Ping
 

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

--

The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

Jim, N2EY

Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.

What "formalism" do you mean, Len?

1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL
for use in "official" message relay by amateurs.
Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

Why must the format be sold? Is it copy righted? If I send a message
using THE FORMAT without purchasing the form, am I guilty of copyright
infringement?

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'
Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal
to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic
shorthand where inflection and tonality of real
laughter is not possible]

Hi, hi!

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

You're 59, OM.

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well. Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

QSL.

5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a
flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any)
under discussion. Most of the time such voice
contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's
ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom.

Roger.

6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names
in non-radio conversation, communication, and image
displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL
radio station or radio broadcaster.

Every 10 minutes.

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)." Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

10-4.

8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real
activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow
a national service to the country.

Authenticate.

9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur
radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of
radio activity of all) into that "national service"
akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an
important "resource" that would always "save the day
when all other infrastructure communications services
'failed'."

Amateur Radio Service = GI Bill.

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.
Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous
amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions
written, the amateur radio service is still an
avocational radio activity done for personal
pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation.

"Sorry Jim, MARS is Amateur Radio."

Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.

Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service,
what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services?

Other than reading about the amateur radio service in WWII, what does
Jim know about THE Service?

You know NOTHING of military radio. You never served, never
worked with the military. I did both as a soldier and as a
civilian.

Jim knows nothing of military radio.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology. I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

I suspect that Jim was an Extra in "Pump Up The Volume."

You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services, never
had one. I did.

When you was LMR, Jim was VFR.

You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or
procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms.
I've done that, both air-air and air-ground.

Maybe Jim wasn't VFR.

You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on
and what is used. I've used it on the water, both in
harbors and inland waterways.

Jim is on CH16.

You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service.
CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice
that. I've been doing that since 1959.

Jim is on CH19.

You MIGHT know something about Personal Communications
Radio Services other than CB (R-C is not strictly a
communications mode, it is tele-command)...such as a
cellular telephone. No "call letters," "Q" codes, or
radiotelegraphy are used with cell phones. One in three
Americans has one. Do you have one. I do.

You can reach Jim at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

Not true, Len. We're amateurs

Don't you forget it.

Yowsa!

And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

I have USED my COMMERCIAL radio operator license to operate
on FAR MORE EM SPECTRUM than is allocated to amateurs. LEGAL
operation. In most cases of such work NO license was required
by the contracting government agency. [the FCC regulates only
CIVIL radio services in the USA, NOT the government's use]

Jim isn't involved in Gov't Radio. But he reads about it.

When did YOU "legally" operate below 500 KHz? Have you EVER
operated on frequencies in the microwave region? [other than
causing 2.4 GHz EMI from your microwave oven] Have you
transmitted ANY RF energy as high as 25 GHz? I have
transmitted RF from below LF to 25 GHz. I have done that
since 1953...53 years ago.

Jim's Giga Hurts.

What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks"
of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-)

I prefer smooth.

I've once "worked" 250,000 miles (approximately) "DX" with
a far-away station above 2 GHz but below 10 GHz. What have
YOU done above 3/4 meters? READ about it?

Jim once incorrectly calculated the distance to the moon. I think
maybe Coslo aided him with the calculations.

Oh, yes, now you are going to "reply" with the standard
ruler-spank that I did not do that with "my own"
equipment. :-)

You should have gotten a QSL manager and with the greenstamps earned,
bought both sides of the QSO.

Well, now YOU have a quandry. To use that stock "reply"
of yours you MUST define that the "taxpayer SUBSIDIZES"
anything of the government or contracted work by the
government. In your "logic" then, I really DO "own" that
equipment!

I suspect that Jim is subsidized in many ways.

But, if you say I don't then you have to take back your
INSULT to all military servicemen and servicewomen that
they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer." I will NOT
"own that equipment" if you take that insult back.

Perhaps Jim will loan you some tube-type equipment ...

YOU don't think your remark was an "insult." You've tried
to rationalize your way out of that three ways from Sunday
since. Well then, I "do" "own" that equipment and did get
experience using "my own" equipment!

Jim insulted me. Jim insulted Hans. Jim insulted Mark. Jim insulted
Len.

Jim did not insult Dave who apparently thinks little of his service.

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

YOU are NOT young, Jimmie. Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did
was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized
by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering."

But, but, but he has greenlee punches...

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship. Manual radiotelegraphy hasn't been
"pioneered" by you.

Jim is a follower.

The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago.

1947. The PATENT wasn't granted immediately. :-)

Owch!!!

