, it's NOT A HOBBY..right Carl???
Carl's vision is to have nothing but little tinnie tiny bits of data
traveling at the speed of light back and forth via computer..no human
interaction needed. And all this at a price..play for pay
>
> >However, having a Morse code test has NOTHING to do with the radio art
> >.. read the ITU definition of ham radio ... it's a service devoted to
> >private tecnical investigations ... NOT a "gaming place for people who
> >want to yack, beep, and 'chase DX'" ... those things are permissable,
> >but they are NOT the "reason for being" of ham radio.
>
> Maybe so, but it it's no reason to keep a person from becoming a ham simply
> because they don't fit *your* criteria of what a ham should be.
See, you're getting the picture. What a great way to utilize spectrum.
Carl can send to Lennart, who can;'t send back cause he ain;t gots no
license. Why, cause, he like Wa^VSE don;t want to join the fraternity
known as amateur radio operators.
Flame away boys...I've decided your opinions of me and $1.35 buys me my
morning cup of coffee and paper. In otherwords, you're boring, tedious
and quite a hoot to see you rush to your own defenses.. YAHOOOO
>
> >Carl - wa6vse
> >ca...@ais.net
> >Employed out of pity for the mentally deficient
>
> Tom - N8ECW
>
>
--
Steve KF2TI
ARRL LIFE Member
BACK TO THE SHADOWS AGAIN OOHHHHHH
OUT WHERE THE INDIAN'S YOU'RE FRIEND OOOHHHH
WHERE THE VEGATABLES ARE GREEN
AND YOU CAN PEE INTO THE STREAM (and that's important you know)
I'M BACK TO THE SHADOWS AGAIN
doors open in 5 minutes
ca...@ais.net
That's the point that Andy was making ... the code requirement is THE
SINGLE most devisive thing in ham radio ... you beepers see it as a way
to maintain some false, self-deluding, self-image of superiority and
eletism and use it as a way to keep others out ... you can't stand the
idea of dropping the code requirement, 'cause that's the ONLY thing
that you have to make you feel superior to others ... to admit the code
is irrelevant would be to admit that YOU are irrelevant in today's
technically advanced world.
You beepers just can't face the truth ...
Carl - wa6vse
ca...@ais.net
Dave Krieps
Carl,
You are truly mislead. The only reason the "beepers" would like to
maintain the code is that it might prevent the HAM band from becoming
the new CB band. The presumption is that if you take the time to
learn the code, you may truly be interested in the hobby.
If you don't think that is the case, listen on 2 meters sometime. A
number of the no-code licensees are turning that into a zoo. Many of
the repeaters are turning to closed status just to filter out the junk
and abuse. Sure, there are licensed HAMs that abuse any band, but the
frequency of abuse seems higher where the no-coders play. To be sure,
there are many responsible no-coders, but the one-day-crash-courses
are bringing all manner of abusers in as well.
Perhaps the technology is changing and Morse code may even be an
anachronism, but it tends to exert a Darwinian-like control on the
operators. In other words, it keeps a lot of idiots out; not all mind
you.
In truth, people like yourself are the ones causing the
divisiveness. All of the "elitist" labels and name calling are the
real cause of the animosity. You might try to see the issue from
someone elses shoes and then work within the system to make the
changes you seem to think so important.
Happy Holidays.
Dave Krieps
On 23 Dec 1996 21:54:09 GMT, ca...@ais.net wrote:
<snip>
Dana Yeomans
the ham bands sounds like the cb band now, look at all the truck drivers
on 2 meters. i put my repeater on p-l because of them.
Dana Yeomans
hi there, 75 meters sounds like a zoo now, chanel 19 is a church compaired
to 75 meters. happy holidays from n4pge in griffin, georgia.
Rob Lilley
I am not a ham. However, if I was, I would take the side of the required
CW code tests. Right now I look up to hams as being those who have spent
the time to learn a craft - those who prefect CW make it an art. If you do
away with the code you take away a standard. This country has been very
good at eliminating standards in the past 30 or so years. "If ya make
peanut standards, ya get monkeys." Do away with code: next time I see
some cigar chewin guy on Interstate 80 round Rockaway thumbing a mike,
Blah, Blah - I'll think "CB or 2 meter" what's the difference? I know
the difference between "CB and CW".
Rob Lilley
On 24 Dec 1996, Jim M. wrote:
> What good is CW? The people. The attitudes. Listen for a while on some of
> the CB transplant frequencies on 80 M such as 3894.5, 3901, etc. I NEED to go
> to the CW bands to escape this trash. You won't find vulgar, profane,
> immature no-coders, alcoholics and loosers on CW. The attitudes are
> different. If you care enough to learn and perfect CW, you will probably care
> enough to NOT behave like the jerks on 3894.5. CW is the great equalizer, the
> great filter. It filters out all the children and rif-raf, and provides a
> sanctuary of sanity where good people can treat each other with respect. The
> phone bands? I hope they're the first to go in the WARC frequency auctions!
> And they probably will be, considering the uselessness and embarasment of what
> transpires there now.
>
> Jim N4BE
>
> In article <59n99m$2...@jupiter.planet.net>, bill...@planet.net says...
> >
> >djkr...@worldnet.att.net (Dave Krieps) wrote:
> >
> >>Carl,
> >
> >> You are truly mislead. The only reason the "beepers" would like to
> >>maintain the code is that it might prevent the HAM band from becoming
> >>the new CB band. The presumption is that if you take the time to
> >>learn the code, you may truly be interested in the hobby.
> >
> >God, how many times do we have to debuk that myth. If CW
> >did as Dave suggests, we'd not have the some of the bozos
> >we do on HF now.
> >
> >Additionally, the responsibility of testing is not to insure an
> >interest level...it is (or should be) to test for minimum
> >requirements consistent with the governments role in regulation.
> >Anything beyond that is for religions and clubs to take up.
> >
> >> If you don't think that is the case, listen on 2 meters sometime. A
> >>number of the no-code licensees are turning that into a zoo. Many of
> >>the repeaters are turning to closed status just to filter out the junk
> >>and abuse. Sure, there are licensed HAMs that abuse any band, but the
> >>frequency of abuse seems higher where the no-coders play. To be sure,
> >>there are many responsible no-coders, but the one-day-crash-courses
> >>are bringing all manner of abusers in as well.
> >
> >Same old, same old. I have a 2M mobile every day and I guess
> >we live in significantly different areas because there is no more
> >problem on 2M than anywhere else here in the TRI-state area
> >(NY,NJ,PA).
> >
> >> Perhaps the technology is changing and Morse code may even be an
> >>anachronism, but it tends to exert a Darwinian-like control on the
> >>operators. In other words, it keeps a lot of idiots out; not all mind
> >>you.
> >
> >Which is not the function of government testing. Let's make
> >testing better, but relying on CW testing in this fashion
> >is avoiding the inevitable.
> >
> >> In truth, people like yourself are the ones causing the
> >>divisiveness. All of the "elitist" labels and name calling are the
> >>real cause of the animosity. You might try to see the issue from
> >>someone elses shoes and then work within the system to make the
> >>changes you seem to think so important.
> >
> >Right, those that oppose CW testing should, for the good of ham radio,
> >just shut up and say nothing. Sorry, I don't live my life that way.
> >And, just why do you suggest working within the system? That IS
> >exactly what we are doing. If you think otherwise, I look
> >forward to seeing your comments as to how/why we are NOT
> >working within the system.
> >
> >Bill Sohl K2UNK
> >ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
> >
>
>
>
Bill Sohl
Jim M.
What good is CW? The people. The attitudes. Listen for a while on some of
the CB transplant frequencies on 80 M such as 3894.5, 3901, etc. I NEED to go
to the CW bands to escape this trash. You won't find vulgar, profane,
immature no-coders, alcoholics and loosers on CW. The attitudes are
different. If you care enough to learn and perfect CW, you will probably care
enough to NOT behave like the jerks on 3894.5. CW is the great equalizer, the
great filter. It filters out all the children and rif-raf, and provides a
sanctuary of sanity where good people can treat each other with respect. The
phone bands? I hope they're the first to go in the WARC frequency auctions!
And they probably will be, considering the uselessness and embarasment of what
transpires there now.
Jim N4BE
In article <59n99m$2...@jupiter.planet.net>, bill...@planet.net says...
>
KC5WCP
"Thomas R. Sundstrom" <t...@trsc.com> wrote:
>Listening to Len's Ham Radio & More show early this morning on WWCR and
>this pro-code, anti-code business... and Len's promotion of the no-code
>General...
>Did'ja ever notice that high speed code atop music is used throughout
>the programming to move from feature to feature?
>Hmmm... ironic, isn't it?
Not ironic Tom, just cute. Still and all not a good reason to keep the
code requirement. In fact I have yet to hear one reasonable reason.
