wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

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.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

No, I'm not.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General

Welp, that's something we'll just have to live with. It's also the
reason I upgraded to General.

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

And they can all use CWGet.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?

Who did you vote for last time?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

It means they don't like it and they have to struggle through it. It
means they are perfect candidates for CWGet.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.

Right.

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.

You're making that up.

and you're a "professional."

I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.

What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space?

Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

How can you be sure?

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

What's the point?

The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores
is only something that you can do?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?

Who sets up your field day station? Who pays for it?

The Morsemen

Who are they?

There used to be four of them...

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.

Yes, you. You!

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

Where do stations come from now?

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Hi, hi, hi! You're just making that up.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.

Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?

I don't enjoy morse code.

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

I think you're making that up.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.

Alternative scenario snipped.

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?

The problem is that there isn't 100% participation in field day. It
fails to meet the requirements of my scenario.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

No, you vectored off when it was clear that the creation of the
Conditional Class license using the "buddy-system" of testing was the
original dumbing down of the ARS.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Then you strayed off the subject.

Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.

Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

It appears to be a violation of Part 97.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union?

No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?

Bandages are better.

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..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

You're making that up, right?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.

Part 95 requires no authorization, so he doesn't. And knowing his
background, he'd probably violate the Part 95 rules.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

I'll be awake and operating. CWGet won't be part of it.

Bless you.