Dee Flint wrote:


You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that will
make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for voice,
all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you had the
best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. Another
night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will favor CW.

Thanks Dee, you admitted that CW is not the best mode in any condition.
You agree that different modes work better under differing conditions.
I agree. That's why is it utterly stupid to test incoming hams on one
mode of communication. Finally we agree on something.

Based on what I've read about DominoEX, it is a form of Multi-Frequency
Shift Keying. This variation looks to be more robust than others, however,
anything that can compromise FSK and MFSK has the potential to compromise
DominoEX. It will merely be a matter of the degree of severity needed
before it becomes unusable.

Any mode can become unusable depending on conditions. The best thing is
that some digital modes can be decoded when you cannot even hear the
signal with a human ear. You just cannot do that with CW. With CW if
you cannot hear it, you cannot decode it.

Just because something is old doesn't make it useless or stone age. Pencils
have been around far longer and are still highly useful.

I agree. I never said do away with CW. I like to use it myself.
However, tube rigs suck more electricity than solid state rigs and are
bad for the environment so old things can be rather useless or damaging.
Just like CW, it's not useless, but continuing to have a CW testing
requirement is damaging and outdated.

Riding horses is fun still, but very few want them for the normal day to
day transportation now. They may be useful still, but for everyday
transportation they are no longer required. Horses are found more and
more out in the pasture where the CW testing requirement belongs.


Dee, N8UZE

"J. D. B." wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:


You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that
will make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for
voice, all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you
had the best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better.
Another night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will
favor CW.

Thanks Dee, you admitted that CW is not the best mode in any condition.
You agree that different modes work better under differing conditions. I
agree. That's why is it utterly stupid to test incoming hams on one mode
of communication. Finally we agree on something.

No that has nothing to do with whether it should be tested. We do NOT agree
on that issue.

CW is a valid and useful mode but it is different in nature from the other
modes. All the other digital modes simply require investing perhaps as much
as 30 minutes in setting up the hardware and software to get up and running
even if you make your own interface. So one can quickly evaluate whether or
not they will like it. On the other hand, it is impossible to determine
whether you will like CW until you have learned it, which takes some time.
Many people who might like it won't tackle it unless it's required as they
will have a false impression that it is too hard since there are so many
trying to get the code requirement dropped by trying to convince people it
is difficult. It is not difficult to learn but it does take time. I've
known a number of people who admitted that they wouldn't have tried it
unless required to do so but now find that they enjoy it. It's rather like
piano lessons. Every adult I know who took piano as a child has made one of
the two following statements: a) I'm glad my parents didn't let me quit,
or, b) I wish my parents had not let me quit. The very adults who, as a
child, were glad to drop piano are the ones who most deeply regret it now.


Based on what I've read about DominoEX, it is a form of Multi-Frequency
Shift Keying. This variation looks to be more robust than others,
however, anything that can compromise FSK and MFSK has the potential to
compromise DominoEX. It will merely be a matter of the degree of
severity needed before it becomes unusable.

Any mode can become unusable depending on conditions. The best thing is
that some digital modes can be decoded when you cannot even hear the
signal with a human ear. You just cannot do that with CW. With CW if you
cannot hear it, you cannot decode it.

That is true but it is not a reason to condemn CW. It is merely a working
parameter that one must deal with. Besides one can run CW at a higher
output without risking damage to the radio to often make up the difference.
Keep in mind that if you include the power requirements for the computer and
monitor plus radio that a 25watt output signal for the digital mode draws
more power than a radio putting out 100watts of CW.

I have repeatedly maintained that each mode has its advantages and
disadvantages but the anti-CW crowd takes its particular characteristics as
a reason to castigate it. They refuse to objectively evaluate their
"high-tech" digital modes for their unique advantages and disadvantages.
There are times when a voice signal will beat the digital modes in
intelligibility. For example, PSK goes belly up with even the slightest
auroral disturbance yet voices, while distorted, can still come through. It
will take a higher level of auroral activity to knock out voice in
comparison to that required to knock out PSK.

A well rounded ham should be able to select his/her mode on the basis of
conditions and not be limited to by the fact that they were allowed to
"slide" on the code training.


Just because something is old doesn't make it useless or stone age.
Pencils have been around far longer and are still highly useful.

I agree. I never said do away with CW. I like to use it myself. However,
tube rigs suck more electricity than solid state rigs and are bad for the
environment so old things can be rather useless or damaging. Just like CW,
it's not useless, but continuing to have a CW testing requirement is
damaging and outdated.