Not to say that you don't find the reasons reasonable, they just don't
hold water folks.
There is not one good reason to keep the code requirement. There are
plenty to keep CW sub bands. But to be required to pass a code test to
use phone is silly.
Eric
KC5WCP
ca...@ais.net wrote:
>In <59i8mr$k...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>, kh...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) writes:
>>an...@tiedye.com (The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <32BB50...@bellatlantic.net>,
>>> Rush Johnson <nr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>>As we slowly take away the significant things from Amateur Radio that
>>>>create a sense of shared identity, a sense of community (like the CW
>>>>requirement, or homebrewing equipment), we start to lose those things
>>>>that keep us "bonded", that keep us comiserating (!), that keep us
>>>>mutually respectful of each others' committment to the hobby.
>>
>>>We don't have a sense of community about the CW requirement.
>>
>>Certainly we do. At least amongst those of us who use it we do.
>>
>>73, Jim KH2D
>>
>That's the point that Andy was making ... the code requirement is THE
>SINGLE most devisive thing in ham radio ... you beepers see it as a way
>to maintain some false, self-deluding, self-image of superiority and
>eletism and use it as a way to keep others out ... you can't stand the
>idea of dropping the code requirement, 'cause that's the ONLY thing
>that you have to make you feel superior to others ... to admit the code
>is irrelevant would be to admit that YOU are irrelevant in today's
>technically advanced world.
>You beepers just can't face the truth ...
I wouldn't have said it so harshly...but ditto.
KC5WCP
KC5WCP
djkr...@worldnet.att.net (Dave Krieps) wrote:
>Carl,
> You are truly mislead. The only reason the "beepers" would like to
>maintain the code is that it might prevent the HAM band from becoming
>the new CB band. The presumption is that if you take the time to
>learn the code, you may truly be interested in the hobby.
Why not take the time to learn the technical side instead of CW? Why
not make the test tougher and emphasize operating practice and
technical proficiency? What does CW have over these areas of expertise
to prevent CB type behavior? And why hasn't CW kept this behavior off
the HF bands so far?
> If you don't think that is the case, listen on 2 meters sometime. A
>number of the no-code licensees are turning that into a zoo. Many of
>the repeaters are turning to closed status just to filter out the junk
>and abuse. Sure, there are licensed HAMs that abuse any band, but the
>frequency of abuse seems higher where the no-coders play. To be sure,
>there are many responsible no-coders, but the one-day-crash-courses
>are bringing all manner of abusers in as well.
I have yet to experience ANY ill behavior on the two meter repeaters
or simplex frequencies in my area. Yet there are a group of morons
down on 80 in my area that would make satan blush.
The NO-CODERS around here are a damn sight more polite than the
coders. I get more help when it comes to lifting an antenna from the
no-coders than I do from the beepers. I can count on a decent QSO from
the no-coders. When I try a coder, I get the shoulder cause my call
makes me lesser in their eyes. Mind you, there are a few decent
beepers in my area, but they actually took the time to get to know me
and understand that I care just as much about the proper use of the
bands as I do about abolishing the code requirement.
> Perhaps the technology is changing and Morse code may even be an
>anachronism, but it tends to exert a Darwinian-like control on the
>operators. In other words, it keeps a lot of idiots out; not all mind
>you.
So why bother if it does not provide the filter it is intended to?
> In truth, people like yourself are the ones causing the
>divisiveness. All of the "elitist" labels and name calling are the
>real cause of the animosity. You might try to see the issue from
>someone elses shoes and then work within the system to make the
>changes you seem to think so important.
Statement does not apply to me, so i won't comment :)
>Happy Holidays.
Same to ya! Be safe and happy 73
KC5WCP
Eric
Jim Kehler
ca...@ais.net wrote:
>That's the point that Andy was making ... the code requirement is THE
>SINGLE most devisive thing in ham radio ... you beepers see it as a way
>to maintain some false, self-deluding, self-image of superiority and
>eletism and use it as a way to keep others out ... you can't stand the
>idea of dropping the code requirement, 'cause that's the ONLY thing
>that you have to make you feel superior to others ... to admit the code
>is irrelevant would be to admit that YOU are irrelevant in today's
>technically advanced world.
>You beepers just can't face the truth ...
>Carl - wa6vse
>ca...@ais.net
Let's turn that around for a minute, Squiggy. You can't stand the idea of
keeping the code test, because it makes you feel inferior to others. To admit
the code is relevant would be to admit other hams are relevant in todays world,
and you have already shown us how you feel with your constant 'Yackers,
gamers....' etc. comments.
But anyway, it's Christmas time, so let's not argue. As 1996 draws to a close
I would just like to thank you for presenting your views on the no code/code
debate in this forum Squiggy. Your attitude toward ham radio, and your ideas
and the way you have presented them here are the best argument that I have
seen for keeping the code tests.
73, Jim KH2D
tv...@mailbag.com
You are using the same argument to try and relax the test for ham radio
as is being used through American society regarding every rule/law we
have. Here are a few examples;
I don't like guns, outlaw them.
I want to run nude down Main Street, why not, who does it hurt?
Why should I need to take a test to drive a car? I can drive a car just
as well whether I take a test or not. Taking a test does not make me a
better driver.
There is no good reason to lean math, I can do it on a calculator.
There is no good reason to learn to spell, I have a spell checker on my
computer.
There is no good reason to work hard at my job, I get paid the same
whether I do things that the boss will never know about, just because it
is the right thing to do.
There is no good reason not to eat dog and cat meat.
There is no good reason to learn to speak English to live in this
country, when I can't get a good job I will say I am not liked.
There is no good reason why a police officer should be forced to wear a
uniform, it is uncomfortable and hot in the summer, shorts and a tee
shirt would be better.
As you can see, we could go on and on. I keep hearing that there is not
one good reason to keep the code requirement for a ham ticket. Name one
good reason why we SHOULD NOT keep it.
The fact that THAT IS THE WAY IT IS, should be good enough. There are
lots of good reasons to learn the code, the only reason not to learn it
is that you don't think you should have to. Part of being a ham is
knowing the Morse code. You can't be in the French club with out wanting
to speak French and you can't be a real radio "HAM," note that I did not
say "radio operator," without learning the Morse code. It is a
tradition. It is part of ham radio.
You should learn Morse code as part of getting your ham ticket for the
same reason you should know how to add without a calculator. You don't
have to know, but it is a good idea.
By the way, why should I need to know how to read or right to to be a
ham? I don't need it to use phone bands.
Why have a test at all? That is what you are really saying. You don't
need to take a test to talk on the radio, you just need to know how to
talk.
Getting rid of the code test is just step one in the CB operators take
over of the ham bands. The next step is to get rid of testing at all.
Why have ham radio? We have the phone company and I don't need to take
no test for that.
Why should
Jim Kehler
se...@datasync.com (KC5WCP) wrote:
>"Thomas R. Sundstrom" <t...@trsc.com> wrote:
>>Listening to Len's Ham Radio & More show early this morning on WWCR and
>>this pro-code, anti-code business... and Len's promotion of the no-code
>>General...
>>Did'ja ever notice that high speed code atop music is used throughout
>>the programming to move from feature to feature?
>>Hmmm... ironic, isn't it?
>Not ironic Tom, just cute. Still and all not a good reason to keep the
>code requirement. In fact I have yet to hear one reasonable reason.
>Not to say that you don't find the reasons reasonable, they just don't
>hold water folks.
>There is not one good reason to keep the code requirement. There are
>plenty to keep CW sub bands. But to be required to pass a code test to
>use phone is silly.
>Eric
Almost as silly as suggesting that people on welfare get a job, right Eric ?
73, Jim KH2D
KC5WCP
tv...@mailbag.com wrote:
>You are using the same argument to try and relax the test for ham radio
>as is being used through American society regarding every rule/law we
>have. Here are a few examples;
No I am not. I would like to see the written tests enhanced to
resemble real life....TOUGH! The tougher the written test the better.
I would rather study more about theory and operating
practices(something every ham could use a brush up on) than an
outdated mode that I will never use.
>I don't like guns, outlaw them.
I love guns. :)
>I want to run nude down Main Street, why not, who does it hurt?
Never seen me naked have you :)
>Why should I need to take a test to drive a car? I can drive a car just
>as well whether I take a test or not. Taking a test does not make me a
>better driver.
Never drove in NYC have ya :)
>There is no good reason to lean math, I can do it on a calculator.
I used too be able to do advanced trig in my head, but then I had to
make room for CW code and well...
>There is no good reason to learn to spell, I have a spell checker on my
>computer.
Darn tootin buddy!
>There is no good reason to work hard at my job, I get paid the same
>whether I do things that the boss will never know about, just because it
>is the right thing to do.
Actually i do. It makes me feel good to excell
>There is no good reason not to eat dog and cat meat.
