|
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: Handi-Hams still has a spot for you on the short bus. nope handihams has no respect for LD's at all Sc |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation
factor is worth learning code Rick N4NKR |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Ricke wrote:
Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation factor is worth learning code Rick N4NKR If one wishes to operate legally on 11 meters do not use CW or tone CW. The only legal modes of communicating there is AM or SSB voice. Tone maybe used as an alerting mechanism but not for other methods of communication. Even though licenses are not required and most (not all) persons don't follow the regs there, if you are caught violating the regs there you can be refused an Amateur License. It can and does happen from time to time. Dave WD9BDZ |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
... Ricke wrote: Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation factor is worth learning code Rick N4NKR If one wishes to operate legally on 11 meters do not use CW or tone CW. The only legal modes of communicating there is AM or SSB voice. Tone maybe used as an alerting mechanism but not for other methods of communication. Even though licenses are not required and most (not all) persons don't follow the regs there, if you are caught violating the regs there you can be refused an Amateur License. It can and does happen from time to time. Dave WD9BDZ This is true! As the man said, tho most don't follow them - they DO exist. They WILL be enforced - if so desired. Actually, an infraction of any radio rule can deem you ineligible for not only an Amateur Licence but also any other license from the FCC - even GROL. IF you hold a GROL and do something stupid with it, it can cause your "amateur" license to be stripped. Ignorance is no excuse. When you sign the forms - and your license(s) - you agree to abide by the R/Rs. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien
invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU Cecil Moore wrote: Dave wrote: C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know CW. Does that mean we're virtually obsolete? My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never going to save the world. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
What MUST be true?... Alien invasion!! When? Where? How??
TimBob wrote: In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU Cecil Moore wrote: Dave wrote: C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know CW. Does that mean we're virtually obsolete? My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never going to save the world. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
L. wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ... Ricke wrote: Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation factor is worth learning code Rick N4NKR If one wishes to operate legally on 11 meters do not use CW or tone CW. The only legal modes of communicating there is AM or SSB voice. Tone maybe used as an alerting mechanism but not for other methods of communication. Even though licenses are not required and most (not all) persons don't follow the regs there, if you are caught violating the regs there you can be refused an Amateur License. It can and does happen from time to time. Dave WD9BDZ This is true! As the man said, tho most don't follow them - they DO exist. They WILL be enforced - if so desired. Actually, an infraction of any radio rule can deem you ineligible for not only an Amateur Licence but also any other license from the FCC - even GROL. IF you hold a GROL and do something stupid with it, it can cause your "amateur" license to be stripped. Ignorance is no excuse. When you sign the forms - and your license(s) - you agree to abide by the R/Rs. Apparently if you have been convicted of a felony anything you can loose your license also. Dave WD9BDZ |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
TimBob wrote:
In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU Cecil Moore wrote: Dave wrote: C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know CW. Does that mean we're virtually obsolete? My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never going to save the world. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp If I recall correctly the IDF officer said the US was communicating in "old fashioned morse code". Dave N |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
... L. wrote: "David G. Nagel" wrote in message ... Ricke wrote: Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation factor is worth learning code Rick N4NKR If one wishes to operate legally on 11 meters do not use CW or tone CW. The only legal modes of communicating there is AM or SSB voice. Tone maybe used as an alerting mechanism but not for other methods of communication. Even though licenses are not required and most (not all) persons don't follow the regs there, if you are caught violating the regs there you can be refused an Amateur License. It can and does happen from time to time. Dave WD9BDZ This is true! As the man said, tho most don't follow them - they DO exist. They WILL be enforced - if so desired. Actually, an infraction of any radio rule can deem you ineligible for not only an Amateur Licence but also any other license from the FCC - even GROL. IF you hold a GROL and do something stupid with it, it can cause your "amateur" license to be stripped. Ignorance is no excuse. When you sign the forms - and your license(s) - you agree to abide by the R/Rs. Apparently if you have been convicted of a felony anything you can loose your license also. Dave WD9BDZ You're correct - and just a few days ago - there was a case of a "licensed" individual who "allegedly" molested children and was convicted - the FCC was debating renewing his license. So, it appears they take a dim view on "criminals" being "license" holders. I guess they feel if you can't obey the law of the land, why would you obey their rules and regulations! I wonder if they take into account any one who's been convicted and had "successful" rehab? That would be interesting to know. L. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ... TimBob wrote: In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU Cecil Moore wrote: Dave wrote: C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know CW. Does that mean we're virtually obsolete? My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never going to save the world. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp If I recall correctly the IDF officer said the US was communicating in "old fashioned morse code". Dave N I once seen a copy of the "code" used by other countries. There were "some" - if not many differences. I also seen a copy of "supposedly" the old west code - used .......... Man, what a difference - IF ALL WERE TRUE - that is........ I'm only reporting what I seen, can't say for sure if true or not. It was interesting to say the least. Maybe - and I"m going on a limb here to guess - the "differences" in the other countries code - was short hand much like our Q signals. L. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On 6 Aug 2006 00:54:48 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: nope handihams has no respect for LD's at all There's a difference between lack of ability and lack of desire. The latter is just plain laziness. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"Ricke" wrote in