Who says you have to stick to tube rigs to run CW? I know you know better
than that. Tube rigs have largely gone away (except for collectors) simply
because its much easier to deal with solid state equipment. Yet if one
wants to run a legal limit amp, it's going to be a tube unit as they haven't
come up with a way to do it cost effectively any other way.

I strongly disagree that a CW testing requirement is damaging or outdated.
There simply is not sufficient data to support that point of few. An
occasional anecdote does not qualify as valid data.


Riding horses is fun still, but very few want them for the normal day to
day transportation now. They may be useful still, but for everyday
transportation they are no longer required. Horses are found more and
more out in the pasture where the CW testing requirement belongs.


Again I disagree. That analogy is not really valid. A better one would be
comparing it to driving an automobile with a stick shift. I personally feel
that every one who drives should be required to know how to drive a stick.
They often get better mileage than automatics as an experienced driver can
do a better job of selecting the shift point than a mere gadget. More
people might select stick shifts if only they knew how to drive one.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:


You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that
will make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for
voice, all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you
had the best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better.
Another night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will
favor CW.

Thanks Dee, you admitted that CW is not the best mode in any condition.
You agree that different modes work better under differing conditions. I
agree. That's why is it utterly stupid to test incoming hams on one mode
of communication. Finally we agree on something.

No that has nothing to do with whether it should be tested. We do NOT agree
on that issue.
lying again bitch
it certainly has something to do with the issue but then you arenot
honest about most thing

Dee, you can disagree all you want. The fact is that the world is moving
on and away from CW testing. Not the mode, but the testing requirement.
It is just outdated and not necessary. If you want to learn it and
then use it, great. The time has come to stop forcing an old mode onto
people. We can debate the merits of CW all day. In 200 years, no one
will be using it. It will die a natural death like all languages
because the world evolves. Better things come along. And like many
humans, you are resisting change because people hate change. But change
is inevitable. You cannot stop this change and it is a change for the
better even if you won't admit it. History will show the only way to
save the Amateur Radio Service and help its growth is to evolve and
change. Out with the old and in with the new. Those that won't evolve
will fade from the earth just like stone-age man. Good bye CW testing
requirement. Your departure is long, long overdue.

Dee Flint wrote:


Again I disagree. That analogy is not really valid. A better one would be
comparing it to driving an automobile with a stick shift. I personally feel
that every one who drives should be required to know how to drive a stick.
They often get better mileage than automatics as an experienced driver can
do a better job of selecting the shift point than a mere gadget. More
people might select stick shifts if only they knew how to drive one.

Dee, N8UZE

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Dee, you can disagree all you want. The fact is that the world is
moving on and away from CW testing. Not the mode, but the testing
requirement.
It is just outdated and not necessary. If you want to learn it and
then use it, great. The time has come to stop forcing an old mode onto
people. We can debate the merits of CW all day. In 200 years, no one
will be using it. It will die a natural death like all languages
because the world evolves. Better things come along. And like many
humans, you are resisting change because people hate change. But
change is inevitable. You cannot stop this change and it is a change
for the better even if you won't admit it. History will show the only
way to save the Amateur Radio Service and help its growth is to evolve
and change. Out with the old and in with the new. Those that won't
evolve will fade from the earth just like stone-age man. Good bye CW
testing requirement. Your departure is long, long overdue.

Dee Flint wrote:


Again I disagree. That analogy is not really valid. A better one
would be comparing it to driving an automobile with a stick shift. I
personally feel that every one who drives should be required to know
how to drive a stick. They often get better mileage than automatics as
an experienced driver can do a better job of selecting the shift point
than a mere gadget. More people might select stick shifts if only
they knew how to drive one.

Dee, N8UZE




As it happens, I do think people should have to learn on a stick shift, but
I don't support code testing. If you can't drive a stick shift, you can't
drive my car, as every car I've had has had a stick shift and so will every
car I buy in future. OTOH, every rig I've bought has come with a mic, and
none of them came with a key. Now, I know you can get some QRP rigs that
are CW only.

The point is, there is a very real chance that it may be necessary to drive
someone else's car in an emergency, or even just to help out. What happens
when you need to get someone to the emergency room and the only car
available is a stick shift? It's no good saying that statistically manual
shifts are declining in sales, as there are plenty of us who will never buy
an automatic.

OK, maybe you can say that you don't own a mic, and all the rigs in your
shack are hooked up to a key (good luck on the local repeater!). What then
is the realistic scenario where I will have to use one of your radios to
save the world? (or even to save the next door neighbour) Doesn't seem to
likely, does it?