I guess that was before the days of instant gratification.

Amateurs were using
them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s.

Early. Like 1952. See QST or CQ (forget which) which
I saw at Fort Monmouth in that year. Transistors made
by Philco (?). Whatever it was, the transistors have
long been obsolete, out of production, replaced by
newer, better, cheaper types.

Do they require greenlee punches?

Jimmie, quit contradicting those who were IN the radio-
electronics industry or work who worked through all
that period. As a double-degreed whizzy something you
should KNOW that REAL PRACTICAL transistors for HF use
didn't come into being until much later than the late
1940s.

There's a whole heaping gob of documents of history of
the solid-state era, how it began, all the trouble
everyone had to make them work, to make them reliable,
to make them cheap. Much of that is now on the web.
Go do some study of something OTHER than ARRL
"radio history" for your own edification. That is,
if you can really tear yourself away from Big Brother.

To me, the history of the industry is interesting. To
you it is little more than some obscure footnote you
hunt for in order to use in messages where you claim
your respondent is "wrong" or "in error." :-)

Come back when you've actually DESIGNED some solid-state
ham radio, not just assembled a kit designed by someone
else.

Plans from a Ham Radio magazine.

Use those mighty collitch degrees, all that radio-
electronics "experience" in the "industry" to show us
what you can really do. :-)

He can post attrition numbers on hobby radio.

Jim Lies. Was: Formalism
 

wrote:

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Impossible. One can only imagine that "hi, hi" sounds like a laugh in
any language. It cannot be so in reality.

Tell it to Robesinner: Was: Formalism
 

Dave Heil wrote:

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Tell it to Robesinner.

Tell it to Robesinner: Was: Formalism
 

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Tell it to Robesinner.
Robeson is coded extra and is beyond repaoch

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.

Interesting, because AR offers more than just communication.

SC

Barry

I know the comment about people leaving Amateur radio isn't Barrys comment,
but thought I'd address it anyway. I was 69 when I got my Tech license and
72 by the time I made myself pass the code test and got my General. A lot of
the avid pro-morse Hams are even older than I am. I know of no one locally
who has just quit the hobby and those senior to me are not leaving
on their own at all, when they do stop Hammin' it's 'cause their keys went
silent. I never used code after passing the test. I've got the thought in
the back of my mind that I may sometime
pursue a little CW, but it all depends on when I get my own SK notice.

Harold
KD3SAK

Ping
 

wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

and yet you try to impose your opinion on the rest
The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

no the answer is not to be based on wether it does more harm than good
the question that must be answered isfirst what regulatory prupose does
it serve

no regulatory purpose and the test is ilegeal even if it could be shown
to do more good than harm

the other question is does the test serve the PUBLIC interest interest
no Procder ever deals with the issue of how Code testing benifits
memebrs of the public such as Len Anderson

Jim, N2EY

Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

From: on Thurs, Oct 5 2006 7:20 pm

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL
for use in "official" message relay by amateurs.
Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

Why must the format be sold? Is it copy righted? If I send a message
using THE FORMAT without purchasing the form, am I guilty of copyright
infringement?

Big Brother of Newington will ruler-spank you.


2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'
Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal
to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic
shorthand where inflection and tonality of real
laughter is not possible]

Hi, hi!

Ho, ho! Beep, beep...


3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

You're 59, OM.

"FB, OM."


4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well. Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

QSL.

QRT.


5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a
flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any)
under discussion. Most of the time such voice
contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's
ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom.

Roger.

"Roger who?"


6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names
in non-radio conversation, communication, and image
displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL
radio station or radio broadcaster.

Every 10 minutes.

"We now pause 10 seconds for official station identification."


7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)." Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

10-4.

Roger that. Affirmative. Over and out.


8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real
activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow
a national service to the country.

Authenticate.

"Official"


9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur
radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of
radio activity of all) into that "national service"
akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an
important "resource" that would always "save the day
when all other infrastructure communications services
'failed'."

Amateur Radio Service = GI Bill.

ARRL chief a member of Joint Chiefs of Staff.


10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.
Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous
amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions
written, the amateur radio service is still an
avocational radio activity done for personal
pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation.

"Sorry Jim, MARS is Amateur Radio."

As Pluto went so may MARS...


Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.

Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service,
what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services?

Other than reading about the amateur radio service in WWII, what does
Jim know about THE Service?

He consults Pentagon library of morsemen.


You know NOTHING of military radio. You never served, never
worked with the military. I did both as a soldier and as a
civilian.

Jim knows nothing of military radio.

