CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

There has always been some cheating on tests.


Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. All my study was out
of Engineering classes and ARRL Handbook and License manual for the regs. I
was taught the code from a CW op who officiated my Novice exam. We didn't
proceed until I could do on the air QSOs in front of him on the club
station. And by the way, everyone that I studied and did code practice
with, got ham tickets. Even a Mexican kid who barely spoke English. Those
that bitched and moaned and threw tantrums over it, didn't want to after
all. Glad not to have them.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. But if you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all? If nothing is
100% effective then game is up? No more testing then? They went that route
with CB and they couldn't even give people a litteracy test. I.E. getting
them to sign a paper stating they would abide by the rules. FCC gave up on
it and let it go fallow. The result was dealing dope and scoring hookers in
between hetrodynes, pornographic tirades and general orgies of funny noises,
wailing and knashing of teeth of the damned. The rest were chased from the
band.

Maybe you can think of some test or hoop besides CW to discourage the
people
that act out like morons because they lack self-control.

Sure. A psychology test...

So, essentially a pseudoscientific approach? Ridiculous. Lets keep it all
above board. Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects
that can lead one astray. If my previous post was a psychology test, I
might have failed you.

The whole Psychology idea reminds me of the Russian fake spyware scanner
that pops up and tells you that you're infected and you will have to send
$50 and download the cleaner to fix you up. You the pay the money, install
the program and you're hooked up with endless spyware and adware until you
can't boot up anymore and wipe your hard drive and reinstall Windows. No
Thanks. You should know that answer cuts both ways senior. Even if you're
buying the Psych.

All you have to do is make it difficult for those with short attention spans
and little patience. Then follow up with peer pressure. But you have to
ignore the tantrums and crying jags and reinforce good behavior. Until
parents and governments realize that fact, society will continue to go
fallow. Peer pressure is what happens when people begin imitating one
another. That is how whole groups go nuts. It is how great teams succeed.
It doesn't happen overnight. It is the result of people pushing the
envelope and others tolerating or encouraging it to the point where the
behavior becomes commonplace and acceptable and encouraged. I never spent
any time on Westcars. Glad I never spent time in Nazi Germany either.

We don't have a code test anymore so it is a moot point. It is left to peer
pressure and the skills tests. I will still use Morse Code because it is
useful. It won't be useful if no one knows how to do it. It is even more
useful because other people who use it aren't anything like your 75m phone
Westcars people. This is all the proof I need that it works. But I guess
you don't have that proof, do you?

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

Scott wrote:

Except the Russians. They were still using tube gear in their military
back in the mid 80s. Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic pulse)
from a nuke going off.

I forgot about EMP. And I guess that is a quite valid reason for using
tubes in emergency gear. I do remember that EMP was one of the things
discussed for ham emergency gear.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

Bob wrote:

I also find that it's much easier and cheaper to go
QRO with valves than it is with semiconductors.

Yes tubes are still quite valid in ham amps.

TV sweep tubes powered many of my HF amplifiers over the years!

Remember those sweep tube KW amps? What was it, 6 tubes in parallel?

I think my old Swan 350 (nicknamed Swan 3-drifty for good reason) used
sweep tubes. Kept within specs they lasted a long time but they didn't
seem to take much out of resonance abuse.

And my Heath mono-banders, wasn't that a sweep compactron?

Yes I was a sweep tube fan also...

Believe me, I've tried most of them, [Rice Boxes]

You've tried *most* of hundreds of models and brands? That seems to be
another unsupportable exaggeration.

We also have a lot of QRP operators (mostly
under 1 Watt) that simply won't be heard by those equipped with the Asian
black boxes!

Now you're being funny. Cause you can't be serious, can you...

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
Scott wrote:

Except the Russians. They were still using tube gear in their military
back in the mid 80s. Not susecptible to EMP (electromagnetic pulse)
from a nuke going off.

I forgot about EMP. And I guess that is a quite valid reason for using
tubes in emergency gear. I do remember that EMP was one of the things
discussed for ham emergency gear.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

In Desert Storm they were breaking out KWM-2a to replace radios that were
getting nailed from static in the blowing sand.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"JB" wrote:

There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did.

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. But if you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

We don't have a code test anymore so it is a moot point.

I still have a code test: If you don't know CW we don't QSO.

It won't be useful if no one knows how to do it.

Making people learn code just so you will have someone to talk to is a
bad reason.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

I also find that it's much easier and cheaper to go
QRO with valves than it is with semiconductors.