My cats would kill me if I did.
>There is no good reason to learn to speak English to live in this
>country, when I can't get a good job I will say I am not liked.
I am very well liked. Guess that is why they elected me pres. of the
local club. Oh wait, maybe they did that cause I'm the right man for
the job.
>There is no good reason why a police officer should be forced to wear a
>uniform, it is uncomfortable and hot in the summer, shorts and a tee
>shirt would be better.
Very true.
>As you can see, we could go on and on. I keep hearing that there is not
>one good reason to keep the code requirement for a ham ticket. Name one
>good reason why we SHOULD NOT keep it.
1) CW is out dated and useless when compared to high speed data modes.
2) The CW Requirement causes eletist attitudes on both sides of the
debate
3)I said so.
!>The fact that THAT IS THE WAY IT IS, should be good enough. There
are
I wonder if you would say that in regard to Hitlers regime or to Abe
Lincoln, South Africa, child molesters, etc.
>lots of good reasons to learn the code, the only reason not to learn it
>is that you don't think you should have to. Part of being a ham is
>knowing the Morse code. You can't be in the French club with out wanting
>to speak French and you can't be a real radio "HAM," note that I did not
>say "radio operator," without learning the Morse code. It is a
>tradition. It is part of ham radio.
I am a REAL HAM. But I guess trying for my DXCC(no not VUCC) on VHF
just doen't qualify in your book as an effort or challenge. I don't
think I should have to pass a code requirement to access HF.
>You should learn Morse code as part of getting your ham ticket for the
>same reason you should know how to add without a calculator. You don't
>have to know, but it is a good idea.
It is also a good idea to know how to properly handle a fire arm, yet
that is not mandatory. Etc etc etc. I will not bore everyone with
endless examples.
>By the way, why should I need to know how to read or right to to be a
>ham? I don't need it to use phone bands.
I wonder how many illiterates would disagree with you.
>Why have a test at all? That is what you are really saying. You don't
>need to take a test to talk on the radio, you just need to know how to
>talk.
Don't put words in my mouth. I want a tough written test. A test that
will help me to enhance my operating skill, on-air conduct and my
technical skill. Morse code does nothing to enhance any of those.
>Getting rid of the code test is just step one in the CB operators take
>over of the ham bands. The next step is to get rid of testing at all.
>Why have ham radio? We have the phone company and I don't need to take
>no test for that.
I wish this bashing of CB operators would stop. I know many Hams(with
and with out code)that got their start on CB and many of whom still
operate there. These CB freinds of mine are allready taking over the
ham bands. In fact it has been happening for years.
I guess you never keyed a CB before?
Or are you just better than CBers?
>Why should
>KC5WCP wrote:
>>
>> In fact I have yet to hear one reasonable reason.
>> Not to say that you don't find the reasons reasonable, they just don't
>> hold water folks.
>> There is not one good reason to keep the code requirement. There are
>> plenty to keep CW sub bands. But to be required to pass a code test to
>> use phone is silly.
Still have yet to hear one reasonable reason
>>
>> Eric
Still Eric
KC5WCP
kh...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>se...@datasync.com (KC5WCP) wrote:
>>"Thomas R. Sundstrom" <t...@trsc.com> wrote:
>>>Listening to Len's Ham Radio & More show early this morning on WWCR and
>>>this pro-code, anti-code business... and Len's promotion of the no-code
>>>General...
>>>Did'ja ever notice that high speed code atop music is used throughout
>>>the programming to move from feature to feature?
>>>Hmmm... ironic, isn't it?
>>Not ironic Tom, just cute. Still and all not a good reason to keep the
>>code requirement. In fact I have yet to hear one reasonable reason.
>>Not to say that you don't find the reasons reasonable, they just don't
>>hold water folks.
>>There is not one good reason to keep the code requirement. There are
>>plenty to keep CW sub bands. But to be required to pass a code test to
>>use phone is silly.
>>Eric
>Almost as silly as suggesting that people on welfare get a job, right Eric ?
Why do we need to continue even discussing this issue Jim if you keep
making silly analogies? Welfare and CW are two totally different
things. If you care to debate the merits of your position fine. If not
why not just resort to name calling like all the other Pro-coders out
here. or do you prefer putting words in my mouth?
Eric
Wayne H. Allen
Jim Kehler <kh...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote in article =
<59rr6g$9...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>...
| se...@datasync.com (KC5WCP) wrote:
|=20
| >plenty to keep CW sub bands. But to be required to pass a code test =
to
| >use phone is silly.
|=20
| >Eric
|=20
| Almost as silly as suggesting that people on welfare get a job, right =
Eric ?
|=20
| 73, Jim KH2D
|=20
Not nearly as silly as comparing the two issues.=20
VA3WHA
Jim M.
Let me give more of my opinion. First, let's cut through all the rhetoric
about "advanced" technology and present day communications advances as a
reason to do away with code. I have operated CW, SSB, packet, RTTY, AMTOR,
and PACTOR, and a few others I can't remember. I also work as a professional
engineer in the communications industry, hold an MSEE, BSEE, etc. etc. so
don't say I'm outmoded or just blowing steam. That won't work.
A couple of technical reasons for keeping CW: (1) The fact is, that CW can
"get through" poor channel conditions when most other modes available to the
ham, even the advanced digital modes, fail. Why do so many EME operators use
slow speed CW? Because you can reduce channel bandwidth and use coherent
signal processing to pull the CW keying out from under the noise level. It is
not fast, it is not sexy, but it does accomplish the purpose of communicating
information over long distances under extremely poor conditions. Try it with
SSB! (2) All those sexy, modern communications protocols may not always be
available. If you fall back to "modern day" techniques, then you need "modern
day" equipment. Some day, one of you just might be up a creek without a
paddle in a hurricane, ship wreck or other disaster when all you have is a
half broken transmitter, a battery, and something resembling a key. Your TNC
won't work, or you dont have one. Your 150 lb. Pentium and 17 inch SVGA
monitor have been flooded, or won't work, or you forgot to take them with you.
Now what do you do? Oh, I forgot, you are out of range of the nearest cell
site, and the phones won't work. And I am reminded of the VietNam war POW's
who communicated with each other through cell walls by tapping our Morse code.
And some non-technical reasons again... I remember when I first tried to
learn CW in 1960. It took me a long time, but I finally succeeded and I felt
good about it. But I didn't say it was stupid and out moded. I respected it
and the reasons for it... If you're going to learn about radio
communications, you need to understand it's roots. I respected the hams that
learned it and use it..it was an impressive skill and still is. It took me so
much work to perfect it that I learned something. I learned that I had better
handle with care the privledge that I had earned. I'm not saying that all
hams who passed CW tests are going to be perfect people. Certainly some of
the QRMers and poor operators also passed CW tests. But I do believe that,
overall, the person who has the diligence, the caring and the discipline to go
the distance and learn CW will usually be the type of personality that
exhibits good operating skills and respect for others. That's just my
opinion.
Yes technology has advanced a lot. Many of the old skills are irrelevant.
Cars no longer have old style ignition systems. But would you want a mechanic
working on your car who didn't understand the old systems? Smart computers
("expert systems") can make surprisingly accurate medical diagnoses. But
would you want a computer jocky prescribing drugs for you, instead of a
doctor? Todays calculators and computers can solve complex math problems for
the student and engineer without that person having to understand the
underlying theories or the roots of the technology. But would you want that
person designing the next airplane you are flying on?
Jim N4BE
In article <59rkol$9...@osh2.datasync.com>, se...@datasync.com says...
>>> In fact I have yet to hear one reasonable reason.
>>> Not to say that you don't find the reasons reasonable, they just don't
>>> hold water folks.
>>> There is not one good reason to keep the code requirement. There are
>>> plenty to keep CW sub bands. But to be required to pass a code test to
>>> use phone is silly.
>Still have yet to hear one reasonable reason
>>>
>>> Eric
>Still Eric
>
>
KC5WCP
jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) wrote:
>Let me give more of my opinion. First, let's cut through all the rhetoric
>about "advanced" technology and present day communications advances as a
>reason to do away with code. I have operated CW, SSB, packet, RTTY, AMTOR,
>and PACTOR, and a few others I can't remember. I also work as a professional
>engineer in the communications industry, hold an MSEE, BSEE, etc. etc. so
>don't say I'm outmoded or just blowing steam. That won't work.
Granted
>A couple of technical reasons for keeping CW: (1) The fact is, that CW can
>"get through" poor channel conditions when most other modes available to the
>ham, even the advanced digital modes, fail. Why do so many EME operators use
>slow speed CW? Because you can reduce channel bandwidth and use coherent
>signal processing to pull the CW keying out from under the noise level. It is
>not fast, it is not sexy, but it does accomplish the purpose of communicating
>information over long distances under extremely poor conditions. Try it with
>SSB!
