FCC to Drop HF Code Requirement
 

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

As an electrical engineer who has tinkered with electronics for 40 years, I
never found time to practice & learn code. It was obsolete even back then.
If they drop the code requirement, I'll get a ham license and talk as well
as listen.
Zoram

"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

As a ham radio operator for 40+ years, I agree, but I note that progress has
been made.
Today, not only is Morse code obsolete, but ham radio itself is obsolete!



"Ghost Chip" wrote in message
news:xxT1b.7731$QT5.564@fed1read02...
As an electrical engineer who has tinkered with electronics for 40 years,
I
never found time to practice & learn code. It was obsolete even back
then.
If they drop the code requirement, I'll get a ham license and talk as well
as listen.
Zoram

"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

BFoelsch wrote:
As a ham radio operator for 40+ years, I agree, but I note that progress has
been made.
Today, not only is Morse code obsolete, but ham radio itself is obsolete!



I've only been a ham for 34 years and as far as I'm concerned it was
obsolete then as it pertains to the over-glorified things like a
"reservoir of skilled technicians and communications experts". No
biggie, but its still a great hobby. I can work DXCC on a cellfone in
less than an hour and I get WAC daily via SPAM.
If efficiency of communications was the only issue then hamming would
have died a long time ago.
Oh, did I mention it as hobby? I don't see RC Airplanes being
"obsolete" because we now have Boeing 757s.

-Bill

BFoelsch wrote:
As a ham radio operator for 40+ years, I agree, but I note that progress has
been made.
Today, not only is Morse code obsolete, but ham radio itself is obsolete!



I suppose that for many the internet has replaced ham radio. (I guess
that makes
hackers the equal of CB'ers, except that the hackers have a MUCH higher IQ!)

I hope that many hams will continue to take some pride in their skill with
morse code and continue to use it. In a true emergency, cw will get through
when nothing else will work. You can build a CW transmitter with the
barest pile of junk salvaged from an old radio or TV set. (well maybe not
a MODERN radio or tv set.....). There is even the story of using a GDO as
an emergency CW transmitter. Let's see you try that on SSB, AM, or some
of the new digital modes!

I finally got my extra class ticket after the code requirement went down
to 5wpm
(I had an advanced class licence, so that makes me a 13wpm extra). The
written
test was hard enough, I had to bone up on college level engineering
stuff. Being
a computer EE I never had to mess with smith charts before. The
technical test
will serve as enough of a barier to keep the riffraff out!

David Stinson wrote:

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:



Too little, too late. Ham radio is dead already, after decades of
elitism and insistence on a long-obsolete and inefficient digital
communications protocol. Add the propensity to reduce the hobby to "My
store-bought rig is bigger than your store-bought rig" and the demise of
a once noble endeavor is complete.

The spirit of real amateur radio *does* live on, however. There are
still individuals and groups interested in experimentation,
home-brewing, equality and public service. It's called "Pirate Radio".

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

David Stinson wrote:

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

I'm so old I remember when there were quite a few who could
build their own rig!! From scratch!! Cheers, JLS

Ghost Chip wrote:

As an electrical engineer who has tinkered with electronics for 40 years, I
never found time to practice & learn code. It was obsolete even back then.
If they drop the code requirement, I'll get a ham license and talk as well
as listen.
Zoram



The "Technician" license does not require code, and will let you use all
ham bands
50MHz and higher. You just need to take a fairly simple written test. See:

http://www.w5yi.org/vol-exam.htm to find a test site, and
http://www.qrz.com/ham/index.html for practice exams

David Stinson wrote:

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:


Like you were born knowing everything.

Behold, Fred Nachbaur signaled from keyed 4-1000A filament:



David Stinson wrote:

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:



Too little, too late. Ham radio is dead already, after decades of
elitism and insistence on a long-obsolete and inefficient digital
communications protocol.

Aye.

Years ago when I was a HAM, I was interested in 6M AM and SSB. I was
shamed by others saying "it's FM or nothing there" and being told "we
won't communicate with you" for being such a "renegade".