Yes tubes are still quite valid in ham amps.

TV sweep tubes powered many of my HF amplifiers over the years!

Remember those sweep tube KW amps? What was it, 6 tubes in parallel?

I think my old Swan 350 (nicknamed Swan 3-drifty for good reason) used
sweep tubes. Kept within specs they lasted a long time but they didn't
seem to take much out of resonance abuse.

And my Heath mono-banders, wasn't that a sweep compactron?
Yup

Yes I was a sweep tube fan also...

At one point, sweep tubes were available cheaply at TV shops so the designs
were at the edge of meltdown. It was neat to have a 350w pep radio, but
that was asking way too much. I saw a lot of Swans and others that would
break into oscillation with the least provocation. I knew one guy who was a
regular customer of the Radio Shack Lifetime tubes. Give me a set of
6146s any day. Conservative designs yet economical. I can always follow up
with 811s for more power. Those guys are still cheap and seem to last
forever. If you have to plug it in the wall anyway, might just as well be
tubes.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"JB" wrote:

At one point, sweep tubes were available cheaply at TV shops so the designs
were at the edge of meltdown.

I worked in a TV shop after high school for gas money. Sweep tubes
were very expensive as tubes went in those days. But I got mine and
most of the rest of my ham parts from old discarded TV sets.

Swans and others that would break into oscillation

My Swan was drifty as I said. It was a heat problem with the VFO coil
compartment. The osc was solid state, the only transistor in the whole
rig. I solved it by building an external VFO.

I knew one guy who was a
regular customer of the Radio Shack Lifetime tubes.

In the 50s there was a tube company called Major Brand Tubes. They
were mail order and had a lifetime tube guarantee. Their tubes seldom
lasted more than a month in a TV, and they were good to their word.
Send them the old tube and they sent you a new one free, you paid
postage of course. Well after 5 or so replacements most people finally
gave up. A real racket.

Give me a set of 6146s any day.

I built a single tube 6146 transmitter. I used a voltage quadrupler
direct from the 110V for the high voltage (no HV transformer needed).
It was a simple high powered xtal controlled oscillator. I used it as
a Novice. I don't remember the exact power input now, but it was
probably around 50 watts. I just had to be careful which way I plugged
it in the wall socket. Wrong way and fireworks...

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

AJ Lake wrote:

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP

No it doesn't and never has. The Russian plans for preemptive strikes
included high air bursts over major centres of population to cripple
communications. The Soviets /knew/ that the USA was entirely vulnerable to
EMP, and still is.

Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Yes. We Brits have military communications equipment to deal with EMP -
it's /all/ valve based. Trying to protect semiconductor gear against EMP
is like trying to protect telephone equipment against lightning - entirely
futile!

Bob

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

AJ Lake wrote:

Believe me, I've tried most of them, [Rice Boxes]

You've tried *most* of hundreds of models and brands? That seems to be
another unsupportable exaggeration.

Not at all - I used to examine equipment for a well-respected ham magazine.
Most of the Asian gear is junk.

We also have a lot of QRP operators (mostly
under 1 Watt) that simply won't be heard by those equipped with the Asian
black boxes!

Now you're being funny. Cause you can't be serious, can you...

Funnily enough, I worked a Canadian last night on 14 MHz, with each of us
using less than 5 Watts. His signal was entirely inaudible on the
extremely expensive Rice Box I've just repaired for a friend, but was
clearly audible despite fierce adjacent Italian QRM on my hybrid RX (and on
the Plessey).

C.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 23, 1:53�am, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
Consider all the testing that doctors and lawyers go through to get
their licenses. Yet there are still some doctors and lawyers who are
"bad apples".

Exactly. Passing a license test does not prevent bad behavior.

Not exactly. Passing a license test does not prevent *ALL* bad
behavior. Just because a test isn't perfect doesn't mean it has no
effect.

Most of all, note that the bad behavior you cite was all on voice, not
CW/Morse Code. The bad apples may have passed a code test at one time
or another, but they weren't *using* the mode!

Exactly. Passing a code test does not prevent bad behavior.

Not exactly. Passing a code test does not prevent *ALL* bad behavior.
Just because a test isn't perfect doesn't mean it has no effect.

The exam procedure varied over time, and by the mid-1950s the person
giving both code and written tests had to be an FCC licensed amateur
or commercial operator. But it was all on the honor system.

Mid 1960s, not mid 1950s.

The following could give the mail order code test:
An Extra, Advanced, or General Class licensee, or
a Commercial Radiotelegraph Operators licensee, or
a Government employee of a manually operated radio telegraph station.

