"JIMMIE" wrote in message
ps.com...

Slow Code wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote in
:

There was recently a thread here on the subject of whether morse had
saved any lives recently. Well it has in the UK!

Have a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/6070444.stm

"Torch used in Morse code rescue.
Coastguards in Hampshire have rescued a sailor who used his torch to
flash an SOS message in Morse code."

Ian.


Boy, Lenny Anderson is going to be ****ed. That's not the sort
of CW news he likes to hear. Lucky for the sailor there was
still someone out there that knew code.

SC

I guess this means if you were in the tower others would die because
you cant recongnise a flashing light on a boat as a distrress call
unless its in morse.


Unless one does know the distress signal in Morse, why would anyone consider
that someone was signaling a problem. They could just as easily have
thought it was some kids goofing off.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message
ps.com...

Slow Code wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote in
:

There was recently a thread here on the subject of whether morse had
saved any lives recently. Well it has in the UK!

Have a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/6070444.stm

"Torch used in Morse code rescue.
Coastguards in Hampshire have rescued a sailor who used his torch to
flash an SOS message in Morse code."

Ian.


Boy, Lenny Anderson is going to be ****ed. That's not the sort
of CW news he likes to hear. Lucky for the sailor there was
still someone out there that knew code.

SC

I guess this means if you were in the tower others would die because
you cant recongnise a flashing light on a boat as a distrress call
unless its in morse.


Unless one does know the distress signal in Morse, why would anyone consider
that someone was signaling a problem. They could just as easily have
thought it was some kids goofing off.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message
ps.com...

Slow Code wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote in
:

There was recently a thread here on the subject of whether morse had
saved any lives recently. Well it has in the UK!

Have a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/6070444.stm

"Torch used in Morse code rescue.
Coastguards in Hampshire have rescued a sailor who used his torch to
flash an SOS message in Morse code."

Ian.


Boy, Lenny Anderson is going to be ****ed. That's not the sort
of CW news he likes to hear. Lucky for the sailor there was
still someone out there that knew code.

SC

I guess this means if you were in the tower others would die because
you cant recongnise a flashing light on a boat as a distrress call
unless its in morse.


Unless one does know the distress signal in Morse, why would anyone consider
that someone was signaling a problem. They could just as easily have
thought it was some kids goofing off.

Dee, N8UZE

Good thing you dont stand watch.

I haven't really been following this thread, so I'll assume it
originated by someone who thinks the code requirement (here in the USA)
should be removed from the license requirements. Personally, I don't
think it needs to be removed because with a little practice, anyone can
do 5 WPM. In fact, I recall a young man of about 5 years old getting his
license many years ago...it used to be written up in one of the chapters
of the ARRL handbook. If you don't want to learn code, we have the
Technician class license for that. Anyhow, where in the rules does it
say a ham is required to know code to possibly save a life one day?
It's just something they came up with to use in testing for a license.
From the FCC rules:

97.3 Definitions.
(a) The definitions of terms used in Part 97 a


(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training,
intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs,
that is,
duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a
personal aim
and without pecuniary interest.


Unless one does know the distress signal in Morse, why would anyone consider
that someone was signaling a problem. They could just as easily have
thought it was some kids goofing off.

Dee, N8UZE


Good thing you dont stand watch.

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
I haven't really been following this thread, so I'll assume it originated
by someone who thinks the code requirement (here in the USA) should be
removed from the license requirements. Personally, I don't think it needs
to be removed because with a little practice, anyone can do 5 WPM. In fact,
I recall a young man of about 5 years old getting his license many years
ago...it used to be written up in one of the chapters of the ARRL handbook.
If you don't want to learn code, we have the Technician class license for
that. Anyhow, where in the rules does it say a ham is required to know
code to possibly save a life one day? It's just something they came up with
to use in testing for a license.

[snip]

Personally I happen to believe it should be kept simply because it is one of
the basics of ham radio. Even if one never uses it after, it should be
learned at a basic (i.e. 5wpm) level. This later enables the individual to
later decide if they want to pursue it to a higher level. If they are not
required to learn the basic level, they may forever falsely believe that
code is too hard for them.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote:

SNIPPED

bull**** Maxwell equations are the true basis of Radio
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Ignoring the profanity [when profanity surfaces in a discussion it is evidence
that you are losing the argument], Maxwell's Equations are first of all NOT
Maxwell's equations. They are Heaviside's Equations [go do a rigorous check].

Secondly, the equations describe physics, not operating practice.

Thirdly, the equations and their understanding are not requirements for a
license. Most hams cannot perform the vector calculus or solve the second order
differential equations necessary to solve those equations [Many professional
broadcast engineers probably can't solve them either]. After 40+ years from my
EE degree I know I can't solve them without some refresher math courses.

Finally, increasing one's personal skills in the radio communications art and
technique for personal improvement, not $ gain, is the requirement for a ham
license, at least here in the USA.

Increasing personal skills ... does not mean becoming an appliance operator.

Dave wrote:
wrote:

SNIPPED

bull**** Maxwell equations are the true basis of Radio
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Ignoring the profanity [when profanity surfaces in a discussion it is evidence
that you are losing the argument], Maxwell's Equations are first of all NOT
Maxwell's equations. They are Heaviside's Equations [go do a rigorous check].
nope he lost any credit years ago

and Bull**** is not profanity is is vulagrity and the spellcop has lost
befor e he starts

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave wrote:

wrote:

SNIPPED


bull**** Maxwell equations are the true basis of Radio
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Ignoring the profanity [when profanity surfaces in a discussion it is evidence
that you are losing the argument], Maxwell's Equations are first of all NOT
Maxwell's equations. They are Heaviside's Equations [go do a rigorous check].

nope he lost any credit years ago

and Bull**** is not profanity is is vulagrity and the spellcop has lost
befor e he starts



It doesn't matter which. It's use indicated an inability to express ones
self in an informed and educated manner. Such use is generally
indicative of losing ones side of the argument.

a different Dave

Dave wrote:
wrote:

SNIPPED

Thirdly, the equations and their understanding are not requirements for a
license.
never said they were

Dave wrote:
wrote:


Finally, increasing one's personal skills in the radio communications art and
technique for personal improvement, not $ gain, is the requirement for a ham
license, at least here in the USA.

no it is gaol not a requirement but Morse Code in no way advances the
radio anymore that went out decades ago

I have seen 3 point and 3 lies from you on my posts today other than
making a another decent about churchill your fact seems to be off at
best