Except surplus he read about.


You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology. I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

I suspect that Jim was an Extra in "Pump Up The Volume."

He not listed in SEG, Screen Extras Guild.


You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services, never
had one. I did.

When you was LMR, Jim was VFR.

CAVU...(Code Allatime Very Universal)


You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or
procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms.
I've done that, both air-air and air-ground.

Maybe Jim wasn't VFR.

IFR. Intermittent Fantasy Regaler.


You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on
and what is used. I've used it on the water, both in
harbors and inland waterways.

Jim is on CH16.

Hot water?


You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service.
CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice
that. I've been doing that since 1959.

Jim is on CH19.

10-4.


You MIGHT know something about Personal Communications
Radio Services other than CB (R-C is not strictly a
communications mode, it is tele-command)...such as a
cellular telephone. No "call letters," "Q" codes, or
radiotelegraphy are used with cell phones. One in three
Americans has one. Do you have one. I do.

You can reach Jim at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

He X rated now?


Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

Not true, Len. We're amateurs

Don't you forget it.

Yowsa!

:-)

I have USED my COMMERCIAL radio operator license to operate
on FAR MORE EM SPECTRUM than is allocated to amateurs. LEGAL
operation. In most cases of such work NO license was required
by the contracting government agency. [the FCC regulates only
CIVIL radio services in the USA, NOT the government's use]

Jim isn't involved in Gov't Radio. But he reads about it.

Knows all. Allatime calls others "wrong."


When did YOU "legally" operate below 500 KHz? Have you EVER
operated on frequencies in the microwave region? [other than
causing 2.4 GHz EMI from your microwave oven] Have you
transmitted ANY RF energy as high as 25 GHz? I have
transmitted RF from below LF to 25 GHz. I have done that
since 1953...53 years ago.

Jim's Giga Hurts.

Let's take up collection to send him Preparation H.


What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks"
of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-)

I prefer smooth.

Peanuts.


I've once "worked" 250,000 miles (approximately) "DX" with
a far-away station above 2 GHz but below 10 GHz. What have
YOU done above 3/4 meters? READ about it?

Jim once incorrectly calculated the distance to the moon. I think
maybe Coslo aided him with the calculations.

Coslonaut helped Giganaut.


Oh, yes, now you are going to "reply" with the standard
ruler-spank that I did not do that with "my own"
equipment. :-)

You should have gotten a QSL manager and with the greenstamps earned,
bought both sides of the QSO.

My bad. I QRK and QSY both.


Well, now YOU have a quandry. To use that stock "reply"
of yours you MUST define that the "taxpayer SUBSIDIZES"
anything of the government or contracted work by the
government. In your "logic" then, I really DO "own" that
equipment!

I suspect that Jim is subsidized in many ways.

Must be...he never subsides.


But, if you say I don't then you have to take back your
INSULT to all military servicemen and servicewomen that
they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer." I will NOT
"own that equipment" if you take that insult back.

Perhaps Jim will loan you some tube-type equipment ...

I have tubular capacitors for hollow-state things,
cathode ray tubes on a hot tin roof.


YOU don't think your remark was an "insult." You've tried
to rationalize your way out of that three ways from Sunday
since. Well then, I "do" "own" that equipment and did get
experience using "my own" equipment!

Jim insulted me. Jim insulted Hans. Jim insulted Mark. Jim insulted
Len.

Jim did not insult Dave who apparently thinks little of his service.

Is that why his Giga hurts?


YOU are NOT young, Jimmie. Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did
was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized
by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering."

But, but, but he has greenlee punches...

He is punchy.


You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship. Manual radiotelegraphy hasn't been
"pioneered" by you.

Jim is a follower.

Camp.


The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago.

1947. The PATENT wasn't granted immediately. :-)

Owch!!!

I guess that was before the days of instant gratification.

Also before instant oatmeal and regularity.


Amateurs were using
them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s.

Early. Like 1952. See QST or CQ (forget which) which
I saw at Fort Monmouth in that year. Transistors made
by Philco (?). Whatever it was, the transistors have
long been obsolete, out of production, replaced by
newer, better, cheaper types.

Do they require greenlee punches?

How about we give him nice Hawaiian Punch?


Come back when you've actually DESIGNED some solid-state
ham radio, not just assembled a kit designed by someone
else.

Plans from a Ham Radio magazine.

Prior to 1980...


Use those mighty collitch degrees, all that radio-
electronics "experience" in the "industry" to show us
what you can really do. :-)

He can post attrition numbers on hobby radio.

