|
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
an old freind wrote: 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? - 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 -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp aof - not if no one is listening ~ RHF { radio - it's about communicating } |
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? Some fictitious cat... |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
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? When i was a kid in the 60's a local ship to shore cw station could be heard just under the local AM broadcast band station my family listened to. That's what got my interest in radio going. The same thing happens on short wave if you detune it right... |
Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
jawod wrote in :
RHF wrote: SC, Morris Code uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) Wasn't morris the cat in the TV ads who eat with his paws? |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
Big Rich Soprano wrote:
When i was a kid in the 60's a local ship to shore cw station could be heard just under the local AM broadcast band station my family listened to. That's what got my interest in radio going. The same thing happens on short wave if you detune it right... In that case the AM carrier is the BFO for the CW signal. How many SWL's are going to accidentally "detune it right" for the purpose of hearing an SOS? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:01:06 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: In that case the AM carrier is the BFO for the CW signal. How many SWL's are going to accidentally "detune it right" for the purpose of hearing an SOS? You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it just means ragged tone. |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
Al Klein wrote:
You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it just means ragged tone. So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when a BFO is not present? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
RHF wrote: an old freind wrote: 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? - 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 -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp aof - not if no one is listening ~ RHF { radio - it's about communicating } no you are worng CW gets through wether you to hear or not (prehaps I should say sarcasm on) |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:36:03 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when a BFO is not present? If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. The tone it's coming in with doesn't make much difference. I've copied signals so weak that they were just changes in the quality of the noise and I've copied perfect S9++T9 signals. They were all mostly R9. The R only changes if the signal fades completely out or if there's interference that masks the signal. Try that with PSK. |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
Al Klein wrote:
If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're that good but I am not. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:14:13 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Al Klein wrote: If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're that good but I am not. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Hey Cecil, Would you do me a favor, please. Note this thread has been being crossposted to all of these newsgroups, rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap ,rec.radio.shortwave I don't know which one you are reading and posting to it from, but I assume the antenna newsgroup. I am onlt posting this to the antenna group. This topic really only belongs in the policy newsgroup, so would you please edit your replies and delete out all of the other newsgroups where this topic is not relevant? Then the subject will either die out, or it will be propagated over in a newsgroup where people care about something rather than antennas. For me, I wish crossposting was not possible....... why do we have separate newsgroups? Thanks very much, keep up the great antenna postings, Rick K2XT |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote: Al Klein wrote: You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it just means ragged tone. So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when a BFO is not present? The swishing sound is coming from aliens. Try making the same sounds back to them. You might get a more intelligent conversation going than the one in this cross posted thread. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... Al Klein wrote: If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're that good but I am not. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. Dee, N8UZE |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
Dee Flint wrote: I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. your point ? if any Dee Dee, N8UZE |
Why Should Only White Males "Know" CW ? ? ? - Women and Minorities Need CW Too ! ! !
Cecil Moore wrote: Al Klein wrote: You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it just means ragged tone. So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when a BFO is not present? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp CM, OK - Lets make "CW" 5 WPM a High School Graduation Requirement and Start the Nation-Wide Testing of Every Child at Every Grade Level to Ensure that Our Kids Know "CW" ! ! ! We can call it the Uniform Education "Code" {CW} Law -and- Require that No Child Is Left Behind the "CW" Learning Curve ! Why should only White Males 'know' CW ? ? ? Equality Demands that Women and Minorities "Know" CW Too ! ! ! - - - We need an Urgent National Federally Funded Program to Close the "CW" Gap [.] oops - am i ranting ? ? ? . . . oh never mind ! ~ RHF |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Dirk wrote: Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. :-( This ham know CPR. I wonder how many a retired old-timer who decided to join ham radio stroked out instead while doing speed runs trying to get to 13/20wpm on CW? CW kills. |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
Cecil Moore wrote in
.net: 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? Many SWL's are Ute listeners. They are the ones most likely to stumble across an SOS. Just like a person isn't a real ham unless they've passed a code test, a shortwave listener isn't a real SWL unless their receiver has a BFO. (SWL's who listen to shortwave with antique receivers are exempt.) SC |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
Dee Flint wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote: I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're that good but I am not. I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. How does a deaf person do that? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote: I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're that good but I am not. I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. How does a deaf person do that? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Using a series of flashes of light OR vibrations........... |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:31:02 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: How does a deaf person do that? How does a blind person read the computer screen? |
Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
"an_old_friend" wrote in
ups.com: Al Klein wrote: On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:31:02 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: How does a deaf person do that? How does a blind person read the computer screen? he does not which of course has nothing to do with the matter at hand somethat would easy to sow were to have the slightest intelectual hoestly but no you hacked evverything away You friggen lost it. There's no way you could have passed the written, let alone CW. May the lord bless and grant us peace from the mental illness that traps you by pulling the plug on your internet. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