Yep.

And as I said before *any* adult (at least 21 then) licensed or not
could give the written exam.

And the person had only to sign the form saying the test had been on
the up-and-up.

What Bash did was to ask people leaving the exam sessions to recall
whatever they could about the questions.

Another piece of history I lived. I used Bash for my Advanced.

Why? The Advanced wasn't very hard.

Then budget cuts in the early 1980s forced FCC to
create the VE system, and the Q&A became public.
Which put Bash out of business.

Interesting how what was called cheating then is now a legit exam...

Been that way for more than 25 years. Complain to FCC; *they* changed
it.

Now, why were hams so well-behaved compared to cbers,

Because the hams had to ID?

CBers had to ID too. They had licenses, callsigns and everything.
Didn't stop them from misbehaving. Shall we eliminate callsigns and
licenses because they don't prevent all bad behavior?

If people know who you are many act
better. And if they didn't ID no one would talk to them.

Why didn't cbers do the same thing?

�Some did
bootleg though with false calls. I'll admit to bootlegging on CW
before my Novice ticket came.

Why? Couldn't you wait?

My buddies name was Kent, so I used
K7ENT. It wasn't issued yet so no harm no foul...

It was wrong nonetheless.

The way something goes bad is often not by massive changes but a
little here and a little there. That's how cb went downhill - a little
extra power here, a non-ID there, a cussword here, a skip contact
there, and pretty soon playing by the rules was extinct.

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

AJ Lake wrote:
..

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work. I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

When I was still in the USAF, we had our EC-135 and RC-135 aircraft that
still had some tube type radios on at least HF and UHF bands, ie 618-T
and ARC-34...but...they also had modern radios such as the ARC-190 HF
set. I loved the ARC-190 (Collins). It was a nice radio to use and
work on. Still see them installed on at least National Guard KC-135s
when I get aboard at airshows.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

Scott wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:
.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work. I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

I did some work on simulated EMP back in the 80's (when I was wearing a
different engineering hat), and we found that there's /nothing/ that will
protect semiconductor equipment against it.

We used very high voltage discharges (at the City University High Voltage
Lab in London), and we destroyed all sorts of gear! The original plan was
to examine resilience against lightning discharges, but later on the
experiments were expanded to cover EMP. We found that "hollow-state" gear
could withstand quite a lot of abuse and continue to work, whereas the
solid-state equipment would die at the slightest provocation. This
had /very/ serious ramifications for the "defence industry".

I've recently found another application that's best serviced with valves
("tubes" - U.S.). A friend of mine is responsible for the maintenance of a
number or airport NDB units. The ones they had were solid state, and would
quite regularly get fried by static or lightning. Over the last few days
we've begun the design of a valve replacement for the "hot" end of these
things. It's not difficult to get a few tens of Watts at MF with valves!

Bob

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 22, 11:48*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
There are several reasons you don't see much manufactured tube gear,
such as a "modern" version of the TS-520S.
The first reason is cost.

Agreed. Tranceivers of today are generally much less costly (and have
many more features) than the tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

Yes, amateur HF transceivers are generally less expensive to buy new
when you adjust for inflation. But at the same time there is far less
really-inexpensive new gear, and working on it yourself is much more
involved. Plus many "older" SS rigs are difficult to repair because
they used custom parts for which the only source is another rig of the
same model. A ~50 year old tube rig can be easier to fix up than a ~25
year old SS rig for these reasons.

There is also the fact that in many situations it's better to have
good basic performance rather than "features". Many "modern" rigs
include lots of "features" because they are easy and inexpensive to
include, but lack basic performance that was common 40+ years ago.

So while there is progress in cost and features, it comes at a price
in other areas.

The second reason is size.

Agreed. My 100W mobile rig sits on my dashboard. Try that with the
tube gear of the past. Progress is good.

But simply making a rig small isn't always progress. For mobile/
portable, small is good, but in the ham shack it can be a bother
because the displays are hard to read, the controls tiny, and many
functions are buried layers-deep in menus.

I'd rather have a rig with a decent front panel than one that fits in
a shirt pocket.

The third and most important reason is that tubes have
become electro-politically incorrect.

Tubes are electro-politically incorrect?? Now that is funny. The
conspiracy theory? Black helicopters.... *8-O

No, it's a fact. Your response proves it.

As a case in point, look at the Elecraft K2...
it blew away much more expensive rigs in many performance criteria.

How many tubes do they use to get this performance?