--
Gregg
*Perhaps it's useful, even if it can't be SPICE'd*
Visit the GeeK Zone - http://geek.scorpiorising.ca

Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,
HiFi, home theatre, antique radios, and ham radio. I am planning on
getting a license, but I thought that code was needed for a technicians
class. I thought wrong, but still plan on learning it. It is interesting
to me, kinda like be interested in a new language. Also, never know when
it may come in handy. Maybe ID4("Independence Day", the movie) has
predicted some future use for it. Just kidding, but anymore, who knows?
There may be life out there, somewhere.

Anyways, to get back on track, I have a reprint of the Radio Handbook,
23rd Edition, by the late Bill Orr W6SAI. There is a schematic for a
simple code practice oscillator that I am going to build. Sure there are
some that can be bought, but how fun is that. I enjoy getting in there
and dealing with all of the hardware. I do my own car repairs, and it is
a 1998 Chrysler Sebring. Electronics galore in that monster. One of
these days, hopefully sooner than later, I may just be conversing with
one of the hams who regular this NG. Cheaper than a long distance phone
call, at least if you don't consider the cost of the equipment.

Gotta go,

Bobby

Robert Casey wrote:
David Stinson wrote:

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:


Like you were born knowing everything.

"scharkalvin" wrote in message
...
BFoelsch wrote:
As a ham radio operator for 40+ years, I agree, but I note that progress
has
been made.
Today, not only is Morse code obsolete, but ham radio itself is
obsolete!



I suppose that for many the internet has replaced ham radio. (I guess
that makes
hackers the equal of CB'ers, except that the hackers have a MUCH higher
IQ!)

I hope that many hams will continue to take some pride in their skill with
morse code and continue to use it. In a true emergency, cw will get
through
when nothing else will work. You can build a CW transmitter with the
barest pile of junk salvaged from an old radio or TV set. (well maybe not
a MODERN radio or tv set.....). There is even the story of using a GDO as
an emergency CW transmitter. Let's see you try that on SSB, AM, or some
of the new digital modes!

I finally got my extra class ticket after the code requirement went down
to 5wpm
(I had an advanced class licence, so that makes me a 13wpm extra). The
written
test was hard enough, I had to bone up on college level engineering
stuff. Being
a computer EE I never had to mess with smith charts before. The
technical test
will serve as enough of a barier to keep the riffraff out!



Give em enough time, the whiners will cry to have that simplified too. This
nation is dumbing down, and they wonder why! C.L.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:22:00 -0400, scharkalvin
wrote:

an emergency CW transmitter. Let's see you try that on SSB, AM, or some
of the new digital modes!


I'll horserace you on CW from my PSK31 station any time you like. The
computer copies PSK31 perfectly RIGHT INTO THE NOISE so far you can't
hear the station its typing perfectly......

The CW is better myth is history.....



Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:10:15 GMT, Bobby
wrote:

Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,
HiFi, home theatre, antique radios, and ham radio. I am planning on
getting a license, but I thought that code was needed for a technicians
class. I thought wrong, but still plan on learning it. It is interesting

Way to go, Bobby! Why'd you wait so long? Got my ham license in
1957. I was 11...(c; You are the future of ham radio, its only hope.
Thanks for keeping my favorite hobby alive!

I've helped hundreds of young people get their licenses over the
years. My record was a boy who was 7 when he got his Novice license
and just stole my $20 bet when he was 10 that he couldn't get his
20wpm code and Extra license before he became a teenager. Sure glad I
lost that bet...(c;

ARRL old fogeys will just have to LIVE WITH IT!

Our ham club used to sit in 2 camps....the old farts like me and the
new hams like you. I stood up in a meeting in the middle of a heated
argument and said, "It's time us old farts learned to lay back and
relax and let the new hams run the train's throttle.....and run with
it." The club's been a lot more fun since that happened. They set up
the Field Day and us old farts just go out and play with the new
toys....(c;

73, and welcome to ham radio! It's been a helluva great ride for
me....
Larry W4CharlestonSC
on HF SSB today from Her Majesty's sailing vessel "Claire's Navie" on
its new Icom M802 later on this afternoon.....workin' DX on 20M I
hope...



Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.