Granted but so do high speed data modes. Unfortunately we are limited
to 9600 and it is hard to provide flawless error correction at that
snails pace.
(2) All those sexy, modern communications protocols may not always be
>available. If you fall back to "modern day" techniques, then you need "modern
>day" equipment. Some day, one of you just might be up a creek without a
>paddle in a hurricane, ship wreck or other disaster when all you have is a
>half broken transmitter, a battery, and something resembling a key. Your TNC
>won't work, or you dont have one. Your 150 lb. Pentium and 17 inch SVGA
>monitor have been flooded, or won't work, or you forgot to take them with you.
> Now what do you do? Oh, I forgot, you are out of range of the nearest cell
>site, and the phones won't work.
I break out the notebook, TNC, mobile and battery sorce from their
water and shock proof carrying case and send more traffic than the
beepers ever could and do it more efficiently.
And I am reminded of the VietNam war POW's
>who communicated with each other through cell walls by tapping our Morse code.
Next time I am a POW I will remember that. But seriously I see the
point. Still not a good reason to force CW on me and the others who
don't need or want it.
>And some non-technical reasons again... I remember when I first tried to
>learn CW in 1960. It took me a long time, but I finally succeeded and I felt
>good about it. But I didn't say it was stupid and out moded. I respected it
>and the reasons for it... If you're going to learn about radio
>communications, you need to understand it's roots. I respected the hams that
>learned it and use it..it was an impressive skill and still is. It took me so
>much work to perfect it that I learned something. I learned that I had better
>handle with care the privledge that I had earned. I'm not saying that all
>hams who passed CW tests are going to be perfect people. Certainly some of
>the QRMers and poor operators also passed CW tests. But I do believe that,
>overall, the person who has the diligence, the caring and the discipline to go
>the distance and learn CW will usually be the type of personality that
>exhibits good operating skills and respect for others. That's just my
>opinion.
I am glad you had a good experience with Code. Still not a good reason
to force CW on me. I don't force sex with women on you because I have
had good experiences with them. You get the idea.
>Yes technology has advanced a lot. Many of the old skills are irrelevant.
>Cars no longer have old style ignition systems. But would you want a mechanic
>working on your car who didn't understand the old systems? Smart computers
>("expert systems") can make surprisingly accurate medical diagnoses. But
>would you want a computer jocky prescribing drugs for you, instead of a
>doctor? Todays calculators and computers can solve complex math problems for
>the student and engineer without that person having to understand the
>underlying theories or the roots of the technology. But would you want that
>person designing the next airplane you are flying on?
Well since we are discussing HAM radio and emergency applications
thereof...I would much prefer a CW ignorant ham who knows how to use a
TNC, computer and can type fast :)
>Jim N4BE
Eric KC5WCP
May your Holidays be great and may we still debate in this friendly
fashion.
Bill Sohl
se...@datasync.com (KC5WCP) wrote:
>jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) wrote:
>>Let me give more of my opinion. First, let's cut through all the rhetoric
>>about "advanced" technology and present day communications advances as a
>>reason to do away with code. I have operated CW, SSB, packet, RTTY, AMTOR,
>>and PACTOR, and a few others I can't remember. I also work as a professional
>>engineer in the communications industry, hold an MSEE, BSEE, etc. etc. so
>>don't say I'm outmoded or just blowing steam. That won't work.
You won't see me putting down who you are, but I'll comment on
what you say.
>>A couple of technical reasons for keeping CW: (1) The fact is, that CW can
>>"get through" poor channel conditions when most other modes available to the
>>ham, even the advanced digital modes, fail. Why do so many EME operators use
>>slow speed CW? Because you can reduce channel bandwidth and use coherent
>>signal processing to pull the CW keying out from under the noise level. It is
>>not fast, it is not sexy, but it does accomplish the purpose of communicating
>>information over long distances under extremely poor conditions. Try it with
>>SSB!
And, as again obviously needs repeating, if CW is the best for
EME work, then those people doing that will continue to do so.
Elimination of CW testing doesn't change that. Mandating CW
knowledge for everyone on HF is not validated because some
EME (or all EME) folks use or want to use CW. Those of us
that propose ending mandatory CW testing fully support your
ability to continue using CW.
As to the ability to get through, that has been offset by other modes.
CW doesn't deserve special knowledge consideration (certainly
not on a pass/fail basis as is the case today) anymore than we
don't expect all hams to have packet capability or any other mode
of operation. The perceived value of CW to get through in
the past was based on (IMHO and as you go on to offer below) safety
and emergency needs. However, there hasn't been any ham
safety/emergency need for CW in years.
>> (2) All those sexy, modern communications protocols may not always be
>>available. If you fall back to "modern day" techniques, then you need "modern
>>day" equipment. Some day, one of you just might be up a creek without a
>>paddle in a hurricane, ship wreck or other disaster when all you have is a
>>half broken transmitter, a battery, and something resembling a key. Your TNC
>>won't work, or you dont have one. Your 150 lb. Pentium and 17 inch SVGA
>>monitor have been flooded, or won't work, or you forgot to take them with you.
>> Now what do you do? Oh, I forgot, you are out of range of the nearest cell
>>site, and the phones won't work.
This is just more of the old crisis claim. None have been shown to
exist where the operational mode required CW or could only
use CW. That has been the case for many years now. Lord
knows there'd be documentation flying about this newsgroup
if there was even ONE such valid case for your claim to rely
on.
>I break out the notebook, TNC, mobile and battery sorce from their
>water and shock proof carrying case and send more traffic than the
>beepers ever could and do it more efficiently.
>> And I am reminded of the VietNam war POW's
>>who communicated with each other through cell walls by tapping our Morse code.
Who is going to teach POWs Morse Code now. The military
has abondened use of morse. The military ONLY teaches
morse to specialists who copy other country's transmissions.
That will likly end at some point as more and more of the other
countries expand their communications ability with encrypted
data and voice capability. In any case, the fact that POWs
did use CW has no bearing on mandatory CW testing for
amateurs...which should be self evident to anyone.
>>And some non-technical reasons again... I remember when I first tried to
>>learn CW in 1960. It took me a long time, but I finally succeeded and I felt
>>good about it. But I didn't say it was stupid and out moded. I respected it
>>and the reasons for it...
Well I don't recall ever saying it was stupid. But yes, it is
outmoded. But again, so is AM yet I have no opposition
to you using either CW or AM if you want.
>> If you're going to learn about radio
>>communications, you need to understand it's roots.
I don't need to be able to send or receive morse code at
any particular speed to understand the fundamental
and the concept of how morse is used. Neither does
anyone else.
>> I respected the hams that
>>learned it and use it..it was an impressive skill and still is. It took me so
>>much work to perfect it that I learned something. I learned that I had better
>>handle with care the privledge that I had earned. I'm not saying that all
>>hams who passed CW tests are going to be perfect people. Certainly some of
>>the QRMers and poor operators also passed CW tests. But I do believe that,
>>overall, the person who has the diligence, the caring and the discipline to go
>>the distance and learn CW will usually be the type of personality that
>>exhibits good operating skills and respect for others. That's just my
>>opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion...however, what you state by
opinion is that you see the CW test, not as a truly required skill,
but rather as a barrier that one must pass to provide an indication of
one's worthiness to be a good ham. Such barriers are fine for clubs
and fraternities, but unfortunately, that is
not the proper role or responsibility of government regulations
(the test requirements) which is what this is really all about.
>>Yes technology has advanced a lot. Many of the old skills are irrelevant.
>>Cars no longer have old style ignition systems. But would you want a mechanic
>>working on your car who didn't understand the old systems?
I really couldn't care at all as long as s/he is competent to repair
my contemporary vehicle. The funny thing about your anaology,
however, is that one need not know anything about morse code
to be a good technician or electrical engineer. I attended a two
year tech school and no one needed to learn CW to be a good
technician, likewise, the military electronics schools didn't teach
morse code to the electronic techs either.
>>Smart computers
>>("expert systems") can make surprisingly accurate medical diagnoses. But
>>would you want a computer jocky prescribing drugs for you, instead of a
>>doctor?
Your comment eludes me on that one as to what or how it
has any relationship to mandatory CW testing.
>> Todays calculators and computers can solve complex math problems for
>>the student and engineer without that person having to understand the
>>underlying theories or the roots of the technology. But would you want that
>>person designing the next airplane you are flying on?
Some probably do anyway. In reality, however, one must understand
the math (conceptually) in order to accurately program or input
the data to be calculated correctly.
Yin Lung Shih
In article <59vnph$3...@osh2.datasync.com>, KC5WCP <se...@datasync.com> wrote:
>jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) wrote:
>> communicated with each other through cell walls by tapping our Morse code.