oups.com: Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation factor is worth learning code Rick N4NKR And some probably hear it and send back. the CB-Hams, A.K.A. Phonies. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"TimBob" wrote in
oups.com: In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU That movie was hokey. An alien invasion force with thousands of ships in orbit would need to use our satellites to communicate with each other. Yah, right. Sc |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
L. wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ... TimBob wrote: In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU Cecil Moore wrote: Dave wrote: C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know CW. Does that mean we're virtually obsolete? My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never going to save the world. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp If I recall correctly the IDF officer said the US was communicating in "old fashioned morse code". Dave N I once seen a copy of the "code" used by other countries. There were "some" - if not many differences. I also seen a copy of "supposedly" the old west code - used .......... Man, what a difference - IF ALL WERE TRUE - that is........ I'm only reporting what I seen, can't say for sure if true or not. It was interesting to say the least. Maybe - and I"m going on a limb here to guess - the "differences" in the other countries code - was short hand much like our Q signals. L. Morse code as used by Western Union (when they did code) is different from International Morse code as used by radio operators. Not very different but different. DN |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:51:14 -0400, "L." wrote:
I once seen a copy of the "code" used by other countries. There were "some" - if not many differences. Because there are some differences in alphabets. I also seen a copy of "supposedly" the old west code - used .......... Man, what a difference - IF ALL WERE TRUE - that is That's American Morse, as opposed to International Morse, which is used on the air. American Morse is composed of dots, dashes and spaces. (Spaces are parts of the letters, not just the spaces between them.) International Morse uses just dots and dashes - the spaces are just spaces. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Not true. Hams care much more about saving lives than operating appliances. I'm betting a great number of them have their CPR cards, ready for action. Self-cleaning ovens run a sad second place to standing tall at the 911 center. On your other point.. Most hams are men and they generally don't know how to operate any appliance except the refrigerator door, and maybe the microwave oven. A few are versed in toaster operation, I hear. However; they will indeed spend hours installing flashy lights and noisemakers on their cars, as well as spend hours 'standing by' and preparing for the life-saving moment. They'll spend grocery money to purchase a plethora of other "necessary" equipment and "uniforms/ID/look-at-me" items. Be it weather watching, crowd control, parade control, or just control in general, hams are standing by to manage the world, after the "big one".... Hams just like you, Dirk. And for that, I thank you. I can only pray for peace on these hams as they spend their last days brushing the fallen hair from their rigs. Saving countless lives in the aftermath, diligently tapping away; giving needed instruction to all the elderly survivors crowded around their homemade QRP battery operated rigs..... Oh, and lest we not forget the generator owners crowded around their swans, drakes and 101e's... burning precious fuel to strain an ear for the faint but all-knowing dit-dah that will be their salvation. I'd bet with a 100w rig pushing a 600-1Kw amp [and a break in the fallout], they could work weak signal maybe 10-20 miles through the new noise floor. As for me, I'll be listening too, voice, morse and digital. Coz by that time, the only appliance I'll be operating is that new one-button rig from GLOCK. .....and I love ham. LOL... btw, trolls suck. "Dirk" wrote in message ... Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. :-( |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote: Al Klein wrote: On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote: 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 ... There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX, Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc. There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat), packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize a few answers to "pass" it. You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc, then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid. However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So there need be no exam for Morse Code, either. 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. That is not true. Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing to be turned from CW to modern modes. That is not true. You wish to change the written exams, not add practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc. Those who want CW dropped just want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without really being tested on anything. So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that? Actually knowing anything is so old fashioned, isn't it? Not at all. 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. You're referring to the Conditional license, right? No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test of memory. Sounds like the Conditional License to me. Just by guessing at the answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics. You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3? I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a test of knowing what's in a radio. Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal. You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly. 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. You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until you remember. Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge. What if you forgot your band edges? The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard. Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was to draw them. And I can draw them any time. Then do so. Quit complaining to me that you can't remember what it was that you were supposed to draw. They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago. So let's have them on the test. But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it necessary for other modes? If all radio is merely plug and play, why do the services still have radio schools (that aren't teaching Morse Code)? Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and pick them out on the test. Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole argument! 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. No you didn't. Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did. There has never been a practical test to show that you could operate a radio. Ever. All you have to do now is memorize a few answers. That's all you had to do then. I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military. I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce power once. But you had to learn how to use the radios. I did? Hams today don't - they memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn. Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed. That's exactly what he's talking 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. How does one acquire skill by playing radio? We self-train. You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want to get on the air. Period. W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted to get on the air. Period. It is a continuous process of improvements. You mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator" is 100%. And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings. Lots of OFs on there who should know better. That's why I hold the opinions that I hold. Your generation doesn't have a lock on decency, respect, or apatite for knowledge. Far from it. But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators" if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic? I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this be? They were trained. Not in Morse Code. If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc. 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. Please diagram that radio from "Scratch." Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection? I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could. What is/was your profession? Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a test should actually test for something. There are actually millions of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing in the world. Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant gratification, take your time. Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of "gratification". What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries? You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing. But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to get on the air. Correct. And no one has a right to force their favorite mode on everyone else. Your days of doing so are numbered. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Cecil Moore wrote: Al Klein wrote: Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge. Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize the individual characters? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp We aren't made to memorize every value of resistor and capacitor, or every offset for the six meter repeater subband. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
clfe wrote: "clfe" wrote in message ... "Cecil Moore" wrote in message . .. K4YZ wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize the individual characters? Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the test. You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp In some cases, it "could" be said that hairs are being split. To have "knowledge" of the code - could mean basically - you know it exists and why it is used. To "know" the Morse Code, usually refers to KNOWING the characters sufficiently to use them at whatever speed it is you can. On the other hand, someone who isn't involved could say - that a Ham operator is "knowledgable" in the code. Heck, to someone not IN Ham radio - they could easily assume a NO CODE tech - KNOWS code. Just to clarify my point - many "assume" a Ham Operator - regardless the license - KNOWS code. So, if a "No Code" tech simply says "I"M A HAM OPERATOR" to someone not knowing the license class structure, the "assumption is made. AND unless that NC tech clarifies it, the unsuspecting person will go on in ignorance "assuming" ALL hams "know" code. Morse Code (per my recollection) has always been and most likely - even if only in history books - always will be known and associated with HAM RADIO. Heaven forbid that someone assumes that a lowly, unwashed Technician know the CODE. lou Many "assume" that an Old Timer knows more than they actually know. Most Old Timers are guilty of this kind of thinking. Furthermore, many "assume" that newcomers to the hobby know little or nothing, and have no desire to learn. Most Old Timers are guilty of this klind of thinking. |
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?
|
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?
From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 9 2006 9:24 pm Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy, rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote: You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc, then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid. However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So there need be no exam for Morse Code, either. That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than the ability to memorize answers. 1. The FCC does NOT generate the questions on any amateur radio license test. The VEC Question Pool Committee does. By LAW the VEC QPC is composed of radio amateurs. 2. The FCC does NOT mandate the maximum number of questions on any amateur radio license exam written test. The FCC specifies only the MINIMUM number of questions. The VEC QPC can generate as many questions as it cares to. 3. At some point a LARGE number of questions could defeat even the most eidetic of humans, thereby destroying your rant of "it isn't a real test because all can memorize the questions-answers." So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that? It's a lot more. The question isn't what ham radio is, it's whether one should be required to pass a realistic test to get a license. "Realistic test" = Collitch-level BS to make one a 1930's radio expert? :-) Define "realistic test" remembering that ALL the VEs are also VOLUNTEER radio amateurs. I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a test of knowing what's in a radio. Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal. What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a test. Oh, my, are you taking on the ENTIRE Academic Community now? Last college-level course test I had required MEMORIZING and WRITING THEM DOWN! Damn, all that work leading up to it and it wasn't a "real" test! You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly. I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a second. [getting Donald Trump wig] "You're fired!" :-) So, Al, what did you get for a license? A BS-HAM? Define "real test," show your work. What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest tactics are transparent. WHAT "dishonest tactics," olde-tymer? You've gotten rather self-righteous about "real" without giving any real answers as to what defines "real." You got stomped on, par for the newsgroup course. If you don't like disagreements over your disagreeability, try another venue. Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests. You WERE COMPLAINING...all about "today's tests are not 'real'". Self-righteousness is readily transparent... But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it necessary for other modes? Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The bands would be pretty QRM-free. You did NOT answer Brian's question. Does self-righteousness negate having to answer questions? So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on 14 MHz"? That kind of relevance? Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the example" kind of relevance? Now you are putting words in Brian's mouth. Tsk, tsk. Explain how the VEs will love and embrace your collitch-level AMATEUR radio license exam, needing hours per test applicant. In case you hadn't been up to speed, the FCC does NOT normally do any testing of either Commercial or amateur radio licenses. That's been privatized. If you wish to change AWAY from privatized testing, you have ready access to the Proposal method with the FCC. They explain the whole process. All you have to do now is memorize a few answers. That's all you had to do then. How do you draw a schematic and explain the functions of parts by memorizing answers? You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k" or "coil". Gosh, olde-tymer, did the ham exams of a half century ago get into vectors and phases? I had none of that in my First 'Phone exam. I missed a collitch-final kind of exam? :-) I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military. I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce power once. But you had to learn how to use the radios. I did? They just gave you a radio and said "use it"? Soldiers and Airmen weren't "given" radios. They were ISSUED them. A half century ago you had damn well take CARE of them or you HAD to pay for them! By the way, the FCC does NOT regulate federal government radio use...the NTIA does that, for both federal folks and military personnel use. I can give you a brief summation of the "instruction" in using an AN/PRC-6 HT: About 10 minutes, word of mouth and hands-on "training." A VHF radio transceiver, it wasn't designed for AMATEUR radio activities. It couldn't be...didn't have any place to plug in a code key. :-) I can easily remember the "training" on lots of other real radios in the military plus a few more as a civilian working on DoD contract projects. The AN/PRC-119 took a lot longer, especially for the Hopset entry. [I had to learn it from its big TM] You familiar with the PRC-119? A quarter-million of them have been built. All the military branches have them. When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a published answer pool. Sunnuvagun! In 1956 one of the four parts I successfully completed was MULTIPLE-CHOICE! How about that? :-) But that was at an FCC Field Office. 80 miles away in Chicago. No "conditionals" for Commercials then, senior. "Privatized testing" would be a laughable subject in '56. :-) I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this be? They were trained. Not in Morse Code. You must be sitting on oil. Can't you stick to a topic long enough to be coherent? You were discussing how someone can be efficient at voice commo, not in Morse. I have no problem with understanding Brian...and I HAVE been around radio communication for a rather long time. Try asking me about "efficiency" or "throughput" on any mode, any radio service. Can you explain where all the other radio services got their "training" in radio use? If any at all, that is. You can't find any other radio service users who get NO "training" whatsoever nor need anything but an equipment license to use it? [I'm not talking about CB] If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc. I have no problem with that. I daresay a whole bunch of VEs would argue with you after spending HOURS separately with each test applicant for one of those "realistic test" ideas of yours. I'm advocating real testing for whatever mode. Right now the only test is "do you have the fee, can you get to the testing place, and have you memorized enough answers to pass". Let's have a test that shows whether the testee knows anything. CW, APRS, AX25, PSK - all of it. Or separate the licenses. You want to operate FM, you take a test on FM and, if you pass, you get an FM license. Want to operate SSB, you take a different test. Not "want to get on the air? memorize some answers and pay your fee". Tsk, tsk. Plan out a "real test" and then get an estimation of the TIME it would take for each VE and each license applicant. Remember that US amateur radio licensing is now an ALL-VOLUNTEER process. Just WHO are you expecting to PAY for all the equipment necessary to do your "real testing" on ALL modes now allocated to US radio amateurs? Government? VEs? Who will be responsible for their maintenance? [this group has ALREADY beaten that subject to death in here] You will have to Petition the FCC for a drastic change in the number of "endorsements" to the various parts and classes. You will have to get in touch with the VEC QPC to change the number of written test questions. I don't think you will do anything, just sit in here and blow off steam like the usual self-righteous Olde-Tymer. Geez. US amateur radio is "working DX on HF with CW." Know CW and you don't need any theory or other BS. Ipso facto. [or something fancy in Latin to show 'book-larnen'...:-) ] |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the location. On the contrary, the Conditional was the General Class license given away from an FCC office. At the time I got mine, the distance from an FCC office was set at 75 miles. Quoting the 1957 ARRL License Manual: "The Conditional Class license conveys privileges identical to those of the General Class ..." which incidentally at the time, was all amateur frequency operating privileges. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