Waaa Waaaa!
I'm way too smart, and way too busy to learn an antique communication mode.
I already have the question pool, so why not cut to the chase and just give
me my
license...10-4??


"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

I used to subscribe to that theory, but no more. There was a time when CW
was the best mode for weak signal work, but as of my last experience (1990
or so) AMTOR had it beat hands down. I hear that AMTOR has since been
replaced with yet more efficient digital modes. Too, the stuff about being
able to put together a CW transmitter is kind of pointless; to wit, what
kind of emergency would find you with nothing except a GDO and power to run
it? It is much more likely today that one would have some kind of rig and
access to a charged car battery.

I fully understand the emotion and the heritage of the argument, but if you
strip out the emotion and the heritage stuff, cw doesn't really have much of
a leg to stand on.

Oh, there will be the odd story about tapping out SOS on one's brake lights,
but aside from that.............................................. ..



"scharkalvin" wrote in message
...
BFoelsch wrote:
As a ham radio operator for 40+ years, I agree, but I note that progress
has
been made.
Today, not only is Morse code obsolete, but ham radio itself is
obsolete!



I suppose that for many the internet has replaced ham radio. (I guess
that makes
hackers the equal of CB'ers, except that the hackers have a MUCH higher
IQ!)

I hope that many hams will continue to take some pride in their skill with
morse code and continue to use it. In a true emergency, cw will get
through
when nothing else will work. You can build a CW transmitter with the
barest pile of junk salvaged from an old radio or TV set. (well maybe not
a MODERN radio or tv set.....). There is even the story of using a GDO as
an emergency CW transmitter. Let's see you try that on SSB, AM, or some
of the new digital modes!

I finally got my extra class ticket after the code requirement went down
to 5wpm
(I had an advanced class licence, so that makes me a 13wpm extra). The
written
test was hard enough, I had to bone up on college level engineering
stuff. Being
a computer EE I never had to mess with smith charts before. The
technical test
will serve as enough of a barier to keep the riffraff out!

I used to subscribe to that theory, but no more. There was a time when CW
was the best mode for weak signal work, but as of my last experience (1990
or so) AMTOR had it beat hands down. I hear that AMTOR has since been
replaced with yet more efficient digital modes.

Sure, if you hoard a few kHz of your bandwidth for your
mode, you're certain to have better data transfer integrity.
The U.S. military has some real bandwidth hogging modes
they use. You're comparing apples-n-oranges to compare
CW to even AMTOR. You should realize that! Are you
trying to support your feeble point of view through deliberate
misrepresentation or are you really this ignorant of radio
emission and spectrum occupation? If it's the latter, I hope
you're no longer licensed or on the air.

Bobby wrote:

Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,
HiFi, home theatre, antique radios, and ham radio. I am planning on
getting a license, but I thought that code was needed for a technicians
class. I thought wrong, but still plan on learning it. It is interesting
to me, kinda like be interested in a new language. Also, never know when
it may come in handy. Maybe ID4("Independence Day", the movie) has
predicted some future use for it. Just kidding, but anymore, who knows?
There may be life out there, somewhere.

Anyways, to get back on track, I have a reprint of the Radio Handbook,
23rd Edition, by the late Bill Orr W6SAI. There is a schematic for a
simple code practice oscillator that I am going to build. Sure there are
some that can be bought, but how fun is that. I enjoy getting in there
and dealing with all of the hardware. I do my own car repairs, and it is
a 1998 Chrysler Sebring. Electronics galore in that monster. One of
these days, hopefully sooner than later, I may just be conversing with
one of the hams who regular this NG. Cheaper than a long distance phone
call, at least if you don't consider the cost of the equipment.

Gotta go,

Bobby

Welcome to the hobby. I am 75 years and been a ham since about 1958 ( I
think)
I have built my own transmitters but never built a serious receiver. (good
ones were
to easy to buy). I have an advanced class licence but have used code only
when
needed. My last CW contact was two weeks ago when the signal on 10,368.200
GHz
was too week to be side band quality. I had to work at that CW contact but I
made it.
That 10 GHz transverter was made from surplus commercial parts with a couple
of
home made interface boards.

