wrote in message
ups.com...

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.


That's because CWGet fails in almost all contest situations. It cannot
handle the QRM caused by all the stations calling at once.

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.


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient.
I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for
failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw
contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out
their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my
call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the
exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's
sad but that's their problem.

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


While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels. When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've
only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that?
They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use
them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on.

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.


[snip]

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.


The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse
Code that is sufficient for the purpose. The FCC doesn't need to define it.
They say we must pass the International Morse Code. It is sufficient that
the dot/dash sequence is defined for the characters. The weighting,
spacing, and speed can be varied to suit the conditions. For test purposes,
the Council of VECs establishes the test standard and that is sufficient
since all who go test have the opportunity to train using the exact
parameters (tone, weighting, spacing, speed, etc) that will be used on the
test. The variations that occur in the real world can be learned on the
air.

[snip]
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?


Since we weren't required to take electrical engineering courses, it is not
relevant. Would you require EEs to take basic mechanical engineering
courses? That would chew up a couple of years.

Were you able to hire out your PE exams?


Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or
registration or whatever they call it these days. Plus there are study
guides specifically aimed at the content of the PE exam. Plus the exam for
a structural engineer is different from the one for a mechanical engineer is
different from the one for an electrical engineer, etc.

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?


No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup
as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my
usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there. One needs to
learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take
them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want
to further explore various branches of amateur radio.

Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of
engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my
work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On
the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33
years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic.
The ironic part is that Fortran was a class I hated in college and struggled
to get through (Basic was not in use at the time). Once I was out in the
real world working on software to use in real situations, I found it to be
quite easy and fun.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE