Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


[snip]


Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.


Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using
only
their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name.

I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA
amateur radio operators...

Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job
(contesting) for which it is ill-suited.

And you keep changing the parameters of the challenge.

Are you saying that of those amateurs that learned the code, that they
are all still highly proficient in it? I think most learned the code
as a licensing hurdle, and never looked back.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...

It
doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at the
same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse code.
So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything.

Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet.

So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed (the
human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually keyed
code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no
particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and
still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality
and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human
brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or
just call it a night and go to bed.

OK.

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out
the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there
is
a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in
determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the
experienced
people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge.
The
beginners are too inexperienced to do so.

You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic
knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what
Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis
something magical.

Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there is
NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have operating
experience.

They don't even have a definition of what Morse Code is within the
rules of the last service required to have a Morse Code exam. I think
that tells the story.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know
don't
use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set.
I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been
licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used
smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I
can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that.

You do not have a Ham Husband?

You are choosing to be obtuse.

I tell David Heil/K8MN that allatime.

Yes I have a Ham Husband but no he does not
take care of Ohm's law or Theory for me.

OK.

I happen to be a degreed
engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied
experience
in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields).

I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or
otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional
certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American
Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with
engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia.

Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the
electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical
engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since
they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the
electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the
other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal
theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that.

You're talking about the working world.

Were you able to hire out your studies in college?

Were you able to hire out your PE exams?

Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional
engineer........

Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus
and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not
taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical
engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory.

OK.

Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am
perfectly
capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class for
our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my husband
attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra.

You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer
without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough.

You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the area
to which I referred.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?