Ham radio can be interesting, fun and educational. And yes, CW can be
useful.

Bill K7NOM

Larry W4CSC wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:22:00 -0400, scharkalvin
wrote:


an emergency CW transmitter. Let's see you try that on SSB, AM, or some
of the new digital modes!



I'll horserace you on CW from my PSK31 station any time you like. The
computer copies PSK31 perfectly RIGHT INTO THE NOISE so far you can't
hear the station its typing perfectly......

The CW is better myth is history.....

I've heard some very good things about PSK31, and I'd like to try it. I
need
to build myself an interface for my computer sound card to my rig.

But good as it is, PSK31 still requires a computer and more rig than a
simple CW setup. CW works it's magic using that gray lump between your
ears and the simplest of transmitting and receiving electronics. You'll
never
get PSK31 to work with a one tube rig and no computer.

Fred Nachbaur wrote:


David Stinson wrote:

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:



Too little, too late. Ham radio is dead already, after decades of
elitism and insistence on a long-obsolete and inefficient digital
communications protocol. Add the propensity to reduce the hobby to "My
store-bought rig is bigger than your store-bought rig" and the demise of
a once noble endeavor is complete.

The spirit of real amateur radio *does* live on, however. There are
still individuals and groups interested in experimentation,
home-brewing, equality and public service. It's called "Pirate Radio".

Cheers,
Fred

I'm studying for my HAM licence right now. It would of help during the
North America power outage.

It was really nice to see a ton of people operating handhelds during the
power outage without a licence.

Dwaine.

David Stinson wrote:
Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

All HAM related skills came into play during the power outage. People
laughed at me when I study for the exam. During the power outage, when
the computers did not power on when the button was pressed. We used
handheld to communicate between the head office and regional offices.

cw came into play for a short period of time.

Dwaine.

Bobby wrote:
Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,

I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Dwaine.

Dwaine Garden ) writes:
Bobby wrote:
Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,

I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Dwaine.

I doubt it. It wasn't hard when I took the test back in 1972, at age
12. When the restructuring in Canada took place in 1990, the rules changed
so you couldn't build and use a transmitter unless you passed the advanced
test. Surely that has made the basic test simpler, since there is no
expectation that someone taking that license has to ensure homemade equipment
works.

Aren't there sample questions around? Check the Radio Amateur's of Canada
website at http://www.rac.ca and if they don't have them there, there
must be a link to a site that does have them.

Michael VE2BVW

I believe it would be really interesting to have a HAM that got his
license back in the 50's, 60's or even 70's take a new test but not
given anytime to study.(like a spot test at a Hamfest with.) Any guess
as to how many would pass? My guess is under 25%. Most Ham don't have
a clue how there equipment works and even less of a glue about Math.
Most that pass would be working electronic engineers and even a per cent
of them would fail. I believe more would pass a CW test at 10 WPM than
a theory and regulation test.

Ron WA0KDS




Michael Black wrote:

Dwaine Garden ) writes:


Bobby wrote:


Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,


I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Dwaine.



I doubt it. It wasn't hard when I took the test back in 1972, at age
12. When the restructuring in Canada took place in 1990, the rules changed
so you couldn't build and use a transmitter unless you passed the advanced
test. Surely that has made the basic test simpler, since there is no
expectation that someone taking that license has to ensure homemade equipment
works.

Aren't there sample questions around? Check the Radio Amateur's of Canada
website at http://www.rac.ca and if they don't have them there, there
must be a link to a site that does have them.

Michael VE2BVW

"Bobby" wrote in message
news:bFY1b.241791$uu5.50053@sccrnsc04...
Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,
HiFi, home theatre, antique radios, and ham radio. I am planning on
getting a license, but I thought that code was needed for a technicians
class. I thought wrong, but still plan on learning it. It is interesting
to me, kinda like be interested in a new language. Also, never know when
it may come in handy. Maybe ID4("Independence Day", the movie) has
predicted some future use for it. Just kidding, but anymore, who knows?
There may be life out there, somewhere.