an old friend wrote: wrote: Dirk wrote: Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. :-( Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors. That trumps CW at any speed. lol thank you for that I guess saving lives is saving lives only when it uses CW. Those firemen are way out of their league when compared to this bunch. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: not even the Ham Code matter to them only CW Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? How honest is it to memorize Morse code? Or should Morse code be derived from first principles? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message .net... Al Klein wrote: How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? How honest is it to memorize Morse code? Or should Morse code be derived from first principles? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Lets face it folks to be a well rounded Ham one should learn CW. You never know when it will come in handy. I am not that good at it, maybe a step or less above a Novice, but I like to fool around with it. One ought to think about learning it in do time even though it is not required. My 2 cents worth. |
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: wrote in oups.com: CW kills. Survival of the fittest. The fit get a ham license. guess you have not been a hamfest lately |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "
wrote: Al Klein wrote: On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? absolutely and conpletely honest By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions and know the answers. By memorizing the answers you're not learning enough to understand the questions. But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is putting the law "over all ham knowledge". How progressive is it? How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more operators What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a radio. how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community? How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community"? Or any skill, other than getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something that requires no skill. And you, particularly, don't acquire knowledge by demanding something for nothing. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote:
The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and shortwave listening. No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the loud get anything they want. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, " wrote: Al Klein wrote: On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? absolutely and conpletely honest By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions and know the answers. By memorizing the answers you're not learning enough to understand the questions. no, one is claiming they can pass the test which is the only requirement But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. I do know what honesty means and you don't employ it how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is putting the law "over all ham knowledge" you certainly are but no one is required to know the law at all merely happpening to obey it is enough the current system place CW over all over modes combined any statement to the contary is dishonest .. How progressive is it? How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. try that agin is english if you please best I can make out is another of your snide (and unfreindly and illcosidered) slaps at newer ops that have obeyed the rules how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more operators What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) you statement makes no sense since obviously anyone that has a radio and can turn it on knows at least the first thing ,if he/she can get on the air he know a few more to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a radio. knowledge is needed why? It is helpfull I grant you but needed vs experence well that is Bull**** I know more I supect about radio and RF than you having studied EM waves and their proerty at the College level and yet this knowledge is only mildly usefull if I am on the HF bands as I often am for Feild day or something to be a more effective operator I need expernce at HF not knowledge of circuts how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community? How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community"? what is playing CB mean? other than then pejoritive Or any skill, other than getting what you want? babble all you like You don't acquire skill by doing something that requires no skill. so you are claiming this is NO skill in passing traffic at HF I think I could find people that woluld disagree with you And you, particularly, don't acquire knowledge by demanding something for nothing. no knowledge is aquired by learning Morse Code certainly no secert of the unverse is derived for it No one is suggesting that ANYONE be given something for nothing but it is a requirement of law that restictions in access to PUBLIC reasources must be reasonable in nature knowledge of Morse code is not realected to prevelegdes it brings ask the Armmy how many CW opperators it uses in routine affairs, the answer is zero (intel is not for this prupose routine nor is specail ops) |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, " wrote: Al Klein wrote: On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? absolutely and conpletely honest By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions and know the answers. By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must memorize the answers. No one is claiming any such thing. By memorizing the answers you're not learning enough to understand the questions. But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. Why not? how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is putting the law "over all ham knowledge". CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska). How progressive is it? How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se guys want to "beef up" the written exams? how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more operators What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already assembled. (and Get a context clue: deny). to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a radio. Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years "training" radio operators. how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community? How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community"? Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it? Or any skill, other than getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something that requires no skill. So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all? And you, particularly, don't acquire knowledge by demanding something for nothing. The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means of communicating. Get over it. Everyone else is moving on. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
wrote:
The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means of communicating. Therein lies the solution to the problem. Make A1 the only mode allowed within amateur radio - solves all the problems, doesn't it? No more mode arguments, no more band crowding, no more expensive equipment, ... The list of advantages is virtually endless. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
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?