None - for the reasons listed above.

You ever use one? I have. They're very good.

But with almost no advertising over 6000 have been sold.

Have you contacted them and suggested your 7360 tube front end idea
for use in the next model of the K2? How long do you think it would
take for them to stop laughing...

See? You're saying tubes are electro-politically incorrect.

---

btw, the all-time DX record for a radio built by humans is held by a
tube transmitter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

Scott wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:
.

I'm sure that our (US) military protects for EMP, but I doubt it is by
using tube equipment. Likely something more modern. Fancy Shielding?
Perhaps you know the technology currently used?

Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work.

What was the plan with no radios operational?
Please tell me there was a plan...

I don't think fancy shielding would work since
all radios I know of have a hole in the shield where RF and EMP can
enter. It used to be called the antenna port. Not sure what they call
it in "modern" equipment...

I suppose any modern EMP US military countermeasures would be
classified. Maybe Bob in London can tell us...

When I was still in the USAF, we had our EC-135 and RC-135 aircraft that
still had some tube type radios on at least HF and UHF bands, ie 618-T
and ARC-34...but...they also had modern radios such as the ARC-190 HF
set.

I was working in the manufacturing of new tube type military equipment
(such as the APS 94 side looking radar) into the late 60s. I left the
electronics industry in 68 for an unrelated field and never kept up on
military gear after that.

I loved the ARC-190 (Collins). It was a nice radio to use and
work on. Still see them installed on at least National Guard KC-135s
when I get aboard at airshows.

Collins was always nice gear, either in or out of a military skin.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

AJ Lake wrote:

Scott wrote:


AJ Lake wrote:


Nope, no idea. When I was in the Air Force working on aircraft comm
radio equipment, "they" told us if a nuke went off, our radios would
most likely not work.


What was the plan with no radios operational?
Please tell me there was a plan...


The only plan I knew of was to keep nukes from going off in the first
place. I'd guess that since the EC-135s (Airborne Command Post) had
tube radios for at least HF, they would be able to communicate back to
Washington with those...

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 23, 12:22�am, AJ Lake wrote:
"JB" wrote:
There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. �

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

Yes, they do. However it's one thing to know that cheating exists as a
general rule, and a very different thing to cite specific instances of
cheating. How much actual cheating on the ham license tests went on
back in the pre-VE days? How much actually goes on today? I don't
think anybody really knows.

I do know this, however:

(in this discussion, the "Conditional distance" is how far from an FCC
quarterly exam point you had to live in order to get a license by
mail. Distances cited are "air-line" distances, not driving distances)

Before about 1954, the "Conditional distance" was 125 miles, and FCC
gave Novice and Tech exams at their offices. Plus if you had a by-mail
license and moved to within the "Conditional distance", you had to
retest in front of an FCC examiner within 90 days or lose the
license.

Then for about ten years the "Conditional distance" was only 75 miles
and the retest-if-you-move requirement went away. FCC also made all
routine Novice and Tech licenses by-mail, regardless of distance. A
considerable amount of CONUS was thus Conditional country.

About 1964 the FCC increased the Conditional distance to 175 miles and
increased the number of exam points. Almost none of CONUS was
Conditional country after that change.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. �But if you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

A weeder test can be relevant. And given the number of amateurs
actually using Morse Code on the air, it's a relevant test for an
amateur radio license.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

In a way, a big part of the testing is psychological. If we could
trust everyone to learn the technology, operating practices, rules and
regs as needed, there'd be no need for a test. By testing, we make
people prove they actually learned a few things, even though the
testing is far from comprehensive and doesn't test if the person
understands the material. But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example), testing seems
to be a good idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

There has always been some cheating on tests.
Maybe you hung out with a different crowd than I did. �

I hang out in the real world. Some people do cheat.

Yes, they do. However it's one thing to know that cheating exists as a
general rule, and a very different thing to cite specific instances of
cheating. How much actual cheating on the ham license tests went on
back in the pre-VE days? How much actually goes on today? I don't
think anybody really knows.

I do know this, however:

(in this discussion, the "Conditional distance" is how far from an FCC
quarterly exam point you had to live in order to get a license by
mail. Distances cited are "air-line" distances, not driving distances)

Before about 1954, the "Conditional distance" was 125 miles, and FCC
gave Novice and Tech exams at their offices. Plus if you had a by-mail
license and moved to within the "Conditional distance", you had to
retest in front of an FCC examiner within 90 days or lose the
license.