Anyways, to get back on track, I have a reprint of the Radio Handbook,
23rd Edition, by the late Bill Orr W6SAI. There is a schematic for a
simple code practice oscillator that I am going to build. Sure there are
some that can be bought, but how fun is that. I enjoy getting in there
and dealing with all of the hardware. I do my own car repairs, and it is
a 1998 Chrysler Sebring. Electronics galore in that monster. One of
these days, hopefully sooner than later, I may just be conversing with
one of the hams who regular this NG. Cheaper than a long distance phone
call, at least if you don't consider the cost of the equipment.

Gotta go,

Bobby

That's the way to do it Bobby, guys should stop the bitching take the test
(if you want to be a ham bad enough) Think about it...I bitched and moaned
for almost 10 years as a No Code Tech as to why we dont need CW, but I guess
I wanted the General license bad enough, so I learned enough to pass the
exam and now Im on HF, was it so hard? Nope, took me a while to learn but it
was worth every minute spent learning it, hate to say it but its now my
favorite mode.
Why do we have to take the CW exam?
Because its there, it has been from day one and we should respect
that....Period!
Its part of the requirements to become a Ham.

gil

gil wrote:
Why do we have to take the CW exam?
Because its there, it has been from day one and we should respect
that....Period!
Its part of the requirements to become a Ham.

Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?

Ya know, it's funny. I was reading _50 years of the ARRL_ the past
few days. And in in the 50's people were bitching about appliance
operators. Oh, and I might add, the relevancy of morse code. There
was talk about "I wish the ARRL would stop trying to force SSB down
our throats." And a great wailing and gnashing of teeth because
Collins dropped their AM transmitter line. Go figure. I guess part
of the tradition of amateur radio is being a Luddite.

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?

Was that ever part of the test?

All I'm saying is that a lot of the newbies and anti-code guys want to
change the exam to accomodate their wants/needs.

13 wpm was too much, now 5wpm is too much, do away with the code then the
debate will be...why should we learn or know anyting about radio when we can
just go to the store and buy a rig with lots of watts so we can chat with
someone on the other side of the world with no problem? No No wait....lets
give them a telephone call so we can talk without QRM!


Why not just eliminate all exams and rules and regulations?



"Jeffrey D Angus" wrote in message
...


gil wrote:
Why do we have to take the CW exam?
Because its there, it has been from day one and we should respect
that....Period!
Its part of the requirements to become a Ham.

Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?

Ya know, it's funny. I was reading _50 years of the ARRL_ the past
few days. And in in the 50's people were bitching about appliance
operators. Oh, and I might add, the relevancy of morse code. There
was talk about "I wish the ARRL would stop trying to force SSB down
our throats." And a great wailing and gnashing of teeth because
Collins dropped their AM transmitter line. Go figure. I guess part
of the tradition of amateur radio is being a Luddite.

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

gil wrote:
Well, then shouldn't there be testing for knowledge and/or proficiency
of spark and other things that are "part of our heritage"?


Was that ever part of the test?

All I'm saying is that a lot of the newbies and anti-code guys want to
change the exam to accomodate their wants/needs.

13 wpm was too much, now 5wpm is too much, do away with the code then the
debate will be...why should we learn or know anyting about radio when we can
just go to the store and buy a rig with lots of watts so we can chat with
someone on the other side of the world with no problem? No No wait....lets
give them a telephone call so we can talk without QRM!


Why not just eliminate all exams and rules and regulations?

What I'm trying to point out is the relevancy of the testing
requirements. Morse code proficiency isn't relevant any more. It
hasn't been for quite some time. And as you pointed out, spark was
outlawed. So far, that's the ONLY mode that has been outlawed by the
FCC. But the "test for morse code proficiency" people keep acting
like eliminating the code test requirement is the same thing as
outlawing morse code and CW on the amateur bands.

I've made it quite clear a number of times in the past that the testing
requirements should be relevant to current technology, modes of
operation and regulations.

I've also pointed out that morse code has done NOTHING to eliminate the
morons from the amateur radio bands. (Witness the usual nonsense on the
upper ends of 80 and 40 meters. Those are ALL code tested licensees.)

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 97--AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec. 97.1 Basis and purpose.