>Next time I am a POW I will remember that. But seriously I see the
>point. Still not a good reason to force CW on me and the others who
>don't need or want it.
I may be wrong, but I understood that the POW tap code was *not* morse.
It was much simpler, but still effective - 1 to 5 taps in pairs to
form a number [1,2,3,4,5] + [1,2,3,4,5]. Thus 1,1 was A, whereas 5,5
was Z. This gives 25 pairs, so I think Q was missing or J was doubled
with I. Numbers might have been spelled out or tapped from 1 to 10.
Trying to use morse would have required training everyone to a minimum
level as well as a way to form two symbols, dit and dah, using tones or
intervals, since duration was not available. This was not always
feasible. Also, while you could get pretty fast with any system given
practice, I doubt that POW's in general were worried much about their
QSO rate.
Yin Shih, N9YS
Rob Lilley
On 27 Dec 1996, Yin Lung Shih wrote:
> In article <59vnph$3...@osh2.datasync.com>, KC5WCP <se...@datasync.com> wrote:
> >jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) wrote:
> >> And I am reminded of the VietNam war POW's who
> >> communicated with each other through cell walls by tapping our Morse code.
> >Next time I am a POW I will remember that. But seriously I see the
> >point. Still not a good reason to force CW on me and the others who
> >don't need or want it.
>
> I may be wrong, but I understood that the POW tap code was *not* morse.
> It was much simpler, but still effective - 1 to 5 taps in pairs to
> form a number [1,2,3,4,5] + [1,2,3,4,5]. Thus 1,1 was A, whereas 5,5
> was Z. This gives 25 pairs, so I think Q was missing or J was doubled
> with I. Numbers might have been spelled out or tapped from 1 to 10.
>
> Trying to use morse would have required training everyone to a minimum
> level as well as a way to form two symbols, dit and dah, using tones or
> intervals, since duration was not available. This was not always
> feasible. Also, while you could get pretty fast with any system given
> practice, I doubt that POW's in general were worried much about their
> QSO rate.
>
> Yin Shih, N9YS
>
>
This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
well under conditions adverse to complex systems. Those who *master*
radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
Rob lilley
Ron Hardin
> > Trying to use morse would have required training everyone to a minimum
> > level as well as a way to form two symbols, dit and dah, using tones or
> > intervals, since duration was not available. This was not always
> > feasible. Also, while you could get pretty fast with any system given
> > practice, I doubt that POW's in general were worried much about their
> > QSO rate.
It's not POWs exactly, but in study halls a pencil held to make a slight click
on the table on both make and break is quite effective for communication between
two young hams. And is there any more pleasant thing to listen to than a keyed
relay mounted on a large chassis.
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Yin Lung Shih
In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.961227...@solar.eclipse.net>,
Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
>effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
>well under conditions adverse to complex systems.
Well a bit obscure, but not really so irrelevant to the topic. The
contention was that morse had a practical use in very recent history.
This point was accepted by both sides without any argument. It was
my belief that point was not completely accurate.
Rather, what might have been used was an even simpler system which
has several important properties:
1) It can be reconstructed by anyone having seen the basic idea once;
2) It requires no training to use the first time;
3) It places even less demands on the fidelity of the communication
channel than morse (i.e. duration is not part of the coding scheme);
4) The communication channel can be aural, physical, electrical, or
any other medium which can be put in a binary state;
5) It has a lower data rate than morse, but not enough to matter
for limited use.
So this tap code is "a form of effective communications using
rudimentary equipment which will perform well under conditions
adverse to complex systems" also. Further it requires no training,
unlike morse. So, if everyone in the US were given this tidbit of
information as part of first aid classes, or any other related
activity training, then on that unlikely day when someone is stuck
on a sinking boat with the mike having been swallowed by sharks,
they can rip off the cover of the radio with their bare hands and
use a fishhook to key the PTT using this "emergency" tap code.
> Those who *master*
>radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
>
>Rob lilley
Those who *master* radio communications should know how to use the
right mode with the right equipment in the right circumstances or
know how to synthesize a working combination. There is nothing
special or unique about morse code. It is one code among many and
CW is one mode among many. We do a disservice when we elevate morse
code and CW above other radio communications knowledge and emphasize
code testing versus theory testing. We are telling would-be hams,
the wrong thing about what's important in radio communications.
In my view, radio communications is about transferring information
promptly, reliably, and accurately, between two or more desired
points that are not connected by wire with effective and efficient
use of available resources. While ham radio communications is about
having fun and being innovative and resourceful while doing radio
communications. Code and CW have a prominent place in this scheme,
just not the premier one. You can't be innovative and resourceful
if *all* you know is 50wpm code, but you can be if you know *some*
radio electronics.
When I hear or read someone worrying about the no-code techs or
no-code hams to be, that someone also often decries the theory tests
as jokes and appears to be counting on the code test as the last
line of defense against the "unwashed hordes". This pushes them
into unreasonable, extravagant, and sometimes indefensible statements
about the benefits of morse and CW. (At least one reason for these
unending debates.) Why leave the theory test in purgatory? Let's
get serious about making them better.
Yin Shih, N9YS
Bill Sohl
Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
>effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
>well under conditions adverse to complex systems. Those who *master*
>radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
WHY?
What is it that makes the person who knows Morse a better
radio communicator than someone who doesn't?
What VALUE does it provide to those that know it versus those that
don't...as measured in terms that are quantifiable or necessary
in order to be an effective radio communicator?
Having a working knowledge means what? 1 wpm, 10, 13, 20???
KC5WCP
yls...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Yin Lung Shih) wrote:
>In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.961227...@solar.eclipse.net>,
>Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>>This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
>>effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
>>well under conditions adverse to complex systems.
>Well a bit obscure, but not really so irrelevant to the topic. The
>contention was that morse had a practical use in very recent history.
>This point was accepted by both sides without any argument. It was
>my belief that point was not completely accurate.
>Rather, what might have been used was an even simpler system which
>has several important properties:
>1) It can be reconstructed by anyone having seen the basic idea once;
>2) It requires no training to use the first time;
>3) It places even less demands on the fidelity of the communication
>channel than morse (i.e. duration is not part of the coding scheme);
>4) The communication channel can be aural, physical, electrical, or
>any other medium which can be put in a binary state;
>5) It has a lower data rate than morse, but not enough to matter
>for limited use.
>So this tap code is "a form of effective communications using
>rudimentary equipment which will perform well under conditions
>adverse to complex systems" also. Further it requires no training,
>unlike morse. So, if everyone in the US were given this tidbit of
>information as part of first aid classes, or any other related
>activity training, then on that unlikely day when someone is stuck
>on a sinking boat with the mike having been swallowed by sharks,
>they can rip off the cover of the radio with their bare hands and
>use a fishhook to key the PTT using this "emergency" tap code.
>> Those who *master*
>>radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
>>
>>Rob lilley
>Yin Shih, N9YS
Well said OM.
KC5WCP
Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>On 27 Dec 1996, Yin Lung Shih wrote:
>> In article <59vnph$3...@osh2.datasync.com>, KC5WCP <se...@datasync.com> wrote:
>> >jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) wrote:
>> >> And I am reminded of the VietNam war POW's who
>> >> communicated with each other through cell walls by tapping our Morse code.
>> >Next time I am a POW I will remember that. But seriously I see the
>> >point. Still not a good reason to force CW on me and the others who
>> >don't need or want it.
>>
>> I may be wrong, but I understood that the POW tap code was *not* morse.
>> It was much simpler, but still effective - 1 to 5 taps in pairs to
>> form a number [1,2,3,4,5] + [1,2,3,4,5]. Thus 1,1 was A, whereas 5,5
>> was Z. This gives 25 pairs, so I think Q was missing or J was doubled
>> with I. Numbers might have been spelled out or tapped from 1 to 10.
>>
>> Trying to use morse would have required training everyone to a minimum
>> level as well as a way to form two symbols, dit and dah, using tones or
>> intervals, since duration was not available. This was not always
>> feasible. Also, while you could get pretty fast with any system given
>> practice, I doubt that POW's in general were worried much about their
>> QSO rate.
>>
>> Yin Shih, N9YS
>>
>>
>This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
>effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
>well under conditions adverse to complex systems. Those who *master*
>radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
>Rob lilley
I also may be wrong but it is my understanding that the morse
requirement for a General Radio Telephone license is no longer there.
These are people fixing and designing communications equiptment who no
longer use it.
Hell we are only communicating with the darn radio.
Rob Lilley
On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Bill Sohl wrote:
> Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>
> >This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
> >effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
> >well under conditions adverse to complex systems. Those who *master*
> >radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
>
> WHY?
>
> What is it that makes the person who knows Morse a better
> radio communicator than someone who doesn't?