Then for about ten years the "Conditional distance" was only 75 miles
and the retest-if-you-move requirement went away. FCC also made all
routine Novice and Tech licenses by-mail, regardless of distance. A
considerable amount of CONUS was thus Conditional country.

About 1964 the FCC increased the Conditional distance to 175 miles and
increased the number of exam points. Almost none of CONUS was
Conditional country after that change.

You are correct that "weeder" tests can't be 100% effective. �But if
you
think that they don't have an impact, then why test at all?

Weeder tests keep failures out for *no reason*.
Relevant tests keep failures out for a *good reason*.

A weeder test can be relevant. And given the number of amateurs
actually using Morse Code on the air, it's a relevant test for an
amateur radio license.

Although Psychology is a fascinating study, there are aspects...

I was being funny with the psychology testing thing. I didn't think
you'd really take me seriously.

In a way, a big part of the testing is psychological. If we could
trust everyone to learn the technology, operating practices, rules and
regs as needed, there'd be no need for a test. By testing, we make
people prove they actually learned a few things, even though the
testing is far from comprehensive and doesn't test if the person
understands the material. But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example), testing seems
to be a good idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Psychology has to do with everything pertaining to human behavior.

Back in my creative writing days, I wrote a research paper on peasant
rebellions at the height of the Rodney King beating riots.

In a study of numerous uprisings, rebellions, disturbances and other civil
unrest in old times, the conclusion was that the masses indeed require
authority and pressure in order to avoid self-destruction. It was found
time and again, that these disturbances were most often due to issues of
poor morale reinforced within the affected group rather than a righteous
rising up against persecution, exploitation or to redress some wrong. Most
often the victims were random targets of widespread violent outbursts during
these disturbances rather than any defined enemy. Essentially, the Devil
has his day. This mentality also carries over to individuals, where
perceived pressure or persecution results in school shootings and things
like that, where the self-destructive urge is externalized to random
targets, or targets of opportunity, rather than a defined enemy. So I
suspect this is known to others who can incite such behavior simply by
fomenting dissension or planting seeds of discontent, then backing off to
watch the outcome in complete safety, thus using crowd and individual
Psychology to promote terrorism and destruction as a means to some end.

The whole problem with instituting and maintaining authority though, it how
to keep it on the righteous path. In the final analysis, God is the only
hope, but only if we spread the word.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 21, 6:30�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
AJ Lake wrote:
I do have a [treaty] source. [3 listed]

But if the treaty had not required a code test for the 220 MHz Tech in
the license change of 1951, do you think the hams of the day (both
inside and outside the FCC) would have allowed a codeless ham to
exist?

Maybe. Nobody really knows; the treaty in place at the time prevented
it.

It would have been scary to even express those thoughts aloud
in those days, considering what you hear now, 50+ years later...

Not at all. As early as 1936, there were ideas put forth for a
nocodetest amateur license in the pages of QST. (The 1936 idea was for
a basic 5 and 2-1/2 meter license that would allow a low-power local
communications without a code test).

But whenever the discussion came up, the overwhelming majority opposed
the idea.

I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days.
When were these "dark days"?

Incentive Licensing. I have always voted with my wallet.

So for something done 40+ years ago, by folks who are mostly now dead,
you still hold a grudge against the League. Interesting.

Oddly enough, btw, the League was not the only nor the first to
propose a return to a more-progressive license structure in 1963.
There were at least ten proposals, some submitted before ARRL's.

Ironically, the original 1963 ARRL proposal simply called for a return
to the pre-1953 rules where you needed an Advanced or Extra to use
'phone on most of the HF ham bands.

btw, one of the driving forces behind the changes were letters
received by FCC from *nonhams* complaining about the relative techical
ignorance of many hams of the day. Those letters essentially said that
while it used to be that a ham could be counted on to be reasonably
qualified in technical and practical knowledge of radio, the early
1960s version could not. Don't know how true that was but it sure got
FCC's attention.

The license is for operating, not building.

The Technician was meant for those who were more interested in VHF/UHF
experimentation than HF operating.

But only the kind of experimentation that requires operating. Anybody
can build practically anything radio they want in their basement; the
license is only needed to put it on the air.

The license is for operating, not building.

IMHO the social-engineering experiment of the Tech license just didn't
work. The original Technician (220 and up only) got very few takers
until 6 and 2 meters were added. This was due in large part to the
fact that, at the time, there was no manufactured ham gear for 220 and
up. And througout its history, most Techs have not been experimenters
in the way that FCC envisioned.

