If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
s.com:

If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm and
then, like me, never used it, then I suspect the victim wouldn't make it.
But then in most countries there is NO morse code testing any more, so
there are plenty of hams now who've never learnt atall. For decades there
have been no code VHF hams in most countries anyway.


To "some" extent, I "may" have to disagree. I held a class once for "No Code
Tech" and one of the guys - a man in his 70s asked if he could go for the
code test even though I wasn't teaching code. He said he had learned it
years ago in the service - but may be rusty. Let me tell you - when he was
done testing, he had PERFECT copy. Was he practicing all along? We'll never
know - nor did I ask. He has since passed on. Some people DO have a good
memory and retain quite well. Others - lose things almost immediately if not
used. Some of us, it takes a while to lose it and we usually do.

Lou

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


wrote:

Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors.

That trumps CW at any speed.
lol thank you for that

Sorry Mark, the pumping and blowing you know isn't called CPR.

SC

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Slow Code wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


wrote:

Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors.

That trumps CW at any speed.
lol thank you for that

Sorry Mark, the pumping and blowing you know isn't called CPR.
i am skilled at CPR amoug other thing

you uon the other have given us no reason to say your skilled at
anything

SC

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"clfe" wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
s.com:

If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm
and then, like me, never used it, then I suspect the victim wouldn't
make it. But then in most countries there is NO morse code testing any
more, so there are plenty of hams now who've never learnt atall. For
decades there have been no code VHF hams in most countries anyway.


To "some" extent, I "may" have to disagree. I held a class once for "No
Code Tech" and one of the guys - a man in his 70s asked if he could go
for the code test even though I wasn't teaching code. He said he had
learned it years ago in the service - but may be rusty. Let me tell you
- when he was done testing, he had PERFECT copy. Was he practicing all
along? We'll never know - nor did I ask. He has since passed on. Some
people DO have a good memory and retain quite well. Others - lose
things almost immediately if not used. Some of us, it takes a while to
lose it and we usually do.

Lou




It is possible that someone could learn at 5wpm, not use it for years, and
still be able to use it, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the
only mode available, and that hams are about the only remaining users of
CW.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"clfe" wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
s.com:

If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm


Lou




It is possible that someone could learn at 5wpm, not use it for years, and
still be able to use it, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the
only mode available, and that hams are about the only remaining users of
CW.

oh I can imgine that much bt then however I can't take the next and
imagine that cw is all their is andthat the message is going to do
anygood the only senario like that is independace day

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:

Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to send CW
but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on.

I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was based.

Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating a
digital camera user:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save
him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 16 Jul 2006 18:51:21 +0200, "Alun L. Palmer"
wrote:

More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the
only mode available

A transmitter with no mic, no computer - just a transmit switch. Or
not even a transmit switch, but you can get to one of the battery
wires. Far fetched, but it could happen.

and that hams are about the only remaining users of CW.

Boy Scouts? The military no longer uses CW - what used to be passed
by brass pounders is now passed digitally. Merchant Marine? Same
thing. Aero commo? Same thing, except for voice. I doubt any group
or service actually uses it these days.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:

Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to send CW
but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on.

I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was based.

Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating a
digital camera user:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save
him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"

Time magazine.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Slow Code wrote:
(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:

In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save
him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.
nobody is talking about dummbing anything down

you are
indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the
unintelgent


SC

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

an old friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:

In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to
save him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think
tossing it bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is
never an improvement.
nobody is talking about dummbing anything down

you are
indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the
unintelgent


SC

Knowing CW is NO indication of any level of intelligence, technical or
otherwise!

BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak!

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

Brian Denley wrote:

Knowing CW is NO indication of any level of intelligence, technical or
otherwise!

BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak!


"Seen" except for special needs. And those that do special needs will
likely be making millions. There will be about 12 of them that make it,
and thousands that don't, but wish they could.

I know quite a few in the photo biz, and film is, to put it very
bluntly, dead.

tom
K0TAR

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:14 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

It is for those who can't rise to the current level. Like someone we
both know.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 17 Jul 2006 17:16:10 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Slow Code wrote:

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

nobody is talking about dummbing anything down

Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.

you are
indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the
unintelgent

That's YOUR stance - giving HF to those not intelligent enough to
actually learn things.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 17:16:10 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Slow Code wrote:

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

nobody is talking about dummbing anything down

Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down.
bull****
But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.
you mean be fooled by that lie

you are
indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the
unintelgent

That's YOUR stance - giving HF to those not intelligent enough to
actually learn things.
nope
I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written
idealy an improved written test

you want to keep a frat house game in place

but you favor dishonesty

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

Brian Denley wrote:

SNIPPED

BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak!


I use a digital for my family memories type shooting.

I use FUJI roll film in 120 size for my serious MF work. It is either Fuji
VELVIA for transparencies or NPH for formal portraits.

In either case, digital or film, they have nothing to do with ham radio in
general or CW in particular.

CW is!

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 18 Jul 2006 14:01:07 -0700, "Koikus"
wrote:

I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written
idealy an improved written test

you want to keep a frat house game in place

but you favor dishonesty

. -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-.

Neither does anyone else, once you destroy the attributions.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

a thread related not

I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the
Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in
that Morse encoded spark

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"Koikus" wrote in
oups.com:



I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written
idealy an improved written test

you want to keep a frat house game in place

but you favor dishonesty

. -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-.