An individual can be a poor communicator no matter what extent his or her
knowledge base is. Morse will not make a individual a 'better'
communicator, just a more versatile one.
> What VALUE does it provide to those that know it versus those that
> don't...as measured in terms that are quantifiable or necessary
> in order to be an effective radio communicator?
Those who know CW have the option to use it and demonstate discipline
and commitment to the service by learning it.
> Having a working knowledge means what? 1 wpm, 10, 13, 20???
Your second phrase suggests a progression. Working knowledge
has a different meaning to a novice than it does an expert.
> Bill Sohl K2UNK
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Rob Lilley
Rob Lilley
Well said!
I apologise for the 'arcane and esoteric bit'.
Rob Lilley
On 28 Dec 1996, Yin Lung Shih wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.961227...@solar.eclipse.net>,
> Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
> >This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
> >effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
> >well under conditions adverse to complex systems.
>
> Well a bit obscure, but not really so irrelevant to the topic. The
> contention was that morse had a practical use in very recent history.
> This point was accepted by both sides without any argument. It was
> my belief that point was not completely accurate.
>
> Rather, what might have been used was an even simpler system which
> has several important properties:
>
> 1) It can be reconstructed by anyone having seen the basic idea once;
>
> 2) It requires no training to use the first time;
>
> 3) It places even less demands on the fidelity of the communication
> channel than morse (i.e. duration is not part of the coding scheme);
>
> 4) The communication channel can be aural, physical, electrical, or
> any other medium which can be put in a binary state;
>
> 5) It has a lower data rate than morse, but not enough to matter
> for limited use.
>
> So this tap code is "a form of effective communications using
> rudimentary equipment which will perform well under conditions
> adverse to complex systems" also. Further it requires no training,
> unlike morse. So, if everyone in the US were given this tidbit of
> information as part of first aid classes, or any other related
> activity training, then on that unlikely day when someone is stuck
> on a sinking boat with the mike having been swallowed by sharks,
> they can rip off the cover of the radio with their bare hands and
> use a fishhook to key the PTT using this "emergency" tap code.
>
> > Those who *master*
> >radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
> >
> >Rob lilley
KC5WCP
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>>This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
>>effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
>>well under conditions adverse to complex systems. Those who *master*
>>radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
>WHY?
>What is it that makes the person who knows Morse a better
>radio communicator than someone who doesn't?
>What VALUE does it provide to those that know it versus those that
>don't...as measured in terms that are quantifiable or necessary
>in order to be an effective radio communicator?
>Having a working knowledge means what? 1 wpm, 10, 13, 20???
>Bill Sohl K2UNK
>ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Well to use the logic stated I would be a better communicator than
someone who only knows code. I am proficient in packet, rtty(even
though I don't send), SSTV, etc.
I guess that makes me more of a REAL HAM than some of the beepers.
Eric :)
L. M. Picard
The code is, and has been, obsolete for some time. I remember reading
that even the U.S. Navy is no longer going to monitor code.
My occasional forays into the ham domain suggest that the code
requirement has not proved to be a barrier to the "Yahoo" element.
I remember hearing an interview with a well known ham magazine editor.
Basically, to paraphrase him, "We need psychological screening tests
and not a C W requirement".
I think that this is as close to the truth as we're going to get.
If the ham test were going to be relevant to our times, evaluation of
keyboard skills or of basic computer programming and/or computer
upgrading etc. would be far more relevant. I would wonder how many
accomplished "fists" are competent behind a keyboard.
will
On Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:51:08 GMT, kh...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler)
wrote:
It is truly amazing to see people act this way. I am a Tech-plus
class ham and yes I did learn code. For some hams, code is the best
thig in the world. I have met hams who won't go near anything below
50mhz. Does that make them any less of a ham than you? I ahve met guys
would won't use voice or any mode other than CW. Does that make them
any less of a ham? I have met the nicest people on the bands and I
have heard some of the fights on the 20 meter voice. It seems that we
have sectors of the fraternaty that refuse to have different ideas on
how hams should behave or what they should know. With all the
pressures of taking ham bands (like 220) and decreasing license
applications and fewer hams all around, WHY CAN'T WE FIND ROOM FOR
EVERYONE!!!! So I don't know 20wpm code, so I don't use the lower
bands enough, I am still an amateur radio operator with authorization
from the Federal Communications Commision to operate on certain
frequencies in the Amateur Radio Service. If this division keeps up
then we might as well give the bands up and sell all our equipment.
will
ka3...@erols.com
Gary Coffman
In article <32BB50...@bellatlantic.net> Rush Johnson <nr...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>Curtis Wheeler wrote:
>
>> The amateur radio service is not club. The FCC is not in the business
>> of issuing club memberships. You appear to consider learning CW as a
>> type of hazing. This concept goes right to the top of my list of
>> cottonheaded reasons to keep code testing. It beats out the previous
>> number one reason - "People will perish on sinking ships if hams aren't
>> required to learn code".
>>
>
>Of course this argument will never be resolved...there are strong points
>on either side of the issue, and you appear to approach the situation as
>alot of folks do, without looking at what has made Amateur Radio work
>besides part 97.
>
>Unfortunately, the rules and regulations the FCC set up regarding the
>Amateur Radio Service do not really address what keeps the service
>working, what keeps people coming back to the hobby. That's where
>things depart from the neat world of rules and regulations or even pure
>logic.
The issue of licensing *is*, however, ruled solely by government
regulations. The extent of government intrusion into internal
amateur radio clubby matters should be strictly limited to satisfying
legitimate government regulatory interests. As Curtis noted, it is
not government's purpose to administer fraternity initiations or haze
the pledges. If private radio clubs or the ARRL want to do that, they
are free to do so, and amateurs who object are free not to join those
groups, but it is illegitimate to use the power of government to compel
such initiation rites on everyone wishing to gain access to the public
spectrum.
>People like to belong to something special. We like to identify with
>groups. We are attracted to the notion of community. And what is
>particularly interesting is that people who share a common background
>that may have involved some hardship, some fun, some challenge etc. tend
>to be proud of their "heritage". You see this all over the place in
>Alumni organizations, VFW groups, etc. It is that collection of
>experience that helps glue the Amateur Radio Service together and make
>it something special....not just a collection of rules and regulations
>that we can use to stake our claim to spectrum space with. It is
>community.
And private groups are free to create such fraternal organizations,
and to conduct whatever weird rites they like for entrance. That is not
a legitimate function of government, however. This is where you and your
fellow travellers go wrong. You wish to use the power of government for
your private fraternal purposes.
Ask yourself this, would you think it legitimate for the government
to require you to crowd 8 clowns into a tiny car in order for you
to obtain a driver's license? The Shriners do it, so to forward their
fraternity, should they be allowed to use the power of government to
compel such bizzare behavior from anyone wishing to obtain a driving
license?
I hope most people recognize this as an illegitimate exercise of
government power. And the reason it is illegitimate is that it
serves no compelling public regulatory purpose. The same goes for
the current Morse hazing. It no longer serves a legitimate public
regulatory purpose.
We must ask ourselves, is there a problem with slow or no Morse
receiving ability in the amateur service? Have large numbers of
citations been issued for slow or poor code use? What is the problem
which the Morse receiving speed requirement attempts to address?
If you can come up with no better reason than a fraternity initiation
rite, then the government has no legitimate authority to maintain
such a requirement.
At one time there was a legitimate reason for maintaining a Morse
receiving ability among amateurs. That reason was so that government
or life safety services stations suffering interference from amateurs,
and having no other means of intercommunicating with them to tell them
to cease save OOK Morse, could do so. That time has now passed.
Government and life safety radio services have abandoned Morse, and
so there is now no compelling public interest for amateurs to maintain
a Morse reception capability. Thus current Morse reception speed
testing is obsolete, and like other obsolete regulations such as
ones requiring a horseless carriage be proceeded on foot by a man
bearing a red flag in daytime and a lantern at night to warn the
horses of the oncoming hazard, the regulation should be struck
from the books.
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 P. Deignan
In article <32c5677e...@nntp.netcom.ca>,
L. M. Picard <lmpi...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>I remember hearing an interview with a well known ham magazine editor.
>Basically, to paraphrase him, "We need psychological screening tests
>and not a C W requirement".
This is the same ham radio magazine editor that believes in cold fusion
and how AIDS is a government-engineering virus to kill blacks, isn't
it?
MD
--
--
-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people." -- T-shirt slogan
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
M. Monninger
In article <32c5677e...@nntp.netcom.ca>, lmpi...@netcom.ca (L. M. Picard) wrote:
> ...
>I think that this is as close to the truth as we're going to get.
>If the ham test were going to be relevant to our times, evaluation of
>keyboard skills or of basic computer programming and/or computer
>upgrading etc. would be far more relevant. I would wonder how many
>accomplished "fists" are competent behind a keyboard.