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:25:46 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: wrote: The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means of communicating. Therein lies the solution to the problem. Make A1 the only mode allowed within amateur radio - solves all the problems, doesn't it? No more mode arguments, no more band crowding, no more expensive equipment, ... The list of advantages is virtually endless. The disadvantages are too. No playing with digital modes. No innovations. No new inventions by hams. And, I have to admit, my CW has gotten a bit rusty - I doubt I could send readable code at much over 15wpm these days. I can still copy faster than that, though. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote: Al Klein wrote: By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions and know the answers. By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must memorize the answers. Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a license is to memorize the answers." well the only way you are going to lean the rules question is to momorize No one is claiming any such thing. By memorizing the answers you're not learning enough to understand the questions. But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. Why not? Because he's already admitted that he's dishonest. a admission that of itself proves me more honest than you how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is putting the law "over all ham knowledge". CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska). Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ... no sigle element of i and besides you content nobody has trouble passig it so it not pass fail but pass/pass How progressive is it? How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se guys want to "beef up" the written exams? We don't. liar as you go on to prove We want to get back the level it used to be before it was dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics. establish the need ofr such testing and I will support you Just by guessing at the answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics. so what? From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that I've forgotten at the moment. They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. and when was the last time you had to assemble one without any notes to help you? how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more operators What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already assembled. But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally. nope you just had to pass the test Today all you need is the time to take the test and the money for the test and the equipment. bull**** must you undermine the ars by insutling allnew ops? that is not coutesous either Al IOW, a CB "license" with a tiny bit of annoyance up front. How does CB benefit the country? why do you hate CB so bad? did one of pinn your coax? no support for your postion just insults You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a radio. Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years "training" radio operators. I trained operators when I was in the military. We didn't do it by giving recruits radios and telling them to go jam each other. I am glad to read that neither does the ARS your point ? or were you just ranting? how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community? How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community"? Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it? That's exactly what he's talking about. nope that isn't what I am tlaking about Give someone a radio and a "license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up above. lying again never said anything about giving a license away what was that you said about being dishonest How does one acquire skill by playing radio? the only to aquire skill at using a radio is by USING a radio Or any skill, other than getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something that requires no skill. So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all? You don't acquire technical skill by doing something that doesn't require technical skill. meaning no need for a CW test? You don't acquire operating skill by doing something that requires no operating skill. no need for writeen test either thn? And you don't acquire skill in CW by cursing into a mike. who siad you did but I for one have no interest in learning CW at all even if that were possible for me (which I do not believe is the case bt that is another arguement) you OTOH seem to think it polite to disparage opertors that you likely have never heard But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators" honestly in time if we did give the license away the user would develope skill with it if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic? the same way the skill were devloped in the first trail and error would still work althogh I don't advocate reling on it And you, particularly, don't acquire knowledge by demanding something for nothing. The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means of communicating. So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too obvious to need mentioning. Get over it. Everyone else is moving on. Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a test should actually test for something. on here there are perhaps 3 people still advocating a Morse code test OTOH nobody advocates ywe drop testing except occasion the frustrated advocate of Code testing Yes personalyI think some the thing we current test are at best questionable I would prefer to foucs more on rules and safety question I realy don't think any body needs to memorize thatwhat freg is white in SSTV signal he know prehaps where to look it out but to have that knowledge memorized no way and yet there is such a question on the current extra pool There are actually millions of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing in the world. what has that got to do with maintining your frat house game called Morse Code testing? What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries? who cares about a DXCC award? I certianly don't realy or does not caring about working "countries that have no people in them and sometimes barely exist at high tide make me not a ham either |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a license is to memorize the answers." How else one can know that the unit of resistance is the "ohm", except by memorizing? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Cecil Moore wrote:
How else one can know that the unit of resistance is the "ohm", except by memorizing? More importantly, that you can only transmit on 7.000 to 7.300 mHz, with restrictions on mode and license class. Or that you call "MAYDAY" on voice or SOS on CW for emergencies and never, never, never call "breaker, breaker". Going back to the orginal point of memorizing or not, is knowing the type of oscilators and drawing their schematics anything but memorizing? Actually, the only MORSE code you need to get help is SOS (not even run together as one letter). If you keep sending SOS, SOS, SOS, someone will eventually hear you and track you down. Note that the original intent of the morse code test was that amateur radio was to provide a pool of ready trained radio operators in case of war. I'm in a country in the middle of a war, and I can guarentee you that NONE of the radio communications are morse code. In fact, until we took out the cellular towers in Lebanon, almost all of the Hizbolah's command and control traffic was via cellular phone. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
SNIPPED In fact, until we took out the cellular towers in Lebanon, almost all of the Hizbolah's command and control traffic was via cellular phone. Geoff. With tongue in cheek I ask: "Now that the towers are out, does that mean Hezzbollah is changing to CW?" :-) /s/ W1MCE |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"Dave" wrote in message
. .. Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: SNIPPED In fact, until we took out the cellular towers in Lebanon, almost all of the Hizbolah's command and control traffic was via cellular phone. Geoff. With tongue in cheek I ask: "Now that the towers are out, does that mean Hezzbollah is changing to CW?" :-) /s/ W1MCE Not knowing the "distances" involved - any chance they may be using YOUR cell towers? IF so, that could really suck. Nothing like having your enemy use your own equipment against you. Lou |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com