What's worse is that the Tech license, even before it lost its code
test, created a divide in amateur radio between those who had HF and
those who didn't.

The basic argument against the code test comes down to this:
Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it?

I've heard that argument, but that's not why they quit the code test.

Yes, it is. It's what's behind every argument given to remove it.
People who were going to use the mode don't care about a basic test of
the mode at all, they just pass it and move on.

The reasons for a code test that once applied are no longer valid.

*Some* of the reasons are no longer valid.

No
more military CW. No more ship to shore CW. No more WW2 ops needed.

Actually, Morse Code was in regular US military use long after WW2. At
least into the late 1960s for the US Navy and into the late 1990s for
the US Coast Guard. And there is still some use of Morse Code for
maritime use. But very, very little.

More important, those reasons aren't the only ones, nor even the major
ones, to have a code test. Even in the old days, most hams would never
be military or commercial radio operators, so why require a code test
for the few who would be?

The main reason to have a test for something to get a ham radio
license is because *hams* do the thing, not because other radio
services do the thing, or do not.

Ect ect ect. CW is now really obsolete for anything but hobby use.

Did you see the article about the ham who was injured while hiking in
the Pacific Northwest, and called for help using CW? Just happened a
few days ago. Broken leg in a situation like that is a lot more than
"nothing but hobby use".

Making involuntary human modems has little value to the government any
more.

Being a skilled radio operator isn't being "an involuntary human
modem".

What's really changed is that the idea of needing "radio operators" at
all. Look at what has happened to commercial licensing, for example.

What happens is that the argument, taken to its logical conclusion,
says there should be no real test at all.

The ham test should be about *modern* technology.

Why? With most ham gear today, there is no real need to understand how
the rig works in order to use it. Most have no real tune-up
adjustments at all.

And who gets to decide what is "modern" anyway? Radio today is mostly
VHF/UHF, not HF. It's mostly channelized, too, and highly automated.
Most radios today don't even have a tuning knob!

Testing about past
obsolete technology and practices such as tubes, mechanical RTTY, and
code ect just doesn't make sense.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Very few hams today use mechanical RTTY machines, so that technology
isn't on the test. But the basic technology - FSK 5-level Baudot-coded
RTTY - is still in wide use by hams, and is on the test.

Most hams nowadays only use tubes in high power RF amplifiers. A
smaller number use tubes for other applications, including entire tube-
based stations, but their number is relatively small. So there are
only a few tube questions (if any) on the test.

But Morse Code is in wide use by hams on the ham bands. It's not
"obsolete" at all. On the HF bands it is second only to SSB voice and
is far ahead of many other modes in popularity.

Shouldn't a license to use an amateur station include tests on what
amateurs actually do?

What really killed the code test, IMHO, is that a few people
complained loud enough and long enough about it. And if you read their
complaints, you see that what they're really saying is that they don't
want to learn something they do not intend to use. Particularly
something that requires some effort to learn, which cannot be learned
by reading a book or watching a video.

I think what *really* burned some folks' bacon was that, since most
people don't come to ham radio with Morse Code knowledge, it put all
new hams on the same level in one way. The Ph.D and the big bucks
businessman found themselves at the same table as the grade-schooler
when it came to learning code. Worse, the grade-schooler might very
well out-do them! Some folks do not like that kind of equality.

I still remember the reactions of some (not many) older, more-
experienced hams when they found out I was a teenage Extra. It
*really* bothered them!

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:

So for something done 40+ years ago, by folks who are mostly now dead,
you still hold a grudge against the League. Interesting.

Voting with my wallet always makes me feel better. And just to make me
feel even better, I read QST for years at the bookstore for free....


Well you should have been kicked out of the bookstore. Most stores that I'm
familiar with will let you thumb through material but will NOT let you stand
there (or sit there) and read something.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

AJ Lake wrote:

Being a skilled radio operator in modern times does not require the
use of an ancient obsolete manual code.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Obsolete is a subjective term.

CW /certainly/ isn't obsolete! I can make QSOs with just a few Watts that
you could only /dream/ of achieving with /Kilowatts/ - and it can only be
done with CW!

Bob

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"Bob" wrote in message
...
AJ Lake wrote:

Being a skilled radio operator in modern times does not require the
use of an ancient obsolete manual code.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Obsolete is a subjective term.

CW /certainly/ isn't obsolete! I can make QSOs with just a few Watts that
you could only /dream/ of achieving with /Kilowatts/ - and it can only be
done with CW!