Why would keyboard skills be more relevant? Or programming skills? How many
hams use keyboards in their operations? How many hams need to program
computers to support their operations? All this alleged importance of computer
skills in ham radio is a lot of crap. Only a tiny fraction of hams use
computers for their ham operations. If you need the skill to support your
interest, you'll develop it, whether it be CW, keyboard, programming, or
whatever...
Bill Sohl
Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Bill Sohl wrote:
>> Rob Lilley <lil...@solar.eclipse.net> wrote:
>>
>> >This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
>> >effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
>> >well under conditions adverse to complex systems. Those who *master*
>> >radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
>>
>> WHY?
>>
>> What is it that makes the person who knows Morse a better
>> radio communicator than someone who doesn't?
>An individual can be a poor communicator no matter what extent his or her
>knowledge base is. Morse will not make a individual a 'better'
>communicator, just a more versatile one.
Assuming that the CW is a needed addition to one's versatility.
We'll obviusly disagree on hat I suspect.
>> What VALUE does it provide to those that know it versus those that
>> don't...as measured in terms that are quantifiable or necessary
>> in order to be an effective radio communicator?
>Those who know CW have the option to use it and demonstate discipline
>and commitment to the service by learning it.
That can be done WITHOUT any need for mandatory CW
testing. If your opinion of being a good ham includes
CW knowledge, that's fine...but the testing of CW just
to demonstrate discipline and commitment
is not the role or responsibility of government
testing.
>> Having a working knowledge means what? 1 wpm, 10, 13, 20???
>Your second phrase suggests a progression. Working knowledge
>has a different meaning to a novice than it does an expert.
You didn't answer the question.
Roger J. Buffington, W6VZV
M. Monninger wrote:
>
> Why would keyboard skills be more relevant? Or programming skills? How many
> hams use keyboards in their operations?
All of us who do digital modes, for starters.
Anyone who competes in contests.
Anyone who simply wants to keep a good, and accessible, log.
How many hams need to program
> computers to support their operations?
All of us who digital operations.
All of us who compete in contests.
All of us who want to keep good and accessible logs.
All this alleged importance of computer
> skills in ham radio is a lot of crap. Only a tiny fraction of hams use
> computers for their ham operations. If you need the skill to support your
> interest, you'll develop it, whether it be CW, keyboard, programming, or
> whatever...
OK, fine. So why have a cw requirement but not testing on computer
ability? Computer skills are useful for hams regardless of mode. CW is
irrelevant for any mode but CW. CW is strictly recreational in nature;
it is not a practical way to transmit information, and in fact almost
exactly zero information that is non-recreational in nature is ever
transmitted via morse code. Morse has been abandoned by the military,
banned by MARS, and is not used by ships or the US Coast Guard.
--
Roger J. Buffington
W6VZV
USC Law, Class of '97
------------------------------------------------------------
"I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather.
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers..."
------------------------------------------------------------
Warping with OS/2 Warp 4.0 and Netscape for OS/2
Bill Nelson
: >This is getting arcane and esoteric. The issue is simple: CW is a form of
: >effective communications using rudimentary equipment which will perform
: >well under conditions adverse to complex systems. Those who *master*
: >radio communications should have a working knowlege of it.
: WHY?
: What is it that makes the person who knows Morse a better
: radio communicator than someone who doesn't?
What is it that makes the person who knows electronic theory a better
radio communicator than someone who doesn't?
: What VALUE does it provide to those that know it versus those that
: don't...as measured in terms that are quantifiable or necessary
: in order to be an effective radio communicator?
What VALUE does it provide to those that know it versus those that
don't...as measured in terms that are quantifiable or necessary
in order to be an effective radio communicator?
: Having a working knowledge means what? 1 wpm, 10, 13, 20???
Having a working knowledge means what? Ohms law, Smith charts, ability to
design a complete station from scratch???
: Bill Sohl K2UNK
: ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Jim Cross
Well, as someone who aspires to be a ham, I'll wade in with my 2 cents
worth:)
Although the CW requirement should not (and was not originally designed
to) be used to weed out the non-committed. It does have that effect.
However we should not use the outcome to dispute the requirement.
I am in favor of a CW requirement, since as someone previously said, the
intelligence in a CW message can be received under very adverse
conditions, and it can be transmitted by very primitive equipment. Just
listen to the non-directional beacons on longwave sometime. Also, given
the potentially primitive nature of the equipment needed, the ability to
transmit CW has a minor civil defense aspect.
The need for learning CW is especially true, given that the government
is phasing out its use. Not very long from now, only other hams will be
able to understand emergency messages sent by CW.
Maybe the test should just be modified. Since, using my reasoning, CW is
essentially an emergency backup, last resort kind of thing, maybe speed
is less important, and they just need to test for accuracy in
distinguishing letters and symbols at 3-5 WPM (similar to some
aerobeacons).
Jim Cross - vact...@cinternet.net
Pablo Garcia
Michael P. Deignan wrote:
>
> In article <59joc6$j...@nerd.apk.net>, T.L.Bryant <tbr...@cannet.com> wrote:
>
> >>I agree with you in principle ... those people who have no interest in
> >>*radio* technology (the "art" in "radio art", NOT CW, which is simply
> >>telegraphy, which has existed for far longer than radio) don't deserve
> >>to be hams ... even if they can copy 20+wpm of Morse code.
> >
> >That's about the most elitist statement I've ever heard. What you're saying is
> >that people who simply want to be hams because they think it would be an
> >enjoyable hobby or pastime don't deserve to be hams.
>
> Yup. That's Carl for you. In one sentence he will call CW-supporters a
> bunch of ignorant elitists, yet in the next breath tell you how only
> people with PhDs in EE should be hams. He'll also usually tell you how
> he has forgotten more RF theory while standing in front of the urinal
> (not a short period of time, given general prostrate health at his age)
> than the entire combined population of all amateurs throughout the
> entire universe put together knows.
>
> MD
> --
> --
> -- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people." -- T-shirt slogan
> --
> -- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Bill Sohl
Jim Cross <vact...@cinternet.net> wrote:
>Well, as someone who aspires to be a ham, I'll wade in with my 2 cents
>worth:)
>Although the CW requirement should not (and was not originally designed
>to) be used to weed out the non-committed. It does have that effect.
>However we should not use the outcome to dispute the requirement.
>I am in favor of a CW requirement, since as someone previously said, the
>intelligence in a CW message can be received under very adverse
>conditions, and it can be transmitted by very primitive equipment. Just
>listen to the non-directional beacons on longwave sometime. Also, given
>the potentially primitive nature of the equipment needed, the ability to
>transmit CW has a minor civil defense aspect.
I'm glad you at least note the "minor" aspect. More to the case is
that it is a total non-issue these days. Folks just aren't going
to instantly build their own CW rig for that emergency.
>The need for learning CW is especially true, given that the government
>is phasing out its use. Not very long from now, only other hams will be
>able to understand emergency messages sent by CW.
But no one is sending emergency messages in CW, so who
needs to be listening for CW.
>Maybe the test should just be modified. Since, using my reasoning, CW is
>essentially an emergency backup, last resort kind of thing, maybe speed
>is less important, and they just need to test for accuracy in
>distinguishing letters and symbols at 3-5 WPM (similar to some
>aerobeacons).
That's at least reasonable and would be consistent with
a previous proposal I've made as follows:
Is there a compromise in the CW debate?
First, any compromise must recognize the concerns of both sides and
attempt to bring them together. Step one is acknowledging that there
is a middle ground. In the CW debate, the middle ground most
frequently mentioned seems to be that even if CW is less relevant
today, there should not be any elimination of CW testing, unless there
is an increase in difficulty for the theory elements. What I propose
here may not be a perfect answer, but it does seem to address both
concerns.
Current test requirements for General and Extra require the passage of
a CW test at 13 wpm and 20 wpm respectfully along with a separate
theory test. In both cases the CW test is a stand alone, pass (70%
correct) fail requirement. But what if we offered test takers the
opportunity to take the test elements as they do today OR, as an
option, we let them take the 13 wpm or 20 wpm CW test as an integral
part of the respective General or Extra theory (i.e. written) test?
How would that be accomplished?
During any VE session, if a test taker completed the CW test with a
passing score of 70%, they would be granted an CSCE and then take the
theory test as before. However, if they failed the CW test, they
would be permitted to merge the CW test results from that day’s test
with their theory results also taken on that day only. If they still
failed to pass the theory test using a merged score, no CSCE would be
issued for either part of the testing.
The actual scoring would be done as follows:
The General theory test is 25 questions and one must answer 19
questions correctly to pass. The 13 wpm CW test is 10 questions and
one must get 7 answers correct to pass that test element. If we
combine the two tests (for a total of 35 questions) and if the test
taker scores a total of 26 answers correctly, then he or she passes,
regardless of the individual number of incorrect answers on the CW
test.