Most of those are the assumptions of newcomers about the assumptions of old timers. Most old timers don't make that assumption. We've been around long enough to have seen different. But apparently not long enough to know what the Conditional Class license was all about. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:20:56 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Al Klein wrote: Most of those are the assumptions of newcomers about the assumptions of old timers. Most old timers don't make that assumption. We've been around long enough to have seen different. But apparently not long enough to know what the Conditional Class license was all about. So enlighten me. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Al Klein wrote: Most of those are the assumptions of newcomers about the assumptions of old timers. Most old timers don't make that assumption. We've been around long enough to have seen different. But apparently not long enough to know what the Conditional Class license was all about. So enlighten me. Isn't the quote from the 1957 ARRL License Manual sufficient? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
not THIS again
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
jawod wrote: not THIS again at least it is one topic |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Radio Buff wrote:
"TimBob" wrote in oups.com: In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU That movie was hokey. An alien invasion force with thousands of ships in orbit would need to use our satellites to communicate with each other. Yah, right. Sc There was only one ship in orbit in "Independence Day", the mother ship. All of the other ships that detached from the mother ship, the daughter ships, so to speak, were all within the Earth's atmosphere. That is why the satellites were necessary to overcome the line-of-sight problem between the mother ship and the daughter ships on the opposite side of the planet. Bobby KC9IHK |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Robert Sherrod wrote: Radio Buff wrote: "TimBob" wrote in There was only one ship in orbit in "Independence Day", the mother ship. All of the other ships that detached from the mother ship, the daughter ships, so to speak, were all within the Earth's atmosphere. That is why the satellites were necessary to overcome the line-of-sight problem between the mother ship and the daughter ships on the opposite side of the planet. earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect and in centuries these folks never developded the tech to mach WWV (the time station?) it was nice movie even I as deadicated a Nododer as they come enjoyed the ending Bobby KC9IHK |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Robert Sherrod wrote in
news:6xOCg.84281$FQ1.57123@attbi_s71: Radio Buff wrote: "TimBob" wrote in oups.com: In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true! Tim N7XAU That movie was hokey. An alien invasion force with thousands of ships in orbit would need to use our satellites to communicate with each other. Yah, right. Sc There was only one ship in orbit in "Independence Day", the mother ship. All of the other ships that detached from the mother ship, the daughter ships, so to speak, were all within the Earth's atmosphere. That is why the satellites were necessary to overcome the line-of-sight problem between the mother ship and the daughter ships on the opposite side of the planet. Bobby KC9IHK It was still Hokey. The aliens could do everything but provide their own communications globally. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Slow Code wrote:
It was still Hokey. The aliens could do everything but provide their own communications globally. They also couldn't provide a decent firewall for their computers. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:35:46 GMT, Robert Sherrod
wrote: There was only one ship in orbit in "Independence Day", the mother ship. All of the other ships that detached from the mother ship, the daughter ships, so to speak, were all within the Earth's atmosphere. That is why the satellites were necessary to overcome the line-of-sight problem between the mother ship and the daughter ships on the opposite side of the planet. Some invaders. They couldn't invade a race that hadn't progressed to the satellite stage yet. Suspension of disbelief aside, it was a pretty good movie. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect Is that a statement or a question? |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:31:26 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Slow Code wrote: It was still Hokey. The aliens could do everything but provide their own communications globally. They also couldn't provide a decent firewall for their computers. Or a force field that could contain an atomic bomb. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect Is that a statement or a question? yes it is a stament and yes it is a question happy now kleinmind |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 9 Aug 2006 19:18:06 -0700, wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Al Klein wrote: Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge. Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize the individual characters? We aren't made to memorize every value of resistor and capacitor, or every offset for the six meter repeater subband. And anyone copying CW character by character is never going to get any further than someone talking letter by letter. Those who don't understand it denigrate it. You denigrate the resistor code. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote: You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc, then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid. However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So there need be no exam for Morse Code, either. That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than the ability to memorize answers. Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift... That is not true. You wish to change the written exams, not add practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc. Add SSB, FM, etc., to the nothing there is today. Ummm? There's no Morse Code test anymore? So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that? It's a lot more. Prove it. Show me the exams for all the other modes. The question isn't what ham radio is, it's whether one should be required to pass a realistic test to get a license. Yes!!! A realistic test. No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test of memory. Sounds like the Conditional License to me. The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the location. Had everything to do with authenticity. You're asking for "real" exams, right? I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a test of knowing what's in a radio. Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal. What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a test. So what is it that you fear? You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly. I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a second. Mmmm. I see. You are a careerist in the electronics industry and it ****es you off that hobbyists have equal "status" as you in amatuer radio. I've run across a lot of that in the past 20 years... 