Bob

I find it calming and even kind of cool that I can walk around the house and
follow a QSO in CW without having to carry a laptop and battery pack on my
back to translate. I can even copy it easier than some people's voices with
5 times the power. But I can see how some might want everyone to think it's
obsolete or even have us all executed for our insolence against the
revolution!

What you have to realize, is that there are those "out there" who would
consider HAM RADIO to be OBSOLETE because we don't pay for airtime.

The code test is no more! Viva La Revolucione! So now the war should be
over!

So now life should go on. People should be allowed to use voice, or learn
morse code, talk like computers, go have a sex change, jump off the Golden
Gate bridge, run for president, or whatever they feel like as long as the
taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"Dee Flint" wrote:

Well you should have been kicked out of the bookstore. Most stores that I'm
familiar with will let you thumb through material but will NOT let you stand
there (or sit there) and read something.

The Barnes and Noble in my town actually provides chairs for you to
sit and read magazines and books. Many of the chairs are overstuffed.
I would say they have a different philosophy than your bookstores.

And I think B&N know what they are doing since I seldom leave there
without buying at least $30 worth. More if the XYL is along.

My QST boycott is purely personal satisfaction, not financial.

My local ham store once complained that I was looking too long at the
magazine rack. (It might have been a QST.) Over the years I had bought
several $1000 in ham rigs. Being shortsighted has cost them thousands
more in business since I still go there to look at the rigs, but now
do my buying online .

Again I vote with my wallet, because it makes *me* feel better. I
don't have any delusions that it really bothers the businesses.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
"Dee Flint" wrote:

Well you should have been kicked out of the bookstore. Most stores that
I'm
familiar with will let you thumb through material but will NOT let you
stand
there (or sit there) and read something.

The Barnes and Noble in my town actually provides chairs for you to
sit and read magazines and books. Many of the chairs are overstuffed.
I would say they have a different philosophy than your bookstores.


Even Barnes & Noble will object if you read an entire magazine or entire
book. They are not a library but a business. The chairs and atmosphere are
so you can SAMPLE the reading material not spend the day reading.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"Dee Flint" wrote:

They [B&N] are not a library but a business.

B&N is a very successful business. When they think the 'library'
chairs are losing them money, the chairs will be removed.

The chairs and atmosphere are so you can SAMPLE the reading
material not spend the day reading.

I *sampled* QST and *bought* another magazine or book. The bottom line
$$ for B&N was the same or more. Your tears are for the wrong entity.
B&N made money because I was drawn to their 'free sample' QST
magazine. QST is the one who lost money, but then that's what voting
with your wallet is all about...

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"JB" wrote:

I find it calming and even kind of cool that I can walk around the house and
follow a QSO in CW

I use wireless headphones when working CW as I find the corded
headphones very confining. Also I can hit the sandbox or icebox while
the other guy is transmitting.

Wired headphones are (almost) obsolete...

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

Bob wrote:

CW /certainly/ isn't obsolete!

CW is quite obsolete in the commercial radio world. However I agree CW
still can be fun to use in the ham radio hobby.

I can make QSOs with just a few Watts...

I would agree that CW works better than most other modes under adverse
conditions. That's one of the reasons I've been using it for so many
years. My HOA required stealth antenna is a very poor radiator, and
even though I'm running 50 watts, my ERP is probably just a couple of
watts...

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

They [B&N] are not a library but a business.

B&N is a very successful business. When they think the 'library'
chairs are losing them money, the chairs will be removed.

The chairs and atmosphere are so you can SAMPLE the reading
material not spend the day reading.

I *sampled* QST and *bought* another magazine or book. The bottom line
$$ for B&N was the same or more. Your tears are for the wrong entity.
B&N made money because I was drawn to their 'free sample' QST
magazine. QST is the one who lost money, but then that's what voting
with your wallet is all about...

Perhaps it is your hope that Amateur Radio not be represented or supported?
Perhaps only by the FCC?

I support ARRL because without them we would have been squeezed off the air
a long time ago. The ARRL is full of imperfect people though, and we need
to help out rather than throw monkey wrenches. I don't base my support on
freebies. Germany went fascist for the perks and went to hell over it.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
"JB" wrote:

I find it calming and even kind of cool that I can walk around the house
and
follow a QSO in CW

I use wireless headphones when working CW as I find the corded
headphones very confining. Also I can hit the sandbox or icebox while
the other guy is transmitting.

Wired headphones are (almost) obsolete...