Cribbed from Joe Speroni's website...

Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate.

Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice
communication as early as 1900, and had practical long-distance
radiotelephony by 1906.

"PRACTICAL?!?" What is "PRACTICAL" about inserting a
single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
lead-in to 'brute force' modulate a CW carrier?!?

It was not only PRACTICAL, Len, it was the ONLY way known at the time.
I don't think they used "the antenna lead-in", old boy. They probably
used the feedline. Think of it as more of a "lead-out". You should get
the lead out.

The modulation was done in the ground lead, not the aerial lead. (They
used the term "aerial" in those days).

It was practical enough to be heard across the pond.

You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio
control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting...

...that you know of.

I have, Len. What of it?

Len keeps trying to find out about my work.

...yet
you DEFINE "practicality" in such things as inserting
a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
for broadcasting.

Tell us what other way was known when it took place, Len. What would
have been practical in 1900?

Didja know Fessenden's 1906 "broadcast" used an alternator transmitter?

For a double-degreed education in things electrical you
just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and
definite misunderstanding of the real definition of
"practical."

Practicality had to be defined by the time in which something took
place. Otherwise you're left playing a game of "what if the U.S. had
the atomic bomb in 1917?"

AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.

Superfluous minutae.

...is your specialty, Len, but I spell it "minutia".

Webster's spells it "minutia" for singular, "minutiae" for plural.

The main point is that it's not superfluous. Voice radio was
"practical" enough for MW broadcasting by 1920 - that's not an opinion,
it's a demonstrated fact.

Yet the use of Morse Code in *non-amateur* radio communications
continued for many decades after that. The maritime communications
folks were still using it less than a decade ago.

YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting.

Len keeps trying to find out about my work. Now he's reduced to posting
untruths in an effort to get more information.

I have, Len. What of it?

Your amateur radio
license does NOT permit broadcasting.

I know that. That's why I don't use it for broadcasting.
Did you know that most people in broadcasting don't have any kind of
license?

I have been IN
broadcasting, still have the license (now lifetime).

That's what I should have written earlier. I have been IN broadcasting,
Len. Are you still in broadcasting? I'm not.

NO, repeat NO amplitude-modulation broadcaster uses
your so-called "practical" means of modulating a CW
carrier. NONE.

Not any more. Other methods replaced it by 1920.

Had Fessenden's EXPERIMENT been at all
practical, others would have used that technique.

No, that's not necessarily true.

For one thing, Fessenden held the patents. (He had at least 500
patents, btw). For another, new techniques appeared so fast in those
days that there wasn't a need to copy Fessenden's method.

NONE
did.

Are you sure?

Ever hear of "loop modulation"?

Do you think there's any chance that other, more efficient techniques
were developed?

Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph
operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who
pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century.

PR bull**** you fantasize.

No, it's a fact. Look up the ages of pioneers like Armstrong,
Fessenden, Beverage etc. in 1920. They were young men.

The wireless operators on the Titanic weren't even 25 years old. They
were the best Marconi could supply.

Remember this classic quote?:

"I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a
primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity." (Len
Anderson, Sept 2, 1996)

Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version.

Len don't *do* documentation, Dave.

You were NOT among the
"pioneers of radio" and you have NO demographics to
prove the ages, let alone a poll or listing showing
that.

Neither were you, Len.

All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited
versions of radio history from the ARRL.

More untruths from Len.

That's your story and you're sticking with it.

Landline telegraphy
was already changing from manual to teleprinter by
the year 1900. That changeover continued until the
middle of the 1900s until ALL the landline telegraph
circuits were either shut down or replaced by
electromechanical teleprinters.

Actually, there were still some landline telegraph operations in
operation in 1969. They may have continued beyond that year.

I'm sure the guys in a landline telegraph newsgroup would be fascinated
by your account.

The important point was that the use of Morse Code in radio continued
long past the middle of the 20th century.

The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.

Superfluous minutae.

Not superfluous at all. A landline operator knew the wrong code.

That's how I like to think of your ADA tales of better than a
half-century back, except I use "minutia"

Manual telegraphy consisted of
closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed.

Superfluous minutia.

Except it's not really true.

Duplex and quadruplex telegraph circuits used polarity reversal and
other methods beyond on-off. Carrier was used as well - often
frequency-shift.

And the most modern communications today - fiber optics - is really
nothing more than on-off keying of a light beam.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different versions
of on-off telegraphy which have been developed, NONE of
them modeled on either "International" or "Continental"
AMERICAN morse code or any English-language
representation.