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. You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until you remember. Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge. What if you forgot your band edges? What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest tactics are transparent. You're the one that forgot the circuit, not me. Get ****ed at your own self. The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard. Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was to draw them. And I can draw them any time. Then do so. Quit complaining to me that you can't remember what it was that you were supposed to draw. Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests. Correct. "WE" weren't discussing it. YOU were. YOU were discussing how you can't draw what you can't remember. They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago. So let's have them on the test. But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it necessary for other modes? Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The bands would be pretty QRM-free. YES!!! If you are ever going to save your beloved Morse Code test, this is the only way you're going to do it. If all radio is merely plug and play, why do the services still have radio schools That's my point, not yours. No. It's MY point. Or don't you understand what you just said? I think it is you who don't know where you're going with this discussion. It's gone beyond your having grief over your favorite mode to actually having to think about the future of the service. Conggrats. Another couple of years of RRAP tutoring and you just might become a rational being. Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and pick them out on the test. Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole argument! So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on 14 MHz"? That kind of relevance? Sure. But you have to ask yourself one question. Can the average VE administer such an exam? If not, can your average GS-7 FCC employee administer such an exam? If you set up an exam that only an engineer can administer, then your government isn't going to accept it. So be realistic in your zeal. Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the example" kind of relevance? The exam can be anything your VEC wants it to be. We learned this when the ARRL went from administering a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM to administering a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM. But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally. No you didn't. Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did. There has never been a practical test to show that you could operate a radio. Ever. Do you understand what the word "theory" means? You got me there. And today's exams still provide that "theory" though they don't prepare you to actually operate a radio - never did. All you have to do now is memorize a few answers. That's all you had to do then. How do you draw a schematic Memorization. and explain the functions of parts by memorizing answers? Memorization. You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k" or "coil". You can't memorize the def of phase shift? C'mon, aren't you supposed to be in the industry? I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military. I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce power once. But you had to learn how to use the radios. I did? They just gave you a radio and said "use it"? On/Off and PTT. What else is there??? Oh, yeh, a magnetic compass and a chart where the satellite is. Hams today don't - they memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn. Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed. When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a published answer pool. Yes, you had to memorize paragraphs instead of multiple choices. Big deal. You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want to get on the air. Period. W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted to get on the air. Period. Point? All you wonderful OF's taking trips down memory lane forget that some of your brother hams were bootleggers. It's only the unwashed No-code Techs that operate illegally. Hi!!! What a stinking load. And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings. Lots of OFs on there who should know better. That's why I hold the opinions that I hold. Your generation doesn't have a lock on decency, respect, or apatite for knowledge. Far from it. Very few of "my" generation there. Explain. I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this be? They were trained. Not in Morse Code. You must be sitting on oil. Can't you stick to a topic long enough to be coherent? You were discussing how someone can be efficient at voice commo, not in Morse. Effective. If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc. I have no problem with that. Then go for it. It is the ONLY legitimate recourse you have for retaining the Morse Code exam. Best of luck. 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. Please diagram that radio from "Scratch." Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection? I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could. What is/was your profession? Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive. Are you drawing a pension from it? "Was." Are you drawing a paycheck from it? "Is." And it's so typical for Old Timers to forget that not everyone in the ARS are CAREERIST PROFESSIONALS. Bitching and Moaning about how everyone else doesn't know as much as them. What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries? You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing. But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to get on the air. Correct. And no one has a right to force their favorite mode on everyone else. I'm advocating real testing for whatever mode. Finally!!! I hope you won't hold it against me for badgering you into such a position. Right now the only test is "do you have the fee, can you get to the testing place, and have you memorized enough answers to pass". Welp, other than "can you get to the FCC office" things sure haven't changed much in 50 plus years. Let's have a test that shows whether the testee knows anything. Remember that you are handsomely compensated for your professional knowledge. Amateur Radio is a non-compensated hobby. CW, APRS, AX25, PSK - all of it. Or separate the licenses. You want to operate FM, you take a test on FM and, if you pass, you get an FM license. Endorsement. Remember - your VE has to be smart enough to administer the exam. Want to operate SSB, you take a different test. Not "want to get on the air? memorize some answers and pay your fee". And get a vanity license plate. You are awesome. You're finally catching on. Who say an old dog can't learn new tricks? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com