I have remote speakers throughout the house. I have a long mic cord that
goes anywhere but the kitchen. It occurs to me that a keyed 1kc tone might
be the quick answer though. Software can be brought up in a couple of
places to control the radio. Wireless mic and key are the next project.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

CW /certainly/ isn't obsolete!

CW is quite obsolete in the commercial radio world. However I agree CW
still can be fun to use in the ham radio hobby.

I can make QSOs with just a few Watts...

I would agree that CW works better than most other modes under adverse
conditions. That's one of the reasons I've been using it for so many
years. My HOA required stealth antenna is a very poor radiator, and
even though I'm running 50 watts, my ERP is probably just a couple of
watts...

Actually, a lot of third world countries still use CW for distress calls,
but who wants to get pulled off course to rescue a bunch of boat people?

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"JB" wrote:

Perhaps it is your hope that Amateur Radio not be represented or supported?

ARRL is just one ham organization that tries to influence the FCC.
There are others. I'm sure that they would be happy to step in should
my personal boycott of ARRL become successful...

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"JB" wrote:

a lot of third world countries still use CW for distress calls,

Some 3rd world countries also still use animals for plowing.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
"JB" wrote:

Perhaps it is your hope that Amateur Radio not be represented or
supported?

ARRL is just one ham organization that tries to influence the FCC.
There are others. I'm sure that they would be happy to step in should
my personal boycott of ARRL become successful...

I'm sure there are plenty of organizations besides ham radio that would be
happy to step into the power vacuum. Look at Iraq. I'm sure ARRL is not
nearly as bad as Sadaam to warrant a scorched earth solution.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

a lot of third world countries still use CW for distress calls,

Some 3rd world countries also still use animals for plowing.

Some people in this country actually buy what these people produce.

And some people in this country put jewelry in their noses, lips, ears and
other odd places.

Others go out and buy cell phone/TVs and pay $200+ a month for their
communications.

Some people build model airplanes from WW2 or do needlepoint or collect
antiques as a hobby.

We could write a book full of this stuff.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

"JB" wrote:

We could write a book full of this stuff.

I think we already have.

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 22, 2:36*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
"JB" wrote:
having the patience to learn a skill will in fact tend to protect a valuable
resource from degradation by being flooded with impulsive personalities.

The old having to learn the code will keep the whacko's out just
doesn't stand up. The biggest offenders on the SSB 75M mess are code
tested Extras...

But what mode are the using when they offend on 75 meters? It's not
Morse Code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 24, 9:00*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
A weeder test can be relevant.

The trouble seems to be that we have different ideas of what a "weeder
test" means. I could find no specific definition in any reference
material, so I'll just no longer use the phrase.

Simply put, there is no reason for a code test in the modern world.

Yes, there is. In ham radio, anyway.

The reason is this:

A license test for an amateur radio operator license should test
things hams actually do on the air.
Hams use Morse Code on the air in 2008.

If
someone wants to use CW he simply learns it or fires up his computer.

That same logic can be applied to anything in the written test too, so
why have a written test?

There once were valid reasons to learn the code, but they haven't
existed for decades.

Some reasons have gone away. Not all. And it hasn't been "decades",
either.

That the code test survived so long was simply ham politics.

Not really. The treaty wasn't written by hams.

By testing, we make people prove they actually learned a few things...

When an 8 year old child can pass the Extra exam, I think you can
safely say that it can be passed without *knowing* the electronics
theory that it pretends to test for.

How do you know for sure that the 8-year-old didn't know the material
on the test?

Bit of history:

Way back in 1948, the old Class B exam was passed on the first try by
Jane Bieberman, W3OVV (sk), at the Philadelphia FCC office. She was 9
years old at the time.

In those days, the Class B exams we

13 wpm Morse Code receiving, minimum 1 minute solid legible copy out
of 5 minutes
13 wpm Morse Code sending with a straight key
50 question written exam that included:
- essay questions
- draw-a-diagram (schematic and block) questions
- show-your-work calculation questions
- multiple-choice questions

No published question-and-answer pools. No partial credit. No CSCEs.
No Bash books.

Now maybe W3OVV didn't understand every subtlety of every question,
but she did well enough to satisfy the FCC examiner.

But having observed what happens when people
are trusted to learn on their own, (cb as one example),

Darn, if only they had started out with a CB code test
*all would be well now...

Yes, it probably would be.

Do you think amateur radio should be more like CB? One license class,
no tests, everybody the same, people trusted to learn what they are
interested in and not have to learn stuff...

Yeah, that's been shown to work really well in radio.

73 de Jim, N2EY