Superfluous minutia.

Jim has more patience with you than I can muster.

I think you're missing the point, Dave.

Len has spent more than a decade here on rrap. He's barraged rrap and
the FCC with torrents of words about a simple license test - even
though he is not a radio amatuer and will probably never be one.

After the restructuring of 2000, it seemed like a "slam dunk" that the
FCC would just drop code testing as soon as it could. Len even said he
would "go for Extra right out of the box" back in January of that year.
But he didn't.

In July 2003 the treaty requirement went away, and it really seemed
like a "slam dunk" that code testing would soon go away in the USA.

But now it's 3-1/2 years later, and despite 18 petitions and an NPRM,
the rules haven't changed. FCC won't even say when they will make a
decision.

In fact, the old "omnibus" NPRM (04-140, IIRC) is still working its way
through the system. That NPRM will almost certainly yield an R&O before
the Morse Code one does. But there's no indication from FCC when the
"omnibus" R&O will show up, let alone the Morse Code changes.

Of course FCC will probably just drop Element 1 eventually. But they're
in no hurry to do so. By the time FCC gets around to announcing its
decision, Len may not have anybody to rag on about it.

Plus if FCC *does* drop Element 1, what will Len do? There won't be
anything left for him to argue about, and nobody to argue with. So he's
working on some new angles - which are really just old ones warmed up
again. Meanwhile, he's obviously upset, worried and angry.

Len could have had an Extra with just a 5 wpm code test way back in
1990. But he didn't. That says it all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

LenAnderson believes CB type behavior will good for ham radio. Ping Blow Code the pretend ham
 

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here.

Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer-
modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids'
with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they
think...traceability is possible but only through
systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that
happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced
with all its immaturity.

Having participated in computer-modem communications
locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen
quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly
fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences
were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet
socially with those participants, get real clues to
the person instead of just seeing their words on a
screen. In most their words echoed their up-close
personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their
fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words,
their public, social interaction being nowhere near
that and they were relatively subdued, few having
'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their
computer-modem personnae represented their
imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to
fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives'
frustrations.

With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net
servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be
let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become
aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful
of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is
aided by the relative isolation of time and distance
of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear
of physical confrontation as a result of their words,
they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in
safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the
filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup.

It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have
their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration,
bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist
in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare
cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in
the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot.
Civilization requires a greater suppression of that
internal rage, anger, frustration for the common
good but some think internally that they are 'better'
than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of
'superiority' through sub-groups in which their
capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self-
righteous descriptions of themselves.

That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists
all along the human experience.


For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.

Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I
think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce
in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there
were lots with other life experiences that were fun to
listen to and to respect.

They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old
timers' were rather focussed on the experience of
World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned
as a part of that.

What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later
that some of them were exaggerating what they said
and a few were downright liars! :-)

If one survives long enough to become the same age
as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological
way that is), it is easier to see where they are
coming from! Much easier...! :-)

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of
mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers'
are having a good time and laughing at the mortals'
shenanigans!

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out
and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO
demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge,
to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the
pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship
(however long ago that happened, if it ever did)
to show "how good" they are.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.

Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged
superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and
become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They
are NOT interested in anything but making themselves
look good to themselves on their own screens. They
have little recognition that the same 'message' they
sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when
it may be read by thousands of others who never reply.

That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about
every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on
the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET.
Lacking the validity of anything but their own
experiences, they toss logic out the window and
consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands
of other humans know that. That's the reason that
all other radio services except amateur radio have
dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes. At least in the USA; I
don't have enough information about Canada's use of
communications modes to verify that.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders.
They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They
got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their
morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires
should be those of all.

Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is
a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented
publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio-
telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills.
Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio
publications here, has had that for at least seven
decades, they can and have managed to condition the
thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor
of radiotelegraphy.

Those who've been conditioned will not understand that
they've been imprinted but insist it like some
'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out-
rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed!
Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can.

Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein
was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated
at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange.

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid?

It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly
all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can
get away with it, unworried about any direct physical
confrontation that might ensue.

Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate?

Yes.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post.

Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the
bank.' :-)


They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS.

Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very
old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class
C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de-
allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to
work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly
howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to
take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.'
Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to
demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-)

I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here.

I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use
down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large
number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At
worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some-
thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet
to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit
using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82
Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't
indicate anything different; this residence in southern
California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5,
a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our
cell phone now works so well on major highways that we
don't have any consideration of installing any other
radio in our present car.


And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.




Ten-Four?