Jim Hampton wrote:

Hello, guy

The fact is that folks should posses some minimal knowledge lest they
conflict with other folks.

I'm still trying to figure out the difference between learning morse code
and not using it and not learning morse code and not using it. How can
someone who doesn't learn it and doesn't use it conflict with others in an
area dedicated to morse code?


There was no regulation of radio back in the early 1900s. No need. Once
radio started taking off, there had to be some coordination or stations
would be jamming each other.

Yes, back when there was no store bought gear. Yes, back when you had the
challenge and the pleasure of building it and the sense of accomplishment
of operating it yourself.


Same with automobiles. At first, no licensing and no laws. Then, when
some horses became scared of a horseless carriage, they put into effect 5
mph
speed limits in some areas. Sometimes, someone had to walk ahead with a
flag to warn folks that a horseless carriage was coming! Eventually, laws
were formed to maximize usage to *everyone*. Otherwise, what if there
were no stop lights, stop signs, and no rules about which side of the road
to drive on?

Yes, for the safety of others.


Orville and Wilbur Wright didn't have to apply to anyone for a license to
fly. There were no laws at the beginning of aircraft. Only once a number
of planes were flying did they start to regulate it. For obvious reasons
LOL.

Yes, for the safety of others.


As to taking your test, why would you have a problem today? I had last
been on the air in 1969 and let my license drop around 1981 (not sure of
the
exact year). When I retook it in 1993, I passed the extra first time
around.

If you have copied code past 13 words per minute, you won't forget it.
You
might get a bit rusty, but can pick it back up. In my case, I didn't
brush
up. Nor on theory either. The basics remain the same; I've been into
computers since 1976, so any questions on gates, cpus, memory, etc. is a
no-brainer.

Sure, multiple guess questions on computers to operate today's ham gear
makes sense. But to test for CW? I'm still searching for a valid reason
to keep doing so. All I've seen so far is, "why not?" or "to show you're
qualified." Is it solely to limit the number of people who can operate
voice on HF--but people are afraid to say this out loud?

Yes, I was copying code at 35 WPM (about as fast as I could pencil it on
paper) at one time. Right now, I can copy 13 solid. Yes, I could easily
increase it again with just a little bit of practice.


Of course I missed some questions on where bands were. They've added a
couple. You don't need 100%; in fact, I didn't feel like extracting
square roots by hand (I can, but it is a pain - I'm not talking guessing
here), so
I simply checked off some answers. I knew I had already passed that
portion so who cared.

Yes, you are aware of some practical strategies in passing a multiple guess
test. This is part of the coaching that occurs for most potential hams
these days.


As to no difference; perhaps not to put it on the air, but to understand
what emission you are using and where you can and can not use it may just
make a tad bit of difference.

Why only a practical test for CW? Why not a practical test for any of the
digital modes or using a satellite or how to DF a fox or how to set up a
radio?


I have to laugh about folks joking about IRLP and Echolink. I've used my
440 HT to chat with Australia with *no Internet* involved. All rf path,
courtesy of a 10 meter link. Of course, that wasn't really a challenge; I
simply heard the Aussies there.

What is fun is having the ability to change mode in a heartbeat. One guy

or a practical test on switching modes on one of today's radios?

on
a 440 repeater was squaking that everyone should *have* to use Morse.
Since the repeater owner was in the group, I asked his permission and got
it.

40 words per minute MFM sent over the repeater. Shut him up in a hurry.

Is there a difference? I know one guy who *knows* so LOL.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a convincing reason why we continue
to test element 1a.

Guy