The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an
amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the
following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service
to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through
rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.


Funny, I don't believe I see ANYTHING in there about it being a hobby,
or heritage. Specifically, tell me how morse code proficiency relates to
paragraph (b)

Jeff
wa6fwi


--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:43:34 -0400, scharkalvin
wrote:

I've heard some very good things about PSK31, and I'd like to try it. I
need
to build myself an interface for my computer sound card to my rig.

Geez, I wish the board builders would stop selling these boards. You
don't need ANY extra equipment to get on PSK31. The radio stays on
USB so you can copy many stations SIMULTANEOUSLY on slightly different
frequencies inside the SSB-width "channel", like 14.070. Plug the
headphone output of the modern HF rig into the LINE IN on the
computer's sound card.

Now, plug the audio output, preferably LINE OUT if your sound card has
it, into the radio's LINE IN if it has one. If not, connect audio
output on the sound card to a 500 ohm thumbwheel pot or whatever you
have handy. Connect the wiper arm to the mic input jack and tweak
around with the pot setting to get the best power level with the MIC
LEVEL on the radio set about 1/2 way open. This keeps the soundcard
from overdriving the rig's sensitive mic input amp.

TURN ON THE VOX! You don't NEED any kind of "switching computer" to
run it! The VOX hears the tone on the mic jack and KEYS THE
TRANSMITTER AS LONG AS THE TONE IS THERE! Who needs an "interface"??
When you switch to receive, the VOX drops. Set the VOX DELAY to ZERO
during PSK31 and it's perfect! The tone controls the
transmitter....(c;

There, I just saved you $50....I like dark English ale....thanks!

But good as it is, PSK31 still requires a computer and more rig than a
simple CW setup. CW works it's magic using that gray lump between your
ears and the simplest of transmitting and receiving electronics. You'll
never
get PSK31 to work with a one tube rig and no computer.

Oh, please......(sigh). If it'll make you feel better, plug a DOS 3.3
machine into an old Drake TR-4 and use its VOX......

I suppose if you wanted to tough it out you could FSK the 78 tube's
Hartley oscillator a tiny bit. PSK31 is very forgiving....and free!



Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.

Wow! You'd probably faint if you saw the moon bounce rig I used to
have! I ran 1500W PEP into 33dB of stacked beams over 3 megawatts
ERP!



On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:24:37 GMT, "SQL Servant"
wrote:

I used to subscribe to that theory, but no more. There was a time when CW
was the best mode for weak signal work, but as of my last experience (1990
or so) AMTOR had it beat hands down. I hear that AMTOR has since been
replaced with yet more efficient digital modes.

Sure, if you hoard a few kHz of your bandwidth for your
mode, you're certain to have better data transfer integrity.
The U.S. military has some real bandwidth hogging modes
they use. You're comparing apples-n-oranges to compare
CW to even AMTOR. You should realize that! Are you
trying to support your feeble point of view through deliberate
misrepresentation or are you really this ignorant of radio
emission and spectrum occupation? If it's the latter, I hope
you're no longer licensed or on the air.





Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.

Way to go, Bill! I used to work for a military microwave contractor.
Some of the engineers were hams, so when they had finally gotten the
168Ghz Gunn oscillators running, we just couldn't help ourselves
making new ham frequency record contacts using the manufacturing
plant's sheet metal roof as a passive repeater. You know how small
10Ghz is....Imagine 168 Ghz, broadband FM.....

Not many on that band, though....(c; We were full duplex, about 800
Mhz split. Great split for low desense! First IF was 146 Mhz. Used
my 2M HT for receiver....



Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.

I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Take a look over at:
http://www.qrz.com/ham/index.html
practice exams there.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Ghost Chip wrote:

As an electrical engineer who has tinkered with electronics for 40 years,
I
never found time to practice & learn code. It was obsolete even back
then.
If they drop the code requirement, I'll get a ham license and talk as
well
as listen.
Zoram



The "Technician" license does not require code, and will let you use all
ham bands
50MHz and higher. You just need to take a fairly simple written test.
See:

http://www.w5yi.org/vol-exam.htm to find a test site, and
http://www.qrz.com/ham/index.html for practice exams


You're correct. I have been able to fly through the practice exams for
years but never wanted to learn the telegraph code.