While I haven’t shown the numbers, the same scoring process could be
applied to the 40 question Extra class test.
Doing this would retain the same overall test methods (only the
scoring process would change), no additional record keeping should be
required nor would any CSCE be issued for anything that isn’t issued
today. More importantly, an immediate benefit of this approach is
that if someone chooses to not pursue the 13 or 20 wpm level of CW,
they MUST get a greater percentage of the Theory element correct in
order to obtain an overall passing score. That automatically raises
the difficulty level of the theory test for those people that might
wish to ignore learning CW at those speeds, which is something many
have desired to see happen if any change is made regarding a lowering
or elimination of CW requirements.
Worst case scenario for someone taking the General test who didn’t
attempt to learn any CW beyond 5 WPM: Even if they just filled in
answer B for all 10 CW questions, they might luck out and get 3 of the
CW questions correct anyway. That being the case, they'd then need to
correctly answer 23 of 25 theory questions (92%) to have a total of 26
correct answers to pass the test on a combined score basis.
In summary, I think this suggestion meets the concerns of many hams
because:
1. It retains all existing levels of CW testing,
2. It maintains full compliance with International treaties,
3. It makes no changes to the test elements themselves,
4. It improves the theory difficulty for people that ignored CW,
5. It would be an easy to implement process if approved by the FCC and
6. It provides a middle ground solution for an ever increasing area of
internal debate among hams.
Note, I have not suggested merging the 5 wpm test at this time because
that minimal level of CW testing must be retained for compliance with
international treaty. If, in the future, the international
requirement goes away, then merging the 5 wpm testing might also be
considered.
Gary Coffman
In article <59vnph$3...@osh2.datasync.com> se...@datasync.com (KC5WCP) writes:
>jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) wrote:
>>It is
>>not fast, it is not sexy, but it does accomplish the purpose of communicating
>>information over long distances under extremely poor conditions. Try it with
>>SSB!
>Granted but so do high speed data modes. Unfortunately we are limited
>to 9600 and it is hard to provide flawless error correction at that
>snails pace.
Hello? What are you talking about? In the first place, what gave you
the idea that we are limited to 9600 baud? That's news to those of
us running 56 kb (and probably news to those running 1.2 Mb). Of
course on *HF* we are limited to 300 baud, but that's really too
fast to be useful on HF due to multipath (and is one of several
reasons that HF packet, as we currently do it, sucks). We really
would prefer to run a basic baud of 50 or less to get around symbol
smearing due to selective fading.
That has nothing to do with ECC. Voyager operates at 40 baud, and
has very robust ECC. The only thing speed buys you is a higher
basic error rate, and that forces whatever ECC you use to work
*harder*. In fact, if you increase baud too far for the conditions,
you can't carry enough ECC to correct the errors. This is the
baud limit for the channel.
Now a low baud doesn't necessarily mean a low bps. Some of our
HF methods use symbol overloading so that one baud represents
more than one bit, and some of our HF modulations use multiple
low rate carriers so that several symbols are transmitted in
parallel. Thus we can get 750 bps from carriers running a basic
baud of 16.5 in the case of Clover. This makes the job of ECC
much easier, so we don't have to carry as much ECC overhead
as we otherwise would if we used a higher basic baud.
Gary Coffman
In article <59vb96$p...@cc.iu.net> jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) writes:
>A couple of technical reasons for keeping CW: (1) The fact is, that CW can
>"get through" poor channel conditions when most other modes available to the
>ham, even the advanced digital modes, fail.
I'd suggest you get more experience with advanced digital modes. Clover
and PACTOR II can operate under conditions where a signal cannot reliably
be detected by ear. And there are a number of other coherent techniques
which can make the same claim. NASA's Voyager and Pioneer craft communicate
from beyond the edge of the solar system using very low power and small
antennas. They don't use Morse, you can't detect their signals by ear. But
what they do use, built using primitive 1960s technology, can be duplicated
or bettered by the amateur today for a pittance and a few chips.
>Why do so many EME operators use
>slow speed CW? Because you can reduce channel bandwidth and use coherent
>signal processing to pull the CW keying out from under the noise level. It is
>not fast, it is not sexy, but it does accomplish the purpose of communicating
>information over long distances under extremely poor conditions. Try it with
>SSB!
Better try it with wide shift multiplex FSK (the Navy thought that worked
well in the 1950s) and a strong convolutional coding. If you read the
Moonnet mailing list, you'll find out why most EME operators choose
OOK Morse. That's because they claim it isn't a *real* contact unless
you do it by hand and ear. The fact is that you can do it with much
less power if you use the power of coding instead of huge amps and
antennas. But the EMEers won't count it, it isn't a *real* contact
because a machine did it. The really weak signal work being done by
amateurs isn't being done by amateur radio licensees. It is being done
by Lowfers with ERPs in the few microwatt range working 1000 mile
groundwave paths reliably day and night. That equates to signal levels
far weaker than any EMEer can detect by ear.
>And I am reminded of the VietNam war POW's
>who communicated with each other through cell walls by tapping our Morse code.
Actually, most used the Prisoner's Code. You have no way to differentiate
the duration of a tap representing a dot from a tap representing a dash.
A tap conveys no element timing information. The Prisoner's Code uses all
equal length elements, so tapping does convey the necessary information.
It is also so simple to learn that you can convey it to someone who doesn't
know it in a matter of seconds. That is important in POW camps since most
soldiers *don't* know Morse Code, and their face to face contact with
other prisoners may be very limited, so being able to convey the essentials
of the Prisoner's Code rapidly is important.
Old time telegraphers could read "taps" because their sounders made
*two* taps for each element, one make and one break, IE click-clack.
The time between the two sounds was the element duration. That's not
really practical with hand tapping. If you're just communicating
through a thin partition, you can *scratch* out Morse, IE skrii-skriiiiih,
but you might as well whisper at that range. It won't work if you are
using the plumbing system or the bars for longer range. You need the
sharp tap to carry the sound far enough.
The Prisoner's Code pre-dates Morse, and is a degenerate form of the
Vermeer Cipher. (And you can use it that way too so the guards can't
eavesdrop on what you're sending.)
Randy Jones
Jim Cross wrote:
>
> Well, as someone who aspires to be a ham, I'll wade in with my 2 cents
> worth:)
>
> Although the CW requirement should not (and was not originally designed
> to) be used to weed out the non-committed. It does have that effect.
> However we should not use the outcome to dispute the requirement.
>
> I am in favor of a CW requirement, since as someone previously said, the
> intelligence in a CW message can be received under very adverse
> conditions, and it can be transmitted by very primitive equipment. Just
> listen to the non-directional beacons on longwave sometime. Also, given
> the potentially primitive nature of the equipment needed, the ability to
> transmit CW has a minor civil defense aspect.
>
> is phasing out its use. Not very long from now, only other hams will be
> able to understand emergency messages sent by CW.
Just WHO will be sending those emergency messages on CW??? Government and
commercial will no longer be required to know how.
>
> Maybe the test should just be modified. Since, using my reasoning, CW is
> essentially an emergency backup, last resort kind of thing, maybe speed
> is less important, and they just need to test for accuracy in
> distinguishing letters and symbols at 3-5 WPM (similar to some
> aerobeacons).
>
> Jim Cross - vact...@cinternet.net
Radio Randy
Randy Jones
KC5WCP
ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>In article <59vnph$3...@osh2.datasync.com> se...@datasync.com (KC5WCP) writes:
>>jame...@iu.net (Jim M.) wrote:
>>>It is
>>>not fast, it is not sexy, but it does accomplish the purpose of communicating
>>>information over long distances under extremely poor conditions. Try it with
>>>SSB!
>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 | |
I stand corrected and apologize. I was mistaken. Above VHF 56kb is
the Max.
Humbly yours
kin...@ix.netcom.com
ga...@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>I'd suggest you get more experience with advanced digital modes. Clover
>and PACTOR II can operate under conditions where a signal cannot reliably
>be detected by ear.
There is, however, something to be said for simplicity when it comes
to communication. For example, you can't communicate with someone
when you don't know they're transmitting. Someone might, for
instance, figure out that there's something going on up on the GPS
carrier frequencies, but they'd never in a million years figure out
what it is without side information.
>NASA's Voyager and Pioneer craft communicate
>from beyond the edge of the solar system using very low power and small
>antennas. They don't use Morse, you can't detect their signals by ear. But
>what they do use, built using primitive 1960s technology, can be duplicated
>or bettered by the amateur today for a pittance and a few chips.
I'm not sure which craft are still operational, but over 10 years ago,
the Voyager S/N had dropped so low that the transmission rate was
reduced to a few characters per minute. I wonder what they're down to
now.
--
Dick WD0ANB