You just gave him another headache, Shame on you.

Sc

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Slow Code wrote:
"Koikus" wrote in
oups.com:


. -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-.



You just gave him another headache, Shame on you.
not realy I did not listen to the "transmision"


Sc

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

SC,

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission
-and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
- - - The Times They Are A Changing !

While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator
for Mastering Morris Code (CW).

Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.


Morris Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code

Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in
and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave

The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code
and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF

Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO"
http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm
At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout
I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM
-but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag
"Semaphore" Signals Too !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication)
Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone
Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout.


just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

RHF wrote:
SC,

Morris Code
uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it

(and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore)

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

jawod wrote:

RHF wrote:

SC,

Morris Code

uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it

(and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore)


Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Dave WD9BDZ

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

jawod - Oops ! - You Are Right ~RHF

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the
Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in
that Morse encoded spark


Actually that is not correct.
Within the original meaning of CW, the Titanic used a CW transmitter.
It was not a spark transmitter, the rf energy was produced by an alternator
which provided 'continuous' rf power, hence CW. The output was not a damped
wave that a spark transmitter would produce, but an interrupted 'continuous
wave' (from the alternator).

Regards
Jeff

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's
Morris?

Scott


RHF wrote:

SC,

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission
-and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
- - - The Times They Are A Changing !

While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator
for Mastering Morris Code (CW).

Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.


Morris Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code

Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in
and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave

The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code
and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF

Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO"
http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm
At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout
I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM
-but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag
"Semaphore" Signals Too !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication)
Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone
Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout.


just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF
.
.
. .

Slow Code wrote:

(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:


In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:


Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to
send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on.

I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was
based.

Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating
a digital camera user:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save
him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

SC

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

David G. Nagel wrote:
Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to
record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an
ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound
of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong.
Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish
the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and
therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes.

It is true that Sam's "American" Morse was different from
"International" Morse in about a dozen characters but both
used dots and dashes. Still, more characters were alike
than were different.

The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators
laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to
distinguish the dots from the dashes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:
Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to
record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an
ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound
of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong.
Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish
the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and
therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes.
oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it
by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the
day could do so?

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

an old friend wrote:
oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it
by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the
day could do so?

Please note that I didn't say ordinary human beings could read
telegraph code. All I said was that ordinary human beings could
distinguish between the sound of a dot and the sound of a dash.

I think that's a pretty safe assumption with "ordinary" in the
sense of an average human possessing average hearing abilities.
I would bet that a dog could even be trained to distinguish a
dot from a dash.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
an old friend wrote:
oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it
by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the
day could do so?

Please note that I didn't say ordinary human beings could read
telegraph code. All I said was that ordinary human beings could
distinguish between the sound of a dot and the sound of a dash.

I think that's a pretty safe assumption with "ordinary" in the
sense of an average human possessing average hearing abilities.
I would bet that a dog could even be trained to distinguish a
dot from a dash.
I stand corrected although the inclation was that ordinary people could
read the code itself but the poit is made I think
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

In article ,
Scott wrote:

Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's
Morris?

Snip

He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to
radio listening and scanner news groups.

How about limiting Amateur subjects to the amateur news groups.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 18 Jul 2006 15:07:01 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

a thread related not

I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the
Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in
that Morse encoded spark

For the duration of a dash, spark is CW. Maybe slightly damped, but
still CW.

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:48:14 +0000, Scott
wrote:

Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's
Morris?

Morris is also known as C. W. Katt.

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Telamon wrote in
:

He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to
radio listening and scanner news groups.


SWL's should learn CW too.

You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending
an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help.

But it seems all SWL's want to do is sit around like blobs all day long
and tell themselves their cheap plastic Etons and Grundigs sound good.
They don't want radio skills if it takes a little work to learn them.

I'm guessing that's why Telamon hates CW and ham radio as well. Laziness.

SC

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Slow Code wrote:
Telamon wrote in
:

He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to
radio listening and scanner news groups.


SWL's should learn CW too.

You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending
an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help.
who would be sbe equiped to send such an SOS SC? you want to imporve
the toene of NG

get off your ass and stop troling looking for a fight

bless you and grant new mental health to you

soon

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Slow Code wrote:
SWL's should learn CW too.
You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending
an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help.

SWL's normally listen to AM stations.
How would they hear a CW station?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

an old freind wrote:

CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw
gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS


You have, what we call in the midwest, a MORON CHIP problem.

The part of your brain that keeps you from being a total moron, is broken.

tom
K0TAR

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Tom Ring wrote:
an old freind wrote:

CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw
gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS


You have, what we call in the midwest, a MORON CHIP problem.

The part of your brain that keeps you from being a total moron, is broken.
Frankly I thining it is you that is missing something, asence of humor.
I tend to supect form your posts it was surgiccaly removed at some
point

tom
K0TAR

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
SWL's should learn CW too.
You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending
an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help.

- SWL's normally listen to AM stations.
- How would they hear a CW station?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

CM,

Yes - Many Shortwave Radio Listener's (SWL's) do just that.
Listen to the best "AM" International Shortwave Radio
Broadcasters that they can 'hear' at their location.

and morse code is not on their mind ~ RHF
{ just like 'html' is not on my mind as i simply
type these words on rrs }