"john stewart" wrote in message
...


David Stinson wrote:

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:

I'm so old I remember when there were quite a few who could
build their own rig!! From scratch!! Cheers, JLS


I built one when I was 14 but talked illegally on it.

Hey, that looks like the Weller Gun I've had for 35 years!
Careful before they outlaw them.

"Ghost Chip" wrote in message
news:fVd2b.7931$QT5.5157@fed1read02...
Hey, that looks like the Weller Gun I've had for 35 years!
Careful before they outlaw them.

At least Carl Weller saw his first prototype Weller soldering gun go to the
Smithsonian before he died. Did you know that the prototype was fashioned
from wood?

GB

Let us welcome the new additions to our ranks:
I'm so old I remember when there were quite a few who could
build their own rig!! From scratch!! Cheers, JLS
I built one when I was 14 but talked illegally on it.

My wife (a non-ham then) never could understand why I built a one-tube
xmtr and a one-tube rcvr (both powered by a one-tube power supply), made
one contact (CW, of course), and then tore the rig apart.

But it was fun, and I needed those parts for the next project.

--Myron, W0PBV.
--
Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge
PhD EE (retired). "Barbershop" tenor. CDL(PTX). W0PBV. (785) 539-4448
NRA Life Member and Certified Instructor (Home Firearm Safety, Rifle, Pistol)

....and what does this masturbatory comment have to do with mode bandwidth?

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
Wow! You'd probably faint if you saw the moon bounce rig I used to
have! I ran 1500W PEP into 33dB of stacked beams over 3 megawatts
ERP!



On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:24:37 GMT, "SQL Servant"
wrote:

I used to subscribe to that theory, but no more. There was a time when
CW
was the best mode for weak signal work, but as of my last experience
(1990
or so) AMTOR had it beat hands down. I hear that AMTOR has since been
replaced with yet more efficient digital modes.

Sure, if you hoard a few kHz of your bandwidth for your
mode, you're certain to have better data transfer integrity.
The U.S. military has some real bandwidth hogging modes
they use. You're comparing apples-n-oranges to compare
CW to even AMTOR. You should realize that! Are you
trying to support your feeble point of view through deliberate
misrepresentation or are you really this ignorant of radio
emission and spectrum occupation? If it's the latter, I hope
you're no longer licensed or on the air.





Larry W4CSC

Maybe we could get the power grid fixed if every politician
regulating the power companies wasn't on their payrolls.

SQL Servant wrote:
....and what does this masturbatory comment have to do with mode bandwidth?

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message

Wow! You'd probably faint if you saw the moon bounce rig I used to
have! I ran 1500W PEP into 33dB of stacked beams over 3 megawatts
ERP!

Isn't it obvious? Lacking a real answer, a little razzle dazzle and
we should just fall in line.

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

Dwaine,

The Canadian amateur exams are probably not as difficult as you may
think. The Radio Amateurs of Canada have an excellent book available
to help you to study for the Basic exam (you can buy one at any
Hamfest, or from the RAC directly at www.rac.ca.) The RAC site can
also help you find an examiner in your area when you're ready to give
the test a try. The Basic exam consists of 100 questions covering
basic electronic theory, radio and antenna theory, radio regulations,
etc. - a pass mark is 60%.

Industry Canada, those happy folks who issue Amaueur licences up here
:), have test test generator software that you can download at:


http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter...f05378e.htmlOn

These questions are presented in the same format that you will see on
your exam. The generator software will put together 100
randomly-selected questions, let you know if your answer was correct
as you answer each question (and indicate the correct answer if you
selected a wrong answer), and score your exam as you go.

You can do it - Go for it!

Phil

Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:20:26 GMT, Dwaine Garden
wrote:

Bobby wrote:
Hello all,

I'm only 22 years old and interested in anything electronic. Computers,

I'm 29 and study. I'm still wondering what the exams will look like.
In Canada, there are really tough, for what people told me.

Dwaine.